• Cosmology

  • Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Regarding Terrence Barrett and the extensions to Maxwell..

Peter linked above to a recent paper showing the appearance in a tokamak plasma of additional terms beyond those in the equations according to Maxwell. I suggested he look at a book about modified Maxwell equations, but it is admittedly an expensive volume to own. However; there is a paper attached by Barrett, where he explains some of the interesting aspects of his theory. Notably; he shows how EM is motivated by topology. Fun Stuff!

Regards,

JonathanAttachment #1: barrett.pdf

    "If you manufacture the clicker release twice as far apart on one than the other, then it would release twice as much energy from the spring with each swing of the pendulum."

    John, it's just too painful for me to even try to read further. Or to comment.

    Jonathan,

    Delightful reading! I haven't read it all, but enough to see how timely, and relevant, it is to the forum discussion of such foundational issues as discrete and continuous, finite and infinite.

    Thanks.

    "Something that is said to be larger than any quantity cannot be a quantity itself."

    Apparently you are not familiar with Weyl's proof that a finite set containing at least one infinite element is itself an infinite set.

    Give it up, Eckard. You have a lot of studying to do before you go into this subject.

    Here's something, Eckard, from the Barrett paper Jonathan linked, that bears on the discussion:

    "If a topological group is a group and also a topological space in which group operations are continuous, then Lie groups are topological groups which are also analytic manifolds on which the group operations are analytic."

    Tom,

    Yes, a swinging pendulum is a constant rhythm, but if the concept of a faster rate burning through its energy faster and the sand dial example and billion heart rate examples are too abstract to understand, I suppose the conversation is closed.

    Regards,

    John M

    Tom,

    Well than how about biology. After some billion years of evolution, we evolved have a central nervous system to process information and the respiratory, digestive and circulatory systems to process energy.

    I guess that doesn't count, since it's just biology.

    Regards,

    John M

    Tom,

    Something that is said to be larger than any quantity cannot be a quantity itself unless it is larger than itself.

    This does not contradict to the plausible insight that something finite (1) cannot include something that is in the same respect infinite (2) without logical contradiction: any finite quantity (1) oo (2) is oo.

    What about group theory, I guess that Galois started at purely mathematical sound reasoning but its proponents adapted (around 1870 when the point set theory came up) a tendency of treating continua as if they were sets of elements. Later, groups of elements were kept for adequate to all aspects of physical reality. This resulted in symmetries, even between past and future.

    Eckard

    If black holes do not exist, how do you explain this interminable digression?

      "After some billion years of evolution, we evolved ..."

      As corporations of cooperating cells that continue to evolve on multiple scales of complex activity, even at the subcellular scale. That makes biology interesting, though not physically foundational.

      It's more like infinite regression..

      Or at least that's what Mersini-Houghton and Pfeiffer seem to think. While I agree with your point JRC, I also think this topic invites some wild speculation - due to the interdisciplinary nature of the black hole event horizon question. So yes; we sure do get off topic here, but no it isn't all digression. I'll have to upload and link to the Minkowski reference I wanted to post here, because it is too big to attach.

      That should get things back on topic.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

      Tom,

      ""If I make breakfast, I have to break a few eggs. The prior form of those eggs ceases to exist."

      Not the energy, however, which is conserved. Form is not foundational."

      Meanwhile the form keeps receding into the past, as the energy marches into the future, but that's not foundational enough either.

      Regards,

      John M

      As for the evidence..

      While people in the Astrophysics community appear content to keep calling them black holes, there is a growing consensus as the evidence shows magnetism sufficient to levitate the accretion disk well above the event horizon. When inferred magnetic strengths from observational evidence are projected toward where a horizon would be, it is seen that the matter and energy disk is suspended above it, rather than being swallowed in. See the following.

      Astrophysicists Closer to Figuring Out the Mysteries of the Milky Way

      Is matter falling into the massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way or being ejected from it?

      DISCOVERY OF SUBSTRUCTURE IN THE SCATTER-BROADENED IMAGE OF SGR A*

      A strong magnetic field around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Galaxy

      Dynamically important magnetic fields near accreting supermassive black holes

      There are arXiv versions for most of the journal references, which will show up if you do a Google search by title.

      Regards,

      Jonathan

        Of course,

        This latest evidence appears to agree perfectly with what Dr. Mitra has told us, with what Steven Kauffmann has been telling us, along with Corda, Leiter, et al, and others who have been telling the world that the picture of a black hole as a void that swallows everything is misleading. And so is the 'no-drama' picture of crossing an event horizon.

        Steven Hawking's paper on black holes and weather forecasting has made it more reasonable to discuss how and why things stop short of an event horizon formation. The debate over what happens when one crosses the boundary (and how much information is lost) has shifted, or morphed into a debate over whether a given entity could actually get there - to cross that boundary.

        I think this is healthy progress. But as always; we must continue to look to the evidence, so we can see how well our models of reality reflect what is actually there.

        Regards,

        Jonathan

        For the record,

        It would appear that Sgr A* is a classic example of a MECO.

        Regards,

        Jonathan

        The relevance of the above..

        Terrence Barrett's paper on 'Topology and Electromagnetism' introduces some concepts through foundational assumptions, that Peter asserted are essential to understanding Active Galactic Nuclei and the objects heretofore assumed to be Black Holes. I'm assuming that these objects are some form of ECO, likely a MECO in acknowledgement of the evidence presented below. But this makes Peter's assertion of the appearance of non-Maxwellian terms in the plasma dynamics absolutely germane to this discussion.

        The paper he cited is:

        Intrinsic rotation driven by non-Maxwellian equilibria in tokamak plasmas

        And in the modified Maxwell equations suggested by Barrett and others, there are terms for the magnetic circulation currents that Maxwell does not include. This is why I made mention of the book on those equations earlier, and stated that a search for additional references by the author(s) would be helpful. If we want to model the real behavior of plasma ejection, the actual Physics, we need an expanded vocabulary.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        Jonathan,

        I suppose a pertinent issue is when does the popular science media decide this is a serious topic and starts to really draw attention to it. I don't suppose you have any contacts you could send that list? Zeeya does seem to have been developing a position in the field and might find it interesting.

        One naturally wonders if there isn't some sense of commitment to the current extravagances in cosmology, in the science media, along with the crop of preferred go to physicists, that might be resisting questioning such an important component.

        As the old saying goes, change happens one funeral at a time.

        Regards,

        John M