BlackHoles Stephen Crothers & Dark Matter.

[crawler]

(1) If particles can never attain c km/s relative to the aether then conversely the aether can never attain c km/s relative to a particle. Hence aether flowing into a star will always meet the surface at less than c, because the material surface of a star retards the speed of the entering aether, & keeps it below c. Hence black holes are not possible.

(2) Photons propagate at c in the aether. If the velocity of the aether inflow into a star is Vi & if Vi is less than c then photons can escape.

(3) If the aether inflow streamlines converge as the aether approaches a star then Vi must decrease with altitude. Hence the relative velocity Vr = c-Vi of a photon that leaves the surface must increase with altitude. Hence a departing photon doesn’t act like a particle, a particle leaving the surface would gradually slow & might eventually fall back. But a departing photon doesn’t ever slow, it goes faster & faster, despite the retro gravity of the star.

(4) Stephen Crothers has some good papers on Einstein & on blackholes, but when he refers to escape velocity & the act of escaping he treats photons as if they were ordinary particles. No, particles slow as they depart, whereas photons fast as they depart. Stephen's little error isn't fatal to his explanation that the silly math of silly GTR is invalid re the silly prediction of silly blackholes.

(5) However Stephen's explanation that GTR math is invalid doesn’t support Stephen's conclusion that blackholes are impossible. There is only one proper explanation of the impossibility of blackholes, & it is my (1) above.

(6) There are a number of good explanations re why singularities are impossible (Pierre Marie Robitaille)(Stephen Crothers), showing that singularity kinds of blackholes are impossible. But these do not rule out other kinds of blackholes. My (1) rules out all kinds of blackholes.

(7) However my (1) doesn’t rule out Dark Matter. In which case (1) doesn’t rule out blackholes made of Dark Matter. In fact i believe that Dark Matter (if it exists) is likely to be made of confined neutrinos (ie confined dark photons).

(8) A neutrino is a pair of ordinary photons sharing the same helical axis, the photons being 180 deg out of phase, & hence their EM fields negating (hence a neutrino is a dark photon).

(9) An ordinary photon can bite its own tail & form a loop, making an elementary particle (eg an electron). If a neutrino can form a loop then it would make a dark elementary particle. Dark elementary particles could aggregate to form Dark Matter.

(10) Dark elementary particles would not form dark atoms, but they would aggregate gravitationally to form Dark Matter (similar to an aggregation of neutrons)(similar to neutron stars). Every dark elementary particle & every aggregation would be a blackhole.

[crawler]

Google MICHELL, LAPLACE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE BLACK HOLE CONCEPT -- Colin Montgomery, Wayne Orchiston and Ian Whittingham.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2009JAHH...12...90M

John Michell predicted large dark stars in 1783.
Pierre-Simon Laplace predicted large invisible bodies in 1793.
Both used Newtonian gravity (ie simple ballistics) to calculate the escape velocity, which needs to be greater than the speed of light.
They didn't use relativity. They didn’t use a singularity. They didn’t use aether. They didn’t use very dense matter.

Michell said that the Sun would be a dark star if 500 times larger (ie 125,000,000 solar masses).
Notice that in the above linked paper the authors mistakenly think that Michell said 500 times more massive, no, Michell said 500 times larger (more exactly he inferred 498).
Using modern numbers for the mass of the Sun & for big G & for the speed of light this 500 becomes 485.3. Michell reckoned that the speed of light was 10,310 times Earth's orbital speed, which gives 307032 km/s rather than 299,792 km/s.

My own calculations show that we might have a dark star if the same size as Earth & 2156 solar masses.
This 2156 reduces to 1079 solar masses if we use Einstein's idea that light slows near mass (such slowing was confirmed by Shapiro after Einstein died)(Shapiro Delay).
Here we insert the escape velocity 212,048 km/s into the equation for gamma which gives 0.707, & c reduces by gamma to a c' of 212,048 km/s.
This 1079 reduces to 780 solar masses if we assume that the dark star has an atmosphere with n=1.33 (ie like water), ie slowing the escaping light c' in that proportion (gamma = 0.799)(c'' = 180,166 km/s).

Laplace reckoned that a large body would be invisible if the same density as Earth (4 times the Sun's density) with a dia 250 times the Sun's.
Thus Laplace's Invisible Body is a half the mass of Michell's Dark Star.

My own calculations show that we might have a dark star if the same mass as the Sun, & radius 2.95 km if c = 299,792 km/s.
Or if light is slowed by Shapiro Delay, radius 5.91 km if c' = 212,004 km.
Or if the atmosphere has a refractive index of 1.33, radius 8.18 km if c" = 180,168 km/s.
However Michell & Laplace both failed to imagine that a star could be super dense.

Anyhow, Michell & Laplace didn’t need GTR, they didn’t need a Schwarzschild Radius, they didn’t need spacetime.

However aether theory says that blackholes are impossible (unless made of Dark Matter).

[crawler]

Krizek et al reckon that spiral galaxies don’t need Dark Matter if modeled as discs.

https://users.math.cas.cz/~krizek/cosmol/pdf/B102.pdf
Dark matter and rotation curves of spiral galaxies
Michal Krızek1 , Filip Krızek2 , Lawrence Somer3
Institute of Mathematics, Czech Academy of Sciences
(Submitted on 02 February 2016. Accepted on 11 May 2016)
Abstract. We suggest that nonbaryonic dark matter need not be taken into account to explain the observed rapid rotation of spiral galaxies. The main reason is a special form of the gravitational potential of a flat disk which guarantees large orbital velocities of stars at the galaxy edge. In particular, we prove that a star orbiting a central mass point along a circular trajectory of radius R has a smaller speed than if it were to orbit a flat disk of radius R and the same mass with an arbitrary rotationally symmetric density distribution.

http://www.nnw.cz/doi/2014/NNW.2014.24.026.pdf
A CRITIQUE OF THE STANDARD COSMOLOGICAL MODEL
Michal Krızek, Lawrence Somer
tutorial Abstract: According to the standard cosmological model, 27 % of the Universe consists of some mysterious dark matter, 68 % consists of even more mysterious dark energy, whereas only less than 5 % corresponds to baryonic matter composed from known elementary particles. The main purpose of this paper is to show that the proposed ratio 27 : 5 between the amount of dark matter and baryonic matter is considerably overestimated. Dark matter and partly also dark energy might result from inordinate extrapolations, since reality is identified with its mathematical model. Especially, we should not apply results that were verified on the scale of the Solar System during several hundreds of years to the whole Universe and extremely long time intervals without any bound of the modeling error.
Received: September 18, 2014 Revised and accepted: October 7, 2014 Never identify any model with reality

[crawler]

Actually Conrad Ranzan in some of his papers implicitly forbids blackholes because he says that the aether inflow into a surface can never reach the speed of light. Me myself i explicitly forbid blackholes (ie see my wording in my original post above). Praps Ranzan has priority over me, & i might have gotten my idea from his papers. To make the Law clearer i will spell it out fully as follows.

CRAWLER'S LAW -- THAT BLACKHOLES ARE IMPOSSIBLE (or is this a Principle)(or a Postulate).
(a) Particles can never attain the speed of light relative to the aether, & conversely (b) the aether can never attain the speed of light relative to a particle, hence (c) aether flowing into a star will always meet the surface at less than the speed of light, because (d) the material surface of a star retards/limits the speed of the entering aether to below the speed of light, & (e) photons propagate at the speed of light in the aether, hence (f) photons can always escape any star, hence (g) blackholes are impossible.

I feel sure that Ranzan would agree with every word of (a) to (g). But Ranzan would be wrong. When i write "speed of light" Ranzan would read that to mean c km/s. No, i mean c' km/s. I believe that light slows when near mass, as predicted by Einstein, & as proven by Shapiro Delay. Surprisingly Ranzan, a semi-Einsteinian, duznt include Shapiro Delay in any of Ranzan's theorys & equations & calculations. If Ranzan included Shapiro Delay then Ranzan's massive bodies would have a lesser critical mass.

I think that Reg Cahill would agree with every word of (a) to (g). Except that Cahill duznt ever say aether, he calls it quantum foam, or dynamic space. Cahill in his papers i think implicitly forbids blackholes, its hard to tell, i can't follow his math jargon. I have a suspicion that (unlike Ranzan) Cahill allows for Shapiro Delay, its hard to tell.

Anyhow, either Cahill's quantum foam inflow (matter is a sink) explanation of gravity has priority, or Ranzan's aether inflow (matter consumes aether) has priority, they both go back to about 2002. Actually we should give priority to Newton (aether condenses on or in matter).

Cahill's gravitation & Ranzan's gravitation both explain that Newton's law for gravitational attraction is not universal -- it applies to spherical systems, not spiral galaxies. Dark Matter aint needed. In addition Ranzan's gravity is local, ie it quickly falls to zero beyond our local cosmos.

Cahill & Ranzan both reckon that foam/aether hits a surface at the escape velocity, & i agree. However as shown by the following table of calculations we have a problem, the aether inflow per kg is not a constant, the inflow per kg depends on the total mass. In addition the inflow per kg depends on the radius.

As can be seen the aether inflow per kg becomes a constant (5.60E-24) if the radius is equal to the Schwarzschild Radius, ie when the inflow hits the surface at c. I think that Cahill & Ranzan are not aware of this slightly interesting quirk. Anyhow i aint sure whether the quirk goes away if i take into account Shapiro Delay (ie if i use c' instead of c), it might go away, or praps knot. Rs km is the Schwarzschild Radius.

---------mass--------radius----escape v-----density-----volume------area----aether inflow---aether inflow---aether inflow
----------kg-----------km---------km/s-------kg/m3----------m3--------km2-------km3/s----------km3/s/kg-------m3/s/tonne
Sun---1.99E+30--695508-----617.84-------1411-------1.41E+27---6.08E+12---3.76E+15--------1.89E-15---------0.001888
Earth-5.97E+24----6371-------11.19-------5513-------1.08E+21---5.10E+08---5.71E+09--------9.55E-16---------0.000955
Moon-7.35E+22----1737---------2.38-------3347-------2.20E+19---3.79E+07---9.01E+07--------1.23E-15---------0.001226
----------------------Rs km
Sun---1.99E+30--2.95E+00---299792.46-----------------------------3.71E+01---1.11E+07--------5.60E-24----------5.60E-12
Earth-5.97E+24--8.87E-06---299792.46-----------------------------1.11E-04----3.34E+01--------5.60E-24----------5.60E-12
Moon-7.35E+22--1.09E-07---299792.46-----------------------------1.37E-06----4.11E-01---------5.60E-24----------5.60E-12

[crawler]

Some thorts & gedankens re the consequences of there being an aetherwind inflow speed limit at a surface (Crawler's Law).

Earlier i said that if light is slowed when near mass (a star), & if the slowing is modeled by the standard equation for gamma ((1-vv/cc)^0.5)(which is i think the gist of Einstein's general idea of the slowing of light near mass), then calculation using trial & error reveals that when gamma is 0.707 then the speed of light (c') is slowed to 212,000 km/s, & that the escape velocity ((2Gm/r)^0.5) reduces from c to c' (which in this case is 212,000 km/s), & the critical mass needed to form a blackhole is halved (ie 0.50).

We now discover a paradox. If a star gains mass & reaches a critical mass (ie when Ve km/s almost equals c' km/s), & if more matter is added, then the star can't gain gravitational mass unless the radius increases. Gravitational mass depends on the acceleration of the aether inflow. I could provide a numerical example, but not today. Today i will simply say that once a star reaches critical mass then any added mass/matter is in effect "partially lost" (this is the paradox)(alltho this might not be so if the added matter has a very low density)(but i will ignore density effects today).

Ok, for the purposes of my little gedanken the radius is somehow fixed. As we add matter the extra matter slows the speed of light at the surface, koz the speed of light is slowed by photaeno drag, & photaeno drag depends on the amount of matter nearby. At the same time the escape velocity stays fixed, koz the escape velocity depends on the aether inflow (& aether inflow is not directly affected by photaeno drag). The aether inflow speed depends on the gravitational mass of the star, koz aether inflow speed is equal to escape velocity (this is a basic aether theory postulate)(& has been shown to be correct by Reg Cahill using NASA data).

But here we discover another paradox. Crawler's Law says that the aether inflow speed can't equal or exceed c' km/s. But i said above that the extra matter slows the speed of light. If so, then as we add matter we must find that the aether inflow speed reduces, koz as i said the aether has to hit the surface at a bit less than c'. The gravitational mass of the star is dictated by the acceleration of the aether, & if this acceleration involves the simple geometry of the convergence of the aether inflow streamlines then the gravitational mass must reduce (here i assume that aether is not compressible)(& i assume that aether is not contractile). Hence the "partially lost" mass is greater than i first mentioned (a couple of paragraphs earlier). If i krunch the numbers (not today) i might find that in some (special)(extreme) cases the lost mass might be more than the mass of the added matter, ie adding matter reduces mass.

Anyhow, all of that brings us to Crawler's 2nd Law:
Adding a certain amount of matter to a super-critical body will not usually result in the body gaining an equivalent amount of gravitational mass.
Or simply: When mass is added to a super-critical body some mass will usually be lost.
Or perhaps: The gravitational mass of a super-critical body is less than the sum of the sub-critical masses.

Earlier is said that -- the aether inflow speed depends on the gravitational mass of the star. Yes & No.
Yes -- if the amount of matter is less than the critical mass.
No -- if the amount of matter exceeds the critical mass.
If the matter exceeds the critical mass (ie if No) then it’s the other way around -- the gravitational mass depends on the aether inflow speed (& of course the gravitational mass also depends on the radius). We can call that Crawler's 3rd Law.

And i assume that -- inertial mass always equals the gravitational mass. We can call that Crawler's 4th Law.
We all know that that is so when a star/body is sub-critical, but my meaning is that the sub-critical law also applies to the super-critical.

We can presume that Cahill's theory of gravity & Ranzan's similar theory of gravity both presume that inertial mass always equals gravitational mass, even tho both theories say that Newton's Law is not universal (ie they say that it duznt apply to non-spherical systems). Neither Cahill nor Ranzan mention anything similar to my super-critical body, all i am meaning is that they would not object to the idea that inertial mass always equals gravitational mass (ie in a universal sense)(nothing to do with The Universe here).