Mathematician Claims Black Holes Don't Add Up!

reply to post by constantwonder


Certainly there is no black hole at Sagittarius A*, since black holes are fantasy. What is there is to be determined by legitimate scientific analysis.

Astronomers Gillessen, Genzel and Esienhauer of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, who have conducted observations of Sagittarius A*, have admitted that not only did they not find a black hole there, but that despite all claims to the contrary, nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere. Here is their admission, amongst others:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Gillessen.html

I'm a bit of a layman when it comes to this stuff, but if this is all correct what does it mean for physics as a whole. Does it mean no big bang as well? Also are there any practical implications for uses in technology from this?

This was a great read, can't say I understood it all but it was interesting

Originally posted by S.J.Crothers
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Owing to its simplicity I give here the simple proof that infinite density is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity. That is of itself sufficient to invalidate the notion of the black hole. The proof requires only algebra that 16 year olds have learnt at school.

The black hole is alleged to have an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. It is allegedly obtained from General Relativity, which is called General because it is a generalization of Special Relativity to include the gravitational field. Thus, by definition, General Relativity cannot violate Special Relativity. Indeed, Einstein explicitly stated that in a sufficiently small region of his gravitational field the laws of Special Relativity must hold. Now recall that according to Special Relativity no material body can acquire the speed c of light in vacuum.

Also, according to Special Relativity there is no absolute motion, only relative motion between bodies. Consider two bodies at rest (i.e. their relative velocity is zero), one of rest-mass Mo and one of rest-mass mo. Let each of these rest-masses be cuboid in shape, of sides Lo and Xo respectively.

Now let the masses have a relative velocity of magnitude v. Consider the situation from the perspective of the mass Mo. According to Special Relativity the observer with mass Mo sees a change in the mass mo according to the relation

m = mo /√(1 – v^2/c^2)

and the volume V of the other mass observed by Mo is given by

V = Xo^3 √(1 – v^2/c^2).

Recall from high school that the density D of a body is defined as the mass divided by its volume. Accordingly, the density observed by Mo is

D = m/V = mo / [Xo^3(1 – v^2/c^2)].

This becomes infinite as v approaches c. But no material body can acquire the speed c according to the fundamental hypothesis of Special Relativity. Therefore, Special Relativity forbids infinite density. Since General Relativity cannot violate Special Relativity it too forbids infinite density. But the black hole singularity is alleged to be infinitely dense, in violation of the Theory of Relativity. Hence, the black hole is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity.

This result is reciprocal, i.e. it is the same from the point of view of the observer of rest-mass mo.

You seem to miss out on the simplest part of the whole matter and energy conversion.

The equation you state is very simple.

I can't see why none have explained it before me but here I go.

Hey it is INERTIAL MASS THAT INCREASES WITH SPEED. NOT REST MASS!

Motion doesn't increase mass at all. It just makes the mass harder to move. If you didn't get that then I call b.s.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]

reply to post by S.J.Crothers


Your so-called proof that General Relativity (GR) forbids infinite density is conceptually flawed. Firstly, your inference from the fact that GR is a generalisation of Special Relativity (SR) that, by definition, GR cannot violate SR is illogical. SR cannot violate GR because SR is a special case of the latter in which space-time is Minkowski. But GR can certainly violate SR because it applies to the general case of 4-d Riemann manifolds with non-zero curvature, in which observers are non-inertial and light geodesics are curved lines, rather than the straight lines of Minkowski space-time.

Your fundamental error of logic, on which your conclusion depends, is therefore to say that GR cannot violate SR. The latter certainly holds approximately in a gravitational field if the latter is weak enough (or over sufficiently small distances). But not exactly. In particular, the Lorentz transformation equations are exactly valid only in the absence of a gravitational field, where all observers move at constant relative speed.

Secondly, whilst it is certainly true that SR forbids objects reaching the speed of light, it does not hold in the physical situation of a collapsing black hole. It is therefore incorrect to deduce from the fact that the inertial mass and density of an object approaches infinity as its speed approaches the velocity of light that SR forbids an object acquiring infinite density in any space-time (e.g., that of a collapsing black hole). The Lorentz transformation equations do not apply in a gravitational field and no legitimate deductions about the nature of black holes can be made from them. Your inference is therefore invalid because it is an elementary error of logic to claim that what can be deduced from a special case of a theory applies to the general theory itself.

According to the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems:
en.academic.ru...
singularities must inevitable arise in spacetimes containing matter that obeys certain conditions (e.g., positive energy).

Singularities can be avoided in Riemann-Cartan manifolds containing torsion as well as curvature, i.e., by considering matter with spin angular momentum, the gravitational effect of which is a repulsive force that counteracts the attractive, gravitational force. This has been known for over 50 years. They violate the Hawking-Penrose theorems because the conditions assumed to hold for these theorems to be valid no longer pertain when space-times have non-zero torsion.

Yes! I knew it.
some things just dont seem right.
ok I know that's very scientific LOL.
but to believe what they say a black hole is.
is stupid. absolute gravity? and time?

and recently scientist said gravity was not real?

its like the Buddhist story.
about an elephant and blind men.
the blind men say what a elephant is.
a rope-tail a snake-trunk,
a tree-led. a big rock-the body,
a big leaf-ear.
and this is what the scientists are doing.
but they say what they find as a absolute truth.
they believe they are Wright all the time.
just look at the past.
flat earth!

dont believe what a scientists says.
they are little children.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by buddha]

Could it be that black holes are giant stars that don't allow even light to escape? these stars could not be singularities, they could simply have the highest density matter allows.

I find these debates very interesting, i'm no expert just a mere enthusiast but do have this to add:

Some time ago I watched a documentary called 'the death star' (BBC horizon) and although I can't remember exactly all the points made here is what I do remember (i'm sure the documentary is online so search for it!).

At the height of cold war the US suspected Russia of testing nukes on the far side of the moon, subsequently the US sent up a satellite to detect gamma ray bursts emitted by nuke blasts. What was discovered were huge gamma rays bursts far more powerful than any man made bomb could be, coming from many different locations in space.

They first suspected neutron stars to be the culprits (caused by something hitting their surface) however, when they determined the distance of the source of these blasts (using red shift**) the distances were so great that they broke the e-mc2 rule (if the gamma rays were emitted in all directions). It was then determined that black holes were the culprits due to gamma ray burst being spat out in two jets (rather than in all directions) when these black holes were swallowing matter.

**red shift was used to determine the distance of the source however gamma rays can't be 'red shifted' but the material that the gamma rays pass through can be measured**

Aside from the above, i'm sure i've heard that Einstein or at least general relativity suggested the existence of black holes? As I said above, im no expert so rely on factual information in documentaries, i have no reason to doubt that the BBC lied in any way about the above.

[edit] punctuation

[edit on 2-9-2010 by enduser]

Originally posted by buddha
absolute gravity? and time?

[edit on 2-9-2010 by buddha]

As far as I know, scientists dont really believe that a black hole singularity has infinite density. Quantum theories of gravity predict high, but finite densities.

Could it be that black holes are giant stars that don't allow even light to escape? these stars could not be singularities, they could simply have the highest density matter allows.

Yeah, you nailed it.

Love moves from image to frontier. -Americanist

www.myspace.com...

You'll find information inside those blogs (view all).

As additional reference (youtube or google search terms):

Dale Pond - Keely, SVP
Marko Rodin - (look for a 44pt Lecture Series) Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry