Does Gravitational Collapse Lead to Singularities? by Ernst Fischer

Thanks Ernst you explained it well one may call it a variation of GR? In GR mass warps spacetime around it and I will take your word that there is no energy out there.

The rather simple-minded ether-based approach I have proposed sees things quite differently, and hopefully should explain Newtonian and GR theories each within its area of validity. In my approach action-at-a-distance is explained as a linkage of dielectric forces of twisting ether nodes acting somewhat like a spring. Bending of light is because of local density changes in space (i.e. gravitational potential energy).

Of course GR has the weight of Einsten's genius and authority. I have nothing like that to offer, but I hope that my simple new approach or something similar will one day be found to cover a lot of what is now puzzling, too complicated, anti-intuitive or incomplete in physics.

Cheers. Vladimir

Ernst,

'No mysterious dark energy is necessary to fulfill the balance'

Big bang cosmology, in the concept of cosmic time states that the universe lives in a time continuum not of its own making: big bang cosmologists look at the universe from an imaginary vantage point outside of it.

In contrast, a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside intervention does NOT live in a time realm of its own making, but contains and produces all time within, so here we should see clocks showing an earlier time as they are more distant, and, as I argue in my essay (Einstein's Error) NOT because of a finite light velocity.

As clocks can only show an earlier time if they (are observed to) run slower as they are more distant, even if they are at rest with respect to us, here the redshift of galaxies should vary linearly with their distance, as is observed, so here we don't need any mysterious dark energy to explain observations.

Anton

The existence of potential energy implies that the motion of test masses is NOT geodesic in the theory discussed in this Essay. This generates macroscopic violations of Equivalence Principle. As Equivalence Principle is today tested at a level 10^-13, such observations rule out the theory developed in this Essay in a definitive way.

The existence of potential energy implies that the motion of test masses is NOT geodesic in the theory discussed in this Essay. This generates macroscopic violations of Equivalence Principle. As Equivalence Principle is today tested at a level 10^-13, such observations rule out the theory developed in this Essay in a definitive way.

Hi Darth

I think you are wrong in stating that observations rule out the theory. The strength of the gravitational field of the earth is about GM/rc^2 = 10^-9. The entire planet reduces the equivalent mass of an object by that factor. Near the surface, raising an object by a distance h increases its equivalent mass by a factor of about (h/r)(GM/rc^2), which is 10^-14 for h = 60 meter. I doubt if any earthbound experiment could be considered decisive.

Colin

Dear Colin,

I regret but who is wrong is you. You have to computate the gravitational mass in a free falling reference frame and the inertial mass in a inertial reference frame which is very far from every source of gravitational field. The Equivalence is between such reference frames. A reference frame in which you measures the strength of the gravitational field CANNOT be used to test Equivalence Principle.

Best regards,

Darth

Hi Darth

I wonder if you are overlooking an important point in the paper. The equivalence principle essentially becomes:

inertial mass = gravitational mass plus change in potential

For example, the author states on page 4: "Thus it appears logical to consider the summed density of [gravitational] mass energy and potential energy as the equivalent to [inertial] mass energy in Euclidean space." (I added 'gravitational' and 'inertial' to make the context clear, to the best of my understanding.) This is also the theme of Majernik's paper.

Colin

Dear Colin,

in general relativity not only the potential depends from the coordinates, but also its changing. For example, in the two references frames that I cited the gravitational field is null. Hence, its potential is null and also its changing.

I suggest you to carefully read Misner, Wheeler, Thorne, "Gravitation", Freeman and Company (1973) pages 466-468. The stress energy tensor of the gravitational field does not exist. It is a pseudo-tensor, i.e. a coordinate-dependent quantity.

Best regards,

Darth

Sorry, I realized to be wrong. The case of the perfect radially symmetric gravitating objects is an exception, please, do not consider my previous posts.

Best regards,

Darth

Dear Ernst Fischer

Your work is similar to my work in my paper http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2310

But the difference you depending on the GRT. In my modified relativity (special and General) theory according to quantum theory concepts and principles, the Lorentz factor is equivalent to something like refractive index. and thus when Einstein proposed the light moving through the gravitational field in a geodesic path that is because to illustrate why the light is taking during his trip more time separation according according to a clock faraway from this field, and thus he proposed according to an observer faraway from the field the light will take more distance (Geodesic path) and thus it takes more time separation according to a clock faraway. This increasing in the distance and time will lead to measuring the light speed to equal c light speed in vacuum for an observer faraway. I don't say Einstein's interpretation is wrong, but what I say the two interpretations as the light bending by gravity or diffracted is the same meaning.The Geodesic path is coming from the refractive index around the mass M is changing according to the distance r from the center of mass M. But in the case of inertial frame, the refractive index (Lorentz factor) is constant depending on the speed of the moving frame which is constant. If you review my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 you will see how the contradiction between quantum and relativity can be solved and everything in physics can be solved

Dear Ernst

Very nicely argued essay on an important foundational question. As an astronomer my work has paralleled this and identified the source of re-ionization as toroidal EM 'twin vortex' AGN activity, the 'neutron star' crab nebula core showing the process as scale invariant. This then points to evidence of the anisotropic CMB 'flow' on the 'axis of evil' and computer derived 'spiral' resolution of the CMB quadrupolar asymmetry, suggesting pre big bang conditions and a variant of the Dicke/Peebles model cyclic universe. Your work looks very important in terms of a consistent mathematical model for the ontology to support. I am by the way now no mathematician since finding a number of areas where mathematical abstraction has mislead us.

You may be interested to know that there was a peak of AGN quasar activity which has been hidden by a stellar locus, and indicates a recycling period, (discussed in detail a current paper, yet unpublished). There is much other misinterpreted evidence in astronomy and I've derived a full new galactic recycling model. I did post a short preprint on viXra a while ago, but this is purely a 'popular' explanation of an extended version consistent with your far more professional and quantitative approach. I hope and believe our work may inform each others.

I discussed this briefly in last year's (finalist) essay '2020 vision' http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 but only refer to it obliquely and mainly in the end notes this year. My essay is on the rest of the consistent ontological basis at which cosmic recycling and re-ionization forms the core, which can unify QM and Classical Physics, even consistently with the SR postulates.

I hope you'll find the time to read my essay, which has easy read theatrical metaphores but goes to the heart of kinetics and SR, and I feel will test anyone's intellect and visualization skills to the full. I look forward to discussing more and will send a link. I hope I may cite you in the current draft. Do you have any recent published papers on this theme?

Well done and best of luck.

Peter

Dear Ernst Fischer,

Tom has misunderstood my question about the one degree of freedom (probably because it was poorly stated.)

I am asking about "particles" inside a black hole. My assumption (and the apparent meaning of a recent paper in Phys Rev Letters) is that particles inside a black hole do not 'bounce around' in three directions as they do in thermal materials such as metals. If the black hole is spinning, then the assumption is that all of the particles 'constituting' the hole are moving, locally, in one direction, hence one degree of freedom. This is an important point for my ideas, so I am trying to clarify how others think about such phenomena.

Thanks again. I will have another question for you when I can figure out how to best phrase it. I find your essay fascinating.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Ernst, Dear Vladimir

It is important for you to read my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

I discuss your problem about action-at-a-distance, and I have a solution. I found faster than light can exists, and by my solution, in this case there is no violation in Lorentz transformation or causality. I think you can understand my essay and criticize it. I really need your criticism.

Dear Ernst

Thanks for your response. I agree with you that the velocity of light is the upper limit, but - depending on how one observes it light can slow down in gravitational fields. Clocks slow down in such fields and measuring rods contract, so the measured speed remains c. However in an absolute universe (ie a Lorentzian, not Einsteinian) one can compare distances traveled, and light appears to decelerate and hence curve in gradient gravitational fields. I know this plays havoc with the premises of SR and GR but I think such a timeless absolute universe is another way to look at the same situation. The sort of energy I am speaking about is vacuum potential energy which increases in gravitational fields...again this sort of statement can only make sense in a new theory of how things work. It makes sense in mine, but it is still a sketch of a theory!

Azzam I shall try to read and respond to your paper on your page.

Cheers

Vladimir

you seem rational Mr the anonymous,

Why you do not put your real name? you are a celebrity or what ? :)

The equivalence principle is indeed at all 3D scales.

But why people interpret the deterministic Universal 3D sphere with bizare superimposings?

simple and complex....

Regards

The TOV equations describe a static distribution of matter. The det(-g) leading to sqrt(h) and the potential is a reflection of this fact. The result that

m= 4π∫ρr^2dr 4πG∫ρdr/rc^2

is then due to nongeodesic motion, say at some point or radial distance in the interior. As a result your conclusion there is no singularity or horizon is built into the initial assumptions.