Stephen Crothers’ Latest Numerology Presentation

[querious]

Like I said before, I haven't rejected any observations, only the mainstream interpretations of them.

Are you saying the Hipparcos star data (and all other modern measurements of bending) has been fudged to match GR predictions?

Or are you saying the data is not fudged, but the refractive index-caused bending just happens to match GR predictions?

[Siggy_G]

Distinguishing between the theoretical light bending effect of gravity and that of refraction would be highly difficult. They would in theory produce the same effect, but choosing interpretation - or combining them - would produce different data about the objects.

Or are you [scowie] saying the data is not fudged, but the refractive index-caused bending just happens to match GR predictions?

The mass of the light bending object(s) is calculated from the asserted amount of bending, so it is no wonder GR predicts the correct amount of bending. In other words, the mass was calculated from the assumed bending - from the assumed distance of the sources - and reversing this calculation will seem to verify the bending (from calculated data).

On the other hand, how can one assume GR has calculated the correct mass and light bending if no amount of medium refraction has been taken into account?

Everyone here knows that stars are surrounded by a corona, their stellarsphere having a radial density gradient, as well as galaxies having a bulge with a medium density gradient. So there are densities upon densities (corona, interplanetary, interstellar and intergalactic) - so-called gaseous envelopes - surrounding cosmic objects, and there's a density gradient between them. Light paths must be affected when traversing these, otherwise one is ignoring one central observed effect within optics.

"According to Einstein, when the light emanating from a star passes very close to another star on its way to an observer on Earth, the gravity of the intermediary star will slightly bend the light rays from the source star, causing the two stars to appear farther apart than they normally would."

(Source: planetary.org)

The proof of gravitational microlensing sounds indistinguishable from weak medium refraction. Here's a paper that suggests taking refraction into account, but it doesn't go as far as assuming it may be the only agent for the observed effect. Yet:

" (...) the number of possible models and fitting parameters increases, which makes the problem even more challenging. (...) The theory discussed in this paper allows including refraction into the analysis of gravitational lensing. In principle, it covers all situations (i.e. microlensing and macrolensing) as long as the notion of the refractive index in the general relativistic environment is valid. Interpretation of microlensing events and macrolensing images in terms of combined gravitational and refractive lensing is model-dependent; the inverse lensing problem requires observational constraints to limit the number of possible models and fitting parameters."

Source: Simultaneous Gravitational and Refractive Lensing (2012)

Does this illustration seem familiar?

[Zyxzevn]

The whole idea of gravitational lensing is incompatible with quantum physics.
Additional there are many other parts of general relativity incompatible, but that one is the worst.

The evidence for light bending is very weak. Its research is done by overly biased scientists.
Scientists that ignore any evidence of refraction.
So it is clearly not evidence that can hold, except when you are overly biased.

In this thread nobody except for Crothers has presented any maths, and is the only one that
understands how one can work with it. So he is clearly a winner.
The discussion itself shows that almost no-one understands the math behind general relativity.
And as I described in the beginning. The common failure is that people mix the real world coordinates
with hilbert space coordinates. General relativity math does not have a normal x,y,z,t, because
all this is considered relative. See special relativity for that.

Because the maths of general relativity is shown wrong, all "observations" by the
overly biased scientists should be reconsidered. If a false theory can hold so long, the
objectivity of all these scientists is really under question.
Especially the validity of their math should be doubted. If only one person here understands the math,
how bad is the situation among the scientists? How many are using tricks that they do not understand?
How many of them have assumptions that are simply false, like mixing the real world with the Hilbert space..
How many are just copying the work of the ones that have gone before them?
How many of them are adjusting the math so it fits the experiment?
In scientific peer-reviewed papers, about 50% of the experiments can not be repeated.
The science of space and astronomy is not different. I consider it even worse, because there are no independent groups that can repeat their experiments and validate their findings.
We (except one) can not even check their math.

The simple explanation for light bending is refraction.
Science must now first proof that it is not refraction of any kind, before it
can consider another theory. That how the scientific method works.

[querious]

The mass of the light bending object(s) is calculated from the asserted amount of bending, so it is no wonder GR predicts the correct amount of bending. In other words, the mass was calculated from the assumed bending - from the assumed distance of the sources - and reversing this calculation will seem to verify the bending (from calculated data).

Where did you come up with THAT?!

You certainly don't need GR to obtain the sun's mass. It was the accepted mass of the sun at the time which predicted we should see 1.75 arcsec of bending, not the other way around.

[scowie]

Like I said before, I haven't rejected any observations, only the mainstream interpretations of them.

Are you saying the Hipparcos star data (and all other modern measurements of bending) has been fudged to match GR predictions?

Or are you saying the data is not fudged, but the refractive index-caused bending just happens to match GR predictions?

When scientists want their data to match their preferred theory there are two tricks they can perform that have essentially the same effect. They can make adjustments to raw data to account for some additional factors that might be affecting the data and look for a match against a corrected data set, or they can make sure their equations contain parameters that can be adjusted to account for these other factors. This is what generally happens in most mainstream science claims of an "exact prediction", like big bang nucleosynthesis and tolman surface brightness tests (where the raw data fits a static universe but big bang theories adjust their brightness-evolution parameters to fit their expanding universe model).

[Siggy_G]

Where did you come up with THAT?!

You certainly don't need GR to obtain the sun's mass. It was the accepted mass of the sun at the time which predicted we should see 1.75 arcsec of bending, not the other way around.

Oh, excuse me, I should have added "in cosmic scenarios" where the theory and calculations of gravitational lensing so often are applied for calculating mass.

When it comes to the Sun, it still is puzzling how the exact bending was predicted and confirmed at the time, when not including refraction, for reasons described in my previous post. The math or the gravitational component, or both, must therefore be erroneous.

[querious]

When it comes to the Sun, it still is puzzling how the exact bending was predicted and confirmed at the time, when not including refraction, for reasons described in my previous post. The math or the gravitational component, or both, must therefore be erroneous.

Do you mean refraction by the corona, the solar wind, general diffuse gas in the solar system, or what?

[JeffreyW]

A galaxy orbits it's barry center. There need not be any mass at all at its center.

You are 100% correct.

[querious]

A galaxy orbits it's barry center. There need not be any mass at all at its center.

You are 100% correct.

I hope you're not seriously trying to use this generally true statement to deny the existence of something very massive and nearly invisible at the center. The stars are quite obviously not just orbiting the barycenter of the galaxy...

https://www.eso.org/public/videos/eso0846f/

http://www.galacticcenter.astro.ucla.ed ... tions.html

[Siggy_G]

Do you mean refraction by the corona, the solar wind, general diffuse gas in the solar system, or what?

All of them have a radial density gradient increasing towards the Sun, and neither were included in the calculations used to confirm gravitational bending of light close to the Sun.

[nick c]

What I find strange about Crothers' mathematical arguments against black holes is that we CAN see copious evidence for large, invisible concentrations of mass.
[...]
Just try to explain Sag A at the center of our galaxy any other way.

Your conclusions are on shaky ground. You have to know that!
It is ironic that you are using the rotation of stars in the galaxy as evidence that a BH resides in the center, when it is common knowledge that stellar motion within the galaxy is not understood and does not comply with Newtonian mechanics.
From Wikipedia, Galaxy rotation curve

The galaxy rotation problem is the discrepancy between observed galaxy rotation curves and the theoretical prediction, assuming a centrally dominated mass associated with the observed luminous material. When mass profiles of galaxies are calculated from the distribution of stars in spirals and mass-to-light ratios in the stellar disks, they do not match with the masses derived from the observed rotation curves and the law of gravity. A solution to this conundrum is to hypothesize the existence of dark matter and to assume its distribution from the galaxy's center out to its halo.

Why should anyone accept that there is a supermassive object at the galactic center when stellar motions do not conform to the expectations of Newtonian gravity? And that conclusion is based upon Newtonian calculations?

Hence the need for the addition of a fudge factor - Dark Matter and/or Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND).

[jacmac]

Wikipedia says:
(In the Dark Matter Halo page.)

The visible disk of the Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in a much larger, roughly spherical halo of dark matter. The dark matter density drops off with distance from the galactic center.

So, in the standard model, we have the high density mass in the center of the galaxy(black hole) AND the dark matter halo throughout the galaxy and beyond.
Is this correct for the standard model ?
If so, don't we have TWO really big dark things effecting the rotation curves ?
How does that work ?

[querious]

Why should anyone accept that there is a supermassive object at the galactic center when stellar motions do not conform to the expectations of Newtonian gravity? And that conclusion is based upon Newtonian calculations?

Nick,
Have you looked at the videos above showing the cluster of 20 or so stars getting yanked around some massive, immobile point? One of the stars has an orbital period of only 16 years! This is on a scale way smaller than dark matter is thought to operate on, which is hundreds or thousands of light years.

What's important to realize about this is that our studies of dark matter don't just tell us that "it's out there somewhere"; when we study a galaxy, we learn something about the total distribution of matter within it. This means that we know the dark matter surrounds galaxies and is not a central object, like a black hole, within galaxies.

[Siggy_G]

.If so, don't we have TWO really big dark things effecting the rotation curves ?

Indeed, that's how the standard model treats the issue.

Have you looked at the videos above showing the cluster of 20 or so stars getting yanked around some massive, immobile point? One of the stars has an orbital period of only 16 years!

The motion of central stars in a galaxy can't merely be understood through standard orbital dynamics, where an orbital path is determined merely from a central and an orbiting mass.

First of all, the galactic scenario is similar to shell theorem, although a disc - i.e. most of the matter is surrounding a central object. Next, the vertical orbiting component will be behaving like spring physics (most of the matter located towards the ecliptic). And last, the matter close to the center isn't evenly distributed - the galaxy has arms of higher matter concentration.

The animations linked to didn't resemble orbital periods to make definite sense out of. The stars appear to orbit and be restricted at the same time. This is somewhat expected from the descriptions above. There may well be gravitational mass and focused energy towards the center, but the black hole interpretation is simplistic (and likely due to saving a shaky theory).

* Gravity inside a shell
** Shell theorem

[Solar]

Serpents of Fire

The problem here is that *some* individuals have not looked into the various studies and papers regarding the Sag A complex. The following image is via UCLA study of the Double Helix nebula:



Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA (Source)

People are more familiar with images of just the approximately 80 light years long ‘tip’ of the Double Helix nebula as seen (here). And yet, the Double Helix Nebula has long been recognized as being but a portion of a much longer filament extending some 300 light years towards the bright region commonly referred to as Sag A as seen here also:



However, Sagittarius A is not the “center” of the Milky Way Galaxy. The Sag A complex is one of a number of dynamic features that exist at the relative “center” of the Milky Way Galaxy. This fact gets lost in the reductionist approach that labels Sag A as the “central engine” of our galaxy. It isn’t. In order to put Sag A into context take a broad step back for moment and give thought to the following image of Galaxy NGC 3079:


(Credits: NASA, Gerald Cecil (University of North Carolina), Sylvain Veilleux (University of Maryland), Joss Bland-Hawthorn (Anglo- Australian Observatory), and Alex Filippenko (University of California at Berkeley). )

Now: Pick out one of those filaments and realize that what has been observed with regard to Sag A is the result of only one of many dynamic filaments likewise extending perpendicular to the galactic plane of our Milky Way galaxy. In order to understand what is happening also realize that our galaxy is chock-a-block full of what are called “molecular clouds”. What is a “molecular cloud”?

“Molecular Clouds” and all that Jazz

Astronomers often refer to “bubbles” of “gas and dust” as “molecular clouds”. With the plasma, these “clouds” (or “bubbles” if one prefers) are a result of the “self-organizing” dynamic of the plasma. In the following image (here), and purely for the sake of example, let the reader use “super nova remnants” (labeled “SNR”) as an example of these "bubbles".

The bright spot known as Sag A is the point of intersect, the location of contact, where the approximately 300 light year long Double Helix electric current filament interacts with a molecular cloud known as "M-0.02-0.07", or simply, the "50 km s-1 cloud". The Sag A filament has been observed and documented quite nicely ten years ago in the following paper where Mr. M. Morris characterizes the DHN electric current filament as a “meandering channel” this means that the DHN filament winds and writhes along its full length:

The Double Helix Nebula: a magnetic torsional wave propagating out of the Galactic centre: M. Morris, K. Uchida, T. Do -Dec 2005

The Circumnuclear Disk

Now the question is ‘What happens when a cosmic electric current, a cosmic lightning strike, hits a “molecular cloud”?’ The dynamic not only creates a bright ionization spot but rotating disc, a spinning torus, can also be formed. In the world of astrophysics such features are sometimes called “Circumnuclear Disc”. When the bright ionization spot of Sag A (imaged here) is resolved a rather large circumnuclear disc can be observed. Inside of the circmnuclear disc a three-pronged Triskel-shaped “Mini-Spiral” has also been resolved as imaged here – NRAO: Sagittarius A West.

Would the reader like to take a guess at what the Mini-Spiral is? It is the very same electrified “gas & dust” being electro-dynamically evacuated ‘up the channel’ going to form the Double Helix Nebula. An “electric current” is at least bi-directional flow of “charge” of course. That is what the Mini-Spiral is.

Convergence:

One of the resulting dynamics of this cosmic lightning strike is that a bevy of stars are being formed and going nova etc. over immense periods of time. The stars are orbiting the region where the Double Helix Nebula electric current filament intersects the molecular cloud known as "M-0.02-0.07". All of this is documented and understood. However, when images and plots are made of said stars and their orbits *ALL OF THIS IS EXCLUDED*!! That is what the following reference does:

Orbits in the Central Parsec

In those orbital portrayals *All* of the electrified/magnetized, non-thermal plasma, charged “dust & “gas”, density gradients, plasma ‘structures’, and ‘inflow’ of an 'electron gas' detected by the father of radio astronomy itself (Grote Reber:Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe) are utterly and completely dispensed with. The result is that theorist then observe naked orbital plots of stellar bodies completely isolated and separated from their energetic environment and structural sources. After the elimination of all the above energetic sources theoretical reasoning then simultaneously causes theorist to ponder ‘What mass could be making those stars orbit that location?’

It honestly happened.

References:
A Radio Polarimetric Study of the Galactic Center Threads: Cornelia C. Lang, Mark Morris, Luis Echevarria - Jun 1999

The Double Helix Nebula: a magnetic torsional wave propagating out of the Galactic centre: M. Morris, K. Uchida, T. Do Dec 2005

A Trip To Galactic Center: Angelle Tanner(2003)

National Radio astronomy Observatory

Astronomers spy a strand of genetic code in the cosmos