Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Steve Agnew

Lenses work because of the dielectric dispersion that changes the speed of light. Light is only curved in a graded index where the dielectric constant changes in a continuous manner. Therefore either a graded index lens or a gravity lens will curve light.

Jonathan Dickau

Thanks Steve, (reposted in proper thread)

I'm glad you enjoyed Kauffmann's paper. I think there is some respect for Steven on Abhas Mitra's part, and vice versa. At least they are on speaking terms, responding to each other's e-mails - which I know because I was CC'd. In fairness, most of Mitra's papers were written before Steven became involved with the Black Hole question. But it is not out of the question that they will work together.

I may say more later, but (now time-adjusted) it will be a busy day...

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

Steve Agnew

In a contracting universe, the slowing of time as we look back into time behaves just like a graded index lens. The time lens of the universe is what results in bending light and not really gravity, but there is a strange symmetry between space time and matter time.

The extra energy term due to matter decay also contributes to the lensing, and so it is better to call gravity lensing time lensing instead. So it is mostly star and agn matter decay that forms the time lenses that science interprets as due to mostly dark matter.

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

".. this whole black hole discussion might as well be about elves and fairies." Well, I am close to such conclusion. You are right. Several details that seemingly support SR and physical singularities must be explained otherwise. Let me just focus on some of the putatively strongest arguments:

- Constant speed of light in vacuum.

As does SR, I consider not just those wrong who refer c to a medium but also those who prefer an emission theory.

- Addition of velocities.

I see this just a question of a common perspective.

- Lorentz transformation.

For a while I was confused because even many opponents of SR accepted Lorentz contraction. You pointed me to lesson 22. As an old teacher, I found several kinds of flaws in it. The decisive one was a guess at the very beginning where S and S' are introduced with coordinates z and z', respectively. I see this again at odds with the common perspective. Lorentz abandoned simultaneity as to rescue the idea of a light-carrying medium.

Eckard

Thomas Ray

"Causality loses all meaning in blocktime."

I'd be interested to know how that comes about.

Thomas Ray

" ... there is no identity between real-valued one-sided physical quantities and their complex-valued counterparts."

So we can forget about the fundamental theorem of algebra. Your private idea of mathematics is bizarre, Eckard.

Thomas Ray

" ... where S and S' are introduced with coordinates z and z', respectively. I see this again at odds with the common perspective."

Actually, that's what reconciles 'common perspective' with an objective spacetime.

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

With common I meant common to both S ans S'. Common sense tells us that one cannot have two different points of view at a time. Lorentz obeyed this by fabricating nonsensical local time. All mathematics that was built on this maneuver might be formally correct but is nonetheless nonsense. So called Poincaré synchronization as adopted by Einstein does not only contradict sound reasoning but even worse it blurs the clear distinction between past and future.

Eckard

Thomas Ray

"Common sense tells us that one cannot have two different points of view at a time."

Eckard, if physics were done by common sense, we wouldn't even have atomic theory, among other phenomena that we know to be true. In fact, "at the same time," means different things to observers in different frames. That there is no privileged frame, restores the unitarity that common sense misses.

Thomas Ray

This is serendipitous, Jonathan. I was debating with myself whether to post a metaphor I devised to try and explain self interacting wave dynamics as the origin of mass. First I'll reproduce the publisher's description of the Barrett et al book:

"Divergencies in quantum field theory referred to as 'infinite zero-point energy' have been a problem for 70 years. Renormalization has always been considered an unsatisfactory remedy. In 1985 it was found that Maxwell's equations generally do not have solutions that satisfy the causality law. An additional term for magnetic dipole currents corrected this shortcoming. Rotating magnetic dipoles produce magnetic dipole currents, just as rotating electric dipoles in a material like barium titanate produce electric dipole currents. Electric dipole currents were always part of Maxwell's equations. This book shows that the correction of Maxwell's equations eliminates the infinite zero-point energy in quantum electrodynamics. In addition, it presents many more new results."

My metaphor is in the attached.Attachment #1: Imagine_a_hyperfine_string_wound_on_a_spinning_spool.pdf

John Merryman

Tom,

I wouldn't think this would be that hard to figure out, but ideology does tend to cause selective blindness.

Any event in time naturally consists of a particular configuration of energy and being energy, it tends to change configuration. This creates the effect of causality, being that the form of the prior configuration affects the form of the subsequent configuration.

Now if we have a situation where all these events co-exist in some meta-dimension, then they would all have to consist of their own energy, in order to have physical presence. Therefore there would be no transfer of energy from one event to another and so no causality.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

" ... if we have a situation where all these events co-exist in some meta-dimension, then they would all have to consist of their own energy, in order to have physical presence."

John, do you know anyone besides yourself to whom this statement means anything? Please have them translate.

John Merryman

Tom,

So there is some dynamic process, involving the creation and dissolution of events, such that past and future configurations do not physically exist, only the information generated by prior events, which is then affecting subsequent events, as the energy carrying this information encounters other formations of energy and structure?

Anyone else not wearing Tom's particular blinkers would like to take a side or offer comment on this?

How knows Tom, maybe you can travel some wormhole to a more enlightened time, where the understanding of blocktime is universal.

Regards,

John M

pjackson

Tom,

I wrote; "Apparent 'curvature' of light paths is just refraction, which is a 'rotation' of the optical axis."

I didn't infer anywhere there that light even had a real 'path' let alone a real 'curved one'. The rotation of optical axis is quantised at each harmonic interaction and responds to magnetic field direction (so electron spin) axis. I agree the axis of the helical 'path' of any point on an expanding Schrodinger/Huygens spherelet is instantaneously linear.

A GRIN lens has a 'graded' construction where the dielectric constant is modulated by gradient of effective density and thus refractive index 'n', so at macro scale giving the 'Apparent' curvature I referred.

At larger scales the reducing electron density with increased radius around massive systems reproduces the gradient in a GRIN lens, so the curvature is greater closer to the object, as is the delay (particularly if the system is also rotating away from the observer). Call it 'curved space time' if you wish, but it's a natural consequence of Snell's Law and extinction distance of the local medium, (or 'substance' as Minkowski put it).

Steve,

Just read your text and agree, but it exposes the 'scale' question.

Jonathan,

Thanks, looks very interesting, but at over £100 I might tackle my current pile first! "The Enigmatic Electron" is excellent.

John,

I agree, "the premise of spacetime as an underlaying fabric of reality starts to fall apart." My point was that your comment that there did not seem to be 'any apparent solution' to the underlying problem was quite wrong. No 'twisted knickers' but a little frustration. I agree many current 'descriptions' are nonsense, but that's not what you wrote, or, I suggest, what's important! Who was it said 'the best place to hide things is under our noses'?

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

"Anyone else not wearing Tom's particular blinkers would like to take a side or offer comment on this?"

I would hope they comment on what I said, rather than on what you think I said.

Thomas Ray

"I didn't infer anywhere there that light even had a real 'path' let alone a real 'curved one'. "

That makes even less sense. A geometric straight line (in Euclidean space, or a geodesic in curved spacetime) is a special case for a curve. In relativity, space is mostly Euclidean, in the absence of a gravity field. Gravity is many orders of magnitude weaker than the forces that dominate local interactions in Euclidean space, including those you assign to your magic rotating optical axis. Do you know why? Did you understand Steve Agnew's explanation?

Thomas Ray

"Who was it said 'the best place to hide things is under our noses'?"

Poe, in "The Purloined Letter." Os something like that, anyway.

pjackson

Tom,

Everything's relative, one different assumption and 'sense' under the other assumptions is lost. If you insist on only ever assuming 'curved spacetime' then, right or wrong, you'll not be able to compare any other consistent logic.

Yes I did understand Steve's multiple points and agreed they're coherent based on his assumptions. I'd add I'm not yet convinced by the evidence that it represents reality, but that's another question.

Ref my "magic rotating optical axis"; Do you suggest that the optical axis of light (the apparent source position observed) remains tied to the normal to the wavefront plane when refracted. Have you actually examined and analysed the evidence in optical science and thought that through?

Best wishes

Peter

John Merryman

Tom,

Can you provide a useful, physical description of what that time dimension consists? As it is, all I have to go on is "the math is correct."

Now I realize that for you, math is some kind of revealed truth and anything arising from it is just naive realism and it doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, I see math as a sketch of the more consistent features of this reality and so it is our own biases which are the first place to look.

Now epicycles worked because we are the center of our view of the universe, but it turned out not to be a privileged view. Now we have time reduced to measures of duration and I keep pointing out that that is just a distillation of our perspective of time as the point of the present moving from past events to future ones, while the underlaying dynamic is quite obviously that it is these events being created and dissolved, which really is making them go future to past.

And this makes it an effect of action, etc.

So while you might think math gives you the window to the truth, I feel it is more of an intellectual tool and source of its own biases.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"Everything's relative ..."

No, Peter, that's not what relativity means.

"Ref my 'magic rotating optical axis'; Do you suggest that the optical axis of light (the apparent source position observed) remains tied to the normal to the wavefront plane when refracted."

I don't even find that coherent. Steve's explanation was precise: optical refraction slows the speed of light; therefore, light slowed continuously in a refractive curve and limited by the speed of light, can be infinitely slowed, yet never accelerated, even though the light is moving in a curve which would accelerate matter. In gravitational lensing, the path of the bent light is a curve, and the light is not accelerated.

"Have you actually examined and analysed the evidence in optical science and thought that through?"

In high school, I think.

« Previous Page Next Page »