A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Einsteinians Doubt Einstein's Black Holes (Leave the Sinking Ship)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 10th 21, 12:21 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,011
Default Einsteinians Doubt Einstein's Black Holes (Leave the Sinking Ship)

"But are they [scientists] really seeing the mysterious, featureless pits in space and time predicted by Albert Einstein's theory of gravity, general relativity? Could these objects [black holes] be something else, instead, perhaps some ultradense dark material orbs? [...] Any sign that general relativity is wrong, and that these things are not the knots of pure gravity predicted by the theory, would revolutionize physics." https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6525/116

The speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON, so only Michell's "dark stars" can exist:

"It was Michell who, in a paper for the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, read on 27 November 1783, first proposed the idea that there were such things as black holes, which he called "dark stars". Having accepted Newton's corpuscular theory of light, which posited that light consists of minuscule particles, he reasoned that such particles, when emanated by a star, would be slowed down by its gravitational pull, and thought that it might therefore be possible to determine the star's mass based on the reduction in speed. This insight led in turn to the recognition that a star's gravitational pull might be so strong that the escape velocity would exceed the speed of light. Michell calculated that this would be the case with a star more than 500 times the size of the Sun. Since light would not be able to escape such a star, it would be invisible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell#Black_holes

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old January 10th 21, 10:13 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,011
Default Einsteinians Doubt Einstein's Black Holes (Leave the Sinking Ship)

If judged by their speed alone, photons are Newtonian particles. The speed of light VARIES, both in the presence and in the absence of gravity, just as does the speed of ordinary projectiles (e.g. bullets):

"Emission theory, also called Emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

Even Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old February 4th 21, 12:39 PM posted to sci.astro
General Failure
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Einsteinians Doubt Einstein's Black Holes (Leave the Sinking Ship)

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 13:13:27 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev
wrote:

If judged by their speed alone, photons are Newtonian particles. The speed of light VARIES, both in the presence and in the absence of gravity, just as does the speed of ordinary projectiles (e.g. bullets):

"Emission theory, also called Emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

Even Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92
https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev


I doubt the speed of light, so...
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Einsteinians Leave Einstein's Sinking Ship Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 June 27th 20 05:09 PM
Why Einsteinians Leave the Sinking Ship Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 20th 19 06:23 PM
Why Einsteinians Leave the Sinking Ship Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 August 2nd 17 01:15 PM
EINSTEINIANS LEAVE THE SINKING SHIP Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 December 4th 14 12:29 PM
EINSTEINIANS LEAVE THE SINKING SHIP Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 March 31st 14 06:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.