A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Einstein's Black Holes or Michell's Dark Stars?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 10th 19, 11:01 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Black Holes or Michell's Dark Stars?

"By all accounts, black holes should not exist, and for a long time, they were shrugged off as mere mathematical artifacts - an annoying bug in the otherwise elegant machinery of general relativity. [...] And oh boy, did the evidence start to come in. A massive dying star, orbiting an unseen companion that pulls on its atmosphere so much it emits powerful X-rays. Stars in the center of the Milky Way orbiting a massive, hidden object. Powerful radio sources emanating from active galaxies, with energies only reached through immense gravity coupled to fantastic rotation. And most recently, the subtle whisper of gravitational waves sloshing over the Earth. The inescapable conclusion: Black holes are real." https://www.space.com/38091-the-exis...ack-holes.html

The "massive, hidden objects" are actually Michell's dark stars:

"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

Einstein's black-hole theory, general relativity, is absurd - it posits that the speed of light falling in a gravitational field DECREASES (the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g near Earth's surface):

"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached. [...] If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious." http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm

"...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass).. [...] You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. [...] Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

"Thus, as φ becomes increasingly negative (i.e., as the magnitude of the potential increases), the radial "speed of light" c_r defined in terms of the Schwarzschild parameters t and r is reduced to less than the nominal value of c." https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

This absurd decrease in the speed of falling light was a fudge factor Einstein had to introduce in his 1915 "theory", in order to reconcile the miraculous gravitational time dilation he had fabricated in 1911 and the gravitational redshift predicted by Newton's theory.

Actually the speed of falling light INCREASES (near Earth's surface the acceleration of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2), as predicted by Newton's theory and unequivocally confirmed by the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment:

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. 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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old April 10th 19, 05:10 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Black Holes or Michell's Dark Stars?

National Science Foundation/EHT Press Conference Announcing First Image of Black Hole:

"In general relativity radio waves fall just as apples do" https://youtu.be/lnJi0Jy692w?t=3395

Not true. They fall like that in Newton's theory - their speed INCREASES - while in general relativity the speed of falling light absurdly DECREASES.

Post-truth science, as usual.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old April 10th 19, 09:21 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Black Holes or Michell's Dark Stars?

Einsteinians don't even know what general relativity predicts:

Avery Broderick: "In general relativity radio waves fall just as apples do" https://youtu.be/lnJi0Jy692w?t=1406

Falling with the same acceleration as apples is a prediction of Newton's theory - Einstein's general relativity predicts that the speed of falling light absurdly DECREASES. Avery Broderick doesn't know that. He only knows that general relativity has been gloriously confirmed and accordingly a lot of money will be coming his way. LIGO godfathers are his role models.

Pentcho Valev
 




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
DARK-ENERGY STARS vs. BLACK HOLES Double-A[_1_] Misc 54 October 21st 07 10:54 PM
DARK-ENERGY STARS vs. BLACK HOLES G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 11 October 12th 07 09:23 PM
Black Holes, Dark Stars, and Garbage Cans DarkStar Misc 27 July 19th 06 03:24 PM
Black Holes, Dark Stars, and Garbage Cans DarkStar UK Astronomy 15 July 15th 06 08:37 PM
Black Holes, Dark Stars, and Garbage Cans DarkStar Astronomy Misc 16 July 15th 06 08:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.