It's very hard to fly a light plane and play double bass at the same time...Of course, which is why the tuba is on the list.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
backtracking such a singular event too easily lends itself to the conclusion of a beginning.A bound to time is allowed by relativity theory. There are examples.
The problem with a "beginning" is that it is closely attributed to an act of creationYes, that's a problem, at least with a model with a universe as something contained by time. The Schmelzer model does this, necessitating the lack of a beginning. Einstein's model does not do this, so isn't something in need of creation.
The material that I've posted above is actually NOT a new "theory".You're calling the equivalence principle 'Schizophrenic' which is a form of science denialism. The topic is in new theories where it belongs.
The only original work I've had to do, is to first realize that the existing GTD equation (the well-known exponential version) is incorrectIt is not 'the well known version' nor is it 'sacrosanct' since I had trouble finding it anywhere. It is correct for the fairly obscure scenario in question. Still, your wording above suggests you have a new theory.
What I've done is to show that an analogous thing can also be done for an accelerated frame of reference in special relativity. I.e., an array of clocks can also be set up for an accelerating observer.I've not figured out what you're trying to do there. Clocks in an accelerated frame (say clocks situated at various points in a rigid accelerating ship) are going to stay in sync in neither the ship frame nor any inertial frame.
That is possible by making use of a combination of the gravitational time dilation (GTD) equationWhat you're calling this GTD seems to appear in very few places anywhere. I looked on the wiki page by the same name, and it isn't mentioned. The general (and normalized) formula there is
But some physicists are vague about whether the rapid variations in the current age of the distant person (according to the accelerating person) should be considered to be MEANINGFUL or not. It is possible to show that those rapid age variations (including negative ageing) MUST be considered to be fully real and meaningful.But you're the one being vague about it since you're not giving any definition of 'meaningful' here, except to put it in caps, which signifies it being shouted.
Olbers's paradox ... says that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of a ... static universe.Well, thermodynamic law also conflicts with the same thing. I don't think this qualifies as a paradox, it is a mere falsification of this 'static universe' suggestion, something that was presumed right through the 18th century. You sort of propose one yourself, and thus contradict these observations.
are on the "Sell By" date. Very much reduced in price, and thus about to be tossed, but still good to eat for a while more.Indeed. Too many confuse sell-by with eat-by.
are all in the freezerBut you can only do so much of this before the price of storage exceeds the savings you got buying it on the cheap. Things stored for months, unless unavailable later, are often more expensive that just buying at the current price and eating it fresh.
grapefruit outside is not showing any signs of bearing fruit this year,Alas, my zucchini leaves are being eaten by something each night. They're not likely to ever bear me an actual zucchini.
Even saved more money, walking to the shop and back.I've done it with a bicycle sometimes, but it's just too hot to do that with perishables right now.
It isn't something that needs references, so you should not be demanding any. If your model doesn't conform to the requirements of STR, it will enable you to measure absolute speeds with ease, so GTR has to include STR as part of itself in order to fit observations.I do see what you're saying here. If it was just an absolute interpretation of GTR, any empirical claim of GTR would also be an empirical claim of this alternate interpretation. But then it must also conform to GTR’s geometry, and your assertions deviate from that. Hence the need for references since the equations of GTR only work with GTR geometry.
GTR also has to conform to our 3D Euclidean view of events while doing its 4D stuffBut GTR includes the effects of gravity and thus is not confined to Euclidean 3D space like STR is. Space is not Euclidean under GTR, so if it is under the hypothetical LET theory, it no longer can use GTR mathematics, and we need a reference for the new mathematics that maintains consistent empirical measurements. You don’t give this because no such theory exists.
LET describes what you get in that 3D Euclidean viewThat's the claim that needs the reference. A 3D Euclidean view with slowed physics makes different predictions, such as the angles of physical rigid triangles adding up to 180°. You're essentially making claims of a nonexistent theory. If space is Euclidean but light (and other motion) merely slows down based on the dilation equations for gravitational potential, you'd get different times for light to get from A to B through a gravity well. By positing this Euclidean assertion, you throw away all the mathematics of GTR that uses a different geometry, and yes, this completely new way of doing it very much does need a reference.
The two ways of looking at it necessarily map to each other and you don't need a reference to understand that.I actually agree with this, but if they map to each other, then the space under gravity is necessarily non-Euclidean. SET (the only generalization of LET of which I am aware) does not agree with your assertions.
That's why whenever I employ LET as a tool for viewing the actionIf you're matching GTR descriptions, then you’re using GTR despite calling it LET. If you're making up new rules that contradict GTR, then it needs an actual theory behind it to make the new predictions since the GTR mathematics no longer apply. That needs justification, or it is just 'making up your physics'.
When LET and STR tell you what these lines of black holesNeither LET nor STR deal with black holes.
... what these lines of black hole look like as they approach each other before the gravitational interaction becomes significant (due to the extreme contraction of the gravity wells - no amount of applying GTR can change that because the gravity acting on each line from the other is so weak up to that point and cannot affect the 3D Euclidean view of the action)This assertion not backed by mathematics. I tried to point this out in an earlier post, but you don't seem interested in actually working it out. This is another reason for the topic to be in new theories.
"What [the boat] it zigzags downwind and there's very little drag against the water? It might be able to go downwind faster than the wind." Someone might then object by saying, "Nonsense: by definition a sailing boat cannot go downwind faster than the wind, so you cannot be talking about a sailing boat!This is entirely valid. Based on the definition of sailing boat you gave, the thing you describe isn’t a sailing boat. Ditto for event horizon.
Guess what the LET in CLET stands for. Doug Marett's site dates back before that and deals with LET and how it covers the same ground as GTR. You ought to remember this page; http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Conspiracy.htmlAh, an actual reference! I was actually wondering if you would bring up this crackpot site.
I invite to to cite sources for your claims, and not sources from science denial sites.conspiracyoflight is very much a science denial site. It asserts that GTR and even STR is wrong, so if it asserts that CLET makes the same claims as Einstein’s theories (as you do), then it follows that CLET is wrong. I doubt they piggyback off GTR since it attempts to debunk Einstein at every possible turn.
the necessity of both theories to generate the same 3D view of the action as they're applying the same maths, there is no cause to dispute them.But you’re asserting an alternate 3D view, so the dispute stands.
People who actually work on LET with this simple addition of having light slow down in gravity wells do call it LET.OK. That claim come right from GTR, so they can stick on the label if they want, despite the lack of an actual theory that does it. But when the claims diverge from GTR, then it becomes something that needs backing since the backing of GTR is lost.
I did explain why your idea that a line of black holes doesn't suddenly have a single singularity in it the moment the event horizons connect.I never asserted otherwise.
This is using Einstein's model, not a preferred frame model. To my knowledge, no preferred frame model has an event horizon at black holes since there are no events on the other side to define one. I may be wrong about this, so kindly put in the citation. Your lack of citations reduces your posts to mere assertions. LET does not make the claims you ascribe to it.QuoteOnly by denying said action [within black holes] at all. There is no 'in them' in any preferred frame model.You get more irrational by the year. There are objects which science has discovered and called black holes, and they have event horizons. There is an inside and an outside of an event horizon.
You're the one making thing up here by misunderstanding things and misrepresenting my position.Misunderstanding your position isn't 'making things up'. You asserted valid physics in Euclidean space. You asserted action (or even space at all) within black holes in a preferred frame model like LET. I need references for those claims, else you very much indeed are making up your physics. I'd not have moved the thread just for saying what LET theory posits, but you seem to simply be attaching the LET label to your personal ideas. That puts the topic here in new theories.
It is a matter of fact that the predictions of LET and GTR match up perfectly for all observations and experiments - there's already been a link in this thread to the wikipedia entry on LET which spells that out.Wiki spells out something entirely different. It says LET in only an interpretation of special relativity and thus matches the predictions only of SR because it had never been generalized.
The non-existence [up until apparently 2012] of a generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity was a major reason for the preference for the spacetime interpretation.Wiki says an entire century went by without LET having a theory of gravity. The one in 2012 is not called LET as far as I know, and it does not back your claims as far as I know, but I invite your to prove me wrong.
It is not disputed by serious physicists, so what's your game?I'm disputing your personal claims, not disputing anything on which serious physicicts have commented.
Wiki says nothing of the sort. I'm looking at the LET page ES linked. Kindly quote the text you think says this. The article I see says LET doesn't have a theory of gravity at all, per the line I quoted above. It says nowhere that LET is a mathematical abstraction of GTR.QuoteIt comes from the fact (acknowledged on that wikipedia page) that the predictions match and that LET achieves this using Euclidean geometry with the speed of light slowing instead of trying to cram extra space into gravity wells while maintaining the speed of light at c.Quoteand this maintains Euclidean geometry while providing the same precision in its predictions as GTR.This is the first assertion. If physical triangles (made of rigid rods say) have angles that don't add up to 180°, it is hard to argue for Euclidean geometry. From where does this claim come?
LET is an alternate interpretation to only Special Relativity, never to GR.
Let me repeat: LET accounts for gravity by having light slow down in gravity wells, and this enables it to match up as perfectly to observations and experiments as GTR, so you're simply wrong.Perhaps so, but citation needed. It certainly doesn't say that on the wiki page, which actually says that LET doesn't account for gravity at all.
You said,This fails to tell my why my explanation is wrong, and didn't even bother to quote the explanation itself. Your purposes seem to be evangelism and not actual science. A scientist would back his claims, and would demonstrate how erroneous explanations such as the one you didn't quote above are wrong. Instead I get raving assertions of conspiracy.Quote from: HalcThere's no 'long black hole'. If you put the little ones close enough together, you get one black hole, and the event horizon of it is more or less spherical (assuming minimal total angular momentum). There's no such thing as a line of barely linked black holes. I spelled out why in my prior post, which perhaps you're not bothering to read. Tell me why my explanation is wrong if it is, but don't just keep repeating refuted stuff. I lay no claim to be necessarily right on this stuff.So, that had to be corrected, and it just added to your drive to hide this thread in the subforum bin dominated by mathematically illiterate ramblings where hundreds more of your errors are stored. You have to move my threads to hide your errors just as much as to defend the establishment's broken models.
Sounds then like relativity. In an absolute interpretation, speed is relative to the absolute frame an not to any other. It's a property, not a relation. Schmelzer seems to have solved this issue, but seemingly not by the premises you're asserting. I admittedly don't know any of his premises. The premises of SR are not held of course, but the Einstein Equivalence Principle is derived (not postulated as in GTR), which is impressive.QuoteHow can this object move at all through space? If the speed of light reaches zero there, the speed of matter would too, preventing a black hole from moving in coordinate space. It all seems self contradictory.As I mentioned in an earlier post, the speed of light is slowed relative to the black hole - not relative to the space fabric.
The two theories map to each other perfectly when it comes to predictions of the visible action from outside black holesLorentz Ether Theory was, to my knowledge, never generalized to a theory of gravity anytime in the 20th century. I did find one first published in the 21st century, last revised in 2012: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035
but they diverge when describing the action inside them.Only by denying said action at all. There is no 'in them' in any preferred frame model.
and this maintains Euclidean geometry while providing the same precision in its predictions as GTR.This is the first assertion. If physical triangles (made of rigid rods say) have angles that don't add up to 180°, it is hard to argue for Euclidean geometry. From where does this claim come?
the two theories are essentially mathematical transformations of each other (which is why some people consider them to be different interpretations of the same theory)LET is an alternate interpretation to only Special Relativity, never to GR. It never got gravity right, unless you count theories like the one I linked above, which probably should be called something like 'Schmelzer Ether Theory'. It does have singularities in what it calls 'frozen stars'. The mathematics at the event horizon (GR only term) is necessarily singular in this preferred frame.
I won't go into the details here as this is not a discussion of rival theories.But you've done so in making these assertions. Topic has been moved accordingly.
The term black hole becomes fuzzy in such a situation, just as it does during part of the time when two black holes are merging and have linked up without their singularities yet merged.The verb tense usage here suggests there's a meaningful coordinate time at which what you picture as a pair of physical singularities merge after crossing each other's event horizons. I never suggested any such thing.
In LET, the speed of light reduces, reaching zero at the event horizonHow can this object move at all through space? If the speed of light reaches zero there, the speed of matter would too, preventing a black hole from moving in coordinate space. It all seems self contradictory. I don't think Schmelzer makes this assertion/deduction either. Again, a citation would be nice here since I doubt any of it comes from Schmelzer.
Can we store energy efficiently and safely using it?Define 'efficient'.
If you consider that what you name "stars" are in fact galaxies or clusters of galaxies, it is true that, accordingly to the big bang therory and the expansion that come with it, already 97% of galaxies are actualy, from our point of view, unreachable.Having a recession speed greater than light isn't what prevents us from getting to most of them. We see them, and they see us, so clearly something is 'getting to them'. What prevents us from getting to them is being beyond their event horizon, and while that event horizon and the distance where things have a recession rate (measured in cosmological coordinates) greater than c is close to it, it is inside, and we can theoretically reach something currently receding at a rate greater than c. Just not much faster.
Because 97% of all the galaxies inside the observable universe are recessing faster then the speed of light.
At some point, i think that we can say that physicaly speaking they do not exists for us any more.If you can see it, it physically exists (at least with a measurement definition of 'exists', and I don't know of a better definition), and over time, new objects come into the visible universe. They cannot leave it by definition, so over time, more and more stuff exists to us, despite all of it eventually fading to red to the point of undetectability. There is a limit beyond which we will never see even in infinite time, and currently about 60% of that is within our visible universe, and the other 40% will move in over time. Everything else will never 'exist' in any meaningful way.
There are 100 billions of visible galaxies (reachable or not) and 100 billions of stars in our galaxy (or 400 billions but this is around this).I think, given a good telescope, that there are far more galaxies visible than local (in our galaxy) stars. The deep field shots you see are all galaxies and no stars. The shots looking into our own galaxy find it impossible to see through the dust and other material obscuring the view. The vast majority of stars are not visible, but the galaxies are unless they happen to lie on the same plane where all the obscured stars are. I am unsure of the percentage of the deep sky that is available for unobscured viewing.
So let say half of the "bright points" are stars and half of them are galaxies ( galaxies and same for stars)
But with a long line of separate singularities inside that long black holeThere's no 'long black hole'. If you put the little ones close enough together, you get one black hole, and the event horizon of it is more or less spherical (assuming minimal total angular momentum). There's no such thing as a line of barely linked black holes. I spelled out why in my prior post, which perhaps you're not bothering to read. Tell me why my explanation is wrong if it is, but don't just keep repeating refuted stuff. I lay no claim to be necessarily right on this stuff.
It isn't a normal black hole, and it isn't a normal merger of two either. In a normal merger there are two singularities inside a single event horizonNo. Per no-hair theorem, there's no external difference distinguishing one arrangement from another. Black holes have mass, charge, and angular momentum. They don't have different shapes due to internal arrangements of matter/singularities. Your entire line is in a one black hole. It cannot differ from another black hole with the same mass/momentum/charge. It cannot separate into two parts any more than a normal one.
This is something that may never have been explored.Per above theorem, it has been explored, and proven otherwise.
[I like the list of "similar topics" underneath: Do white sheep eat more than black sheep?]Ah, the wonders of low-AI word matching. @neilep would love the topic, and sure enough, was the first to reply.
If we have two long lines of black holes running into each other (with each black hole aimed at the open spaces between black holes in the opposite line, all the event horizons would link up into one with lots of singularities within itDoesn't work. The correct answer involves coming up with a metric describing this that is a solution to Einstein's field equations, but that is beyond either of us. But some naive reasoning may still apply.
so can they really be halted quickly enough to stop them separating again?If they're one big black hole, then there's no meaningful coordinate 'speed of halting'. It's just there. Under the presentism that you love to push, it takes nearly infinite time for the speedy objects to come to a complete halt, assuming equal speeds/masses in opposite directions. There is probably a brief but intense pulse of gravitational waves that you'd not want to be near.
If the two singularities move further apart by continuing in the direction they were moving in at the start, the depth of that photon in the gravity well will reduce and it can end up outside the event horizon.Said photon was never inside any EH then, by definition. See my very first sentence of my first reply. You're positing this photon outrunning a null surface, which requires it to move faster than light, a self contradiction.
Wow!!!QuoteQuoteBecause they predict the rapid breakup of arms
Sorry, why do you claim that my assertions are wrong.
You fully that our scientists "predict the rapid breakup of arms"
Halc clearly had stated that our scientists "predict the rapid breakup of arm":You did not answer the questions I required. You thus fail the test of being someone who displays any reading comprehension skills. For instance, this little quote above suddenly suggests that I said that scientists predict the rapid breakup of arms, when I of course made no mention of scientists (or dark matter) in what you quoted. It was your assertions that do, and thus your assertions that contradict the evidence.predict the rapid breakup of armsThat prediction is a direct outcome from the Dark matter.
Can you please explain the process how the dark matter by itself can help the spiral arms to be recovered to their nice symmetrical spiral shape after they have been broken?Another example. Nobody every suggested this. You cannot read.
There may be room for an argument about whether the event horizons join up for a moment or not in a case where the black holes don't merge and go their separate ways afterwardsNo there isn't. An event horizon isn't a location in space. It's a null surface, and there's no way for two null surfaces to touch and then separate. For example, it's not possible for the future light cones of two spatially separated events can intersect and then later on not intersect.
Can a photon escape from inside the event horizon of two black holes?It wouldn't be an event horizon if it could, so no, by definition.
Picture a situation where two black holes are moving in opposite directions at just a fraction under the speed of light. Their event horizons are length contracted so much that they practically become discs rather than spheres.You're using special relativity concepts to describe something gravitational, which isn't the way to go about it. A stress energy tensor might describe the situation. You're picturing a Schwarzschild black hole in a non-Schwarzschild situtation. That doesn't work.
The two black holes pass each other in such a way that at the point of closest approach the edges of the two discs pass through each other.Translation, two black holes with high relative velocity and similar Schwarzschild radius r pass at perhaps less than 2r of each other (coordinate separation?). Event horizons can't 'pass through each other'. Either there could be events between them from which light could escape or the event horizons merge, and it must become one black hole.
Picture one moving towards you and the other moving away, and imagine them side by side as they pass each other - both should be deflected sideways by each other's pull, and the amount of that deflection will be related to how fast they're moving.Yes, a plot of their mass centers will curve. There will be a sort of coordinate distance between them at closest approach, and we assume that they're far enough aprat that they don't merge. You're at that midpoint, and by symmetry, you go nowhere. You live to see the day and tell others about it, so light has escaped from you, and thus you've never been within either event horizon.
As both stars orbit at the same velocityOops
Sorry, why do you claim that my assertions are wrong.Because they predict the rapid breakup of arms, yet most galaxies have arms. Your claims contradict evidence, but that's nothing new.