Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Finshed Bivector Theory Of Gravity


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#18 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 27 December 2018 - 11:16 AM

I am well aware of what the conventional model states, such as, I am well aware we have been led to believe that the speed of light cannot change. Yet I give you an example in which the extreme current model of gravitational physics predicts light can completely slow down around a black hole. Is it now moving at the speed of light?

 

Also, light does not possess a frame of reference, which means, to which observer is the photon moving at the speed of light constantly? To an observer sitting outside a gravitational system, we can feel quite comfortable to say that the speed of light technically varies in a [general sense] while the speed of light is constant in absence of gravitational field (which is by no other name), [special relativity]. We don't destroy anything fundamental within relativity by stating these things, in fact, the notion of a gravitational aether (and later models that predicted that light can escape black holes) solves many problems. For instance, light does not come to a standstill around a black hole, you will eventually see a test pilot pass the event horizon. Information additionally is allowed to escape, which is an on-going mystery.

 

As I said, nothing in relativity breaks down, but under gravitational aether theory, we not only understand why curvature should exist, but we come to understand solutions to other very important questions that surround the theoretical black hole and other various gravitational studies. I have plenty references, for instance, supporting the gravitational aether. Perhaps tomorrow I will go to my blog and chase a few up for you.

 

My last words for now would be, be careful just accepting that the speed of light cannot vary, when experimentally speaking, we know light slows down in gravitational fields. If light could not slow down, we wouldn't have ridiculous notions of observers sitting outside an event horizon in which they never see their test pilot pass the boundary because the light never reaches them. But if light can only approach zero, then we avoid these kinds of paradoxes. Variable Newton's constant, also required in this theory, is [at least] backed with some hard evidence and anomalies suggested it is not a constant.



#19 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 27 December 2018 - 11:44 AM

"Yet I give you an example in which the extreme current model of gravitational physics predicts light can completely slow down around a black hole. Is it now moving at the speed of light?" 

 

Why would it not it be travelling at the speed of light around the singularity. I gave the example above of an electron orbiting a nucleus, absorbing a photons energy, this is the closest analogy I can come up with to a photon orbiting a black hole. In fact if one goes back to the ER=EPR conjecture. For a particle to form in space from nothing, Maybe a quantum wormhole could capture sufficient energy from quantum fluctuations to become stable. Not unlike hawking radiation.  

 

A Black hole is made up of lots of particles all of which MAY have wormholes at their centre, which group together to form a said Black hole gravity. 



#20 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 27 December 2018 - 12:28 PM

First of all, there are no singularities in the universe. Ininities do not exist in the real world, and no such object can copy itself indefinitely. The singularity is an artifact of the earliest black hole models. Both Hawking and Penrose later changed their minds on their singularity theorems, believing that singularities do not in fact form. In fact, singularity-free models have become very popular and I was hinting at this before it became as popular as it is. Secondly, when we speak about light slowing down, we are not talking about the interior of the black hole, we refer to a famous thought experiment in which an astronaut falls past the horizon, classical theory predicts the light cannot escape and so an observer sitting outside would seem to see the astronaut take [forever] to pass the boundary. The fact is, the speed of light is a relative term and the statement it only moves at the speed of light in a vacuum, can only be good within the special theory of relativity, not a general case.



#21 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 27 December 2018 - 12:29 PM

As far as what happens inside a black hole, I have wondered whether it forms a photon condensate as opposed to a black hole quantum computer using gravitons (as had been suggested in literature).



#22 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 28 December 2018 - 09:34 AM

First of all, there are no singularities in the universe. Ininities do not exist in the real world, and no such object can copy itself indefinitely. The singularity is an artifact of the earliest black hole models. Both Hawking and Penrose later changed their minds on their singularity theorems, believing that singularities do not in fact form. In fact, singularity-free models have become very popular and I was hinting at this before it became as popular as it is. Secondly, when we speak about light slowing down, we are not talking about the interior of the black hole, we refer to a famous thought experiment in which an astronaut falls past the horizon, classical theory predicts the light cannot escape and so an observer sitting outside would seem to see the astronaut take [forever] to pass the boundary. The fact is, the speed of light is a relative term and the statement it only moves at the speed of light in a vacuum, can only be good within the special theory of relativity, not a general case.

 

My reference to singularity was sloppy wording, thanks for picking me up on that. The ER = EPR conjecture is a key part of the Holographic universe principle. Pinpricks in the fabric of 3D space, might have been better wording. 

 

I used the black hole particle model references only because the idea has been around for a few years. However black holes assume mass at their centre causes the curvature of space time. This is wrong, based on both emergent gravity and the holographic principle which both rely on entanglement ie an EPR or ER bridge.

 

A quantum wormhole (pinprick) may cause quantum fluctuations to fall towards said wormhole creating a particle. Which when many such particles are added together form a black hole. I wonder if quantum fluctuations falling in towards a quantum wormhole would ever pass the event horizon :) ???.

 

As for singularities I agree they are most likely a case of the maths being pushed past breaking point. 

 

 

As far as what happens inside a black hole, I have wondered whether it forms a photon condensate as opposed to a black hole quantum computer using gravitons (as had been suggested in literature).

 

As far what happens inside a blackhole, I do not buy the various graviton ideas. They have never been detected, are assumed to be very low energy, and not even high energy gamma rays escape a blackhole, so how is a graviton going to get out. 

 

The laws of thermodynamics must apply inside a Black hole, anything that is compressed is going to get hot, and will turn into a plasma, then most likely into some form of high energy photons which might actually be self supporting and not be compressed. If Hawking Radiation slowly evaporates a Blackhole, it might intermittently release huge gamma ray bursts, from it core, until the central mass is reduced enough, for a supernovae type big bang as in QLG.

 

What goes on inside a BH is speculation theories like QLG might be part way to solving what goes on.



#23 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 29 December 2018 - 02:37 AM

My reference to singularity was sloppy wording, thanks for picking me up on that. The ER = EPR conjecture is a key part of the Holographic universe principle. Pinpricks in the fabric of 3D space, might have been better wording. 

 

I used the black hole particle model references only because the idea has been around for a few years. However black holes assume mass at their centre causes the curvature of space time. This is wrong, based on both emergent gravity and the holographic principle which both rely on entanglement ie an EPR or ER bridge.

 

A quantum wormhole (pinprick) may cause quantum fluctuations to fall towards said wormhole creating a particle. Which when many such particles are added together form a black hole. I wonder if quantum fluctuations falling in towards a quantum wormhole would ever pass the event horizon :) ???.

 

As for singularities I agree they are most likely a case of the maths being pushed past breaking point. 

 

 

 

As far what happens inside a blackhole, I do not buy the various graviton ideas. They have never been detected, are assumed to be very low energy, and not even high energy gamma rays escape a blackhole, so how is a graviton going to get out. 

 

The laws of thermodynamics must apply inside a Black hole, anything that is compressed is going to get hot, and will turn into a plasma, then most likely into some form of high energy photons which might actually be self supporting and not be compressed. If Hawking Radiation slowly evaporates a Blackhole, it might intermittently release huge gamma ray bursts, from it core, until the central mass is reduced enough, for a supernovae type big bang as in QLG.

 

What goes on inside a BH is speculation theories like QLG might be part way to solving what goes on.

 

It was a bit of surprise for me to learn how well a condensate model for a black hole really is - the larger the condensate will minimize the free energy of the system (so that larger black holes gives off less radiation than smaller black holes) which is at least similar to how we think of thermodynamics applied to black holes. I think you are right and that not only thermodynamics is important to understand internal dynamics, but we should also concentrate on the idea that quantum mechanics does not vanish either, for instance, a particle cannot be confined to a region smaller than its wavelength, preventing singularities.



#24 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 29 December 2018 - 02:40 AM

I have likened the argument to quantum mechanics applying inside of black holes, as analogous to quantum cosmology in which wave functions play a significant role in the early development of our universe, when it had a structure that was very similar to a black hole. In fact, in all mathematical regards, the early universe and late universe, is at least in concordance with the weak equivalence principle.



#25 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 29 December 2018 - 05:34 AM

It was a bit of surprise for me to learn how well a condensate model for a black hole really is - the larger the condensate will minimize the free energy of the system (so that larger black holes gives off less radiation than smaller black holes) which is at least similar to how we think of thermodynamics applied to black holes. I think you are right and that not only thermodynamics is important to understand internal dynamics, but we should also concentrate on the idea that quantum mechanics does not vanish either, for instance, a particle cannot be confined to a region smaller than its wavelength, preventing singularities.

 

Yes and No, Yes(electron and neutron degeneracy) and No I suspect that particles will be broken down via collisions and decomposition, into radiation. Think electron positron annihilation producing gamma rays. If atoms are smashed together at CERN that break down into fundamental components, quarks and anti quarks etc, which have very short lifetimes, also producing radiation. Gamma rays being bosons and not confined. See above what I am driving at.

 

Is a particles wavelengths not just another way of representing its inertia. E = pv = hf approx :)

 

A particle can be compressed and form a heavier particle. If it is assumed that all particles are connected to a wormholes(not a singularity).  When said particles are brought together the entanglement of that region of space is increased. 

 

 

I have likened the argument to quantum mechanics applying inside of black holes, as analogous to quantum cosmology in which wave functions play a significant role in the early development of our universe, when it had a structure that was very similar to a black hole. In fact, in all mathematical regards, the early universe and late universe, is at least in concordance with the weak equivalence principle.

 

Yes Quantum mechanics applies, BUT quantum mechanics still has not got a handle on gravity unless you are looking at the Holographic universe, Emergent Gravity or maybe even QLG. They rely on extra dimensions. 

 

The early universe prior to any theoretical Big Bang would have been very cold 0K, and easily have supported the 5th state of matter, in the form of condensates. The back ground radiation we have today may be preventing new matter forming. Hoyle might have been correct, matter appears out of space forming huge cold nebulae, which eventually collapse forming stars black holes super novaes and everything to the current day. 

 

Any ways I have to do some work for a week, so wont be posting for a little while. An amusing Pop science link on string theory. https://phys.org/new...daily-nwletter