Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Penrose Process Discuss


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#18 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1616 posts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 08:56 AM

No, it varies in a gravitational field. This means pretty much everything Penrose ever said about black holes is wrong. Make sure you read what Einstein said:

 

1912: “On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential”.

1913: “I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis”.

1914: “In the case where we drop the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light, there exists, a priori, no privileged coordinate systems.”

1915: “the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned”.

1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity”.

1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

 

Optical clocks go slower when they're lower, Victor. We call it gravitational time dilation. At the event horizon gravitational time dilation goes infinite, so the optical clock stops.

The relativistic jets get their energy from infalling matter erupting into a gamma ray burst as it approaches the event horizon. Again, see Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper. 

 

Make sure you read this: Kerr black holes as wormholes: "This second exterior is sometimes thought of as another universe. On the other hand, in the Kerr solution, the singularity is a ring, and the curve may pass through the center of this ring. The region beyond permits closed time-like curves. Since the trajectory of observers and particles in general relativity are described by time-like curves, it is possible for observers in this region to return to their past". It's all a load of baloney. It's science fiction. So is everything else about the Kerr-Newman metric. I've written an article about black holes if you're interested. See this.

 

That is what one author says about it which does not make that author correct that, I cannot follow the link to "Kerr black holes as wormholes"  but geometry wise the Kerr-Newman best explains SMBH's, meaning it is charged and rotating, whether or not there is a wormhole within these black holes is indeterminable.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 04 December 2019 - 09:23 AM.


#19 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts

Posted 05 December 2019 - 07:44 AM

That is what one author says about it which does not make that author correct that, I cannot follow the link to "Kerr black holes as wormholes"  but geometry wise the Kerr-Newman best explains SMBH's, meaning it is charged and rotating, whether or not there is a wormhole within these black holes is indeterminable.

That author was Einstein. The hard scientific evidence of NIST optical clocks says he's correct. But you want to carry on believing in the crackpot stuff that flatly contradicts Einstein and the evidence. The sort of lost-in-maths quackery which demands negative-energy particles and predicts wormholes along with the parallel antiverse and time travel. Good luck with that Victor. Obviously I can't persuade you to be empirical and logical, just as I can't persuade the people who believe in Heaven and Hell and Sweet Baby Jesus. Over and Out.  



#20 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1616 posts

Posted 05 December 2019 - 10:17 AM

That author was Einstein. The hard scientific evidence of NIST optical clocks says he's correct. But you want to carry on believing in the crackpot stuff that flatly contradicts Einstein and the evidence. The sort of lost-in-maths quackery which demands negative-energy particles and predicts wormholes along with the parallel antiverse and time travel. Good luck with that Victor. Obviously I can't persuade you to be empirical and logical, just as I can't persuade the people who believe in Heaven and Hell and Sweet Baby Jesus. Over and Out.  

 

Einstein and Rosen are even the persons that originally came up with the idea of wormholes, I am not saying that black holes include wormholes however I am saying the solutions to Einstein's equations for black holes are correct and whatever "Frozen Star" paper you were referencing is crackpottery. It is obvious that Einstein believed in wormholes, I do under certain conditions however not without much tinkering with the geometry of a black hole, basically that the event horizon has to be a donut shape bent into a unnatural shape, basically meaning natural black holes do not include wormholes, they must be created. This method requires no Negative Mass particle but rather a device that will bend the black hole into a Tipler Cylinder.

 

Black Hole Tipler Cylinder Geometry

download.jpg

 

So as you can see a time travel device or wormhole device would require a very different set of conditions than a natural black hole.

 

370409-1-En-5-Fig6-HTML.gif

 

Now back to the Geometry of a Kerr-Newman Black hole

 

Kerr-surfaces.png

 

As I said there is no possibility of a wormhole forming or Tipler Cylinder under the Kerr-Newman Metric's Geometry without much geometric changing with it.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 05 December 2019 - 10:57 AM.


#21 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1616 posts

Posted 05 December 2019 - 02:47 PM

Victor, no he is right. Light is a spatial variable and depends on the mediums geometry.

 

Yes, but still the theory he talks about is crackpottery, within a material the speed of light does change,which does not change the momentum/energy, however he was talking about in free space that it changes which is crackpottery, while the direction of the light may change due to gravity bending the fabric of time-space, the speed of light in a vacuum does not. It may be moved at a angle due to curvature however the actual magnitude of the velocity of light does not change in free space the actual space itself changes not the light, which is why that is crack pottery. If the light were to change then there would be a redshift or blueshift but that is still only accounting for the space having changed its wavelength not that the speed of light has changed in free space furthermore there is no energy loss that would indicate a change in the light's momentum/energy,therefore also the speed of light is not changed, basically only the geodesic changes of space accounting for wavelength and length,but not frequency otherwise there would be momentum/energy loss. If there was Momentum/energy loss then there would need to be another particle generated to account for the Momentum/energy loss otherwise the 1st law of thermodynamics would be violated, therefore what he said is crack-pottery that the actual speed of light changes which is rather the space changing.

 

Measuring-spacetime-curvature-pillars.jp


Edited by VictorMedvil, 05 December 2019 - 03:04 PM.


#22 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts

Posted Today, 10:03 AM

Here's Einstein talking about the speed of light varying in 1920 in the Einstein digital papers:

8KXbI.jpg

 

Here's Irwin Shapiro saying the same in his Shapiro Delay paper dating from 1961:

IlSrh.jpg

 

There's also contemporary references such as Ned Wright's Deflection and Delay of Light: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light". Another one is Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? by PhysicsFAQ editor Don Koks:

"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers".

 

Einstein's wormholes concerned particles, not black holes. See Einstein and Rosen’s 1935 paper on the particle problem in the theory of general relativity. They talked about a mathematical representation of space wherein a particle is represented by a bridge connecting two sheets. It isn’t anything to do with the black hole  wormholes you read about today. They grew out of David Finkelstein’s 1958 paper past-future asymmetry of the gravitational field of a point particle. He was talking about point particles and antiparticles, and saying an antiparticle was some kind of white hole, which it isn’t.

 

All those black hole wormholes are crackpot nonsense peddled by people like Penrose who never read the Einstein digital papers and appealed to Einstein's authority whilst flatly contradicting the guy. A star collapses, it forms a dense body called a black hole, but people think it's some gateway to another universe? It really is the most abject nonsense. As is the notion that you can extract energy from it because negative-energy particles exist. They don't. There are no pencils less than zero inches long. and there are no particles with less than zero mass.