0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

My approach is not Lorenzian-type approach, because Lorenz treats time as something that is completely independent. And not only because of that, but that is the key point.Minkowski’s idea (that time is intrinsical to space) is, essentially, correct, but everything else is wrong.

In my theory, we havewhere

That what scientists believe to be the black-holes, are massive dense bodies. Black holes cannot exist because they violate the fundamental laws of existence. They are product of imagination, mathematically modeled imagination, which emerged from the GR equations, which do not describe reality precisely, they are an approximation of reality.

Solutions derived in GR are not exact solutions, but approximate solutions. In these solutions, Schwarzschild's radius is the discontinuity point. It is not. It is the minimal possible radius of a body of a given mass, and such body is not black hole.

So you eliminate the singularity and the problems which that would cause, and I'm guessing that you wouldn't be able to detect the difference between your equivalent of a black hole and a black hole. Would I be right in thinking then that you could have an equivalent of a big bang, but without there ever being a singularity? This would be an important technical difference, but would again make no difference to what we're observing.

Zordim, a huge amount of work has gone into this but I have a challenge. What it is, is to do it again without reference to the concept of Force or the concept of Inertia. The reason I ask is that I am reasonably sure mathematics has given both these concepts a respectability they don't deserve, such as mathematics did with the concept of aether. It's all in the spirit of imaginagation over mathematics.

Zordim, can it be claimed, with any degree of certainty, that any object is at rest?