# Thread: The original "frozen star" black hole interpretation is correct after all

1. Originally Posted by TFOLZO
I thought that curving of a light-beam - such as occurs with gravitational lensing, first predicted by Soldner in 1803 based on Newtonian principles
would be explained by considering 'group velocities' as with a waveguide, some 'parts' of the lightbeam traveling faster, others slower than the standard 'c' light-speed.
That's kind of how it is, only it's the phase velocity. The speed of light varies with position.

Originally Posted by TFOLZO
Hence I cannot see that it would make the NIST optical clock go slower - but perhaps I misunderstand the nature of the clock
There is no actual time flowing in a clock. A clock "clocks up" some kind of regular cyclical motion and shows you a cumulative display that you call "the time". When that motion goes slower the clock goes slower. Even when its a NIST optical clock.

Originally Posted by TFOLZO
(though I don't accept SR hence there is no possible debate between me & the SR-lovers on this issue).
I suspect that what you're looking for is "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity" by Robert Close. It's simple stuff, easy to understand, there's nothing not to like. See here: Classical Matter: Contents.

2. Originally Posted by Farsight
That's kind of how it is, only it's the phase velocity. The speed of light varies with position.

There is no actual time flowing in a clock. A clock "clocks up" some kind of regular cyclical motion and shows you a cumulative display that you call "the time". When that motion goes slower the clock goes slower. Even when its a NIST optical clock.
OK, so if all this is true, you should be able to do a simple physics problem with just motion, right? Let's see it.

3. In reply to ?, re: event horizon(s) of ?

"Light cannot escape a blackhole...very good. The Schwarzchild metric solution of "ultimate gravity?"...also very good.

.....

The only factor that I cannot comprehend? How is gravity becoming "supercharged" by the increased density of matter? By what mechanism? What serves as "causation" for matter

to induce gravity to become "greater and greater" in response to the density of matter? (I believe A.E. had a very effective answer to these ^questions^, as well as Lorentz...and they

both been subjected to "throwing out the baby with the bathwater!")

.....

How does matter enable a greater intensity of gravity from the SAME amount of matter, regardless of how "condensed" it is?

If anyone of the "experten" here can explain this to me in a sane and rational manner, I will withdraw from this site on a permanent basis...NO ONE will need to threaten me with

being KICKED OUT for "tirades?" I will quit on my own!!! (There would no longer be any need to ponder anything, nor to read any physic theory any more)

.....

Does anyone care to pick-up the "gauntlet?" (I notice I NEVER received any answer to my challenge of "why does the Moon not crash into the Earth, or simply speed off into space?")

(An answer to "how can density-of-matter result in a gravimetric-field so great NOTHING can escape?" must consist of known "provable" principles! I will not accept anything that

involves "magic" of any form...throwing Hawking and t'Hooft at me will not suffice, nor will "magic" mathematical abstracts from any source.) They have no answer, other than

"blackholes are real, and therefore a gravimetric-field MUST exist that will not allow light to escape"...and this is no answer as to HOW gravity became "greater" from the actions

of matter-density.

.....

(Thanks for reading!) and in case I get banned...nice to talk with you again, Jilan...never mind the "cat's paw" trolls! Also, you are 100% right concerning "pmb".

4. You are not asking an honest question. You are only trying to antagonize people.

You do not ask about black holes and gravitation, and then reject Hawking whom has worked extensively on the subject. You are demanding people work miracles.

5. NO...it is an honest question!

Nor am I "demanding" anything...the question is designed to declare that NO ONE has an effective answer! Persons who write responses that they "know" everything about gravity-theory

via the protocols of mathematical descriptors that were published by others should rethink "blackhole" theories as being FACTS. This is what I object to!

.....

All the "in the know" people here slam ANYONE they wish to, on the basis of "observations" that supposedly have PROVED that blackholes are REAL!!!

Okay then...all I ask is "HOW" By what mechanism? If blackhole theories are correct and true in all respects...then I cannot see it as "demanding miracles" that the experts here tell me

"this is how it works...this is how matter makes MORE gravity than it possessed previously, so now you can shut-up and get lost".

.....

FYI...Hawking has already modified his blackhole gravity theories! Did you not get the memo? It was all over Bing like a rash last February...and no one at "physorg" wrote one word to

me concerning my "quantum-gravity" possibility at the time. Why? (all the "experts" there went and hid behind a wall of silence...what else could they do? Except silence me) Problem solved!

6. Dear Farsight, thank you for your clarifications, especially as you are right that it is phase velocity (not group velocity).
Originally Posted by Farsight
That's kind of how it is, only it's the phase velocity. The speed of light varies with position.

There is no actual time flowing in a clock. A clock "clocks up" some kind of regular cyclical motion and shows you a cumulative display that you call "the time". When that motion goes slower the clock goes slower. Even when its a NIST optical clock.

I suspect that what you're looking for is "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity" by Robert Close. It's simple stuff, easy to understand, there's nothing not to like. See here: Classical Matter: Contents.
I see what you mean about the NIST clock; presumably then it should not lead to logical paradoxes since the 'slowness' of the clock will be an objective phenomenon - i.e. the same for all no matter what one's state of motion, hence unlike SR.

As for Robert Close we get yet more SR-BS but of yet another interpretation. Physics cannot progress until logical-paradox generating theories like SR are rejected categorically. The answer to what SR explains wrongly is the nature of light itself. It is not a point-particle but an ensemble of all potential wavelengths.

TFOLZO

7. Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale
NO...it is an honest question!
...

Do you realize you made me correct with your reply? I don't even know really how to respond.

Just because black holes are not completely understood, doesn't mean that observational evidence is false. There is no working quantum theory of gravity. This is not a secret. Things like String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are attempts to understand things better.

I'm really at a loss for words.

8. Gerry and Beer w/straw please..... General Relativity can give is the maths for what is happening, but it is silent on why. Why does matter/energy warp space-time? No one knows, no one. Quantum mechanics is similar; it works, but there is no physical explanation why as yet. We live in interesting (though frustrating times). We are sort of that the stage that we can admit our ignorance which I find very humbling and exciting

"Relativity" was 1st, and then came the calculations, so as to give the theory a numerical validity (a backbone, so to speak) As for "warping" space-time? This is the single-most contentious

expression in ALL of physics theory! (were it not for this, 99% of physics sites would collapse for lack of something to debate!)

......

Jilan...you tell me (as well as many others) QM "works", and I am "forced" against my nature to comply...because mathematical rationales are NEVER "wrong". But what if the "numbers"

have been applied to a false assumption? An equation may be true, yet the circumstances it has been used to verify are "questionable" and in many cases, A GUESS!

I argue against "guess" factors that defy both empirical reality and Relativity (our Solar system and nearby Stars as "definable" factors) and wind up becoming a "crank-git!" It was never

a goal of mine to become a real "Aqualung" via my arguments against seemingly "magic" interpretations of "what we think we see" in the vast distance of the Universe!

.....

p.s. I was "off-line" for two days because my modem refused to "link-up" for some reason...and then it came back! WUWT?

10. Here's one of favorite equations:

F=ma

It doesn't take relativistic effects into consideration, but is still used today.

11. Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale

"Relativity" was 1st, and then came the calculations, so as to give the theory a numerical validity (a backbone, so to speak) As for "warping" space-time? This is the single-most contentious

expression in ALL of physics theory! (were it not for this, 99% of physics sites would collapse for lack of something to debate!)

......

Jilan...you tell me (as well as many others) QM "works", and I am "forced" against my nature to comply...because mathematical rationales are NEVER "wrong". But what if the "numbers"

have been applied to a false assumption? An equation may be true, yet the circumstances it has been used to verify are "questionable" and in many cases, A GUESS!

I argue against "guess" factors that defy both empirical reality and Relativity (our Solar system and nearby Stars as "definable" factors) and wind up becoming a "crank-git!" It was never

a goal of mine to become a real "Aqualung" via my arguments against seemingly "magic" interpretations of "what we think we see" in the vast distance of the Universe!

.....

p.s. I was "off-line" for two days because my modem refused to "link-up" for some reason...and then it came back! WUWT?

Gerry, glad you are back on line. Interpretations are guess-work, but the maths stuff is proved over and over in experiments. Interpretations are important to us as we crave a deeper understanding. But all we have at present is the maths. Maybe we will never have the answers, but meanwhile we can enjoy the discussions. Imagine how boring it would be if a everything was already 100% understood and explicable. Forums would be like "did you know this." ... " yes, I already knew that"... "Well that's OK then".... In fact there are some forums that already act like this is the case. Not this one thankfully!

12. Originally Posted by Jilan
Gerry and Beer w/straw please..... General Relativity can give is the maths for what is happening, but it is silent on why. Why does matter/energy warp space-time? No one knows, no one.
I do. It's because at the fundamental level, space and energy are the same thing. Read the gravity OP. Space is like some gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly. You insert a hypodermic needle and inject more jelly to represent the mass-energy of the Earth. The surrounding jelly is pressed outwards. The jelly represents both space and energy.

Pretty simple really.

13. Originally Posted by farsight
i do
lol.

14. Originally Posted by Farsight
I do. It's because at the fundamental level, space and energy are the same thing. Read the gravity OP. Space is like some gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly. You insert a hypodermic needle and inject more jelly to represent the mass-energy of the Earth. The surrounding jelly is pressed outwards. The jelly represents [I]both[/b] space and energy.

Pretty simple really.
"Simple" in the sense that my mother in law calls people with learning disabilities "half-simple".

Can you give us the properties of the jelly? The viscosity? Any connection between the mathematical properties of the jelly and the measurements cosmologists make about cosmological properties?

Page 3 of 3 First 123
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Forum Rules