Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Tom,

All the literature of which I'm aware assumes light is just being carried along by this expansion, even though the expansion is based on the redshift of that very light and the fact we appear as the center would be perfectly explained by an optical effect, since we are at the center of our view of the universe, but of which there is no apparent reference or debate.

There is no career in raising questions about the model, only in extending it. If you notice, the only reason this debate about black holes even occurs, is because extensions of GR and QM clash at this juncture.

So I'm afraid mere logic doesn't measure up to conclusions required to support theory. It's all a green cheese moon, if it isn't drawn from the canon.

Regards,

John M

"All the literature of which I'm aware assumes light is just being carried along by this expansion,"

What literature claims that light and spacetime are the same thing? For if we speak of an expanding universe without boundary, this statement is surely implied by that one. Do you want to stand on your own authority, or cite the source, so it can be challenged?

" ... even though the expansion is based on the redshift of that very light and the fact we appear as the center would be perfectly explained by an optical effect,"

An optical effect is only the passive recording of a phenomenon. Redshifts and blueshifts simply describe the limits of the spectral range from infrared to ultraviolet. It explains nothing; it only obeys the laws of classical mechanics that we already know from empirical data alone.

" ... since we are at the center of our view of the universe, but of which there is no apparent reference or debate."

Subjectively, any particle is at the center of its own universe (Or as Hilbert is reputed to have said, "Some have a mental horizon of measure zero, that they call their point of view."). Objectively -- scientifically -- the universe has no center; every arbitrarily chosen point is the origin of creation. Study that principle of least action, John. You will realize that it's much more than what you think of as a mere mathematical model.

And meditate on Fermat, who discovered the principle of least action via his study of optics. You'll realize that there cannot possibly be a center to an expanding universe -- it's expanding from every point. If light were only carried along by the expansion, as your unnamed source claims, there would exist nothing to expand, because light travels at a measured speed and to be physically real, it has to be " ... independent in its physical properties; having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions."

(~ Einstein)

Because space is not independent in its physical properties and thus not physically real ...

And because time is not independent in its physical properties and thus not physically real ...

And because spacetime is independent in its properties and physically real, the motion of light (electromagnetic radiation) is measured only relative to spacetime -- which not only guarantees that spacetime and light are independent of each other; it guarantees that each has a physically real effect on the other. Furthermore:

Because our knowledge of physical effects depends on physical measurement, the expansion of space is constrained by the constant speed of light, a spacetime symmetry elegantly explained by Einstein, Lorentz and Poincare as the effects of length contraction and time dilation.

I should not have failed to mention Fitzgerald in that last post re: length contraction and time dilation.

Do dark matter and gravitons have wave-functions? I assume the answer is: nobody knows. Therefore, it would be impossible for you to discount the existence of things like ghosts or an afterlife based upon scientific thought. Am I wrong?

" ... independent in its physical properties; having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions."(~ Einstein)

Not to be accused of cherry-picking but I don't know where this Einstein quote came from. It is a cardinal principle in physics that only those things that can also be influenced can have a physical effect. It is called the ACTION-REACTION principle.

Akinbo

Tom,

Lots of things are optical effects. Redshift and blueshift are optical effects, due to the motion of the observer relative to the source.

Currently we have the equivalence principle to equate gravity to acceleration, but the surface of this planet is not actually accelerating in all directions, in order to keep us on it. According to theory and observation, gravity and cosmic expansion balance out, so why do we need classic recession to explain redshift, if we keep in mind that what is falling into galaxies, is balanced by what expands between them. Logically there could be an equal equivalence principle by which this expansion is only equivalent to recession. There is much more space between galaxies, than in them, so it would be far less spatially pronounced.

The fact is they already are in balance, equalling overall flat space, so it's not like any new physics is involved, just that we don't fully understand the cause of redshift, anymore than we understand the cause of gravity, only that one can be modeled as acceleration and the other as recession. Then we can get rid of all those ad hoc patches.

Thanks Akinbo.

Regards,

John M

Steve,

"does not seem to be" may be the foundation of all misunderstanding. I agree the common assumption remains growth by merger. But John is correct "cosmology overlooks its own evidence" which is of FAR too few mergers and FAR to little 'feedback' found to support central assumptions. The latter in particular is a well recognised issue. The former gets ever worse as many assumed mergers are identified as quasars or with big z separations.

Even worse, there is NO explanation for high z 'old' galaxies, of the cycling from old discs to young blue open spirals, then gradually back, very clear from z = 3 to now. I gave a short 'summary' list of 20 significant matters resolved at the end of my paper. That you can't seem to recall any of them seems symptomatic of the issue.

Famously; a majority assuming something doesn't make it correct! I've uniquely shown how the great weight of evidence consistently supports another model. But as you may have have found yourself, entrenched beliefs trump both evidence and logic, which you just get dismissed and ignored. You yourself have proved that here, so what chance t do YOU have with ('apparently'!) far LESS observational evidence!? It takes cosmic time to improve even a small paradigm of understanding, if now possible at all! Is it?

Best wishes

Peter

John,

The only bit I'd contend is "since proven". Nothing is 'proven' particularly in cosmology. The 'flat space' conclusion may be fine but needs qualification. I mentioned the very sound FLWR universe to Steve, are you familiar with it? There is no bar implied to expansion and contraction, and indeed most evidence is consistent when studied properly, if NOT supporting the abstract or 'real' 'curved space-time' interpretation which is just a convenient tool. Even Minkowski was insistent on a background 'substance';

"The substance at any world-point may always, with the appropriate determination of space and time, be looked upon as at rest."

I also agree his; "...cases with a velocity greater than that of light will henceforth play only some such part as that of figures with imaginary co-ordinates in geometry." which is consistent with APPARRENT or RELATIVE c+v being measurable trigonometrically (via other reflected-emitted light doing c) as I've suggested and rationalised.

Steve,

One thing I left out was re-ionization. Hydrogen must have been re-ionized at an early universe epoch and helium AFTER around z=3. it's already identified that quasars CAN do so, but without that key piece fitting in any other greater puzzle! Another is the overall anomalously high average galaxy mass growth, in clear 'steps' the last coinciding with the last quasar era. It emerges from the model as the pair production at the jet collimations; Each new iteration is of higher mass.

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo:

The Meaning of Relativity.

Page 65 in the pdf.

"Redshift and blueshift are optical effects, due to the motion of the observer relative to the source."

So what?

"Currently we have the equivalence principle to equate gravity to acceleration, but the surface of this planet is not actually accelerating in all directions, in order to keep us on it."

So you don't think gravity is toward the center of mass? New one on me.

"According to theory and observation, gravity and cosmic expansion balance out, so why do we need classic recession to explain redshift, if we keep in mind that what is falling into galaxies, is balanced by what expands between them."

Cite me a source.

"Logically there could be an equal equivalence principle by which this expansion is only equivalent to recession. There is much more space between galaxies, than in them, so it would be far less spatially pronounced."

Cite me a source. Same old problem, John -- you are making it up as you go along, throwing in things you've heard somewhere and filtering them through your personal view.

"The fact is they already are in balance, equalling overall flat space, so it's not like any new physics is involved, just that we don't fully understand the cause of redshift, anymore than we understand the cause of gravity, only that one can be modeled as acceleration and the other as recession. Then we can get rid of all those ad hoc patches."

And replace them with your ad hoc patches?

Tom,

You don't need yet Einstein as to understand in what makes the difference between Euclid's notion of point and his notion of number. The latter is based on what is now called the neutral element of multiplication: one. This "1" can be a continuum of just one dimension, the dimension of length, while Euclid's point is defined as zero-dimensional. Dedekind tacitly ignored that the length one is the distance between two points. IIrc, he cautiously hesitates equating point and number without, however, considering due consequences.

If one understands any real number consequently as a measure of a length, e.g. the circumference of a circle, then it cannot be equal to any rational number related to the belonging diameter. One may imagine but not numerically address a point representing such irrational measure. Peirce aptly called points in a continuum mere potentialities. If one chooses the circumference = 1 then the diameter gets irrational.

In all, I maintain that there are no relevant singular points within a coherent genuine continuum.

Do you consider compactification in case of step function in IR reasonable?

The case |a|=1 in integral 15 of my old Bronstein/Semendjaev is obviously unnecessary.

Eckard

"Dedekind tacitly ignored that the length one is the distance between two points."

No he didn't.

"IIrc, he cautiously hesitates equating point and number without, however, considering due consequences."

You don't recall correctly. In Dedekind cuts, for example, there are exist two numbers that when multiplied together result in \/2, even though we cannot say what these numbers are. So length 1 can also be measure zero.

I don't know how you think this relates to physics, however.

Tom,

"So you don't think gravity is toward the center of mass? New one on me."

And if we were to fall/drill to the center of the earth, there would be no black hole pulling us further into the vortex, because then all the mass would be above/around us, pulling us back out, in all directions.

What falls in, radiates back out.

Regards,

John M

Peter,

Agreed, but at this point, it's psychology and I use the concepts provided.

It is interesting that, according to theory, the attraction of gravity and expansion of intergalactic space are inversely proportional and yet it is still assumed the overall universe still expands!

They seem to completely overlook that these galaxies are not, according to their very own models, simply inert points in space, but space wells, contracting the same dimensionality presumed to grow between them, in equal amounts.

What we do see is that mass falls inward and energy radiates outward. Since gravity is a property of mass, then logically, expansion is equally a property of energy. So this redshift is not necessarily some extra-dimensional effect, carrying the light with it, but likely is the property of that light and its interaction with all other light.

All this seeming lack of ability to connect the big picture dots is the consequence of minds schooled to only look at detail. Specialists, not generalists. I tell Tom that's why, in the army, specialist is a rank just above private, while generals run the show.

Regards,

John M

Now, why is the DFM plasma that is the CMB at 2.78 K a plasma at all? Shouldn't we be able to see though the CMB at 2.7 K? Frozen hydrogen would be a very nice solid window at 2.7 K with a vapor pressure of 3e11 H2 per m3, which is quite a lot of hydrogen of a universe that is more like 1 H2 per m3. I am sure that there is enough flexibility in DFM plasmas to take care of just about anything.

"The only bit I'd contend is "since proven". Nothing is 'proven' particularly in cosmology. The 'flat space' conclusion may be fine but needs qualification. I mentioned the very sound FLWR universe to Steve, are you familiar with it?"

I love how you seem to have an endless supply of these rabbits. No, I have no idea what FLWR meant until you brought it up...along with half the stuff you bring up. But you do bring up useful little tidbits that are all very useful and neat anomalies that usually have very traditional, albeit obviously misinformed, explanations often mentioned in the same papers that you cite. How in the world a quantitative tensor metric like FLWR, a kissing cousin to GR, helps or hurts DFM plasma is a point that escapes me.

The contracting universe does not expand...

"It is interesting that, according to theory, the attraction of gravity and expansion of intergalactic space are inversely proportional and yet it is still assumed the overall universe still expands!"

A contracting universe is consistent with attracting forces and is the only way that I have been able to reconcile gravity and charge forces.

Careful here. Falling into and radiating out of are both due to matter exchange between objects.

"What we do see is that mass falls inward and energy radiates outward."

Objects bond to each other by exchange of matter as equivalent energy. That matter equivalent energy is also what is radiated as light, that is true. However, the objects also absorb light and radiation from the universe and so it is more appropriate to say that the objects bond to the universe by exchanging matter with the universe and the universe is therefore also the ultimate object of matter.

Therefore radiation is not a loss of energy, is an exchange of matter that bonds objects to the universe. This is built into a contracting universe and so I do not want to confuse the issue too badly with the more common expanding universe.

" ... then all the mass would be above/around us, pulling us back out, in all directions."

Who or what is this 'us' you speak of?

"Therefore radiation is not a loss of energy, is an exchange of matter that bonds objects to the universe. This is built into a contracting universe and so I do not want to confuse the issue too badly with the more common expanding universe."

Steve, how do the models differ to our observation, when the exchange of signs is 1 to 1? Isn't the deeper question why the universe appears 'handed' in the first place?