A Fundamental Assumption About Black Holes Was Overturned

[Michael Mozina]

Ooooopsy:

https://www.sciencealert.com/one-of-our ... in-the-lab

Their aim was to test something called resonant Auger destruction – the notion that under a black hole's immense gravity and intense radiation, highly energised iron electrons don't emit light in the form of photons.

This assumption has been a mainstay of black hole theoretical physics for some 20 years, but in a massive five-year experiment at Sandia, the team found that resonant Auger destruction didn't occur when they applied intense X-ray energies to a film of silicon.

According to the researchers, silicon experiences the Auger effect more frequently than iron, so the tests should have demonstrated the phenomenon at work if the assumption is true.

"If resonant Auger destruction is a factor, it should have happened in our experiment because we had the same conditions, the same column density, the same temperature," says Loisel.

"Our results show that if the photons aren't there, the ions must be not there either."

[Solar]

Apologies for interrupting this thread (I find little of interest, nor humor, anymore with black hole astrophysics) but this concept made me laugh:

au·ger
ˈôɡər/
noun
a tool with a helical bit for boring holes

Was this notion named after someone named Auger? Or ... please tell me that it *wasn't* the application of an analogy using the helical principle of an actual real auger to bore black holes. Please tell me that's not a thing that was done.

[Michael Mozina]

It wouldn't surprise me. After all, I seen them call a Birkeland current everything from a "magnetic slinky", a "magnetic portal" and even "Steve", depending on the day of the week.

[Maol]

Perhaps it is an implication the photon 'augers' inward instead of radiates outward ... ?? Are they thinking at some very high density, not only do all sub-atomic bits of mass lose individual characteristics and become a uniform single mass, as they approach and exceed the 'black hole density threshold' their polarities approach zero and then reverse, such that photons, instead of being attracted toward infinity, are repelled, and so form a mass of photons in the center of the black hole. Auger to the center, bore in instead of out. The center of a black hole could composed entirely of photons and be very bright.

On the other hand, it's a guy's name, Pierre Victor Auger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Victor_Auger

The process where Auger electrons are emitted from atoms is used in Auger electron spectroscopy to study the elements on the surface of materials.[1] This method was named after him, despite the fact that Lise Meitner discovered the process a few years before in 1922.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auger_effect

I still think the center of a black hole is very bright. The missing photons have to be someplace.

[Roshi]

There are no black holes. There is only some math.

I got 5 apples. I give you 7 apples (?), how many apples have I got?
Simple, using mathematics that can never go wrong, I got -2 apples. This is the ultimate truth, because it was calculated using math. Let's build a billion dollar experiment looking for negative apples! Imagine that, who would have thought negative apples exist. This is "cutting edge science"!

In the same way we can have negative distance, mass, etc, if we solve a second degree equation with these quantities. Why do we discriminate and pick only the positive result? Math has given us negative distances, let's look for them, common sense is not math... We already have distances and masses that "dilate".

Black hole math is more complex, that's why it's still there and people search for black holes.

Tesla:

[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king...., its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists...', (New York Times, 11 July 1935, p23, c.8).

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.', (New York Herald Tribune, 11 September 1932)

[Roshi]

A black hole is a region of spacetime exhibiting such strong gravitational effects that nothing—not even particles and electromagnetic radiation such as light—can escape from inside it

Why? Because someone pushed the math and created it. The same way I can use math and create -2 apples.

https://plus.maths.org/content/what-black-hole-part-2

How were black holes first predicted?


Einstein published his [general theory of relativity] in late 1915, and only a few months later, in early 1916, [Karl] Schwarzschild found the first solution of the Einstein equations. [By solution we mean some values for the variables describing the curvature of spacetime and the distribution of matter that satisfy the Einstein equations.] [This solution] describes the gravitational field of a spherically-symmetric body: a black hole.

At that time it wasn't understood that that solution corresponded to a black hole. In fact even in the 30s the greatest minds of that time, [including] Einstein himself, despised the idea of a black hole because it contained a singularity, namely a place where curvature is so large that even general relativity breaks down. It took nearly 50 years to really understand what a black hole is, and this was done only in the 1960s.

So, black holes are solutions to some complex ecuations. Because they are not so simple as -2 apples, everyone starts searching for them.

[Michael Mozina]

There are no black holes. There is only some math.

If we look at the center of our own galaxy over a period of years, we observe that stars near the core do seem to be orbiting a very dense object which causes dramatic changes to their orbits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7xl_zjz0o8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDrY4g522q8

Whether or not any objects ever achieve 'infinite' density at a "point" is a whole different issue, but massive objects can and must exist.

[Metryq]

If we look at the center of our own galaxy over a period of years, we observe that stars near the core do seem to be orbiting a very dense object which causes dramatic changes to their orbits.

Hold on a second—there may be something other than gravity influencing the movement of those stars. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of why Dark Matter was imagined. Similarly, we know of mechanisms other than the Doppler effect that can produce color shifts, and there are far simpler ways to explain powerful emissions of UV, x-rays, etc. than by positing super-duper-ultra-massive black holes.

Let's not confuse observations with conclusions.
(Granted, you said "seem to be orbiting".)

[Zyxzevn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7xl_zjz0o8

The orbits in the simulation-video are based on a number of real observations.
I do think that there is some heavy object in the centre.

This picture is from extenctionshift.com.

The observations are from 1992 to 2006.

What I find interesting, is that the "black hole" shows no signs of gravitational lensing at all.
There is here some more information on this at extinctionshift.com:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/Signific ... ings08.htm

Nor do the objects around it "spiral" into the black hole (due to gravitational waves, etc).

Hold on a second—there may be something other than gravity influencing the movement of those stars

Very strong magnetic fields or electric fields might indeed cause similar orbits.
And we know that such fields can be present in galaxies.

If there is no object there,
For magnetic fields: those might give slightly degrading orbits, due to magnetism causing currents.
For electric fields: similar charged objects repel each other. We do not see it here.

If there is an object (electrically charged),
It think, it might cause a visible plasma-current towards one of the opposite charged
objects so now and then.

But because we have no real clue what is there, we are indeed still in the observation phase.

Beams

"Black holes" also produce beams and major flares.
Which is not possible by basic definition of course.
In the basic theory, nothing should be able to escape a black hole, yet we see many examples of
beams and flares escaping these objects.



Let's start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet
These powerful ejections can be explained well with electromagnetism, which unlike gravity
also explains the directions.
But we do not know the cause of the outbursts yet. (Nor does GR).

According to wikipedia they show "relativistic beaming", which I think is a false theory.
I think the beams show electric activity, which causes the beams to appear brighter.

Also Hawking Radiation is a false theory, and
accretion disk is a false theory,
and "spinning black hole" is a false theory,
and many more.

At least they found that one of the many theories around black holes is bogus.
I would say that everything with "black" or "dark" in it should be removed from science.

[toni]

To me the Black Hole is the sun's antimater or the other side of the same coin. To create a star a vast amount of space is needed. When electrical spirals are turned on, they would pick all the waves around the star and compress it into a hot sun. Matter is created starting as a disc, prolating like a football, through rotation and equatorial radiation, space geometry, then becomes a sphere. The way I see it anyway.
If cathodes scoop all waves, without waves, motion and vibration could not exist, light could not reproduce itself, therefore it must end at the last wave at the black hole's outskirts. I think the same would happen with a ship. Vanishing then would be caused by lack of vibration not very high gravity that everyone is talking about.

Regards,
Toni

[Roshi]

They try to explain the jets with "matter is compressed and emits radiation!". But, mainly they say they do not know, which is amazing - coming from mainstream, to say "I do not know".

About "gravitational waves". If we consider "gravity" to be "curved spacetime", then these are spacetime waves. Remember the travelling twin that returns younger? It's an accepted theory by the mainstream. Meaning - dilated time affects us.

Let's say such a magical wave passes through us. Well - it first hits one side of the planet. For a brief moment - time goes faster there, and that half of the planet is in the future - relative to the other half! Then what? Time somehow stops for the first half, then the other half catches up in time when it's hit by the wave then both halves are at the same moment again? We should not exist if such "spacetime waves" exist. We should not exist if time passes faster at higher altitude. My head would be in the future of my legs, meaning - non existant at the moment my legs exist...

But, as I said here, time does not exist as an object, it's only a count:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 29#p121029

Yes, maybe atomic clocks tick faster in space, but that is not due to "time passing faster", see the link above...

[Metryq]

You're missing the actual paradox of the "twins paradox."

Neither time nor space can be bent, rippled or stretched. Time is a concept, so it cannot be "slowed down." All we have as a reference are the processes of nature. And with particle accelerators we have proven that some processes can be slowed down.

As for the twins, Relativity tells us that all frames are equally valid—there is no "universal" reference. But if that is so, then the "traveling twin" is correct in considering himself static and the rest of the universe as moving by at high speed. So why doesn't the "non-traveling twin" age more slowly? This is the paradox.

See Tom Van Flandern's Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets for his "sound analogy" and other fascinating concepts.

[Roshi]

There is no paradox, nobody ages slower because of "moving with high speed". Speed means nothing. Look, I have a speed of 150000 km/s right now, in relation to some distant galaxy or - some particle somewhere. As long as it has mass I can use it as the origin of a reference frame.
Also, I have a speed of 30 m/s in relation to some car on the highway. Let's calculate how fast I age. I should be aging at 2 speeds, and if I have a clock - it should work at 2 speeds. And I have an infinite number of speeds, in relation to everything in the Universe.

Let me solve the "twin paradox" again, I am sure I solved it already somewhere on this forum:
If the traveling twin just moves away at constant speed - mainstream tells us the situation is identical, nobody ages faster. The magic happens when he stops and turns around, because of "reference frames"!

Let's have point A, B and three twins (or synchronized clocks), two twins stay in A and B and one twin leaves from A to B. On his way there, nothing happens, because his situation is symmetrical to A and B. He arrives at B, and he is still identical with the others (or the clocks are still synchronized).
Then he turns around and they say he arrives younger back at A... What if the other twin, waiting at B leaves and arrives at A? Is he younger than the twin in A?

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ ... llenge.htm

[Zyxzevn]

Special relativity

You're missing the actual paradox of the "twins paradox."

If you have 2 observers going different speeds, each event
is observed on a different moment in time.
To "correct" this special relativity claims that the same event occurred at different times
for different observers.
What I would say, is that the clocks that these observers use are not in sync.

Special relativity and general relativity are simply tools for correction, not magical laws
that govern space and time.
The special relativity correction becomes clear when we look at:
Aberration of light
In linear motion, the electromagnetic forces between 2 objects are exactly coming
from the place where the objects would be if the force was immediate.
Since light is a electromagnetic phenomenon, we would expect light to behave this way.

Note: aether-models would also need some kind of correction.

But what if the objects are circling around each other.
In Hydrogen, an "electron" moves about 10% of its orbit when it moves around the proton.
The special relativity linear correction of the movement is certainly not correct.
The actual place of the electron is slightly different from the linear corrected place
of the electron. The linear corrected distance is slightly larger than real distance.
This difference should certainly be visible, but it isn't.
From the electron-emission bands we can see that the electron matches exactly the orbit that
corresponds with an immediate force.
This simply means that the special relativity correction is wrong for circular orbits.
At least the linear correction.

Entering black holes

The circular orbits return in black holes. Here we assume that gravity can become so strong that
its escape speed is as fast as the speed of light.
At the same time, gravity itself moves with the speed of light.
So in some way, in black holes, gravity can not escape itself.
And black holes would not attract anything.

Stephen Crothers explains this problem with more detail.
As I understand him: The formula that defines the size of the black hole (schwarzschild) is
defined in the coordinates of the black hole.
But this space inside the black hole is like infinitely large.
This means that this size has no real meaning in the real world.
The more I look into it, the more I think that Crothers is right with his maths and logic.

This does not mean that everything of GR is wrong. The clocks and frequencies do appear
to change due to gravity. Ron Hatch has his own observations
on the time relativity in the GPS system. It might be interesting to see if he is correct.
Also: most "evidence" of gravitational bending of light seems to simply ignore the presence of plasma.

So generally, gravity does not seem to bend light.

But it is hard to discuss these things without being regarded as a "crackpot".
As a scientists I am very interested into finding out the truth,
and not into holding on to any belief system.

[Roshi]

This does not mean that everything of GR is wrong. The clocks and frequencies do appear
to change due to gravity. Ron Hatch has his own observations
on the time relativity in the GPS system. It might be interesting to see if he is correct.
Also: most "evidence" of gravitational bending of light seems to simply ignore the presence of plasma.

So generally, gravity does not seem to bend light.

If I get an sand hourglass into space, it will slow down, then it will stop working completely. Great discovery? Time stops in space? No, we don't say that... (Time in fact does not exist - as a force that changes the Universe, else we would be looking for it, instead of all those usual forces and causes).
Same thing about atomic clocks. It's not time that stops the hourglass, why would "time" make the atomic clocks go faster? By what forces? Maybe gravity as a force, the same force we can feel, does affect the atomic clocks, not "time". Did they really isolate those clocks from everything in the Universe, except the mysterious forces of "time"?