Black Holes could they be an illusion

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

... and as I say the sums tell us that in a black hole time stops GR either says it stops or not.. I am sure that is what is says so either I have it wrong or that is the way of it... I have seen comentary from true believers that one can expect to be able to time travell using the science relating to black holes... ticks me off but that sort of stuff is out there and not on crack pot sites but put forward by legit folks..have a look around the science daily site or the like and you will find an article along those lines... fits into the same box as worm holes..crap from extrapolation of the sums I feel.

alex

Alex,

I agree, using Black Holes to travel back in time is pure fantasy.
However, in a sense, you can go forward in time (i.e. lose time). Basically, special relativity says that time can slow down for one observer moving relative to another. If I was away for 20 years, travelling around at a speed of 4c/5 during this time, this would be equivalent to about 33 years for an observer B on Earth. When I got back, I would have skipped 13 years of normal Earth time.
General relativity says this same effect can be achieved by gravitation. For a Black Hole, the higher gravity would result in a slower time for observer A near the Event Horizon relative to distant observer B. If it were possible for them to meet up later, observer A would have aged less than observer B.

Rob

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by Insane Climber

But didn't we already affirm that the great distance involved means that gravity would not be strong enough to pass the spin from one galaxy to another, I'm not sure of the name but there also exist particles which can become paired and even when separated by great distance will mimic each other. To me this suggests that something else is at play here.

From recollection, what was said was that the supermassive BLack Hole in Sgr A was only a small fraction (0.0007% according to Steven) of the mass of the whole Galaxy. So its mass contribution was very small. However, I still wonder if there might be a gravitational link from the supermassive Black Hole to the myriads of surrounding stars and those beyond. The arms of the galaxy are visual examples of this link or chain of stars from centre to outer perimeter. If the Black Hole were removed would it create a visible restructuring of the shape of the galaxy?
In regard to two galaxies affecting each other's rotation or spin ...
The effect would depend on the distance between the two galaxies, but with two galaxies in reasonable proximity, the mass contribution to gravity would be relatively large and their effects on each other significant. Witness, the effect our Galaxy has on the Large Magellanic Cloud. With large structures e.g. Virgo Supercluster or something as large as the Sloan Great Wall of galaxies, I wonder if there might be a pass on effect of gravitation from galaxy to galaxy.

Regards, Rob.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

When one invikes the inverse square rule one finds on that basis gravitational influence is not all we expect it to be...we have established in this thread that a black hole has very little influence on its host gallaxy ... what gravitational influenece exists between us and m31 for example.... attraction does not seem to cut it but an over all pressure as I suggest via the flow of paricles all over offers an "external" influence which on large scales may not be subject to an inverse square rule.

alex

Alex, how about throwing in some math to justify those feelings about inverse square law (or something else) etc?
In our previous discussion I challenged you (and other "pushers") to provide some derivations or links to something more substantial and there were no satisfactory answers..
So I believe it is time to abandon those ideas.
I mean, science works like this: if you can not prove the idea by calculation (that means - theory), or the observational evidence shows that something else is happening (data inconsistent with that theory) then it is time to abandon the sinking ship..
Also, on large scale, and when the matter is distributed in space more or less evenly, overall gravitation effect (force) of course does not follow inverse square law.
Actually it does, it is a mathematical idealisation and it works ONLY between two point-like masses. That means, if radii of those two masses are infinitely smaller than the distance between them then you will have inverse square law, describing the force between them.
In cases of distributed masses - like galactic cluster.. or interior of Earth, to take something more closer for example, we have to use calculus to describe net gravity force. That means, integration of infinite number of individual forces between individual (small) mass concentrations.. and in some cases it is not easy or even impossible to completely solve those equations.
There is no place for feelings here, because those relationships are much more complicated and no "hunch" can help you : unless you have a solid mathematical skills and experience with them.

So, back to school

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by bojan

Alex, how about throwing in some math to justify those feelings about inverse square law (or something else) etc?
In our previous discussion I challenged you (and other "pushers") to provide some derivations or links to something more substantial and there were no satisfactory answers..
So I believe it is time to abandon those ideas.
I mean, science works like this: if you can not prove the idea by calculation (that means - theory), or the observational evidence shows that something else is happening (data inconsistent with that theory) then it is time to abandon the sinking ship..
Also, on large scale, and when the matter is distributed in space more or less evenly, overall gravitation effect (force) of course does not follow inverse square law.
Actually it does, it is a mathematical idealisation and it works ONLY between two point-like masses. That means, if radii of those two masses are infinitely smaller than the distance between them then you will have inverse square law, describing the force between them.
In cases of distributed masses - like galactic cluster.. or interior of Earth, to take something more closer for example, we have to use calculus to describe net gravity force. That means, integration of infinite number of individual forces between individual (small) mass concentrations.. and in some cases it is not easy or even impossible to completely solve those equations.
There is no place for feelings here, because those relationships are much more complicated and no "hunch" can help you : unless you have a solid mathematical skills and experience with them.

So, back to school

Reading what I wrote it did not get to the point I was trying to make as I was leading up to the issue of "dark energy" which is external I understand.

Clearly the inverse square rule is a fact and in my post it would seem I had no regard for it... so my speculation was upon dark energy.

Bojan I have no problem with math and its important role yet I do believe however math is part of the evidence we need to support a premise ... now I have a premise but I do not have the sckill to offer math related proof.

Dr A's premise that a man in a lift can make all the observations that descibe the universe has been supported by the math but I still think the premise is wrong ... and the great man himself said words to the effect...it is the idea tha is important the math is only the bookeeping ... so I still reckon my idea (LeSage's idea really) is a good idea but the books still have to be put in order...

AND I can think what I like and hold any view I wish... if GR is so flash why do we not have a unification of the forces..if it is so powerful that step should be not a problem...yet as far as I know unification using GR is going nowhere...now at least with my approach I can link everything into a "neat" story of how everything works... AND I say this... NASA are very interested in ELVES and SPRITES and are observing Elves so new data is going to be available on them ...so far folk think lightning and Elves and Sprites are generated from Earth bound forces..curent thought is that lightning comes from dust and ice rubbing together style approach... and the math is available to prove it...but there is more to it ... the elves are visual evidence of some of the flow hitting the upper atmosphere, the sprites are where it jumps from the upper atmosphere to the clouds, and lightning is where it jumps from the cloud to Earth...
Now I have observed a lightning cloud flashing at the rate of 2 times a second for over and hour... and it seemed to me that there is now way that so much energy could come from the cloud... and how could we determine that energy ? but I doubt if the dust and ice rubbing together could create so much for so long... moving higher how can we explain the energy we see in a sprite and more importantly how can we explain the energy that creates an elve... look at one..it looks as if one has dropped a stone in a pond as the energy ripples over the outter atmosphere...

I saw a good show on SBS last night on the early days of astronomy where the church sought to dictate what humans could and not think or say..now in those days it was unthinkable that the greater body of thought as embrassed by the church could be wrong and as such folk like Galileo were told what they could and could not think or write about, after all everything was already known..Aristotle had worked it all out and to deviate was not tolerated ..what you suggest in that I can not hold a view that is contrary to current thought is no better than the church seeking to silience new thinking ...well I will think what I like and write what I like and hope in time, just as the majority were proved wrong in their long held views, that finally we will find that gravity is a force not driven by God but by the flow of the infinite supply of particles in our Universe and that this flow of particles is responsible for all energy ...
AND give me some credit for the pioneer prediction..after all I was right and NASA were wrong... they had their math I had my ideas... and what I said would happen is happening and that is a matter available from curent observation (athough I have not looked at what they are doing for a while so maybe NASA have developed another explaination other than leaking fuel etc... but as far as I know my idea so far is the winner...and I did not guess what would happen but thought it though on the basis that if space acted as I suspected that the pioneer would do certain things when they got thru the heloiosphere... they did what I predicted and in the absence of a reasonable expalnation to the contrary I feel their behaviour supports my view.

Thanks for posting I really enjoy being called upon to defend my position ...but there is no way I am going back to school ... have a great day.

alex



alex

[bojan]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

AND give me some credit for the pioneer prediction..after all I was right and NASA were wrong... they had their math I had my ideas... and what I said would happen is happening and that is a matter available from current observation (athough I have not looked at what they are doing for a while so maybe NASA have developed another explanation other than leaking fuel etc... but as far as I know my idea so far is the winner...and I did not guess what would happen but thought it though on the basis that if space acted as I suspected that the pioneer would do certain things when they got thru the heloiosphere... they did what I predicted and in the absence of a reasonable expalnation to the contrary I feel their behaviour supports my view.



alex

Alex,
Your idea is not right because you did not predict anything.
In modern scientific language, "Prediction" means much more than speculation:
It actually means that the mathematical calculations were done based on theory, and that results of those calculations pointed to un-suspected effects, which could then be calculated, and if measurement results of that effect are within the error margins, the prediction can be accepted as confirmed.
In your case, this procedure was not followed properly :-)
Yes, I watched this programme on SBS, it was very interesting, but the points made can not be applied to discussions like this one that we have.
In case of church, it was the struggle to retain power over people (and to keep the income flow intact).
In our case, it is not about power over people, nor money (well, in general.... there are always greedy people around with over-developed individualities). But being a scientist is not very lucrative profession - that is why we have more lawyers that scientists .
It is about the proven scientific procedures, which give results.
By following them your ideas are very easy to disprove. But only to those who accept the validity of those procedures, of course. If you do not accept them, simply put, no-one serious will consider your ideas worthy of having a look at them.
That is why I am saying again: Back to school
Why?
1) you will gain tools to prove your own ideas, to yourself and then to others
2) you will be able to present your ideas to scientific community in a proper form and you will be able to discuss them with good level of understanding, on both sides
3) you will be able to abandon ideas if you cant' prove them to yourself (and to others)

Of course, you have every right to think whatever you like.. but this is not the point here, right?

[xelasnave]

Mate I am 62 years old and I dont need to prove anything to anybody or go to school or get out of bed if I dont wish to... I dont care what folk think of me or my idea... All you say is reasonable but I am not on about proving I am right and others are wrong..as I have said many times.. I entertain a Universe started with a big bang and black holes but I also entertain my push Univers which I favour simply because it makes more sence to me... If the push idea was mine and I was the very first to think of it I would as a duty to mankind do more..maybe.. but the idea is out there and thats all I need to feel any duty to humanity is discharged...

as to poineer I have been specific..they will in time appear to stop and then race away at a speed the same as the one we travel thru the galaxy... when will they appear to stop??? well lets say it will be a long time after we are all dead and I am not hanging around till then...so what joy will I get if in 200 years whatever they appear to stop... I do get joy that what I predicted seems to be going that way... it is right(so far) it needs no math for such an observation to be a fact they are slowing and I guess if one took the time NASA could tell us how much and I guess that input may give us an indication of just how "sticky" space is ...

AND as to math..when Prof Hawking or any celebrity scientist makes comment they never do it standing in front of a white board writing the sums as they go... and the reason why they dont is no one cares ... I dont care what the math proves I dont buy the big bang or black holes or dark matter and I think it is presumptuois in the extreme for humans to hold up some sums and claim they have all the answers... how can we be so certain about what is out there and what happened 13 billion years ago... be realistic the theory goes from theory to fact without opposition because of the math support... math is helpful there is no doubt but if the premise is wrong what then..the presenter of the premise will not offer math that does not support it...
ANYways I had sworn to not talk about this stuff anymore..I have my views and those views will never gain respect from those who subscribe to a different view...but I have no problem with that...
Now science works by peer review of papers...a very comfortable environmet I feel..law works by extreme confrontation and adoption of an opposite position and one would think that would get the best result but it really comes down to one thing... it is not what is right that prevails it is the person who throws the most money to get a result that often decides matters of a "grey" nature...now give me as many physistis who support GR to direct at proving my case and I bet I will win...irrespective of the facts ... but if law sees such a corruption what corruption does peer review subject itself to... what peer review went into the theory of inflation, for example,... we have math but no observation at all ... inflation does not have the right to be called a theory..no predictions..well I have a prediction based on observation but I still am humble enough to call it an idea...

Dam it stop getting me going on things I like thinking about I have to fix a boat. Have a great day and sincerely thank you for the chats I love them.

alex

[xelasnave]

Bojan if you are still there I have taken the time to do some math and have actually worked out a way that I may be able to quantify the pressure and predict the rate at which the pioneer slow ..now wheter I can or not is another matter but I bet you will be proud of my effort ... and I thank you for your chalege to do this as for whatever reason my mind seems to have taken it on and yesterday I saw how it could be done. I was lucky to be able to sit for 5 hours and just think it thru and I think I can provide a simple formulea to express a range of probable pressures and from that range determine at rate the pioneer may slow... anyways I have taken your advice it seems.
I am the road so it will be a while before I can post it on the gravity push site. Also I hate to say this but I have completly changed my mind on black holes ...
alex

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I am the road so it will be a while before I can post it on the gravity push site. Also I hate to say this but I have completly changed my mind on black holes ...
alex

Your comment didn't go unnoticed!
Regards, Rob

[bojan]

Alex, I am proud of you :-) (because of your persistence)
And I will certainly have a look at your work. Just be reminded, this principle must be applicable to other things.. and if because of it the planetary orbits can not last more than couples of hundred of years (and we KNOW they are stable for billions of years, your theory goes down the tube.
C'est la vie.. :-)

[xelasnave]

The idea of what may pass thru a point in space presents one with the prospect that even at the smallest point one can imagine it must be witness to everthing in the rest of the universe..which is what I have been saying to a degree ..but how complex things are even at a single point... how can such a situation be described via math... so we must look for a generalisation that shows the general drift of things..anyways Hersel had an imaginary sphere to work out the Sun's energy..primative but competant..so I thought why not do similar for a single point ..but in the vain of what may reach it... now this is rather a wide range but we will have to see there is absolutly no pressure from without or there is something...
I have not thought about these matters for a week but will thi9nk more when I can...

alex