Black Holes A Opposed To The Big Bang

Sorry for double posting - technical problems, I have very bad internet connection now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe you misunderstood the intent of my question. Perhaps the way I phrased the query was vague.

Basically I was asking if, when you say GR is wrong, you make that statement within a specific scope of applicability... Which might even be a conceptual interpretation.

I did glance at your last paper listed on arXiv, A GENERALIZATION OF THE LORENTZ ETHER TO GRAVITY WITH GENERAL-RELATIVISTIC LIMIT. Which you have not referenced, as any sort of background for your statement, but would have provided some scope of aplicable intent... Keeping in mind that this was a quick read of the introduction.., while I have no real conceptual objection to a relativistic ether, I have a hard time with the fixed ether and preferred frame of reference inherent in the Lorentz theory. It seems to me that any realistic ether must be dynamic and any preferred frame beyond our ability to define. Note I did not say there can be no preferred frame, just that any preferred frame of reference would be on the same ground as Big Bang theories... And I don't generally comment about creation stories.., the Big Bang and alternatives included. They are too far outside of the limitations of direct experience and provability, to be of any realistic significance.

When you say,

the question I have is what, practically unobservable differences? The statement has little meaning without further definition. It is almost like saying that a photo of a tree made with a 1 megapixel camera is not a picture of the tree because it does not have the same detail that a 12 megapixel camera would have. Setting aside my reference to your paper, the discussion here has only offered singularities, as an unobservable difference.., and I would not say that singularities are minuscule.

Your next sentence is of more interest to me,

I would very much be interested in more specifics about what you believe the relationship between gravity and acceleration (via inertial resistance to acceleration) might be. I tend to believe that inertia and gravity are two sides of the same coin.., which would at least imply that the equivalence principle is an exact truth... But would that not be a discussion for a thread of its own?

So to return to the intent of my original question, do you believe that GR as a description of gravitation, accurately describes the gravitational relationship, between the objects in our solar system? And where does GR begin to involve minuscule unobservable differences? ... Accepting it is a given that GR breaks down completely with the emergence of singularities and at quantum scales.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, if the context of the discussion is GR, I prefer to refer to what is fact in GR, and therefore prefer simply to refer to the Lorentz ether interpretation of the Einstein equations themself. This is a point where one does not have to worry about the differences in the equations between my theory and GR, but the interest remains focussed on the more interesting conceptual questions.

My ether is, of course, dynamic. The ether interpretation of GR itself gives also a dynamic ether. But why you think that to define a preferred frame would be beyond our ability? It is extremely simple. Once you accept the very idea that there may be a preferred frame, the harmonic coordinates are essentially without any competition at all. They extremely simplify the equations, even qualitatively (it is not an accident, that the local existence and uniqueness theorems for GR have been proven in harmonic coordinates). Such an extreme simplification is already reason enough to consider them as preferred. And, then, of course, there is the CMBR frame as the obvious candidate. CMBR as a global frame is, of course, harmonic. Only the time coordinate has to be a little bit modified to obtain harmonic time - but this leaves the same notion of contemporaneity as the standard CMBR coordinates.

What would be the appropriate comparison would be that the tree cannot consist of cells, because on the 1 megapixel photo we are unable to see the cells of the the tree. My point would be that even if a 100 megapixel camera would be necessary to see some vague trace of cells, this would be, of course, sufficient to say that the tree consists of cells. Even if this would be of no everyday use and we cannot even see it.

Of course, GR is a good approximation. It breaks down near the region of horizon formation and near the big bang, but in above cases remains a good approximation even quite close to the region where it breaks down. So I'm very comfortable with having the Einstein equations of GR as a limit in my theory.

What has to be rejected is the GR ideology, with its purely ideological rejection of everything which does not follow relativistic symmetry. An ideology which, in the light of the violation of Bell's inequality, forces people to give up even realism and causality. Yes, the relativists openly reject the Reichenbach principle of common cause! Because they have no choice: Once one accepts the Reichenbach principle, one has to acknowledge that the violation of Bell's inequality has to be explained by a superluminal causal influence. Which would be the end of relativistic ideology. (Without even bothering relativity as a physical theory, because all this is completely unproblematic with a hidden preferred frame.)

I have to acknowledge that questions about the relation between gravity and acceleration, as well as almost everything containing the word "inertia" and arguments about gravity being a force or not, have never bothered me. I had always the impression that discussions about such questions lead to nowhere and only distort thinking.

Instead, the equivalence principle and its interpretation is central. As far as one requires not a full fundamental equivalence, but only unobservability if one is restricted to a certain class of measurements (classical theory, observations of experiments with matter) this principle is completely unproblematic, and I even derive it in my ether theory. If one, instead, requires that even on the most fundamental level there should be no physical difference, you cannot even quantize the theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let me tell you in no uncertain terms. Yes the word is a nonsense, below the belt insult. But your hypocritical indignation is also a joke. While you feel the need to insult me with "coward"and similar jargon, I assure you your insults will be returned...OK?
Now let's both start acting like adults.

 

Two things...Firstly we have never seen nor do we have evidence for any WH, secondly, the BB is not a theory about how or why the Universe/spacetime was created, it's a theory about the evolution of space and time from a Singularity.
Yes, we are allowed to speculate as long as we realise that it remains speculation, and as long as we realise that some speculative scenarios such as the Superforce, are far more logical than others.

The evidence shows that the Universe/spacetime evolved and is still evolving from a hotter denser state. We have no evidence for any WH, nor have we seen any WH.

I do not accept that, and the differences between the BB and BH singularities, as I have previously detailed are accepted mainstream cosmology.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae649.cfm

The BB singularity certainly does exist and is defined by the fact that GR and the known laws of physics break down at t+10-43 seconds.

 

This does not make sense. You are saying that the BB is proven by the fact that GR breaks down at the singularity.

The BB is but one of several creation theories today. Not all start at, or even include a singularity.

 

I'm defining a Singularity as where GR breaks down. I have said nothing about the BB being proven.
A validated QGT could see its removal of course.

 

One big problem for me is that the above automatically implies we are at (or close to) the dead-center of a universe with a definable dead-center. Or you think not?

 

An admission then. But then added to with:
A: That vulgar and arrogant gesture in #57
B: Further below the belt inference as per "Fools such as yourself and Querrus up yonder..." in #59. Seems I needed a lawyer's definition back in #55 that included "or similar variants". But scum will always act as scum no matter what. Especially if they know they can get away with it - see below.

There is a huge and fundamental difference between accurate if biting and sarcastic wording, which I use, and your self-admitted use of below the belt insults and sly inferences that have no basis in fact, and use of which tactics transcends norms of morality.
The disgusting thing is no action was taken following my reporting you shortly after that foul #57 was posted (failed to notice and mention that added bit in #59). Clearly you do indeed have a darling-who-can-do-no-wrong protected status here. So sad.

That implies you ever have. Despite your what, 70 years is it, continually acting like a spoiled pre-teen brat. With tacit blessings 'from above' to so continue. Sigh.

 

Take as much out of context as you like...But remember, if you want to throw insults my way, I'll throw them back......despite the false indignation.

Yep, here we go again...Conspiracies!
Maybe the mods having eyes are also seeing your own nonsense for what it is. Tit for tat.

Yeah whatever sonny.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Pot, kettle , black in actual fact.

 

The observation of the dying pulse train negates your ether gravitional theory. I think I explained that to you before but you didn't agree. Your no black hole ether gravitation theory.

 

Thanks for the link to John Baez, because it exactly supports my point: "In other words, we cannot rule out the possibility that the universe is a very large white hole."

The disagreement about the certainty of existence of the BB singularity remains. I claim that singularities do not exist, and even if a theory predicts them, this only proves that the theory is wrong, not that the singularity exists. Then, given the empirical support of inflation, even the proofs inside GR that it has to exist are no longer decisive. Because these proofs depend on assumptions about matter, assumptions which exclude inflation.

So, it does not even matter how one explains inflation - by assuming GR is wrong, and replacing it with a theory which allows inflation, or by introducing matter forms which allow inflation. Once inflation is allowed, a''(tau) > 0 is possible, it means that a(tau)=0 in some finite time is not necessary.

How the knowledge that existing theories break down below Planck time would allow us to make any positive conclusions (like the existence of a singularity) is something you should explain in detail, at least I don't understand this. In my opinion, BB theory is a theory of the universe based on GR, which contains obviously unphysical parts (the singularity itself), which leaves the open problem about which parts of it can be taken seriously and where it starts to fail. Given that GR in itself does not predict inflation, the inflationary period is a good guess about where it fails.

Regarding your superpower being "far more logical than others" - sorry, this is your personal hope. Or depends on what you consider as the "others" - with sufficiently low criteria you will, of course, find also a lot of theories far less logical than your superpower, like various religious ideas about creation.

 

It would be nice to get an answer to my query in #68.

 

Dying pulse trains show that infalling hot matter looks like it has to look if there would be a GR black hole. Fine. We do not see the typical picture one would expect if the stuff falls on a surface - some explosion on the surface. But if the critical parameter, which defines where this surface has to be located, is small enough (as it has to, to fit inflation) it is far from clear if we would see something.

This may be deadly for some theories with stable stars essentially greater than horizon size. But in my theory, the size of the star would be only an extremely small bit greater than horizon size. One consequence is that only almost exactly vertical light is able to leave at all, everything else falls back on the surface.

Even if the surface would be an ideal mirror, the reflected outgoing flow would meet the remaining part of the incoming flow, which makes it plausible that the energy of the matter hitting the surface will be radiated away not with 100% ideally reflected up, but much more isotropically in various directions. Once I would be able, if necessary, by further decreasing the parameter Y of my theory, to make the angle which allows light to reach infinity smaller, this failure of immediate detection leads, at worst, to some unproblematic upper limits for Y. Anyway, already with the upper limits for Y which are necessary to give an a_min of the universe which is smaller than the a we can observe via the CMBR the part of the radiation which would be able to leave the surface would be already small.

 

No, the universe is homogeneous, the CMBR frame is a global system of coordinates which is homogeneous too. Scientists always use coordinates where the universe is homogenous and everything remains on its "place" in terms of at the same spatial coordinates: In the FRW coordinates
\(ds^2 = d\tau^2 - a^2(\tau) (dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)\) where is no dependence on x,y,z, thus, no center. And these x,y,z are already harmonic, thus, the preferred spatial coordinates of my theory.

 

OK well this leaves me mystified as to the physical significance of a universal absolute time and space marrying up with a homogeneous universe with no center. That might become clear after lots of study of your theory. I do not though have any problem with your answer in #74 which is on a par with what proponents of e.g. Gravastar model say - an extremely redshifted physical surface leads to effectively indistinguishable observations to that of standard BH picture.

 

And we can't rule out the possibility the great spaghetti monster farted also...Like I said, your papers are all highly and purely theoretical.
WH SPECULATION is just that...Speculation. which as it happens I have also speculated on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But it is speculation.
The standard BB model, time dilation and GR are supported by evidence.

Since our theories break down at the PLANCK LEVEL. Singularities exist as defined by such. The theory is not wrong as a result, just limited in range.
That is school boy stuff. And like I said previously, a QGT that extends the parameters may eliminate the singularity.

Speculate all you like, but that's all it is, speculation, unlike the accepted current models.

Theories have zones of applicability where they make correct predictions and match evidence. Newtonian is not invalidated by GR. GR has a wider range of applicabilities and gives more accurate results than Newtonian. A QGT will not invalidate GR, merely extend the zones of applicability.
This is accepted evidenced based mainstream science. You appear to close to your own theoretical possibilities and are unable to see this.

The science world in general, and accepted cosmology in particular disagree with you and says different. GR may not predict Inflation, but ut certainly does not exclude it.

The logic of present cosmological models, are evident in the fact that, we do have evidence for the areas I have mentioned, and the BB, GR and particle physics seem to blend in perfectly with each other.
They are all accepted and are not on trial here. What is on trial is your highly speculative scenarios.

 

I do not understand your point. What you propose to study to clarify what mystifies you?

The importance of the existence of absolute time is actually theoretically. The point that such an absolute time is a viable and reasonable assumption modifies what physicists should accept as reasonable research directions. For example, it makes sense to look for realistic hidden variable interpretations of quantum theory. Or for theories which explain the three generations or the three colors of the standard model of particle physics in terms of a three-dimensional space.

 

Please, don't forget the context: You have claimed that there is some important qualitative difference between the BB and BH singularities.

I have objected - there is only the difference that one is in the future, the other in the past, but that otherwise the singularities themself are indistingushable. Of course, I do not argue that there are white holes, it was simply a point where I have used them to show that your claim is unsupported.

The same evidence which supports GR supports also my theory, because in a simple and natural limit the equations of my theory become the Einstein equations of GR.

Naming nonsense schoolboy stuff does not make it non-nonsense. Singularities do not exist. Theories which propose singularities are wrong. Point. If they break down before reaching the singularities, for some other reasons, like incompatibility with quantum theory, this does not make the wrong theory true, and does not put into existence the nonexisting singularities.

Of course, a QGT can (and probably will) eliminate the singularity. A simple way to obtain a QGT would be to quantize my theory, and, once in this theory these singularities do not exist already at the classical level, they will be eliminated. This also does not make GR - a wrong theory - true and the singularity real.

A nonsensical theory. The problem with this is that until you know where it fails, you don't know the domain of applicability. Until you have a better theory, the domain of applicability is undefined. The usual way to handle this problem is clear: The domain of applicability of a true theory is the whole world. If we know that this is not a possible choice, that means the theory is wrong. This not prevents it from being a useful approximation in some restricted domain of applicability.

GR, together with certain assumptions about matter, excludes it. For example, if one combines GR with the strong energy condition, inflation is excluded.

"There are many matter configurations which violate the strong energy condition, at least from a mathematical perspective. It is not clear whether these violations are physically possible in a classical regime. For instance, a scalar field with a positive potential can violate this condition. Moreover, it is violated in any cosmological inflationary process." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_condition#Strong_energy_condition

On the other hand, to predict the BB singularity as unavoidable, you also need addional assumptions about matter. The same strong energy condition will do the job, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose–Hawking_singularity_theorems#Elements_of_the_theorems
This is Wikipedia level, means, of the type well-known by everybody.

I have not proposed any speculative scenarios. (That we cannot even distinguish the BB from a sufficiently large WH was a point to show that your claim that these have a different qualitative character is unbased, and was in no way a proposal that we really live in a big WH.)

As far as all this is supported by evidence, I support the standard model of cosmology. I have some doubt about the actually accelerated expansion rate - and have given the reference to Wiltshire, who is in a minority position but nonetheless mainstream. I do not doubt that there is inflation - that means, some period in the early universe with a''(tau)>0. What I do not accept are actually fashionable theories about inflation - they are based not on the SM, but on fashionable GUTs, and, therefore, speculative.

I have enough nontrivial ideas in my publications, which disagree with the mainstream, and you are invited to criticize them. But, please, do not invent strawmen of "speculative scenarios" I would have invented, but criticize what I really propose.

 

Please, don't forget the context: You have claimed that there is some important qualitative difference between the BB and BH singularities.

I have objected - there is only the difference that one is in the future, the other in the past, but that otherwise the singularities themself are indistingushable. Of course, I do not argue that there are white holes, it was simply a point where I have used them to show that your claim is unsupported.

The same evidence which supports GR supports also my theory, because in a simple and natural limit the equations of my theory become the Einstein equations of GR.

Naming nonsense schoolboy stuff does not make it non-nonsense. Singularities do not exist. Theories which propose singularities are wrong. Point. If they break down before reaching the singularities, for some other reasons, like incompatibility with quantum theory, this does not make the wrong theory true, and does not put into existence the nonexisting singularities.

Of course, a QGT can (and probably will) eliminate the singularity. A simple way to obtain a QGT would be to quantize my theory, and, once in this theory these singularities do not exist already at the classical level, they will be eliminated. This also does not make GR - a wrong theory - true and the singularity real.

A nonsensical theory. The problem with this is that until you know where it fails, you don't know the domain of applicability. Until you have a better theory, the domain of applicability is undefined. The usual way to handle this problem is clear: The domain of applicability of a true theory is the whole world. If we know that this is not a possible choice, that means the theory is wrong. This not prevents it from being a useful approximation in some restricted domain of applicability.

GR, together with certain assumptions about matter, excludes it. For example, if one combines GR with the strong energy condition, inflation is excluded.

"There are many matter configurations which violate the strong energy condition, at least from a mathematical perspective. It is not clear whether these violations are physically possible in a classical regime. For instance, a scalar field with a positive potential can violate this condition. Moreover, it is violated in any cosmological inflationary process." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_condition#Strong_energy_condition

On the other hand, to predict the BB singularity as unavoidable, you also need addional assumptions about matter. The same strong energy condition will do the job, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose–Hawking_singularity_theorems#Elements_of_the_theorems
This is Wikipedia level, means, of the type well-known by everybody.

I have not proposed any speculative scenarios. (That we cannot even distinguish the BB from a sufficiently large WH was a point to show that your claim that these have a different qualitative character is unbased, and was in no way a proposal that we really live in a big WH.)

As far as all this is supported by evidence, I support the standard model of cosmology. I have some doubt about the actually accelerated expansion rate - and have given the reference to Wiltshire, who is in a minority position but nonetheless mainstream. I do not doubt that there is inflation - that means, some period in the early universe with a''(tau)>0. What I do not accept are actually fashionable theories about inflation - they are based not on the SM, but on fashionable GUTs, and, therefore, speculative, and not supported by any empirical evidence. (Different from inflation itself, which is.)

I have enough nontrivial ideas in my publications, which disagree with the mainstream, and you are invited to criticize them. But, please, do not invent strawmen of "speculative scenarios" I would have invented, but criticize what I really propose.