# Gravity : An alternative approach

The forces of the formation of a BH are in no way infinite.

How much force (counter pressure) is required to hold on to the collapse once the core is beneath its Event Horizon?

How much force (counter pressure) is required to hold on to the collapse once the core is beneath its Event Horizon?
Don't ask me...It's not infinite though.

Contd.

1. The total stretch of space between two objects will depend on the masses of these objects and distance between them.
2. The stretch at any given point between two objects will also depend on mass and the distance.

Few other predictions and explanations.
1. The G will be variable and direction dependent. Can be easily proved in lab.
2. Cosmological Redshift is actually nothing but this stretching. No recession velocity required.
3. The variable G, dependent on stretch, ensures no significant strong force between nucleus and orbitting G electrons.
4. This proposal covers and explains Asymptotic Freedom between quark quark.
5. Strong nuclear force is not a residual strong interaction, it is the manifestation of variable gravity.

Contd.

1. The total stretch of space between two objects will depend on the masses of these objects and distance between them.
2. The stretch at any given point between two objects will also depend on mass and the distance.
If you are saying that spacetime expands over larger universal scales, although over smaller denser scales, gravity decouples from that expansion then you are essentially correct.
Few other predictions and explanations.
2. Cosmological Redshift is actually nothing but this stretching. No recession velocity required.
A weird statement to say the least.
Cosmological redshift is a result of the expansion of the Universe and indicates the observed recessional velocity.
3. The variable G, dependent on stretch, ensures no significant strong force between nucleus and orbitting G electrons.
The strong force is mediated only over short distances within the nucleus.
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/quantum/faq/electron-confinement-to-nucleus.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
5. Strong nuclear force is not a residual strong interaction, it is the manifestation of variable gravity.
No.
http://aether.lbl.gov/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html

If G is taken as variable depending on the stretching, then every observation can be explained starting from Quark Quark interaction to high redshifts.

Why can we not take G as variable, notwithstanding it's name Gravitational Constant.

1. G is different between two quarks of a nucleon...very high.
2. G is different between every subsequent nucleon being added to a nucleus...making a nucleus unstable beyond certain atomic number as the repulsion takes over the gravitational force.
3. G is normal (prevailing) for atoms and beyond.
4. G will be almost same, albeit higher, near a Neutron Star.
5. Beyond Neutron Star, as soon as, Q-Q stretch is reduced, G reduces, and the energy is released, thus preventing formation of singularity.

In my earlier proposal I had suggested that due to Asymptotic Freedom the energy is released, but in this case the Asymptotic Freedom itself can be exclaimed by variable G and stretching.

If G is taken as variable depending on the stretching, then every observation can be explained starting from Quark Quark interaction to high redshifts.

Why can we not take G as variable, notwithstanding it's name Gravitational Constant.
.
You can fabricate any supposed scenario that you wish, to add credibility to your erroneous hypothesis, but don't expect others to take you seriously.
Let me make a few points:
[1] When the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.
[2] This invokes the Singularity where quantities lead to infinity and our laws of physics and GR are unclear at best.
[3] During this collapse, gravity overcomes all other forces including the strong nuclear force.
[4] Most cosmologists believe that a future QGT will eliminate the Singularity, and probably a surface of sorts, and the mass in an unknown state.
[5] BH's were indirectly observed many years ago, while more direct validation of their existence was forthcoming with the recent aLIGO experiment.

I think until some great mind comes up with a quantum theory of gravity we will be somewhat in the dark.
GR tells us that matter tells space how to curve etc but it does not tell us how the message is processed.
Until we know how gravity works GR is the best model.
When I spent time thinking about gravity I realised we take for granted the idea of attraction as I could not find anything dealing with attraction that established that it is a force.
So I think the key may be nailing down the physical interaction between masses that GR describes as the curving of space.
And I complement Rajesh on a fine performance at Cosmoquest ... I don't know that anyone has had a victory there and he did better than most.
Very courageous attempt and you can be proud that you made the effort.
I must say that although the push gravity idea has many problems that in time these difficulties will be explained. Advocates of GR seems to regard a mechanical explanation of gravity as a threat to GR but I think whatever comes from that side can only complement GR and explain what is going on when we say space bends.
The only question I would like answered before I die is...how does gravity work ?..oh there is another...how does attraction work?
Alex

And I complement Rajesh on a fine performance at Cosmoquest ... I don't know that anyone has had a victory there and he did better than most.
Very courageous attempt and you can be proud that you made the effort.
Yes, certainly a courageous attempt, and I also congratulated him on that fact in the other thread here.
As you say, no one has had a victory there, [if you can call it that ] but also just as obviously, any alternative hypothesis must first falsify or invalidate the incumbent model. I don't believe he went close to doing that, and his argument was rebuffed on three or four points.
He was also "red penned" twice for avoiding questions.

I think it highlights the fact that in reality anyone that believes he has a valid alternative explanation to an incumbent theory, would not be presenting it on a forum such as this [or Cosmoquest] If the theory has any substance, then it will stand and/or fall on that substance through proper peer review of recognised publishers and scientific reviewers.

any alternative hypothesis must first falsify or invalidate the incumbent model.
I absolutely agree on the one hand but, an this is no more than a belief, but I see no reason for GR to be falsified before a quantum model of gravity can advance our understanding.
Anyways I have everything worked out but because I am modest and shy will wait for another human to come up with what I already know.
(Insert wink emo here)
Do you have anything re attraction...the more I thought about it the more it seemed to me that there can not be a mechanism that we label "attraction".
I conclude this because the information would seem to require a " round trip" ... My problem is I don't know zip but my mind presents strange questions....old age I guess.

Alex

I absolutely agree on the one hand but, an this is no more than a belief, but I see no reason for GR to be falsified before a quantum model of gravity can advance our understanding.
Anyways I have everything worked out but because I am modest and shy will wait for another human to come up with what I already know.
(Insert wink emo here)
Do you have anything re attraction...the more I thought about it the more it seemed to me that there can not be a mechanism that we label "attraction".
I conclude this because the information would seem to require a " round trip" ... My problem is I don't know zip but my mind presents strange questions....old age I guess.

Alex

No, it is not correct to say that an alternative hypothesis must falsify the existing theory.

What is crucial here is that the subject of gravity is still open, there are numerous attempts and theories for gravity, but the best so far is GR. So a new theory has to do better with lesser number of assumptions, it need not falsify GR as such.

Another unscientific and ostrich like approach is the expectation that as and when Quantum Theory of Gravity comes, then such issues around GR will be resolved. We will see as and when it comes, as of now we really do not know what would be the nature of QGT.

You can fabricate any supposed scenario that you wish, to add credibility to your erroneous hypothesis, but don't expect others to take you seriously.
Let me make a few points:
[1] When the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.
[2] This invokes the Singularity where quantities lead to infinity and our laws of physics and GR are unclear at best.
[3] During this collapse, gravity overcomes all other forces including the strong nuclear force.
[4] Most cosmologists believe that a future QGT will eliminate the Singularity, and probably a surface of sorts, and the mass in an unknown state.
[5] BH's were indirectly observed many years ago, while more direct validation of their existence was forthcoming with the recent aLIGO experiment.

I will comment on #4, because that appears to be full of mistaken expectation from QGT.

No scientist who is working on QGT expects that he would find a surface of sort at Quantum Level for collapsed mass.

Yes, certainly a courageous attempt, and I also congratulated him on that fact in the other thread here.
As you say, no one has had a victory there, [if you can call it that ] but also just as obviously, any alternative hypothesis must first falsify or invalidate the incumbent model. I don't believe he went close to doing that, and his argument was rebuffed on three or four points.
He was also "red penned" twice for avoiding questions.

I think it highlights the fact that in reality anyone that believes he has a valid alternative explanation to an incumbent theory, would not be presenting it on a forum such as this [or Cosmoquest] If the theory has any substance, then it will stand and/or fall on that substance through proper peer review of recognised publishers and scientific reviewers.

There are few things here which require clarifications.

A. None of the objections raised by other posters remained unanswered. There was no objection which could conclusively thwart or dismiss my idea.

B. Red penning by the Mod was for asking me to respond, not on any technical point, I was deferring my response as I had pushed my proposal in two parts and I wanted to regulate my response in phased manner. But since one of the posters jumped into second part, the Mod wanted it to be covered ASAP.

C. This work (No Black Hole Singularity) was accepted for publication, but I am still searching for a larger picture and I found something amiss which I am still not able to pin point. That's why I did not opt for publication even yet.

The present idea of gravity as stretch, also leads to no black hole singularity, and it is much more comprehensive, but it requires very detailed maths. The best part is that this proposal qualitatively explains all the observations without resorting to DM/DE etc. From strong nuclear force to nuclear force to weak force to gravity. All observed phenomena can be explained without any fufge factor.

I will comment on #4, because that appears to be full of mistaken expectation from QGT.

No scientist who is working on QGT expects that he would find a surface of sort at Quantum Level for collapsed mass.
So, if as most scientists suggest, that infinite quantities are not reached, what do you suggest that they find?
ps: Please do not use this to promote your already invalidated BNS, just below the EH proper.

There are few things here which require clarifications.

A. None of the objections raised by other posters remained unanswered. There was no objection which could conclusively thwart or dismiss my idea.
Of course you gave answers [sometimes ] but those answers did not clarify or validate your position one iota. eg; "if an object is beneath its Schwarzschild radius, then it does not mean that the inner most part is also inside its (innermost part's) Schwarzschild radius"
and
"2016-Sep-19 IF04: Please show that no matter what the "packing ratio" of neutrons is a neutron star cannot reduce its radius below the Schwarzschild radius.
Part II:
2016-Sep-28 IF05: Why is the motion of quarks inside neutrons which can bring them close together somehow exempt from your "energy release".
2016-Sep-28 IF06: How does the "energy release" get outside of a neutron?
"

B. Red penning by the Mod was for asking me to respond, not on any technical point, I was deferring my response as I had pushed my proposal in two parts and I wanted to regulate my response in phased manner. But since one of the posters jumped into second part, the Mod wanted it to be covered ASAP.
You were essentially admonished for obfuscating and avoidence in answering questions, twice, the last as follows.....
"Start answering the questions that are put to you to the fullest, and no more stalling. Infraction".
C. This work (No Black Hole Singularity) was accepted for publication, but I am still searching for a larger picture and I found something amiss which I am still not able to pin point. That's why I did not opt for publication even yet.
Many hypothetical, speculative works are accepted for publication, and of course some less then reputable publishing companies even accept scientifically invalidated stuff as you well know.
The present idea of gravity as stretch, also leads to no black hole singularity, and it is much more comprehensive, but it requires very detailed maths. The best part is that this proposal qualitatively explains all the observations without resorting to DM/DE etc. From strong nuclear force to nuclear force to weak force to gravity. All observed phenomena can be explained without any fufge factor.
DM while originally being a fudge factor to explain certain anomalies, is now an accepted part of cosmology and has been indirectly observed.
DE is simply the logical extension of explaining the acceleration in the expansion rate as per data, although the nature of it is unknown.

Let me add that over in "Cosmoquest" they do not necessarily say you have failed to achieve what you set out to achieve, rather the thread is simply closed without any intended emberressment for the proposer.

Another unscientific and ostrich like approach is the expectation that as and when Quantum Theory of Gravity comes, then such issues around GR will be resolved
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
I would have thought the place to start with gravity would be to analyse what happens when we describe an action as "attraction".

GR does not seem to deal with any force but at some point to understand how gravity works do you not think we must work out what information passes between masses.

In other words what is happening such that we call our observation attraction.

Does each mass send out particles with a message " I am here where you you?" and on receipt of such a message does the receiving mass send a message "yes I am here I am a mass of 10 klgs"...

Can you explain for me the science behind attraction?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Alex

So, if as most scientists suggest, that infinite quantities are not reached, what do you suggest that they find?
ps: Please do not use this to promote your already invalidated BNS, just below the EH proper.

Point is finding surface of sort at "Quantum level".

Thank you for taking the time to comment.
I would have thought the place to start with gravity would be to analyse what happens when we describe an action as "attraction".

GR does not seem to deal with any force but at some point to understand how gravity works do you not think we must work out what information passes between masses.

In other words what is happening such that we call our observation attraction.

Does each mass send out particles with a message " I am here where you you?" and on receipt of such a message does the receiving mass send a message "yes I am here I am a mass of 10 klgs"...

Can you explain for me the science behind attraction?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Alex

Of course you gave answers [sometimes ] but those answers did not clarify or validate your position one iota. eg; "if an object is beneath its Schwarzschild radius, then it does not mean that the inner most part is also inside its (innermost part's) Schwarzschild radius"
and
"2016-Sep-19 IF04: Please show that no matter what the "packing ratio" of neutrons is a neutron star cannot reduce its radius below the Schwarzschild radius.
Part II:
2016-Sep-28 IF05: Why is the motion of quarks inside neutrons which can bring them close together somehow exempt from your "energy release".
2016-Sep-28 IF06: How does the "energy release" get outside of a neutron?
"

You were essentially admonished for obfuscating and avoidence in answering questions, twice, the last as follows.....
"Start answering the questions that are put to you to the fullest, and no more stalling. Infraction".

Many hypothetical, speculative works are accepted for publication, and of course some less then reputable publishing companies even accept scientifically invalidated stuff as you well know.

DM while originally being a fudge factor to explain certain anomalies, is now an accepted part of cosmology and has been indirectly observed.
DE is simply the logical extension of explaining the acceleration in the expansion rate as per data, although the nature of it is unknown.

Let me add that over in "Cosmoquest" they do not necessarily say you have failed to achieve what you set out to achieve, rather the thread is simply closed without any intended emberressment for the proposer.

Please refer to calculations given, a one million solar mass object just beneath it's schwarzschild radius (around 3 million kms). If you consider the inner 1 million km part of this object, then that part is not inside part's schwarzschild radius (assuming constant density), of course it is inside overall object's schwarzschild radius but not it's own.

The demand of 'any packing ratio' was unscientific. Packing ratio is quite established at 0.74, you may read about keppler conjecture.

Motion of quarks inside a Neutron may bring them closer under normal conditions, so they must radiate energy, but they don't. This was a paradox that how come quarks under such strong interaction do not radiate. The solution to this paradox lies with Asymptotic Freedom Theory itself, not under my proposal. I am claiming that energy release is triggered in presence of external gravitational compaction when quark quark equilibrium is challenged.

Energy release takes place in the inner most region, it traverses out as the Neutron Star core is super conducting.

PS: can you pin point any error in my response to all the four objections.

Last edited:
Please refer to calculations given, a one million solar mass object just beneath it's schwarzschild radius (around 3 million kms). If you consider the inner 1 million km part of this object, then that part is not inside part's schwarzschild radius (assuming constant density), of course it is inside overall object's schwarzschild radius but not it's own.

The demand of 'any packing ratio' was unscientific. Packing ratio is quite established at 0.74, you may read about keppler conjecture.

Motion of quarks inside a Neutron may bring them closer under normal conditions, so they must radiate energy, but they don't. This was a paradox that how come quarks under such strong interaction do not radiate. The solution to this paradox lies with Asymptotic Freedom Theory itself, not under my proposal. I am claiming that energy release is triggered in presence of external gravitational compaction when quark quark equilibrium is challenged.

Energy release takes place in the inner most region, it traverses out as the Neutron Star core is super conducting.

PS: can you pin point any error in my response to all the four objections.
Simply what you claim re the EH and the manner you claim it, makes no sense, just as you were told again, and again, and again, and again over at cosmoquest.
And no, I'm not going into it any further, sorry about that. You had your day with your BNS hypothetical and it was shown to be irrational as well.