- Thank you received: 0
Black holes
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
20 years 11 months ago #7070
by tvanflandern
Reply from Tom Van Flandern was created by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />Where and when the the concepts of black holes ('mathematical version') originate? How did 'they' moved on from 'Mitchell star' to singularity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Black holes" were thought up by J.A. Wheeler in the 1940s (when he was still young), and rejected by Einstein. They were based on an extra mathematical singularity in the spacetime metric that occurred because Einstein truncated an expansion in potential to first order, seeing no point in retaining second-order effects that were far beyond any conceivable means of detection at that time. The first singularity is at the origin when distance goes to zero, and can be avoided by the finite size of masses. This second singularity corresponds to what we now call the "event horizon" and cannot be eliminated in the present form of the equations. One of the points made by H. Yilmaz in his "New Theory" is that, when one uses the non-truncated, exponential form of the metric originally develoiped by Einstein, the second sungularity disappears and there is no longer an event horizon.
Wheeler is still alive and proud of his mantle as "the father of black holes". That is unlikely to change while he lives. And more students are being educated in black hole theory every day. -|Tom|-
<br />Where and when the the concepts of black holes ('mathematical version') originate? How did 'they' moved on from 'Mitchell star' to singularity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Black holes" were thought up by J.A. Wheeler in the 1940s (when he was still young), and rejected by Einstein. They were based on an extra mathematical singularity in the spacetime metric that occurred because Einstein truncated an expansion in potential to first order, seeing no point in retaining second-order effects that were far beyond any conceivable means of detection at that time. The first singularity is at the origin when distance goes to zero, and can be avoided by the finite size of masses. This second singularity corresponds to what we now call the "event horizon" and cannot be eliminated in the present form of the equations. One of the points made by H. Yilmaz in his "New Theory" is that, when one uses the non-truncated, exponential form of the metric originally develoiped by Einstein, the second sungularity disappears and there is no longer an event horizon.
Wheeler is still alive and proud of his mantle as "the father of black holes". That is unlikely to change while he lives. And more students are being educated in black hole theory every day. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #7244
by Rudolf
Replied by Rudolf on topic Reply from Rudolf Henning
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">and rejected by Einstein<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Did Einstein ever came to accept this theory? It seems a lot of things are contributed to him but he actually never supported it or oppose some believes.
How well is the truncated problem known today that explains that there is not a singularity? Not being 'part' of the field I have never heard this explanation before. In the physics classes I attended things like these were just never mentioned.
It sounds to me that those that followed only believe what they want to (that fits their own theories) but any correction or problem with the base theory is either ignored or explained away. When it comes to the mainstream of astronomy these kind of facts are almost never heard so everyone believes the 'in' theory. But that is also what you and others in the field have concluded.
Rudolf
Did Einstein ever came to accept this theory? It seems a lot of things are contributed to him but he actually never supported it or oppose some believes.
How well is the truncated problem known today that explains that there is not a singularity? Not being 'part' of the field I have never heard this explanation before. In the physics classes I attended things like these were just never mentioned.
It sounds to me that those that followed only believe what they want to (that fits their own theories) but any correction or problem with the base theory is either ignored or explained away. When it comes to the mainstream of astronomy these kind of facts are almost never heard so everyone believes the 'in' theory. But that is also what you and others in the field have concluded.
Rudolf
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #7076
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Rudolph,
You got that right. Modern day physicists say Einstein refused to accept an ether. What he actually said was that we don't need one to us Relavistic mathematics. Physicists argue that Einstein proved there is no ether but have a look at what Einstien actually thought and said.
*************************************************************8
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einsteinan address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden
******************* Extracts from Einstein's Speech ********************************
More careful reflection teaches us, however, that<font color="yellow"> the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existance of an ether................</font id="yellow">
Recapitulating, we may say that according to<font color="yellow"> the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.</font id="yellow">
<font color="yellow">According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;</font id="yellow"> for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
(((For more information about the truth of the status of Ether See:
www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm )))
ADDITIONALLY:
The following link gives both sides of the issue. They present this and then try to talk it down but for me I see a tend for ether. The dotted lines would be what we should have seen by a theoretical ether at rest. But something is interfering since we don't see but a fraxction of the affect. BUT THERE IS A MOTION BEING DETECTED AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED.
Statistics "Prove" Ether Exists!
Stone M. H. (1997) Statistics "Prove" Ether Exists! Rasch Measurement Transactions 11:1 p. 541.
Carver's (1993) reanalysis of data from the famed 1887 Mickelson-Morley experiment demonstrates that the hypothesis, "the speed of light depends on the direction of travel through the ether", cannot be rejected even at a .001 level of statistical significance. Thus ether is confirmed and Einstein's Theory of Relativity invalidated.
www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt111c.htm
To see the graphics click on the link.
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
You got that right. Modern day physicists say Einstein refused to accept an ether. What he actually said was that we don't need one to us Relavistic mathematics. Physicists argue that Einstein proved there is no ether but have a look at what Einstien actually thought and said.
*************************************************************8
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einsteinan address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden
******************* Extracts from Einstein's Speech ********************************
More careful reflection teaches us, however, that<font color="yellow"> the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existance of an ether................</font id="yellow">
Recapitulating, we may say that according to<font color="yellow"> the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.</font id="yellow">
<font color="yellow">According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;</font id="yellow"> for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
(((For more information about the truth of the status of Ether See:
www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm )))
ADDITIONALLY:
The following link gives both sides of the issue. They present this and then try to talk it down but for me I see a tend for ether. The dotted lines would be what we should have seen by a theoretical ether at rest. But something is interfering since we don't see but a fraxction of the affect. BUT THERE IS A MOTION BEING DETECTED AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED.
Statistics "Prove" Ether Exists!
Stone M. H. (1997) Statistics "Prove" Ether Exists! Rasch Measurement Transactions 11:1 p. 541.
Carver's (1993) reanalysis of data from the famed 1887 Mickelson-Morley experiment demonstrates that the hypothesis, "the speed of light depends on the direction of travel through the ether", cannot be rejected even at a .001 level of statistical significance. Thus ether is confirmed and Einstein's Theory of Relativity invalidated.
www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt111c.htm
To see the graphics click on the link.
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 11 months ago #6959
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />Did Einstein ever came to accept this theory?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No. In fact, he wrote an extensive and well-reasoned paper showing why black holes were impossible.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It seems a lot of things are contributed to him but he actually never supported it or oppose some believes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are correct. It has become fashionable to wear Einstein's mantle while spouting nonsense.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How well is the truncated problem known today that explains that there is not a singularity? Not being 'part' of the field I have never heard this explanation before. In the physics classes I attended things like these were just never mentioned.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Yilmaz "New Theory" is recognized, but not credited, by most relativists. Unfortunately, because they wish to suppress Yilmaz's theory, they also ignore his plainly valid point about black holes.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It sounds to me that those that followed only believe what they want to (that fits their own theories) but any correction or problem with the base theory is either ignored or explained away. When it comes to the mainstream of astronomy these kind of facts are almost never heard so everyone believes the 'in' theory. But that is also what you and others in the field have concluded.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Right again. That seems to be what happens in most human groups. They are formed for some good purpose. Then those in control start to give priority to actions that will keep them in control. They rationalize plainly wrong actions on the grounds that they are for the greater long term good because they know what is best for all of us.
This characteristic behavior can be applied to most fields of human endeavor. By mid-career, most people work to advance themselves rather than the goals of their youth. -|Tom|-
<br />Did Einstein ever came to accept this theory?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No. In fact, he wrote an extensive and well-reasoned paper showing why black holes were impossible.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It seems a lot of things are contributed to him but he actually never supported it or oppose some believes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are correct. It has become fashionable to wear Einstein's mantle while spouting nonsense.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How well is the truncated problem known today that explains that there is not a singularity? Not being 'part' of the field I have never heard this explanation before. In the physics classes I attended things like these were just never mentioned.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Yilmaz "New Theory" is recognized, but not credited, by most relativists. Unfortunately, because they wish to suppress Yilmaz's theory, they also ignore his plainly valid point about black holes.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It sounds to me that those that followed only believe what they want to (that fits their own theories) but any correction or problem with the base theory is either ignored or explained away. When it comes to the mainstream of astronomy these kind of facts are almost never heard so everyone believes the 'in' theory. But that is also what you and others in the field have concluded.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Right again. That seems to be what happens in most human groups. They are formed for some good purpose. Then those in control start to give priority to actions that will keep them in control. They rationalize plainly wrong actions on the grounds that they are for the greater long term good because they know what is best for all of us.
This characteristic behavior can be applied to most fields of human endeavor. By mid-career, most people work to advance themselves rather than the goals of their youth. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #6960
by Rudolf
Replied by Rudolf on topic Reply from Rudolf Henning
Very interesting. Its like I thought, only those experiments and facts that suits popular theories are taugth or mentioned to uphold those theories. The rest is disregarded.
Is there any reason why Dayton Miller's experiments cannot be redone with modern equipment? If his findings were accurate the same results would at least be found again and the fact that it is decades since would just make the case stronger.
Rudolf
Is there any reason why Dayton Miller's experiments cannot be redone with modern equipment? If his findings were accurate the same results would at least be found again and the fact that it is decades since would just make the case stronger.
Rudolf
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 11 months ago #6961
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />Is there any reason why Dayton Miller's experiments cannot be redone with modern equipment? If his findings were accurate the same results would at least be found again and the fact that it is decades since would just make the case stronger.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">GPS has shown that the speed of light in the ECI frame is invariant to less than 12 <i>meters</i> per second in all directions in space at all times of the day and the year to 1000 times better precision than Miller's experiments.
Whatever caused Miller's signal, it was not in space. It happened in his laboratory. -|Tom|-
<br />Is there any reason why Dayton Miller's experiments cannot be redone with modern equipment? If his findings were accurate the same results would at least be found again and the fact that it is decades since would just make the case stronger.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">GPS has shown that the speed of light in the ECI frame is invariant to less than 12 <i>meters</i> per second in all directions in space at all times of the day and the year to 1000 times better precision than Miller's experiments.
Whatever caused Miller's signal, it was not in space. It happened in his laboratory. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.923 seconds