Feb
11

Hawking’s latest incantations on black holes

Written by Stephen J. Crothers on 11 Feb 2014

In a paper dated the 22nd of January 2014, bearing the title ‘Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes’, Stephen Hawking has not claimed that black holes don’t exist. He has proposed that the event horizons of alleged black holes do not exist and that only apparent horizons form when gravitational collapse of a body such as a star produces a black hole. Hawking

He’s proposed his black hole apparent horizon in an attempt to prove that there are no black hole firewalls. Hawking retains all other alleged properties of black holes and still invokes quantum theory to claim that black holes evaporate by means of Hawking radiation. With his newfangled notions Hawking seeks to now redefine black holes. He says in his paper that,
“The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity.

There are however apparent horizons which persist for a period of time. This suggests that black holes should be redefined as metastable bound states of the gravitational field.”

Note that Hawking alludes here to the existence of black hole escape velocity. It’s routinely claimed on the one hand that black holes have an escape velocity and that this escape velocity is equal to or greater than the speed of light in vacuum. It you toss a ball into the air, does it escape from the Earth? No. Does it leave the surface of the Earth? Yes; it goes up and then comes back down. So escape velocity doesn’t mean that matter can’t leave, only that it can’t escape if its launch speed is less than the escape speed.

Consulting the Collins Encyclopædia of the Universe published in 2001 we find; 

“black hole A massive object so dense that no light or any other radiation can escape from it; its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.” 

Similarly, from the Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics and Astronomy, published in 2001;

“black hole A region of spacetime from which the escape velocity exceeds the velocity of light  
So it’s claimed that black holes have an escape velocity. However, on the other hand, it’s also routinely claimed that black holes suck matter in so that matter can only go into a black hole and nothing can come out of it, including light. The black hole event horizon is said to be a one-way membrane, a boundary, from which nothing can even leave.

In his book ‘The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe’, published in 2002, Hawking says:

“I had already discussed with Roger Penrose the idea of defining a black hole as a set of events from which it is not possible to escape to a large distance. It means that the boundary of the black hole, the event horizon, is formed by rays of light that just fail to get away from the black hole. Instead, they stay forever hovering on the edge of the black hole.”

Professor Joss Bland-Hawthorn is a professor of astrophysics at the Institute of Astronomy, School of Physics, University of Sydney. In a televised interview on station ABC1 he told us that:

“A black hole is, ah, a massive object, and it’s something which is so massive that light can’t even escape. … some objects are so massive that the escape speed is basically the speed of light and therefore not even light escapes. … so black holes themselves are, are basically inert, massive and nothing escapes …”  (Bland-Hawthorn 2013)

So it’s routinely claimed that black holes both have and do not have an escape velocity at the same time. But that’s impossible. Moreover, if the escape velocity of a black hole is the speed of light and light travels at the speed of light, then light must escape. However, Bland-Hawthorn assures us that because the escape speed of a black hole is that of light, light can’t escape!

It’s also important to note that escape velocity is an implicit two-body relation; one body escapes from another body. There’s no meaning to escape velocity in a model of the Universe that contains only one mass, and such a model bears no relation to reality anyhow. But all alleged black holes are universes which contain only one mass. Despite this, proponents of black holes and big bangs allege untold numbers of black holes present in an expanding big bang universe.

Now there are four alleged types of black hole universes and there are three alleged types of big bang universes. However, proponents of black holes and big bangs never specify what type of black hole in what type of big bang they allege. For instance, it’s claimed that there is a black hole at Sgt A*. What type of black hole in what type of big bang universe pertains to Sgt A*? They never say. This is always the case.

Dr. Stefan Gillessen of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics and his colleagues have for years claimed that there is a big black hole at Sagittarius A* (Sgt A*).  They made such claims in 2008 in this online report:  
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081209-blackhole-stars.html#comments

In 2013 Gillessen continued to expound on the alleged black hole at Sgt A* in these online reports:  http://www.krone.at/Wissen/Schwarzes_Loch_in_der_Milchstrasse_zerfetzt_Gaswolk e-Kosmisches_Drama-Story-369073  
http://derstandard.at/1373512915711/Supermassereiches-Schwarzes-Loch- verwandelt-Gaswolke-in-Spaghetti  

However, on 21st December 2008 Gillessen admitted in writing (Crothers 2009) that not only is the notion of black hole escape velocity nonsense, but also that he and his colleagues had not in fact found a black hole at Sgt A*, and that nobody had ever found a black hole anywhere. Nonetheless, despite these admissions, Gillessen continues to claim a black hole at Sgt A*. Furthermore, Gillessen (2012) was awarded an ERC Starting Grant to continue studies of the alleged black hole at Sgt A*.

Of course, Gillessen and his colleagues are not the only astronomers to have claimed that there is a black hole at Sgt A*.  It is quite a common false claim.

Hawking’s latest paper really changes nothing because each and every alleged type of black hole and each and every alleged type of big bang are different and independent universes which can’t be blended in order to manufacture multiple black holes in some big bang universe. In his paper Hawking refers to an asymptotically curved black hole universe – the so-called ‘Schwarzschild anti de Sitter’ universe. This universe is asymptotically anti de Sitter spacetime. Hawking also mentions the Kerr black hole universe. The Schwarzschild, Reissner-Nordstrom, Kerr and Kerr-Newman black hole universes are all asymptotically flat universes. 

Consider this - all alleged black hole universes:

(1) are spatially infinite, (2) are eternal, (3) contain only one mass, (4) are not expanding, (5) and are either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved.

However, all alleged big bang universes:

(1) are either spatially finite (in one case) or spatially infinite (in two different cases), (2) are of finite age, (3) contain radiation and many masses, (4) are expanding, (5) and are not asymptotically anything.

It’s now plainly evident that all alleged black hole universes contradict all alleged big bang universes and so they can’t coexist – they’re mutually exclusive by their very definitions. In fact, no alleged black hole universe can be blended with any alleged big bang universe, with other black hole universes, or with itself. Similarly, no alleged big bang universe can be blended with any alleged black hole universe, with any other big bang universe, or with itself. This is easily reaffirmed by the Principle of Superposition.

General Relativity is a nonlinear theory. Consequently, in General Relativity, the Principle of Superposition is invalid. For example, let X be some alleged black hole universe and let Y be some alleged big bang universe. Then the linear combination or superposition X + Y is not a universe, because the Principle of Superposition doesn’t hold in General Relativity. Moreover, X and Y pertain to entirely different sets of Einstein field equations and so they have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

Presumably Hawking has still retained his big bang dogma with his latest black holes. So he still has unspecified types of black holes all over the place inside some unspecified big bang expanding universe, notwithstanding that black hole universes and big bang universes can’t be superposed. Superposition violates the mathematical structure of the General Theory of Relativity. Consequently, Hawking’s latest paper is just as nonsensical as all his previous writings on black holes and big bangs. 

There is a serious problem with modern physics, particularly astrophysics and particle physics. Many experiments are now one-off, and cost billions of dollars. It is impossible for these experiments to be replicated by independent scientists in different laboratories. Science rightly proceeds by experiments, and replication of experiments by different people in different laboratories is absolutely necessary in order to confirm or refute some reported experimental finding.

Nowadays one group of scientists carries out an experiment with apparatus that costs the public purse huge sums of money. Independent scientists do not have access to such sums of money in order to conduct their own experiments and do not have access to the equipment that some group of scientists preferentially associated with that equipment has.

The reports of a group of scientists whose experiments can’t be replicated by any independent party do not constitute a substantiated scientific finding. Nevertheless, science now hinges on what some particular group of scientists merely alleges, without any possibility of independent experimental verification. The public at large is falsely led to believe that such isolated experiments are definitive. They aren’t.  

 
REFERENCES  
Bland-Hawthorn, J., 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-24/new-research-sheds-more-light-on- black-holes/4979088  Collins Encyclopædia of the Universe, Harper Collins Publishers, London, 2001 Crothers, S., Supermassive black hole at Sagittarius A*, 2009, www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/dialogue.pdf Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy, Matzner, R. A., Ed., CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, LA, (2001) Gillessen, S., Genzel, R., Eisenhauer, F., New Observations Detail Milky Way's Big Black Hole,  December 9, 2008,  http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081209-blackhole-stars.html#comments  Gillessen, S., ERC Starting Grant for Stefan Gillessen, November 5, 2012,  http://www.mpe.mpg.de/980185/News_20121105 Gillessen, S., Schwarzes Loch in der Milchstrae zerfetzt Gaswolke, 17 July, 2013,  http://www.krone.at/Wissen/Schwarzes_Loch_in_der_Milchstrasse_zerfetzt_Gaswolke- Kosmisches_Drama-Story-369073 Gillessen, S., Supermassereiches Schwarzes Loch verwandelt Gaswolke in "Spaghetti", 20 July, 2013,  http://derstandard.at/1373512915711/Supermassereiches-Schwarzes-Loch-verwandelt- Gaswolke-in-Spaghetti Hawking, S. W., The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe (New Millennium Press, Beverly Hills, CA, (2002) Hawking, S. W., Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes, 22 January 2014,   http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761  

Pin it

Comments  

Mohammad Shafiq Khan
#1 Mohammad Shafiq Khan 2014-02-11 10:09
Here is the beginning of revolution in physics. Physics, according to which God cannot exist,shall have to be soon discarded. Read www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/455880/Stephen-Hawking-says-there-is-no-such-thing-as-black-holes-Einstein-spinning-in-his-grave
Absence of Black Holes means Stephen Hawking has finally accepted that there are serious problems with both Newton's perspective of Gravity & Einstein's General Theory of Relativity because both require Black Holes at the center of the galaxies.
This justifies standing open challenge to the adopted paradigm of physics which is at worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2
Quote | Report to administrator
Hilton Ratcliffe
#2 Hilton Ratcliffe 2014-02-12 14:12
A unicorn without a horn on its head is just a horse.
Quote | Report to administrator
Sunsettommy
#3 Sunsettommy 2014-02-12 14:51
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

No smell of the scientific method is to be found anywhere in Hawkins latest diarrhea of unverified speculative babblings.


The damage he and other armchair cosmic speculators will last for a long time.
Quote | Report to administrator
FauxScienceSlayer
#4 FauxScienceSlayer 2014-02-12 16:34
"96% of the Universe is composed of math particles and hyper-dense equations" ~ anonymous web post

When Hawkins was declared the GOD of astronomy, i rushed to buy "A Brief History of Time" only to discover a brief collection of babble. After "Big Bang RebuttaL" i realized Hawking was an overrated, double talking sock puppet. Tne entire purpose of the big bang and black hole hoax is to AVOID any discussion of A ROTATIONAL UNIVERSE MODEL. Powerful forces control all science 'debate' for their benefit and do not want humanity to clearly understand reality. Much like the transparent Carbon climate forcing FRAUD, where a three atom trace gas can heat AND cool, cause floods AND droughts, along with every malady known to man.

Light travels in a helical, curved path and the Universe is rotating, and either of those conditions explain the perceived 'red shift' with NO expanding Universe, NO dark energy, NO dark matter and NO black holes. We have been LIED to about everything.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#5 David Sadler 2014-02-12 20:07
Good article. Stephen Crothers' well studied critical analysis of the original papers and theories that form the basis for the standard model of modern cosmology has been sorely lacking. Now that Crothers is on the scene and speaking out with the authority of someone with the ability to do the math, modern cosmological models that were teetering and now in the process of collapse.

But here is something I don't understand about this idea popularized by Hawking in his book ‘The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe.'

"... The boundary of the black hole, the event horizon, is formed by rays of light that just fail to get away from the black hole. Instead, they stay forever hovering on the edge of the black hole."

If the velocity of a photon is ballistic, after failing to escape the photon would fall back into the singularity. It would not hover at the event horizon. That is like saying that a rocket failing to escape Earth's escape velocity would not fall back to Earth but would hover at L5.

On the other hand, if the velocity of a photon is inherent in the nature of the photon and is constantly applied, then nothing would keep it from departing the singularity and continuing its journey into space.

This idea of photons hovering at the event horizon implies that the engine to impart velocity to the photon is onboard the photon, but this violates the inverse square law of gravity.

Can anyone help explain how photons could depart a gravity source but fail to escape it upon reaching the event horizon?

Thanks,
Quote | Report to administrator
Sunsettommy
#6 Sunsettommy 2014-02-13 09:58
Quoting FauxScienceSlayer:
"96% of the Universe is composed of math particles and hyper-dense equations" ~ anonymous web post

When Hawkins was declared the GOD of astronomy, i rushed to buy "A Brief History of Time" only to discover a brief collection of babble. After "Big Bang RebuttaL" i realized Hawking was an overrated, double talking sock puppet. Tne entire purpose of the big bang and black hole hoax is to AVOID any discussion of A ROTATIONAL UNIVERSE MODEL. Powerful forces control all science 'debate' for their benefit and do not want humanity to clearly understand reality. Much like the transparent Carbon climate forcing FRAUD, where a three atom trace gas can heat AND cool, cause floods AND droughts, along with every malady known to man.

Light travels in a helical, curved path and the Universe is rotating, and either of those conditions explain the perceived 'red shift' with NO expanding Universe, NO dark energy, NO dark matter and NO black holes. We have been LIED to about everything.


Anything Dr. Arp writes make more sense than Hawking because he uses real data as his guide such the ones about INTRINSIC redshifts from Quasars as he talks about in his book: www.amazon.com/Quasars-Redshifts-Controversies-Halton-Arp/dp/0521363144 It is a nice book that I own.
Quote | Report to administrator
Observer
#7 Observer 2014-02-13 11:34
Hawking is merely thinking around the firewall paradox . This is not a new scientific physics theory as it contains no equations. He has not said black holes do not exist, who people need to go read his paper it's only a couple of pages long! Crothers needs to get off his mathematical high horse he simply doesn't believe in modelling. Keplers laws are based on a totally flat universe and isolated masses but the predictions are pretty good! Cruthers needs to get the chip off his shoulder and stop insulting all the physicists who have achieved something, unlike him who has achieved nothing!
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#8 Nicholas 2014-02-14 14:36
Quoting Observer:
Hawking is merely thinking around the firewall paradox . This is not a new scientific physics theory as it contains no equations. He has not said black holes do not exist, who people need to go read his paper it's only a couple of pages long! Crothers needs to get off his mathematical high horse he simply doesn't believe in modelling. Keplers laws are based on a totally flat universe and isolated masses but the predictions are pretty good! Cruthers needs to get the chip off his shoulder and stop insulting all the physicists who have achieved something, unlike him who has achieved nothing!

He has achieved the definitive destruction of Black Holes and Big-Bang mathematically using their own bloody equations. With intellectual integrity he has assumed a different role, other than positing endless nonsense.

Objects are the currency of physics NOT equations. A physical theory needs no equations or predictions.

This is a war over the interpretation of reality, not some petty modelling.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#9 Nicholas 2014-02-14 15:00
Quoting David Sadler:


But here is something I don't understand about this idea popularized by Hawking in his book ‘The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe.'

"... The boundary of the black hole, the event horizon, is formed by rays of light that just fail to get away from the black hole. Instead, they stay forever hovering on the edge of the black hole."

If the velocity of a photon is ballistic, after failing to escape the photon would fall back into the singularity. It would not hover at the event horizon. That is like saying that a rocket failing to escape Earth's escape velocity would not fall back to Earth but would hover at L5.

On the other hand, if the velocity of a photon is inherent in the nature of the photon and is constantly applied, then nothing would keep it from departing the singularity and continuing its journey into space.

This idea of photons hovering at the event horizon implies that the engine to impart velocity to the photon is onboard the photon, but this violates the inverse square law of gravity.

Can anyone help explain how photons could depart a gravity source but fail to escape it upon reaching the event horizon?

Thanks,

Light and gravity, both phenomena, are mediated by one and the same physical mediator interconnecting all atoms of the Universe.

"If the velocity of a photon is ballistic, after failing to escape the photon would fall back into the singularity. It would not hover at the event horizon. That is like saying that a rocket failing to escape Earth's escape velocity would not fall back to Earth but would hover at L5."

A photon is not a discrete particle thrown out from a source as in ballistics.

On the other hand, if the velocity of a photon is inherent in the nature of the photon and is constantly applied, then nothing would keep it from departing the singularity and continuing its journey into space.

A photon is just a signal twisting along the EM mediators inherently tied to all atoms which constantly 'jump' torquing the EM mediators. Nothing can 'stop' the signal other than an atom where the EM mediators fork out thus absorbing, reflecting, relaying, etc. the signals. So yeah you are right, sort of.

This idea of photons hovering at the event horizon implies that the engine to impart velocity to the photon is onboard the photon, but this violates the inverse square law of gravity.

the inverse square law is not applied to light since the law takes on its physical mechanism by one and the same mediator as light. The inverse square law is applied to objects comprised of two or more atoms, e.g. celestial objects. M1*m2/d2

They say photons are massless so even in the standard models (which I don't hold to) Newton's Law cannot be applied to photons.
Quote | Report to administrator
Observer
#10 Observer 2014-02-14 17:27
I see my comments have been removed. Oh dear and I thought Caruthers wanted discussion!
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#11 Nicholas 2014-02-14 17:53
Quoting Observer:
I see my comments have been removed. Oh dear and I thought Caruthers wanted discussion!

wah wah wah.

Maybe Crothers doesn't run this sight!!!
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#12 David Sadler 2014-02-14 19:00
Nicholas said, "The inverse square law is applied to objects comprised of two or more atoms, e.g. celestial objects. M1*m2/d2 ... They say photons are massless so even in the standard models (which I don't hold to) Newton's Law cannot be applied to photons."

Photons are massless. Gravity acts on mass.

How is it then that the gravity of a black hole should even act upon light causing it to hover at the event horizon after failing to escape the gravity of the black hole?

While you're here, what is it that imparts velocity to a photon? A link to a clear description would suffice.

Thanks,
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#13 Nicholas 2014-02-14 20:25
David,

Gravity does not act on mass. What you are saying is that a dynamic concept acts on a static concept which is simply not good enough to understand the gravitational mechanism. We have to trace these concepts back to objects. We cannot see that which mediates gravity thus we have to suppose an object that mediates gravity between objects comprised of two or more atoms.

Gravity is the dynamic relation between two or more atoms. This dynamic relation is mediated by a go between physical objects called mediators. Newton never posited what he supposed were these physical mediators may be in reality. He couldn't imagine them. And this has been a huge stumbling block in physics for hundreds of years. But it is via this supposed mediator interconnecting all atoms that the phenomena of gravity and light are constantly consummated.

Mass refers to a static concept. In context to gravity, mass describes the inherent physical connection between atoms of say two celestial objects through which gravitational attraction is consummated. Every single atom of object 1(M1) is connected to every single atom of object 2 (m2) via these supposed EM Mediators intrinsically tied to all atoms of the U. The M1 * m2 concept of Newton's equation means that if there are 100 atoms comprising celestial object 1 (M1) and a 100 atoms comprising celestial object 2 (m2) then the number of straight taut connections between the two celestial bodies is 1000.

As the distance decreases between the two celestial objects there are more effective connections which translates to more net tug. Essentially you have more atoms tugging on one another at steep angles via the straight and tense EM mediators.

As the distance increases between the two celestial objects there is less net tug since the EM mediators superimpose (just like light :))

"How is it then that the gravity of a black hole should even act upon light causing it to hover at the event horizon after failing to escape the gravity of the black hole?"

:) Lol! It doesn't. Black Holes refer to mathematical concepts. They don't exist and they have nothing to do with light or gravity. Hawking's interpretation of reality is IMHO irrational. There are other more rational explanations as to what is happening at the center of galaxies, but that is beyond the scope here.

"While you're here, what is it that imparts velocity to a photon? A link to a clear description would suffice."
Well a photon refers to a concept. It basically describes the motion of a light ray connecting and inherently tied to all atoms

Check out Gaede's video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM&list=TL_EC0-UAfN_Cn8gI8nQH_r-TCoN16azzz


You might be amazed!
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#14 Nicholas 2014-02-14 20:37
And just a note. Gaede and Crothers are friends. They work together.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stephen Crothers
#15 Stephen Crothers 2014-02-16 11:32
Observer - If your comments have been removed, as you alleged, it was not by me. I have no control of this site. I have no problems dealing with the likes of you who offer no science, only frustrated derision.

Pick any argument I have adduced in my article and do your best to prove it wrong. That's a direct invitation to discussion. Bring it on, and bring your army too if you need help. I will take all on comers by myself. Give it a try using your own brains.
Quote | Report to administrator
Sunsettommy
#16 Sunsettommy 2014-02-16 11:58
Quoting Observer:
I see my comments have been removed. Oh dear and I thought Caruthers wanted discussion!

Quoting Nicholas:
Quoting Observer:
I see my comments have been removed. Oh dear and I thought Caruthers wanted discussion!

wah wah wah.

Maybe Crothers doesn't run this sight!!!


I am the comment ADMINISTRATOR here who didn't remove any comments in this thread.When a comment is deleted,it is shown right in the thread as being deleted.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#17 Nicholas 2014-02-16 13:00
Quote:


I am the comment ADMINISTRATOR here who didn't remove any comments in this thread.When a comment is deleted,it is shown right in the thread as being deleted.
Thanks for the clarification!

I guess that means that 'Observer' is a liar!
Quote | Report to administrator
M J Murcott
#18 M J Murcott 2014-02-16 19:43
What are black holes and what are the forces and properties involved? - youtu.be/Y5XzPOrItaI
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#19 David Sadler 2014-02-16 22:40
Hello, Nicholas,

I agree black holes as defined by the classic contemporary model do not exist. The attributes put forward for them never made any sense. Light hovering at the event horizon is an example of such an attribute.

It's natural then to ask from where does light acquire its velocity. It appears no one knows and that the subject is still being hotly debated as the link you provided is clear to point out.
(
07 What is Light?
youtu.be/J-NB5vg7woM
)

I don't buy the rope theory either just yet, because it doesn't make anymore sense than the wave/particle theory. And all of these theories fail to address the source of light's velocity.

Regarding the unknowns of gravity, I like the concept of the push of gravity more than the pull of gravity or curved space/time. It makes better intuitive sense at the moment.

If light can have an unknown engine producing constant speed then why not allow the corpuscles of gravity the same privilege if it helps to explain the attributes of gravity?

It's amazing that we still don't know what light and gravity are and can't explain the source of their attributes, yet we can calculate and manipulate both to make eye glasses and land probes on distant planets.

Regarding the Rope Theory of Light ...

"Every single atom of object 1(M1) is connected to every single atom of object 2 (m2) via these supposed EM Mediators intrinsically tied to all atoms of the U. The M1 * m2 concept of Newton's equation means that if there are 100 atoms comprising celestial object 1 (M1) and a 100 atoms comprising celestial object 2 (m2) then the number of straight taut connections between the two celestial bodies is 1000."

In the video, the graphic at 6:22 showing the ropes between the atoms is confusing to me.

Are both the red and blue balls supposed to be atoms? If so, why would each atom not connect to every other atom in the graphic? This would push the straight taught connections between two bodies and within the same body to an unimaginable number of ropes.

I'm glad Stephen Crothers is taking on the fairy tales of the big bang and black hole advocates. He's the right man for the job. He can do the math and can make enough sense out of the scientific papers and philosophical musings to point out the inconsistencies. As his arguments continue to gain a wider audience, his impact upon the standard models will begin to snowball. A standard model correction can't be many years away now.

While we still don't know all the answers, we do know lies and fairy tales when we see them. Crothers is doing a very good job calling out the story tellers of modern standard model mythologies and philosophies.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#20 Nicholas 2014-02-17 15:06
David,

Yeah Crothers is great. I recommend the videos Gaede and Crothers put together when they met last year. And yeah a standard model correction or destruction. Take your pick. Lol. I'm leaning more toward destruction.

David: I don't buy the rope theory either just yet, because it doesn't make anymore sense than the wave/particle theory. And all of these theories fail to address the source of light's velocity.


Me: EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory presents a whole new universe and it takes some getting used to. The wave/particle models are descriptive. They hide more than they reveal and remember with light one has to explain a host of static and dynamic properties. Particles and transverse waves are simply impoverished in the face of all these. But the rope-like structure seems to explain them all with ease.

Maybe you can clarify for me what you mean by 'source' of light's velocity because to me that means the architecture of the physical entity that mediates light from atoms to all atoms. In this assumption, a continuous twined thread rooted in all the atoms. With this assumed architecture in place it is easy to see that a twist propagates almost instantaneously. The rope is already connected to the receiver. Atoms simply torque the mediators.

Dave: Regarding the unknowns of gravity, I like the concept of the push of gravity more than the pull of gravity or curved space/time. It makes better intuitive sense at the moment.

Me: Your intuition almost there. The atoms push each other in diametrical directions (bidirectional) by constantly conveying signals to each other (the c squared concept) and it is this that generates constant tension which is multiplied when objects comprised of two or more atoms come close.

David: If light can have an unknown engine producing constant speed then why not allow the corpuscles of gravity the same privilege if it helps to explain the attributes of gravity?

The engine is known. It is the atom, the proton/electron shell configuration!!! And then now this supposed EM Rope. But everyone knows that light is tied to at least the electron.

Corpuscles cannot hold all things together as we observe. Everything would just fall apart. There would be discontinuity. How would we remain tied to the Earth with corpuscles? How would Earth remain tied to the Sun with corpuscles? How could a light signal from the most distant galaxy reach us???

And what would the source of these corpuscles be??? Gravity is rooted in the atoms. It can be no other way.

David: It's amazing that we still don't know what light and gravity are and can't explain the source of their attributes, yet we can calculate and manipulate both to make eye glasses and land probes on distant planets.

Me: Yeah, well it was a lucky run for the mathematicians and techies, but their luck has run out!!!
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#21 Nicholas 2014-02-17 15:07
David,

David: In the video, the graphic at 6:22 showing the ropes between the atoms is confusing to me.

Are both the red and blue balls supposed to be atoms? If so, why would each atom not connect to every other atom in the graphic? This would push the straight taught connections between two bodies and within the same body to an unimaginable number of ropes.

Me: Yes they are atoms "quantum jumping" as in the Bohr model. And yes the models are simple. That is the only way to begin to visualize the mechanism. In his books the illustrations get more complex.

And yes there would be an unimaginable # of ropes but this is not a problem since they have the unique ability called superposition which is consistent with observation (light passes through light). In any case even in the other models you would have an unimaginable # of corpuscles or 'transverse' waves so it doesn't matter.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#22 David Sadler 2014-02-20 16:00
Nicholas,

The "EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory" is new to me so I've been doing some reading. Although still in the early stages, here's my first impression of the EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory (RH).

Since light can travel light years in distance, and since the EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory implies a physical, measurable EM connection between all atoms to mediate the transmission of light, then it would follow that all atoms in the universe are connected to every other atom in order to mediate light.

In my opinion, at this stage of my understanding of the claims, the EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory is as non-intuitive as the black hole (BH) theory. It has just as many unanswered questions up front with claims asking us to suspend common sense.

A black hole is said to have an unimaginable dimensionless singularity of mass with unimaginable density.

In the Rope Hypothesis an atom has an unimaginable number of EM connections (ropes) to every other atom in the universe. The interface between the atom and the ropes connected to it is as unimaginable as the singularity and the event horizon of a black hole. The size of the EM connection (interface) to the atom would have to approach the size of a dimensionless singularity in order to accommodate all of the rope connections.

These points of connection would have to be in constant and very rapid motion to maintain a straight line of sight (taut rope connection) to all of the other atoms in motion.

I'll continue to read up on this theory, but wanted to share with you my initial, gut instinct of what I've read so far.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#23 David Sadler 2014-02-20 16:37
Nicholas,

"Gravity does not act on mass. What you are saying is that a dynamic concept acts on a static concept which is simply not good enough to understand the gravitational mechanism. We have to trace these concepts back to objects. We cannot see that which mediates gravity thus we have to suppose an object that mediates gravity between objects comprised of two or more atoms."

Here are some simple experiments said to observe the affects of gravity.

"Gravity Awareness Experiments"
www.simplegravity.com/gravityfun.html

"Gravity is the dynamic relation between two or more atoms. This dynamic relation is mediated by a go between physical objects called mediators. Newton never posited what he supposed were these physical mediators may be in reality. He couldn't imagine them. And this has been a huge stumbling block in physics for hundreds of years. But it is via this supposed mediator interconnecting all atoms that the phenomena of gravity and light are constantly consummated."

"And yes there would be an unimaginable # of ropes but this is not a problem since they have the unique ability called superposition which is consistent with observation (light passes through light). In any case even in the other models you would have an unimaginable # of corpuscles or 'transverse' waves so it doesn't matter."

Yes, there would be an unimaginable number of corpuscles of gravity, but they would be free and independent actors literally filling space even in a vacuum and moving in all directions as independent entities. That's hard to believe, I admit, but its easier for me to imagine than EM ropes connecting every atom in the universe with every other atom in the universe.

No wonder gravity and light are still mysteries. Perhaps we are restricted in our understanding of these things because we are restricting our world view to matter/energy and not including the possibility of the metaphysical. The metaphysical can't be ruled out until the problem is finally solved and proven with bench-test repeatability.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#24 Nicholas 2014-02-21 17:23
David: Since light can travel light years in distance, and since the EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory implies a physical, measurable EM connection between all atoms to mediate the transmission of light, then it would follow that all atoms in the universe are connected to every other atom in order to mediate light.
Nicholas: Yes, that is a core notion or fundamental assumption in RH & TT

David: In my opinion, at this stage of my understanding of the claims, the EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory is as non-intuitive as the black hole (BH) theory. It has just as many unanswered questions up front with claims asking us to suspend common sense.

Nicholas: No claims, just assumptions and explanations. I don’t understand how it could be as un-intuitive as BH. EM & TT posit possible continuous physical mediators for light and gravity grounded in all atoms. Few in history have even dared to take this sort of a stand. BH posits a mathematical abstract concept that resolves to nothing in existence.

And I think it is intuitive and rational that all the atoms of the U are connected by a thread like medium. Schrodinger saw continuity in matter. Disney had a nice quote in his book The Hidden Universe:

“But the electromagnetic theory is not based on action at a distance as was Newton’s. Space is thought of being threaded throughout with electrical and magnetic tensions.”
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#25 Nicholas 2014-02-21 17:26
David: A black hole is said to have an unimaginable dimensionless singularity of mass with unimaginable density.

Nicholas: The EM Ropes, even though they are supposed to be the finest fundamental entities comprising all atoms, have three dimensions. Singularity and density are mathematical, quantitative concepts that resolve to nothing in reality.
I
David: n the Rope Hypothesis an atom has an unimaginable number of EM connections (ropes) to every other atom in the universe. The interface between the atom and the ropes connected to it is as unimaginable as the singularity and the event horizon of a black hole. The size of the EM connection (interface) to the atom would have to approach the size of a dimensionless singularity in order to accommodate all of the rope connections.

Nicholas: What? A dimensionless singularity has no size. I think you are too focused on quantities instead of focusing on the qualitative aspects.

But yes, there would be a gazillion EM Ropes converging on an H atom. These assumed EM Ropes are orders of magnitude finer than the atoms. They fork out to weave the surface shell and proton of the atom. An electron shell is ‘dense’ because so many gazillions threads arc out to weave the atomic perimeter. And the EM Ropes have the unique ability to superpose, or pass through another similar unimpeded, without hindrance, without destruction, without interruption, without disturbance, without losing its structure, etc. It has been recognized by many that light can pass through light, but now we have a supposed mediator which has shape. This is not the same concept as the singularity.

As far as the conception. I understand that it would be hard to imagine EM Ropes at first if you are accustomed to particles all your life. Even though it would be impossible to imagine gazillions converging, but one can imagine the basic structure and draw a picture of it. The quantities don’t matter, because this is a qualitative physical interpretation. I have poured through books at the university that supposedly describe the dynamics of the electron shell, and nucleus. The mechanics and particle physicists have pages full of complex math equations. They obviously are describing a very complex interface. And then there is Feynam’s quote from his famous lectures:

“ The gravitational attraction relative to the electrical repulsion between two electrons is divided by 4.17 × 1042! The question is, where does such a large number come from?”

This suggests a huge # of entities.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#26 Nicholas 2014-02-21 17:28
David: These points of connection would have to be in constant and very rapid motion to maintain a straight line of sight (taut rope connection) to all of the other atoms in motion.

Nicholas: The atoms ARE in constant motion: jumping, vibrating, spinning, etc. It is impossible for an atom to be still. Atomic motion has never ceased. The motion of your little pinkie tugs on all the atoms of the universe.

David: I'll continue to read up on this theory, but wanted to share with you my initial, gut instinct of what I've read so far.

It takes a little to really delve into it. I have his book which has hundreds of illustrations and thousands of quotes. I could give it to you for free if you want.

In any case when all is said and done discrete particles simply cannot simulate any of the dynamic and static properties of the atoms, light, gravity or even electricity and magnetism. So RH & TT is already light years ahead of the competition. How is an electron supposed to generate a photon ball that travels billions of light years? Or how does it generate attraction with no intrinsic connection to another atom??? Particles cannot answer the structural and dynamic properties of the atoms
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#27 Nicholas 2014-02-21 17:34
David: Yes, there would be an unimaginable number of corpuscles of gravity, but they would be free and independent actors literally filling space even in a vacuum and moving in all directions as independent entities. That's hard to believe, I admit, but its easier for me to imagine than EM ropes connecting every atom in the universe with every other atom in the universe.

Nicholas: If they are free and independent then how could they possibly communicate phenomena from star to planet??? Where do they come from and where do they go? Where do they originate and how do they not just fly out away from all stars and galaxies.

Space and vacuum are synonyms. Space lacks shape. Space is nothing. Its just an idea. Ideas cannot contain particles. But I understand it might be hard to start imagining EM Ropes if you were accustomed to particles all your life.

David: No wonder gravity and light are still mysteries. Perhaps we are restricted in our understanding of these things because we are restricting our world view to matter/energy and not including the possibility of the metaphysical. The metaphysical can't be ruled out until the problem is finally solved and proven with bench-test repeatability.

We cannot see that which mediates light and gravity thus we must suppose a physical mediator and draw a picture of it. Similar with the atom. But there is no reason in hell that by now after all the billions we've spent and all the data we've collected that we cannot synthesize and come up with a rational assumption and explanation.

The architecture of a rational physical mediator, imagined, should be able to solve most if not all of the problems. But if you want validations/proofs I recommend you look at my proton/CERN blogs:

ccosmology.blogspot.com/2014/01/a-history-of-proton-in-pictures.html


ccosmology.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-wonderful-proton.html

ccosmology.blogspot.com/2014/02/dear-cern.html
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#28 David Sadler 2014-02-22 12:21
David: All atoms in the universe are connected to every other atom in order to mediate light?

Nicholas: "Yes, that is a core notion or fundamental assumption in RH & TT."

David: In the vacuum of space, light still travels essentially a straight line if not acted upon by refracting mediums. I'm still not sure about light being bent by gravity. Maybe gravitational lensing is a reality. But so far as we know of a perfect vacuum does not exist. A few atoms inhabit each cubic meter of space. The estimates vary but are as low as just a couple of atoms per cubic meter.

How would light continue to travel a straight line through a vacuum if its path of travel is mediated by the EM BH/TT connections between atoms? The atoms themselves would need to be in a straight line.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#29 David Sadler 2014-02-22 14:46
Nicholas,

Regarding gravitational lensing, look at experiment #4 here:

"Gravity Awareness Experiments"
www.simplegravity.com/gravityfun.html

This experiment shows that mass moves towards light. The conductor of this experiment [Louis Joseph Rancourt] concludes that light blocks a push of gravity per Le Sage.

Rancourt says,

"Many trials gave the same results: the fixed mass attracts the moving mass and when [light] passes between them, the attraction seems to increase, not to decrease ... Since light was not blocking a force coming from the fixed mass, is it blocking something coming from outside, horizontally? If there was an horizontal force acting on each side of the moving mass and if light was blocking some of that force, that could explain why the moving mass was getting closer and not farther ... That would means that gravity is not coming from the mass but from outside, from space ... These results confirm Lesage theory after 200 years!"

See a summary of experiment conclusions and questions here:
www.gravityforces.com/?page_id=61

It is interesting to note in this experiment that the mass moved, but Rancourt did not attempt to measure the bending of light. Does gravity bend light?

According to Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. is there no lensing of light in Sagittarius A*. See,
"A Direct Interaction Between Light and Gravitation Does Not Occur: Convincing Astrophysical Evidence at the Galactic Center"
at www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings08.htm

Is Dowdye saying that gravitational lensing does not occur as it appears that it does by the observations of astronomical objects?

* 'Einstein Cross' (Q2237+030 or QSO 2237+0305 at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross)
* 'Einstein ring' (B1938+666 at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring)
* Gravitational lens (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens)
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#30 Nicholas 2014-02-22 21:10
David: How would light continue to travel a straight line through a vacuum if its path of travel is mediated by the EM BH/TT connections between atoms? The atoms themselves would need to be in a straight line.

Nicholas: Now you have to be a little more specific because I don’t understand what you are asking. We can make manifest light phenomenon pretty much in all circumstances.

The EM Ropes converge upon all atoms and all neutrons. The EM Ropes are induced by atoms to twist various signals. It is the EM Ropes that convey these signals. The light rays or beams move in place. They do not literally travel through a vacuum medium. Vacuum=space=that which lacks shape otherwise known as nothing. Vacuum resolves to a shapeless concept.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#31 Nicholas 2014-02-22 21:10
David: Regarding gravitational lensing, look at experiment #4 here:
"Gravity Awareness Experiments"
www.simplegravity.com/gravityfun.html
This experiment shows that mass moves towards light. The conductor of this experiment [Louis Joseph Rancourt] concludes that light blocks a push of gravity per Le Sage.
Rancourt says,
"Many trials gave the same results: the fixed mass attracts the moving mass and when [light] passes between them, the attraction seems to increase, not to decrease ... Since light was not blocking a force coming from the fixed mass, is it blocking something coming from outside, horizontally? If there was an horizontal force acting on each side of the moving mass and if light was blocking some of that force, that could explain why the moving mass was getting closer and not farther ... That would means that gravity is not coming from the mass but from outside, from space ... These results confirm Lesage theory after 200 years!"
See a summary of experiment conclusions and questions here:
www.gravityforces.com/?page_id=61

It is interesting to note in this experiment that the mass moved, but Rancourt did not attempt to measure the bending of light. Does gravity bend light?

Nicholas: No gravity does not bend light!!! Light and gravity resolve to dynamic concepts. Concepts cannot move concepts!

Dynamic concepts relate objects in motion. We conceive dynamic concepts and name them. For example we conceive that the Sun imparts some causal relation to the Earth so as to keep her in orbit. We name this gravity. We also conceive that the Sun imparts some causal action to the Earth. We name this light. Gravity and light are two ideas of what objects DO to one another, but in order to explain these ideas a mediator has to be posited (e.g. atoms, EM Ropes interconnecting all atoms). But light and gravity do not impart causal relations to each other. That is like saying an idea moves an idea which is absurd. Does love bend justice???

As for the experiment conducted by Rancourt. It is not clear to me exactly what he did because his pictures did not all load up for me.

All the atoms of the screen/mirror are connected to all the atoms of the counter weights. I would assume that the laser stimulated the atoms of the screen/mirror to vibrate. As soon as the atoms of the screen vibrated they tugged ever so slightly on the metallic atoms of the sensitive balanced weight via the stiff EM Ropes. Thus it appeared that the weight moved toward the beam when in my statement of fact and explanation the atoms of the weight were slightly tugged by the atoms of the screen induced to vibrate by the incoming signals of the laser. Something to that effect.

But his conclusions are ridiculous. He is not even in the ballpark.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#32 Nicholas 2014-02-22 21:13
David: According to Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. is there no lensing of light in Sagittarius A*. See,
"A Direct Interaction Between Light and Gravitation Does Not Occur: Convincing Astrophysical Evidence at the Galactic Center"
at www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings08.htm
Is Dowdye saying that gravitational lensing does not occur as it appears that it does by the observations of astronomical objects?

Pardon me Dowdye is a fool. His whole purpose seems to prove that there is no direct interaction between gravity and light. Gravity and light are both dynamic concepts. And in context to a scientific presentation gravity and light are consummated events. Light and gravity are our ideas of what atoms DO to each other via physical mediators. Obviously concepts or phenomena cannot interact. So he does not have so much a clue of what he is talking about.

* 'Einstein Cross' (Q2237+030 or QSO 2237+0305 at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross)
* 'Einstein ring' (B1938+666 at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring)
* Gravitational lens (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens)

Gravitational lensing is easy. The atoms of a Corona or Galactic Halo relay the incoming signals rectilinearly around the star or galaxy and on to the incident object. Here is an example of how a corona or halo can relay in straight paths along a supposed rectilinear mediators:

1.bp.blogspot.com/-QnWE2vF-lfY/UusS3ueDKvI/AAAAAAAAAX0/Htb5WBw4SHU/s1600/Curved+space.jpg

Einstein’s Cross or Ring is a little trickier to explain but we do not need the mystical curving space to explain these tricks of Mother Nature.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#33 David Sadler 2014-02-23 10:04
Nicholas: "[Dowdye's] whole purpose seems to prove that there is no direct interaction between gravity and light."

I don't know him, but he has made a simple contention that the gravitational mass in question at Sagittarius A* does not gravitationally lens the light from the stars orbiting it.

This comment should be easy enough to validate empirically one way or the other. Do you know if an empirical proof or falsification of this contention exists?
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#34 Nicholas 2014-02-23 12:51
Quoting David Sadler:
Nicholas: "[Dowdye's] whole purpose seems to prove that there is no direct interaction between gravity and light."

I don't know him, but he has made a simple contention that the gravitational mass in question at Sagittarius A* does not gravitationally lens the light from the stars orbiting it.

This comment should be easy enough to validate empirically one way or the other. Do you know if an empirical proof or falsification of this contention exists?

There is no 'gravitational mass' at the center of Sagitarrius A* because there is no star there.

Empirical validations are subjective, subject to a puny sensory system and a logic that is built on axioms (contextual rules) and initial assumptions (premises). They can measure and calculate all they want but that will not solve any of the problems posed by the centers of the galaxies since they are stuck in relativity logic.

All one has to do is use his brain with this stuff. First one has to resolve what Sagittarius A* refers to. What do you think?

The astronomers say it is a radio source.
The mathematicians say it is the location of a supermassive black hole.

Black Holes do not send radio signals because they are concepts. And stars cannot orbit mathematical ideas. And what is it that comprises a Black Hole? No one seems to know. Everything is a mystery.

But the only ultimate source for radio signals are atoms. So obviously we have a dense cluster of atoms induced to send radio signals to our telescopes.

What induces the cluster of atoms to send radio links? They could relay signals from nearby stellar objects. Or they could be induced to pump radio signals by something. Is this 'something' a conceptual supermassive black hole made of nothing? Of course not. It some unidentified entities inducing these atoms, stars, and gas clouds to behave eccentrically? That is the question. What are the entities that induce the eccentric behavior in the stars and gas cloud at the central parsec and where do they originate.

Something or nothing. Shape or no shape. What is inducing all the eccentric behavior at the center of galaxies. Concepts cannot perform causal actions. Only supposed entities can. What could they be?
Quote | Report to administrator
#35 Guest 2014-02-24 11:30
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
Nicholas
#36 Nicholas 2014-02-24 14:02
looks like spam
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#37 David Sadler 2014-02-25 21:10
Hello, Nicholas,

BOOK OFFER

Thanks for the offer of Bill Gaede's book which I believe is titled, "Why God Doesn't Exist." Based on the title, I'm thinking the discussion of RH/TT is a subset of the subject matter. While the offer is much appreciated, for now, I'll continue to read online about the theory. Hopefully, however, we can keep the offer on the table.

ROPE CONNECTIONS

I'm trying to imagine how these:
1) ropes/threads would connect to the atom whether by a physical connection with size or by a non-physical connection without size
2) connections are EM yet do not produce a measurable charge independent of the electrons which are numbered for each atom
3) connections maintain a straight line to the next atom if these threads are supposed to mediate light

ATOMS IN MOTION

Nicholas: "The atoms ARE in constant motion: jumping, vibrating, spinning, etc. It is impossible for an atom to be still."

David: Yes. Interesting isn't it? Are we saying the atom is a perpetual motion machine? From where does that motion and movement come? So many questions. For now, we'll restrict these questions to the photons and ropes below.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#38 David Sadler 2014-02-25 21:12
Nicholas,

PARTICLES

Nicholas: "... discrete particles simply cannot simulate any of the dynamic and static properties of the atoms, light, gravity or even electricity and magnetism ..."

David: It's clear that no one can prove what light is right now. It's nature could change between a particle and wave just as matter/energy can change back and forth. Maybe it's a Rope/Thread, but I'm having difficultly with that right now. I have no prejudice against either of these ideas but which is correct or is either correct?

Particles, waves and EM ropes/threads are all physical. My feeling is that we could be dealing with a physics that is not exclusively material in nature. Many people vehemently disagree with this approach. That's fine by me. But they don't know what light and gravity is; from where the energy is derived; the mechanism of mediation; and yet, many are adamant it has to be physical and will call me names for suggesting a metaphysical component as a possibility.

I feel the assumption is premature that light is produced by the electron's decay from a higher-level shell to a lower-level shell since we don't even know what light is.

A rabbit might come out of the briar patch but we know that the briar patch did not produce the rabbit. A briar patch containing a rabbit can be excited with motion or sound and a rabbit will run out. An atom can be excited and light will appear in the form of what is called a photon or electromagnetic energy packet.

Here I don't know enough about the current empirical experiments with atoms and light. I admit my lack of scientific knowledge on this very interesting subject. But consider this.

Electrons 'orbit' an atom nucleus in what's called shells or electron orbitals.

Check out a pic of the orbital here:
www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/28/amazing-first-ever-photograph-inside-hydrogen-atom/

When an electron's orbit degrades from an outer (higher-level) shell to an inner (lower-level) shell, it emits a photon.

continued ....
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#39 David Sadler 2014-02-25 21:13
continued...

Watch this now …

1) The electron, if it is a particle, is orbiting the nucleus so fast that it can't be resolved as a particle -- only a shell or orbital. But when the photon exits the brier patch, it travels in a straight line at a constant speed in a vacuum.

When the electron's orbit degrades, does the electron or its prior shell impart a ballistic velocity to the photon? No. The photon exists the electron or the decay in the orbital at a constant velocity that is innate to (onboard) the photon.

What happens when the photon enters a Bose-Einstein condensate? It slows down to as little as 38 miles per hour by experiment ("Physicists Slow Speed of Light," By William J. Cromie, HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES, February 18, 1999).

What does the photon do after it exits the condensate? It resumes light speed. From where does the photon get this energy and why is it expressed in straight line velocity?

For a layman such as myself, this is why the notion of light hovering at the mythical event horizon by itself invalidates the common sense of a black hole.

If the energy release imparting velocity to the photon was ballistic, the photon, failing to exceed escape velocity would not hover at the event horizon but would fall back into the mass of the mythical black hole just as a rocket failing to exceed Earth's escape velocity falls back to Earth.

By experiment, it appears the photon propels itself, and would therefore continue to distance itself from the black hole mass if it was able to leave the singularity in the first place.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#40 David Sadler 2014-02-25 21:14
continued ...

Now watch this …

2) RH/TT: In our thought experiment, a rope/thread connects two atoms 50' apart in a vacuum consisting of only those two atoms. These atoms are atom-A and atom-B.

The atom-A electron degrades its orbit (shell, orbital) from an outer (higher-level) shell to an inner (lower-level) shell and emits a photon as a result of this orbital decay.

Photon Path
This photon's path of travel is confined to the rope/thread connecting the two atoms.

Photon Torque
Torque produces a twisting force. What causes the atoms to resist this torque? Why would the atoms not rotate on their axis to the rope/thread thereby reliving the rope/thread of this torque and thereby eliminating the speed of the photon if the torque applied to the rope/thread has anything to do with the speed of light?

Photon Speed
The speed of the photon is light speed all the way from atom-A to atom-B. The RH/TT postulates this speed is due to the torque applied to the rope/thread connecting the two atoms. Correct?

Now let's introduce a prism between the two atoms and let the photon travel through the prism. The light is refracted into a spectrum of light frequencies and the direction of the light now varies by frequency to produce the spectrum of frequencies.

Did the rope/thread multiply or fray into many ropes to accommodate this separation of light into many different paths?

Did the torque applied to the rope/thread leaving atom-A suddenly change into multiple torques when entering the prism?

I don't expect you to know the answer to all this. These are just my thoughts and I try to image this RR/TT theory and the mainstream standard models of light.

Nicholas: "... Particles cannot answer the structural and dynamic properties of the atoms ..."

David: That is my opinion as well, but I would refine the case from 'atoms' to atom configurations and its individual components, sub-components and charges. I would add that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The final answer may lie beyond the components and charges themselves. Until the answer is finally discovered, no possibility can be ruled out.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#41 Nicholas 2014-02-25 21:25
Quoting David Sadler:
Hello, Nicholas,

BOOK OFFER

Thanks for the offer of Bill Gaede's book which I believe is titled, "Why God Doesn't Exist." Based on the title, I'm thinking the discussion of RH/TT is a subset of the subject matter. While the offer is much appreciated, for now, I'll continue to read online about the theory. Hopefully, however, we can keep the offer on the table.

ROPE CONNECTIONS

I'm trying to imagine how these:
1) ropes/threads would connect to the atom whether by a physical connection with size or by a non-physical connection without size
2) connections are EM yet do not produce a measurable charge independent of the electrons which are numbered for each atom
3) connections maintain a straight line to the next atom if these threads are supposed to mediate light

ATOMS IN MOTION

Nicholas: "The atoms ARE in constant motion: jumping, vibrating, spinning, etc. It is impossible for an atom to be still."

David: Yes. Interesting isn't it? Are we saying the atom is a perpetual motion machine? From where does that motion and movement come? So many questions. For now, we'll restrict these questions to the photons and ropes below.

Re: Book Offer

Yeah Gaede doesn't think God exists but that isn't the main topic of the book. Its a sort of play on words because he thinks relativity/quantum mechanics is worse than religion. As if spacetime were God. Personally I still think God exists, but even so I am one of Gaede's closest followers in terms of physics.

Re: Rope Connections

There are plenty of visual aids. The EM Ropes are supposed to be the fundamental physical entity. They are 3D but extremely fine and have a unique property common only to this radical context. But just look at all the visual aids. We have plenty. You can join my friend's new forum if you want:
rationalscience.boards.net
I also have a nuclear physics forum on facebook.

Re: Atoms in Motion

Yeah those questions are beyond physics, but what is common today is that the mainstream establishment has made a sort of religion out of cosmology and physics.

I will respond to the rest tomorrow! Its been fun discussing this with you. Peace.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#42 David Sadler 2014-02-25 21:41
Nicholas,

"Its been fun discussing this with you."

Same here. Sorry its taking a while to respond to all of the conversation. But I'm enjoying the exchange and it's causing me to learn more about atoms and electrons with regards to what's known about photons.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#43 Nicholas 2014-02-26 20:52
Quoting David Sadler:
Nicholas,

David: It's clear that no one can prove what light is right now. It's nature could change between a particle and wave just as matter/energy can change back and forth. Maybe it's a Rope/Thread, but I'm having difficultly with that right now. I have no prejudice against either of these ideas but which is correct or is either correct?

Nicholas: It is irrational, inconceivable and impossible for a physical entity to change between a discrete particle and a wave. A wave is the motion of a continuous physical medium, e.g. water undulates. Particles cannot wave. In science there is no correct or incorrect, just possible and impossible. Particles and waves are both an impossible supposed mediator for light (not to mention gravity) because they contradict one another and because they cannot be used to explain the host of experiments and observations:

some observations which indicate that light cannot possibly be a particle:

Young’s slit experiment
Foucault/Michelson speed of light
Faraday/Maxwell electromagnetic induction
Balmer’s spectrum lines
Roentgen’s X-rays
DeBroglie’s integral waves

some observations which indicate that light cannot possibly be a wave:

Planck’s blackbody radiation
Hertz/Einstein photoelectric effect
Rutherford Backscattering
Compton’s X-Ray Scattering
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#44 Nicholas 2014-02-26 21:00
David: Particles, waves and EM ropes/threads are all physical. My feeling is that we could be dealing with a physics that is not exclusively material in nature. Many people vehemently disagree with this approach. That's fine by me. But they don't know what light and gravity is; from where the energy is derived; the mechanism of mediation; and yet, many are adamant it has to be physical and will call me names for suggesting a metaphysical component as a possibility.

Nicholas: Energy refers to a concept. Concepts originate via the brain, and this may be your confusion about metaphysics. Energy is what a physical mediator DOES. It is our conceptualization of what an invisible continuous physical mediator connecting all atoms DOES. The word describes a motion, in our assumption the motion of a DNA like mediator intrinsically tied to all atoms.

David: I feel the assumption is premature that light is produced by the electron's decay from a higher-level shell to a lower-level shell since we don't even know what light is.

Nicholas: This is not our assumption in RT & TT. Quantum’s interpretation is that photons are constantly created and annihilated out of this mythical vacuum and they have no way of tying these impossible actions to the electron. It is all a whitewash. All they care about is their equations. But their beliefs are way crazier than a simple Jew, Christian or Muslim. For them every moment there are gazillions of creation and annihilation events.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#45 Nicholas 2014-02-26 21:11
David: Electrons 'orbit' an atom nucleus in what's called shells or electron orbitals.

Check out a pic of the orbital here:
www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/28/amazing-first-ever-photograph-inside-hydrogen-atom/

When an electron's orbit degrades from an outer (higher-level) shell to an inner (lower-level) shell, it emits a photon.

Nicholas: Quantum’s model is ridiculous. They have no physical interpretation of the H atom. All they care about is getting their equations and predictions to work.

Electron’s DO NOT orbit the nucleus. The Electron encloses the nucleus in a wavy bird nest configuration. M Threads arc out at the atomic perimeter in all directions weaving the Electron Shell which encloses the proton. The atom pumps like a heart. When it contracts it is giving links of EM Ropes from all atoms of the U. When it expands it is receiving EM links from all atoms of the U. Quantum has no physical understanding of the H atom. All they have is a mathematical description.

The saddest part about that experiment that you linked is that they have no physical understanding of why or how the atom made those signatures on the film.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#46 Nicholas 2014-02-26 21:20
David: What happens when the photon enters a Bose-Einstein condensate? It slows down to as little as 38 miles per hour by experiment ("Physicists Slow Speed of Light," By William J. Cromie, HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES, February 18, 1999).
What does the photon do after it exits the condensate? It resumes light speed. From where does the photon get this energy and why is it expressed in straight line velocity?

Nicholas: A photon cannot enter a Bose-Einstein condensate. First of all the mainstream establishment has no physical interpretation of a Bose-Einstein condensate. They haven’t a clue what is happening so their claim that a photon slows to 38 miles per hour is stupid.

A Bose Einstein could be rare circumstances where the E & M threads of the sample become loose at the atomic perimeter. When they are cooled to just above absolute zero they are not quantum jumping or receiving any substantial torque so they just become relaxed. There is no rubbing of E & M Threads at the atomic perimeter. The E & M threads might just wave around in an unorganized manner. I'm not sure if this actually happens anywhere in the Universe other than artificially here on Earth.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#47 Nicholas 2014-02-26 21:26
as for the rest David I recommend studying EM & TT a little deeper. You will get a lot better feel for it. Once you are able to conceive how the Sun induces the atoms of your eyes to jump you will never go back to quantum magic. Lol!!!
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#48 David Sadler 2014-04-11 16:59
"Nicholas: A photon cannot enter a Bose-Einstein condensate. First of all the mainstream establishment has no physical interpretation of a Bose-Einstein condensate."

David: A reference was provided to the article for the experiment. Here it is again.

("Physicists Slow Speed of Light," By William J. Cromie, HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES, February 18, 1999)

Did you contact the science team and review their experiment with them? Did you attempt the experiment on your own? Why such a categorical denial?

"Nicholas: ... They haven’t a clue what is happening so their claim that a photon slows to 38 miles per hour is stupid."

David: Are you saying that the speed of light is invariable? If the speed of light can vary, provide some examples of mediums or conditions that can change the speed of light.

If it can be shown by experiment that the speed of light can be slowed from its light speed, then what is the minimum speed of light and give references to the experiments determining this minimum speed.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#49 David Sadler 2014-04-11 17:08
I'm reading, "What is the Electron?" It's a collection of papers edited by Volodimir Simulik (principal research associate at the Institute of Electron Physics of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences. There are seventeen papers by scientists from around the world each presenting new ideas about the nature and attributes of the electron since the old ideas are insufficient. It's amazing that in the 21st century, modern science still can not say definitively what the electron is. The same goes for the photon.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#50 David Sadler 2014-04-12 10:07
My post on 2014-04-11 16:59 needs to be clarified for future discussions on the subject of electrons, photons and the speed of light.

The 'speed of light' refers to the constant and maximum speed of light in a vacuum.

The 'speed of the photon' can vary.

When we discuss the 'speed of light' we are discussing the maximum speed of electromagnetic propagation. When we discuss the speed of the photon, we are discussing the variable and regulated speed of the photon entity, whatever that is. The 'speed of light' refers to a constant whereas the 'speed of the photon' refers to a variable.

See prism (dispersive, reflect, deflect, refract, polarization), achromatic lens. See also the free book online, "Opticks" by Sir Isaac Newton at SirIsaacNewton(dot)info for a layman's primer on the behavior and properties of light prior to lasers.

There is no doubt that the literature is clearly stating that light can be slowed down. The question is, how slow can light be slowed down?

The Harvard experiment says light can be slowed to at least 38 miles per hour and maybe even slower. Calling this experimental claim 'stupid' carries no information and no refutation of the experimental results.

Calling the experimental results 'stupid' is to deny the broad current understanding and acceptance that light can be slowed down. Calling the experimental results 'stupid' also denies without any reasoning direct observations of the refraction of light being caused by the slowing of light by frequency though such mediums as prisms. Newton’s experiments in this regard are very interesting.

So maybe the word 'stupid' isn't the word Nickolas intended to use, but it needed to be pointed out that the speed of light/photons can be varied and regulated by simple experiments using a prism. The question is, using different and more exotic mediums, just how slow can light/photons be slowed down?
Quote | Report to administrator
Stephen J. Crothers
#51 Stephen J. Crothers 2014-05-25 09:53
Quoting Observer:
Hawking is merely thinking around the firewall paradox . This is not a new scientific physics theory as it contains no equations. He has not said black holes do not exist, who people need to go read his paper it's only a couple of pages long! Crothers needs to get off his mathematical high horse he simply doesn't believe in modelling. Keplers laws are based on a totally flat universe and isolated masses but the predictions are pretty good! Cruthers needs to get the chip off his shoulder and stop insulting all the physicists who have achieved something, unlike him who has achieved nothing!


That’s not true.

The Parallax Effect on Short Hair
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXF098w48fo

THE RISE AND FALL OF BLACK HOLES AND BIG BANGS
www.principia-scientific.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-black-holes-and-big-bangs.html

Simple proof that black holes have no basis in General Relativity
viXra.org/abs/1405.0287
Quote | Report to administrator
skippy
#52 skippy 2014-06-29 20:02
I stumbled upon this and gathered a rudimentary familiarization with RH/TT over the last few hours. One thing that immediately triggered my logic reflex is the following: if protons are basically the nodes of intersection between threads, protons are the cores of atoms, and each and every atom is linked by a thread to each and every other atom does that necessitate that the physical universe is finite? Or else wouldn't the physical universe be infinitely dense since the threads are 1) said to be 3D so they are material in some way and 2) an infinite physical universe should assume infinite atoms and since atoms are the intersections of threads and every atom is in possession of a thread that touches every other atom in existence, every atom would be composed of infinite material threads intersecting?
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#53 David Sadler 2014-06-29 23:49
Skippy,

You've touched upon one of the obvious issues with the RH/TT theory. It's more difficult to imagine that a black hole. How it could be tested is equally unimaginable.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#54 Nicholas 2014-06-30 17:02
Of course the fundamental physical entity is finite. This is good sound reason.

Universe refers to a concept as does space. These are just ideas. All ideas are boundless, without form or in other words infinite.

Thread Theory assumes a single continuous object, called Thread. The Thread is a hypothesized object, thus assuming it really does exist it is bound of itself, i.e. it has form, or is the first form or is finite. The amount of Thread does not increase or decrease.

The proton is a critical density of thread intersecting from all atoms. This critical density enables fundamental interactions to take place, for example an electron thread could push against a proton or a proton could collide with another proton.

I've written several articles brainstorming about the Thread after reading Gaede's book. I also have a sort of new conception of electron that isn't in Gaede's book that might solve some problems. II also have a nuclear physics forum on facebook. Feel free to join and criticize or pose questions there. I'm really open with my thought, but I prefer to participate there because it is much easier and then we have a log of discussions. There is about 40 members now. We've also discussed the idea about infinite and space.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nicholas
#55 Nicholas 2014-06-30 17:15
Quoting David Sadler:
Skippy,

You've touched upon one of the obvious issues with the RH/TT theory. It's more difficult to imagine that a black hole. How it could be tested is equally unimaginable.

Quoting David Sadler:
Skippy,

You've touched upon one of the obvious issues with the RH/TT theory. It's more difficult to imagine that a black hole. How it could be tested is equally unimaginable.

Of course I completely disagree with this. Its not all that difficult for me to imagine. All one need do is work at it a bit. It wouldn't hurt to learn the difference between object & concept. I've literally spend countless hours in support of this theory, researching, writing and thinking. The assumption is excellent. I am even in a position now where I can give something of a physical explanation of alpha in some definitions of the fine structure constant. I have a decent conception of the electron and how charge works and how this is related to light. I even seemed to have figured out how 'light' scatters, at least basically.

I think its an excellent assumption, theory, interpretation, etc. And it doesn't need to be tested. All the famous math equations and famous experiments can work with it.
Quote | Report to administrator
David Sadler
#56 David Sadler 2014-08-01 19:31
Black Holes Aren’t Black After All, Say Theoretical Physicists
Collapsed stars are just too big to trap light forever
The Physics arXiv Blog on Jul 23

Article at: medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/black-holes-arent-black-after-all-say-theoretical-physicists-d0758c7c88b5

Neither are they finitely dense nor are they mass-point singularities. They don't have event horizons and both light and matter CAN escape.

There's not much left of the Black Hole 'scientific' charade. But this won't keep it from continuing as mainstream dogma.
Quote | Report to administrator

Add comment

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link.
Most recent comments first.


Security code
Refresh