1

New Theories / Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).

« on: 03/06/2019 03:32:31 »

here is some wordage of mine from another thread

And it wasn't convincing the first time.

But even Einsteinians like yourself must believe that the Earth's shape is affected by length contraction due to Earth's spin (ie in addition to ordinary centrifugal strains & tidal effects).

Here the Einsteinian LC would result in a shape that was symmetrical about the axis.
The aetherist LC would result in a shape that was not symmetrical about the axis, due to the aetherwind blowing at say 20  deg off the axis. Therefore some strange things happen to little g & big G & a few other things during each sidereal day, in addition to some strange things happening during each year.

2

New Theories / Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).

« on: 02/06/2019 00:42:36 »

orientation of Sun & Moon, i

The moon....
But the Moon's in orbit around us- not the other way. It makes sense for any hypothetical  effect of the ether to vay on a daily or yearly basis because those are teh periodicities with which we make or way through the universe.
But the Moon pretty much just swings round us. So, the fact that those clocks record the effect of tides, but not of the year, shows that you are wrong.

Mention of the Moon of course brings us back full circle to the topic of this thread, the centrifuging of aether.
Aether is sucked in to Earth due to Earth's spin (due to centrifugal inertia). This is in addition to aether being sucked in to Earth due to the annihilation of aether in mass (giving us proper gravity).
In addition aether is sucked in to the Earth & the Moon due to the Moon's orbit (due to centrifugal inertia).

The velocity of the centrifuged aether inflow affects length contraction.
The acceleration of the centrifuged aether inflow affects apparent gravity (it is a pseudo gravity), & it adds to proper gravity.

But u  can get the gist of this stuff if u read my OP & some of the replys eg #11 #12  #13 etc on page1.

3

New Theories / Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).

« on: 02/06/2019 00:20:45 »

Speaking of ground tides, here is some wordage of mine from another thread re Courvoisier's work (one of my heroes) ..............................

Courvoisier of course discovered Earth's ground tide, here i mean the ground tide due to Lorentz Length Contraction, this is a twice per sidereal day thing, Lorentz LC changes the Earth's shape, Earth is flattened square to the aetherwind, the shape doesnt change but what changes is that (because Earth's spin-axis is at 20 deg or even 23 deg to the wind) the theusofa gets closer & later further from the spin-axis during each sidereal day, as theusofa moves throo the Lorentz LC's flattening.
 
The Lorentz LC-tide is in addition to the Moon-tide, the Moon-tide too affects Earth's shape due to centrifugal force etc, & here the tidal flattening is on a different angle to the Lorentz LC-flattening & has two lumps whereas the Lorentz LC-flattening has no lumps (but theusofa thinks there are two lumps due to Earth's misaligned spin-axis). Courvoisier simply used a very accurate plumbbob line to measure the Lorentz LC-tide (& the Moon-tide). A genius. He measured the aetherwind about 8 different ways, ie using different kinds of experiments. I will look for details later.
 
By the way, the Lorentz LC-tide must be a reason for Mercury's 43 arcsec per century advance of perihelion. U heard it hear first. Einstein's GR reason is of course complete krapp. Its the Sun's Lorentz LC-tide not Mercury's, Mercury has almost zero spin & thusly almost zero Lorentz LC-tide, but the Sun has a whopper.

4

New Theories / Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).

« on: 01/06/2019 12:57:54 »

The big effect of the moon is that the tides pull the Earth's surface up towards it (just as they do with the sea).
That takes the clock further from the centre of the Earth and that reduces the local value of the acceleration due to gravity.
That, in turn, messes with the clock. No need to invoke relativity or ether. (There are relativistic effects, but they are small).

Yes i go along with most of that. Distance from center of Earth is a factor, but this must be trumped by the nett gravity due to Moon & Sun, which is paramount.
Actually, there is a subtle effect here (that only i know). The nett gravity is not really the answer. The answer is the overall gravity, ie the total or gross gravity. This means that u need to add all gravitational potential energys, to find the new speed of light at that location (in general accord with Einstein's idea).

Here i need to add one more explanation (that only i know), that u & i might talk of the speed of light, but the speed of light has allmost zero to do with any thing in physics, what we are really talking about, whether we know it or knot, is the speed of em  radiation, ie the speed of photaenos, not the speed of light. In the Lorentz gamma, c is the speed of photaenos, not light (but uzually i am too lazy to bother mentioning)(but today i have mentioned)(& i can explain, but today i am too lazy)(but i have explained in other threads)(search "photaeno").

5

New Theories / Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).

« on: 01/06/2019 01:26:16 »

orientation of Sun & Moon, i

The moon.... But the Moon's in orbit around us- not the other way.
It makes sense for any hypothetical  effect of the ether to vay on a daily or yearly basis because those are teh periodicities with which we make or way through the universe.
But the Moon pretty much just swings round us. So, the fact that those clocks record the effect of tides, but not of the year, shows that you are wrong.

Yes having had another think about it u are correct here. Pendulums are affected by the plumbline, ie by any change in the vertical (due to Moon etc).  And this will also hav a  tidal component, or 2 or more tidal components, including the changing shape of solid Earth (tides), & the changing shape etc of surface water (tides), & changing shape of atmosphere (tides).

Changes in plumb being a different & additional effect to the LC effects that are the main question.  And changes in plumb probly only really come up in that way with pendulums & not with other clocks.

6

New Theories / Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).

« on: 01/06/2019 00:49:20 »

In  the sense that a good clock should have a sticker with its rated orientation re aetherwind

And yet they don't. Don't you understand how good clocks are?
This -clearly macroscopic- clock keeps much better time than you  say is possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortt%E2%80%93Synchronome_clock
(And if anyone wins the lottery and wants to buy me a present, I'd really like one of those clocks.)

Yes they do. The Shortt pendulum clock now has sticker saying that the clock is sensitive to gravity, ie the orientation of Sun & Moon, ie the size & direction of the aetherwind, just like i sayd.........
[WIKILEAKS] Recent accuracy measurement
In 1984 Pierre Boucheron studied the accuracy of a Shortt clock preserved at the US Naval Observatory.[3][18] Using modern optical sensors which detected the precise time of passage of the pendulum without disturbing it, he compared its rate to an atomic clock for a month. He found that it was stable to 200 microseconds per day (2.31 ppb), equivalent to an error rate of one second in 12 years, far more accurate than the 1 second per year that was previously measured. His data revealed the clock was so sensitive it was detecting the slight changes in gravity due to tidal distortions in the solid Earth caused by the gravity of the Sun and Moon.[19]

I could make an Excel table to calculate the effect of aetherwind on a pendulum. It wouldnt be simple, koz the pendulum changes angle every swing (plus u have the + or - kmps of each swing).  The max effect would be when the wind blew straight along the pendulum at the end of one swing, in which case the length contraction would be a max, & then the LC would be a min at the end of the opposit swing.  The time for the first half of the swing would be different to the time in the 2nd half. This swing timing defect wouldnt show up in ordinary calibrations (& they probly knew that).

They said slight changes in gravity. Yes, that is a half of the answer. It is due to Einstein's potential energy gravity stuff, ie its affect on LC of the pendulum. But the other half involves the velocity of the aetherwind, & i wouldnt call this a gravity thing, gravity is due to the acceleration of the aetherwind, LC is due to the velocity at that instant.

The problem with pendulum clocks is related to the problem with big G. Varyus  teams around the world report values for big G varying by up to 0.7%. Big G at any one location also varys with time. They dont know why. I do know.

7

New Theories / Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).

« on: 31/05/2019 11:31:29 »

I fail to see why (in silly standard science) some clocks might need to know which way is up. Am i missing something?

In reality, they don't.
But, in your bizzare world where they have to take account of the ether wind, they need to know what direction that wind is blowing. The first step in that process would be to establish which way is up.

What micro electronic technology? A fishing sinker on a string would do the trick.

You think there's room for a plumb line and a mechanism to measure and allow for its position  in a wristwatch? No, there is plainly not. So there's no way that any watch could do what you said it would.
This "If the manufacturers are smart they might have incorporated some kind of remedial circuitry to compensate for the "known" orientation-error." is delusional.

Yes ok in that case i go along with the need to know the direction etc of the aetherwind & of gravity. In  the sense that a good clock should have a sticker with its rated orientation re aetherwind & gravitational potential (or elevation or something). But it would be better if the clock had an auto correction built in.

8

New Theories / Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).

« on: 31/05/2019 00:42:35 »

These watches have been around since (at least ) the 70s but the microelectronic technology needed to determine orientation  WRT  Earth's gravity (never mind the rest of the Universe) is much newer.
So we know that this "

If the manufacturers are smart they might have incorporated some kind of remedial circuitry to compensate for the "known" orientation-error.

is also impossible.

What micro electronic technology? A fishing sinker on a string would do the trick. I fail to see why (in silly standard science) some clocks might need to know which way is up. Am i missing something?

9

New Theories / Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).

« on: 29/05/2019 23:44:18 »

Do you realise that you can measure the frequency of a watch crystal (to a precision equivalent to a second in 8 days) in a few seconds?
I can, in principle, measure the frequency in several different orientations in under a minute.
The Earth's path through the ether doesn't change much in a minute.
Even better I can compare the frequency of two crystals mounted at right angles (so the "tuning forks" look like a C and a U).
If I turn the pair of crystals round there should be relative changes in frequency if the path through the ether matters.
That change should be easy to measure.
What will you do if/ when my experiment shows no change in frequency with orientation?

Ok but it haztabe an old style tuning fork crystal clock.  Turn it to all angles in the horizontal & vertical & in between, to find the orientation that makes the biggest difference.

The lab  reference clock needs to be fixed. Preferably it would be an atomic clock. But any accurate clock would do.

As u say, a slow longish term experiment would be problematic koz of spin-orbit gravity changes & spin-orbit aetherwind changes, which might affect the two clocks differently. Atomic clocks aint affected by orientation, but macro clocks are (eg tuning forks).

If the manufacturers are smart they might have incorporated some kind of remedial circuitry to compensate for the "known" orientation-error. For example if they used 3 crystals instead of 1, & fixed the 3 at 90deg to each other, then their ave ticking wouldnt change with orientation.

If such an  experiment duznt show the kind of ticking dilation that i claim then either i am wrong or there aint no such thing as length contraction.

10

New Theories / Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).

« on: 29/05/2019 10:54:04 »

I will think about how to measure it.

A few things. As i hav sayd before, my numbers are based on a change of 500 kmps.  U kood get this size of change in a lab if u firstly found the alignment of the aetherwind. And this will be swinging around during a sidereal day. 
And the problem is the fixed lab clock. The ticking of the lab clock will be changing during the day, if it is a macro clock. But if it is a micro clock, an atomic clock, then its ticking rate will be almost uniform during a  day, varying slightly due to the changing size of the aetherwind (direction aint important for a micro clock), & varying slightly due to the changing gravity (due mainly to the direction to the Sun)(the angle of the micro clock aint important)(the angle to the Sun is important, koz of Earth's spin)(its an Einsteinian thing).

11

New Theories / Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).

« on: 29/05/2019 06:46:27 »

OK,  I came across some chap quartz crystals on eBay.
So I bought some  + dissolved the packaging from one.
Here's a picture. It's not easy to take a good photograph but that's a mm scale next to it. it's about 1 mm by 5mm and about 0.5mm thick.
It nominally oscillates at 32768 Hz.
What effect on that frequency would you expect from the ether wind?

Yes the prongs look to be 3mm long by 0.44mm thick by u say 0.5mm wide.
Anyhow the macro  ticking dilation would be as per my #25 on page 2 (copy below). This applies to all tuning forks of plain design.  Beware, what i called D (depth) i probly should hav called W (width).
My calcs show how many days would be needed for the ticking to lose 1 sec, based on a change in the aetherwind of 500 kmps blowing along L (the length of the tuning fork), or blowing along W, or along D (no change in ticking).
The apparent change in aetherwind would be carried out by rotating the tuning fork by say 90 deg to a new angle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further to my #22.   I now calculate the macro ticking dilation for a tuning fork.
The velocity of the aetherwind blowing throo a tuning fork contracts the dimension parallel to the wind by the LLC gamma where gamma is (1-VV/cc)^0.5.   For 500 kmps gamma is 0.999 998 609.
The equation for the frequency of a tuning fork says that freq is possibly affected by five things....

Length.  Freq is proportional to 1/LL.  If L shortens to XL (where X is gamma) then we can say that F1 is proportional to  1/XX which is  X^(-2).
Width. Freq is proportional to the width W of each of the two prongs, if the wind blows across the width in the plane of the width then  W narrows to  WX  & we can say that F2 is proportional to  X^(1).
Depth.  The wind can contract the depth D by X, but the depth does not affect freq.
In LWD above i have ignored the base that joins the two prongs, a thin base will affect the above. 
Density.  Freq is proportional to the density of the steel of the fork per (density)^(0.5) & for any & all directions of  the wind the density increases by  X & we can say that F3 is proportional to  X^(0.5).
Young's Modulus.  Freq is proportional to  E per E^(0.5) & if we assume that E is proportional to the density then for any & all directions of the wind we can say that F4 is proportional to X^(-0.5).

F1234  all depend on the orientation of the fork in relation to the wind. There are say three cardinal winds, along L, across W, & across D, & each wind will have its own values for F1234.   And the resultant change in frequency for each wind is proportional to the product  F1*F2*F3*F4  for that wind.   The background wind blows throo Earth at say 500 kmps.   The fork's real natural frequency (absolute or true natural frequency) is realized when the wind is zero kmps.  A 500 kmps wind will according to my calculations give an actual frequency as per the following table.

kmps      gamma X       f1        f2           f3       f4            f1*f2*f3*f4    f1*f2*f3*f4               days for 1sec   
500.00   0.999998609   X^-2  X^0.5   1.00   X^-0.5         X^-2       1.00002782         L       4.16    gain
500.00   0.999998609   1.00    X^0.5   X^1   X^-0.5         X^1       0.999998609       W       8.32    loss
500.00   0.999998609   1.00    X^0.5  1.00   X^-0.5        1.00      1.000000000         D     no effect   

DePalma said that above the axle of his spinning wheel his tuning fork watch suffered a loss of  0.9 sec in 1000 sec (ie 16.67 minutes).  My calculations show it takes days to lose or gain 1 sec if the wind is 500 kmps (ie c/600), & i calculate that  DePalma's wheel had to have produced a wind of  10,000 kmps (ie c/30), which is not believable.  I doubt that a spinning wheel can produce an axial aetherwind of any more than say 10 kmps or 100 kmps tops.
DePalma said that the watch lost most time when orientated as per W.  But my calcs show that L has most effect, & this is a gain not a loss.  Note that L can be towards the wheel or away, makes no difference to my TD.

According to Lorentz & Co (& according to Einstein) the fork (& every other kind of macro clock)(except pendulum etc) is slowed by only gamma (ie X^1) for any & all directions of wind (or in Einstein's case due to relative speed)(he said that the wind was superfluous), ie they would agree with a loss of 1 sec in 8.32 days in every case.
But their ticking dilation is LTD, whereas mine might be called TD.  TD depends on........
(1) the kind of clock (tuning fork, balance wheel, pendulum etc), & it depends on
(2) the design of the clock (size & dimensions), & it also depends on
(3) the orientation of the clock in the wind (or if u like u can say that it depends on the velocity of the wind).

LTD applies only to micro clocks, eg atomic clocks.  My macro TD doesnt i think apply to micro clocks, but it applies to all macro clocks.   Nextly i will have a think about the TD suffered by a balance clock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12

New Theories / Re: against the aether: why matter travels through space without slowing down

« on: 29/05/2019 03:05:30 »

If there was an 'aether' or gas filling space, it would have currents in it like any gas, which would cause fluctuations in a gravity field.
If space were like an atmosphere things that move through space would slow down from the resistance.

Yes aether has currents. Yes currents cause fluctuations in gravity.
Aether offers no resistance to things moving at constant velocity. But offers resistance to changing velocity, creating inertia.

13

New Theories / Re: against the aether: why matter travels through space without slowing down

« on: 29/05/2019 02:58:55 »

Clocks run a bit faster on the moon because of this potential difference.  I said that the figure is less than a percent of the total, so that means it would take at least 100x that energy to get to zero potential energy.  If there was a direction you could go to escape all mass in the universe, one could get to this zero potential energy and clocks would run a non-dilated time.  There's nowhere where you can do this, but you can still compute it.

I dont agree. 
There is no such thing as time, & no such thing as time dilation.
The ticking of atomic clocks is affected by the aetherwind kmps & by the nearness of mass.
The ticking of ordinary clocks (pendulums, tuning forks, balance wheels etc) are affected by length contraction.

I kind of agree re clocks ticking faster well away from mass etc.  And i would agree even moreso if u added that if here the aetherwind was zero kmps.
Re computing it, i doubt it. I think i can. But i think others cant.

14

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?

« on: 16/04/2019 02:33:59 »

This is what's happening with science ..

What?
Badly drawn graphs?

I could of been more precise and put years of things on such as Albert and CERN etc.  It's an example Mr C , they don't have to be precise .
The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
concept an idea or invention to help sell or publicize a commodity.
Science added concept time to the caesium . You got sold broken clocks .

Hafele Keating was/is a fraud.
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm
http://euclideanreality.com/pdf/Critical_Reflections_on_the_Hafele_and_Keating_Experiment.pdf

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What will the Event Horizon Telescope reveal?

« on: 13/04/2019 11:31:02 »

Sorry to but-in on this extremely valuable thread, but I wanted to let you all know that Cambridge astronomer Carolyn Crawford is coming onto the Naked Scientists this week to review this story and to update the coverage that it has received.

This is an opportunity for us to address some of the outstanding questions highlighted by other news coverage and also to clarify queries that have surfaced from the reporting.

If you would like to suggest some questions that we can put to Carolyn tomorrow as part of the discussion, it would be lovely to hear them.

I have a few questions.........
(1) How many kinds of blackhole are there?
(2) How many of these involve a singularity?
(3) How many dont?
(4) Can the event horizon team rule out the existence of any of these kinds at M87 & at Sagitarius A*?
(5) In particular do (1234) support Michell's supersized dark star?
(6) In particular do (1234) support Laplace's supermassive invisible object?
(7) Can non-singularity blackholes or non-singularity dark stars or non-singularity invisible objects have an event horizon?
(8 ) Is the speed of light slowed to nearly 00 kmps near an event horizon? (for a far-away outside observer).
(9) Is the speed of light slowed to 00 kmps inside an event horizon? (for a far-away outside observer).
(10) Is there a maximum mass for a blackhole or for a dark star etc?
(11) Does spin or angular momentum inside the event horizon affect the event horizon?
(12) Does (11) affect the image of the blackhole (or dark star)(or invisible object)?
(13) Do the images prove that Einsteinian blackholes exist, & that singularities exist, & that spacetime exists, & that gravity is the bending of spacetime?
(14) Can such images possibly prove that Einsteinian blackholes exist, & that singularities exist, & that spacetime exists, & that gravity is the bending of spacetime?
(15) What is the possibility that there is a small blackhole etc orbiting close to the big blackhole etc?
(16) What is the possibility that the big blackhole etc is actually a big binary?

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What will the Event Horizon Telescope reveal?

« on: 13/04/2019 05:07:08 »

Here is some written krapp from youtube.................
IT'S dark heart sucks all light and life within reach into an unknown dimension at unimaginable speed... but enough about Brexit - look at this first ever picture of a black hole!
All objects suck all light & life within reach into themselves. The Moon does, but its influence might extend to only say 1mm.  There is no unknown dimension, & there is no need here for an unknown dimension. It is an invented image, not a photo. I think c kmps is not unimaginable, its only 300,000 kmps.
The groundbreaking snap was captured by space scientists using telescopes across the planet in a find that experts have boasted is "a huge breakthrough for humanity".
I dont like snap. I dont like find. We can add this to all of the breakthroughs that have not been for humanity.
The black hole, described by scientists as a "monster", is 24billion miles across - 3million times the size of the Earth.
I wonder whether the black hole is the black area or whether it is the size of the invisible mass, ie the dark star. However an Einsteinian blackhole is supposed to be a singularity with no size or zero size. Or praps the size of a blackhole is the Schwarzschild radius (which i think they say is 1/2.6 the diameter of the black area).   
Sitting about 300 million trillion miles away from our planet, it was photographed by a network of eight telescopes across Earth known as the Event Horizon telescope. When used together, the telescopes have the power of a single telescope "the size of our planet", scientists said. The Event Horizon Telescope has been carrying out an international mission to photograph a black hole and its first results were presented at a conference this afternoon...
There must be a better word than sitting. Standing.  Lying. Laying. Floating. Hanging. Why say our planet, why not just say Earth.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What will the Event Horizon Telescope reveal?

« on: 13/04/2019 04:11:00 »

John Michell in 1783 predicted super massive dark stars that trapped light

About 12 years after Michell, the French mathematician Laplace independently predicted black holes.
- 3 years later, Laplace provided a mathematical proof of their possibility.
- His proof shows that he was thinking in terms of light as particles with some velocity.
- The concepts of the energy of a photon and the mass of a photon only arrived with quantum theory, otherwise Laplace could have made a similar prediction based on the energy of light particles.

See: http://www.narit.or.th/en/files/2009JAHHvol12/2009JAHH...12...90M.pdf

Thanx for that link.
Michell using a ballistic calculation said the Sun would be a dark star if 497 times larger (ie 122,763,473 solar masses). My ballistic calculation based on modern numbers says 485.3.
Here i didnt need GR nor a silly singularity.

I allso using ballistics calculated that we would have a dark star if the same size as Earth & 2156 solar masses.
This reduces to 1079 solar masses if i use GR to calculate the kmps of the slowed light near this dark star. Here i inserted the escape velocity into the equation for gamma.
This reduces to 779 solar masses if i assume that the dark star has an atmosphere with n=1.33 (ie like water), ie slowing the escaping light in that proportion.

Anyhow there is no need for GR or for a singularity. And simple ballistics is good enuff.
So, how will we detect whether a blackhole is a Michellian dark star, or is a Laplacian invisible body, or is an Einsteinian blackhole?

Michell in 1783 said that the Sun would be a dark star if its diameter were 497 times greater, based on the density not changing (or the density profile not changing)(whatever).

Michell didnt explore the possibility that the Sun might become a dark star if its diameter were reduced,
 based on the mass not changing (& the density profile not changing i think). 

I found that using simple ballistic calculations the Sun will become a dark star if its radius is reduced to 2.954 km. Here the escape velocity has to be greater than c kmps.
This increases to 5.907 km if i take into account that the nearness of the Sun slows light, as predicted by Einstein. Here i used GR to calculate the kmps of the slowed light near the Sun, by inserting the escape velocity into the equation for gamma (here c kmps reduces to say c' kmps).
This increases to 8.179 km if in addition to the slowing i assume that the Sun has an atmosphere (corona) with n=1.33 (ie like water), ie slowing the escaping light in that proportion (here c' kmps reduces to c" kmps).

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What will the Event Horizon Telescope reveal?

« on: 12/04/2019 11:41:45 »

I suppose that the wave model would need a smaller mass than the ballistic (corpuscular) model.

As is so often the case, you suppose wrongly.
The escape velocity for a ballistic missile at the event horizon is c.

Yes i am ok with there being a ballistic event horizon, where the ballistic escape velocity is c kmps. Based on the ballistic model being true.

But i believe in a modified ballistic model. Here a photon follows a ballistic traject, but not for simple ballistic reasons, it follows a ballistic traject for aetheric reasons which i wont go into here.  The difference numerically is due to the Einsteinian idea that light is slowed near mass, but that there slowing is not due to Einstein's GR it is due to a photaeno-drag reason which i wont go into here (but am happy to call it a GR effect anyhow)(Einstein possibly deserves some credit here)(albeit for the wrong underlying theory)(which is called equivalence)(nothing to do with the so-called elevator equivalence)(that is another equivalence entirely)(which i wont go into here). 

Anyhow by adding a GR slowing effect it means that, to make an event horizon, a dark star or a blackhole etc can be less massive than praps thort.

However i suspect that the Einsteinologists invent all kinds of observers & then dont remember who is looking up who & who is paying, & Einsteinologists start saying that the light goes straight & it is spacetime that is bent, or that light is not actually slowed near mass but it is the observer's clocks that are slowed, or that it is the lights internal clock, or that Walmart's cheap made in China tapes are easily contracted by relative velocity or something.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What will the Event Horizon Telescope reveal?

« on: 12/04/2019 03:38:38 »

The Wikipedia article mentions that the jet is only seen on one side of the galaxy (our side). A jet on the other side is not excluded, as most of the energy will be directed away from us due to relativistic beaming. It would be hard to see it through the dense population of stars at the center of M87.

At radio wavelengths, symmetrical jets are seen.

It also says that the Jet is at right-angles to the plane of the accretion disk.
- And that the accretion disk is gaining about 80 Earth masses per day (as an average)

If you imagine Saturn as a black hole, the Saturn's rings are the accretion disk (around the equator), and the jet scomes out the North and South poles.

So that should halve the number of models you have put on the table....
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87#Jet

Most of my kinds of blackholes are probly more properly called dark stars because they are made of dark matter & can have little mass.  And i reckon that dark matter resides in the center of all planets etc.  My dark matter is very very dense, it is not atomic, it is more like the neutrons in a neutron star.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What will the Event Horizon Telescope reveal?

« on: 12/04/2019 03:15:05 »

The Wikipedia article mentions that the jet is only seen on one side of the galaxy (our side). A jet on the other side is not excluded, as most of the energy will be directed away from us due to relativistic beaming. It would be hard to see it through the dense population of stars at the center of M87.

At radio wavelengths, symmetrical jets are seen.

It also says that the Jet is at right-angles to the plane of the accretion disk.
- And that the accretion disk is gaining about 80 Earth masses per day (as an average)

If you imagine Saturn as a black hole, the Saturn's rings are the accretion disk (around the equator), and the jet scomes out the North and South poles.

So that should halve the number of models you have put on the table....
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87#Jet

John Michell in 1783 predicted super massive dark stars that trapped light.  He didnt mention GR. He didnt mention a singularity. Stupid i guess.

It's not an intrinsically complex or relativistic idea (as you have pointed out)
Once you have  the understanding of orbits and escape velocities, and a knowledge of the speed of light, you can work out that a big enough (dense enough) thing won't let light escape.

Newton just missed it; he died 1727 but the speed of light was measured in 1728.
I guess John Michell  didn't want to speculate about what would happen.
That's sensible of him. At the time, practically nothing was known about how stars worked. They didn't know what they were made of, not what kept them hot. So what?  Why would you call that "stupid"?

I agree with Michell, GR is not needed (alltho i think that GR does come into play)(the nearness of mass slows the photons), & a singularity aint needed (& i dont believe in a singularity).