Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: No Trouble with Tribbles - Call for Collaborators

  1. #1 No Trouble with Tribbles - Call for Collaborators 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Fall Creek, Wisconsin - the far side of the moon
    Posts
    131


    There is no trouble with Birkhoff’s Theorem which says: All gravity fields (including BHs’) act like normal Newtonian fields because all gravity fields drop out of GR naturally and so must be “asymptotically flat”, that is, they must vanish at large distances, i.e. they must follow an inverse square law.

    BUT, Birkhoff is based on the particulars of the massive bodies that are treated, like stars; such particulars as the metric are used as premises. The theorem says any spherically symmetric field must be asymptotically flat because any mass already behaves as if all its mass was concentrated at the center. It already behaves like a point mass. So, Birkhoff should rule out the hyperbolic (1/kr) supermassive Black-Hole singular galactic gravitational field.

    Yet, none of the BH scenarios that are theoretically covered can be considered real. All real BHs are perturbed beyond recognition by their immense quantities of environmental matter and energy, including enormous external gravity fields. Such fields emanate from huge galactic disks or from other whole galaxies with their own embedded supermassive BHs.

    Real conditions should invalidate the theorem.

    One critical consideration is that black-holes are NOT mere point masses. They have been shown by Kretschmann and Schwartzchild to be physically real as infinitely dense point particles (within Heisenberg limits) with an infinitely deep gravitational potential well. They are NOT like a planet or a star. This is not properly reflected in the metrics with their singularities necessarily excluded, and is not adequately treated by Birkhoff, or else it represents an exception. This observation may indicate a flaw or shortcoming in the way that general relativity is interpreted for spacetimes in the vicinity of black-holes, particularly near the singularity at r = 0.

    Birkhoff used the Schwartzchild Metric. But, he could not rightly use the existence of an infinitely deep gravitational well or an infinitely dense point particle because these singular infinities cannot be handled normally. “The physics at a singularity is not well defined.”

    It is far easier to accept the possibility of a flaw or exception than to accept the idea of some sort of unfalsifiable Dark Matter comprised of, say, undetectable WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles). By their very nature WIMPs are supposed to be so “weakly interacting” that they cannot even show up in particle accelerator experiments. The WIMP hypothesis is formulated to be as unfalsifiable as any of the other Dark Matter proposals. As such, it does not merit the label “science”. It is more like science fiction.

    So, an hyperbolic (F = GMm/kr) supermassive BH galactic gravity field is possible after all: k = constant = 1m (S.I.), for dimensional integrity. Einstein referred to his equations as being hyperbolic/elliptical in nature. That is, hyperbolic geometry is not outside the realm of GR.

    Kretschmann’s invariance and Schwartzchild’s analysis mean that the singularity at the core of a BH is physically real. From our external frame of reference, the exact location of a BH singularity cannot be found because of the Heisenberg limit. So, from our external perspective, a BH core density and central gravity strength cannot be directly “measured” to be “infinite”. But, mathematically, it is so. And, elementary analytic geometry says that an infinitely deep graphical gravity potential growing from an hugely heavy infinitely dense point mass MUST be asymptotic in nature (NOT asymptotically flat). By symmetry, the other arm of the graphical curve must be asymptotic too, the definition of a hyperbola.

    If you can collaborate on a paper, let us prove that an hyperbolic spacetime geometry around a realistic supermassive black-hole can be genuine and that the postulated hyperbolic (1/kr) field can, indeed, account for all effects currently ascribed to so-called “Dark Matter”. As a partner, of course, I shall do a yeoman’s share of work, including the scut-work of referencing & literature search. I am in an ideal position to do this!

    garyakent@aol.com

    "It is far easier and demonstrates much less intelligence to shoot down an idea than to show how to make it work."


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Gary Anthony Kent,

    Your proposal sounds interesting. What does the k in kr stand for? It seems like kr is equivalent to just r, the distance based upon your Hyperbolic (1/r) above -- or maybe the case where k =1 , or radius in km?

    I will be e-mailing you concerning my ideas concerning your proposal.


    Last edited by forrest noble; January 2nd, 2012 at 01:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Gary Anthony Kent,

    Your proposal sounds interesting. I will be e-mailing you concerning my ideas concerning your proposal.
    Maybe your correspondence will have implications for some scientific theories which are fully accepted at the present time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    From our external frame of reference, the Schwarzschild solution tends towards a coordinate singularity at the Schwarzschild radius - the event horizon. This means we cannot use the Schwarzschild solution smoothly, all the way from infinity to r=0, without using an appropriate coordinate transformation (usually Kruskal - Szekeres) to go from outside the Schwarzschild radius to inside that radius. The space-time inside that radius is essentially a separate entity from the space-time outside it - it is separated from the rest of the universe by the event horizon.

    Perhaps one might find that, once one makes the appropriate coordinate tranformations across the Schwarzschild radius, that one curve transforms into the other?



    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Gary Anthony Kent,

    Your proposal sounds interesting. I will be e-mailing you concerning my ideas concerning your proposal.
    Maybe your correspondence will have implications for some scientific theories which are fully accepted at the present time.
    My interest in Gary's proposal has its basis in my cosmological model. At the asymptotic green line above which he describes as a hyperbola, it accordingly formulates as 1/R, which is the equivalent to the MOND strength of gravity in our spiral disc. The MOND formulation works very well for predicting rotation curves of spiral disks. So I view this question of Gary's as having galactic applications, other than just for back holes, concerning a different theory of gravity that would not need dark matter. It would have similarities to Milgram's MOND proposal but should apply everywhere as well, which MOND cannot/ does not do.
    Last edited by forrest noble; January 12th, 2012 at 11:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Fall Creek, Wisconsin - the far side of the moon
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Gary Anthony Kent,

    Your proposal sounds interesting. What does the k in kr stand for? It seems like kr is equivalent to just r, the distance based upon your Hyperbolic (1/r) above -- or maybe the case where k =1 , or radius in km?

    I will be e-mailing you concerning my ideas concerning your proposal.

    The constant k = 1m in the S.I. System is a factor necessary to preserve the proper dimensional analysis. Otherwise, the dimensions would match those of potential energy when it is supposed to have dimensions of force. A silly little trick, I know, but it can be seen as direct acknowledgment of the singularity present in a black hole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Fall Creek, Wisconsin - the far side of the moon
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    From our external frame of reference, the Schwarzschild solution tends towards a coordinate singularity at the Schwarzschild radius - the event horizon. This means we cannot use the Schwarzschild solution smoothly, all the way from infinity to r=0, without using an appropriate coordinate transformation (usually Kruskal - Szekeres) to go from outside the Schwarzschild radius to inside that radius. The space-time inside that radius is essentially a separate entity from the space-time outside it - it is separated from the rest of the universe by the event horizon.

    Perhaps one might find that, once one makes the appropriate coordinate tranformations across the Schwarzschild radius, that one curve transforms into the other?




    The Kretschmann invariance acknowledges that the "singularity" at the event horizon is entirely due to a poor choice of coordinates. When a better choice is made, the singularity at the event horizon vanishes, but the one at the center remains. It is physically real. Except that the black hole singular point mass having infinite density and infinite gravitational strength must be admitted in the light of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, no change of coordinates will make it vanish. Resort to quantum gravity is essentially just such a change. It will make no difference unless it changes the metric. Changing the metric is just what I propose in order to endorse the hyperbolic field, not eliminate it...

    I like my hyperbolas to appear entirely in the 1st and 3rd quadrants or in the 2nd and 4th. It's a cool animation though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 I have stopped referring to MOND 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Fall Creek, Wisconsin - the far side of the moon
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Gary Anthony Kent,

    Your proposal sounds interesting. I will be e-mailing you concerning my ideas concerning your proposal.
    Maybe your correspondence will have implications for some scientific theories which are fully accepted at the present time.
    My interest in Gary's proposal has its basis in my cosmological model. At the asymptotic green line above which he describes as a hyperbola, it accordingly formulates as 1/R, which is the equivalent to the MOND strength of gravity in our spiral disc. The MOND formulation works very well for predicting rotation curves of spiral disks. So I view this question of Gary's as having galactic applications, other that just back holes, concerning a different theory of gravity that would not need dark matter. It would have similarities to Milgram's MOND proposal but should apply everywhere as well, which MOND cannot do.

    I have stopped referring to MOND because people think that I am trying to endorse Milgrom's proposal. I do endorse his data, however, which is used these days to support the notion of Dark Matter. So, I refer to Milgrom's as "The MOND Effect", not MOND itself. The hyperbolic field answers all the questions that Dark Matter does but much more parsimoniously. It serves as a possible cause of all the same phenomena that are cited to support Dark Matter. It actually preserves the FLRW metric and the LCDM Friedmann model with the caveat that "Dark Matter" is replaced by the hyperbolic field "Dark Matter Effect". But, it seems that some modification of the FLRW metric is required to allow a hyperbolic gravitational field or else an extension of GR to more than 3 + 1 dimensions is needed.

    Since all or almost all spiral galaxies (and other types too) have super-massive black holes in their nuclei, it is my contention that the 1/R relation from MOND proves that there is a black hole physically real singularity in the core, not that a modification of Newtonian dynamics or Dark Matter is necessary. A 1/R relation results in constant orbital velocity of stars beyond a certain small distance from the "bulge". Then v = (GM)1/2 a constant which has no R dependence. As Milgrom notes, this has actually been observed almost everywhere.

    The constancy of orbital acceleration ao irritates some people and argues for Dark Matter they say. But, Milgrom focused on stars near the peripheries of galaxies. The periphery is a self-defining zone, so this could explain ao as a constant or near constant. If ao results from an hyperbolic asymptotic gravitational field, the approach to an asymptote will be slow enough and reproducible enough at large r to mimic ao = constant.

    I would be happy to hear from you at either KENTgen1@aol.com or garyakent@aol.com
    hyperbola vs natural log c3 potential energy diagram - upsized .jpg

    Click image for a larger version.

    Note that the zero point for potential energy must be taken as occurring at r =x =1, not r ---> infinity for the ln(r)
    curve. So the sign of any potential energy needs to be reversed in order to be consistent with conventional usage.
    Last edited by Gary Anthony Kent; January 13th, 2012 at 12:52 AM. Reason: clarify
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Who had trouble signing up?
    By (In)Sanity in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 27th, 2012, 10:57 PM
  2. ear trouble
    By nightskyjam in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 9th, 2011, 12:43 AM
  3. Will i get in trouble?
    By An inconvenient lie in forum Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 5th, 2010, 11:19 AM
  4. Do you think I could get in trouble for this?
    By winnwinnfreddy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 11:42 PM
  5. A problem i'm having trouble with
    By rushil01 in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 7th, 2009, 01:46 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •