A Fundamental Assumption About Black Holes Was Overturned

[Michael Mozina]

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".)

I'm sure that EM influences also have an effect, but gravity does seem to play a role in those movement patterns (regardless of the cause of gravity) and the movements are well explained by gravity. The two massive directional changes seem to be very congruent with a gravitational well at that X point.

Keep in mind that I'm open to the possibility that gravity is an EM related event, but even still the amount of mass may have a fundamental influence on that relationship.

I don't think we can logically rule out the possibility of very massive objects even if we can rule out "singularities" as such.

Granted, I also believe that a *massive* amount of current is running through that object, so it may not be as massive as the mainstream would like to believe, but there does seem to be a massive object located at the core of our galaxy, and that wouldn't surprise me in the first place. It's just a very large "homopolar generator".

[Zyxzevn]

..If I get an sand hourglass into space, ..

I agree that we should test whether time actually changes, or just certain clocks.

The orbits of electrons might change,
the speed of light might change (according to Ron Hatch).


If the speed of time really changes, light might diffract due to it,
because light usually takes the shortest path.
This is slightly different than GR proposes, because GR also bends space.

[Roshi]

What do you understand by the "speed of time"?

The speed with which things happen? All things? Meaning the rotation of a planet is not because of inertia, but because time pushes things forwards and makes the planet rotate? I should not be able to stop my car if time would move it, and not the engine. The hourglass stops in space, but we don't care, we don't say "time has stopped", even if the hourglass is driven by the same thing, they call "spacetime curvature".

Or some sub-atomic thing affecting only atomic clocks? Should we not be looking for the "time particle" or "time sub-atomic forces" then? (Even if relativity tells us "time dilation" affects everything)

[Webbman]

I think everyone knows in their hearts that neither space nor time can be altered.

[Zyxzevn]

What do you understand by the "speed of time"?

Good question.

In experiments scientists see changes in the speed of the clocks and the physical processes behind it.
Clocks are the means with which we measure time.
In special relativity and especially general relativity the scientists think that time is actually
changing, and not only the clocks.
And in "speed of time' I referred to the idea that this might actually be the case.

In general relativity, time and space are treated as variables.
The tensor-equation defines a relationship between these variables.
With these equations theoretical "scientists" abstracted the concept of space and time,
and thought that space and time are not basic concepts.
From here they believe that time and space do not exist at some places, like black holes.
And that time and space come from "somewhere else", which gives the big bang.
It looks like they over-theorized the mathematical abstraction.

They also ignored that singularities can not be modelled with the same mathematical abstraction.
Something I always opposed against, even when I fully believed in general relativity.
You can physically not have -1 apples, or imaginary centimetres.
This problem shows up in many places of theoretical physics.

They forget that the equation is just a relationships between certain physical processes, probably not all.
And that this relationship might not work under certain conditions.

And even if it works, the singularities of this abstraction are just fantasies,
because you need a different mathematical model to describe them.
The fact that "black holes" produce beams of radiation proofs that the model
that was assigned with them is completely wrong already.

[Roshi]

What do you understand by the "speed of time"?

Good question.

In experiments scientists see changes in the speed of the clocks and the physical processes behind it.
Clocks are the means with which we measure time.

I disagree. We use clocks to create a "count", and that is all time is. Only if clocks were driven by "time" could we say we use them to measure time. But clocks are driven by: gravity or a mechanism with springs, or by the rotation of the Earth if we use solar clocks. We can make them faster or slower, or stop them completely. They are not driven by time. Nothing is driven by time. Changes in the world have other causes. Yes there is past and future, but it's not time that changes the world or makes the clock tick. I can turn the knob of the clock and - look time has gone backwards. I am more powerful than the forces of time that drive the clock.

Then there atomic clocks. Somehow atomic clocks, unlike the macro world - are "driven by time". I don't believe that. Have not heard that CERN is looking for the "forces of time", at atomic level.

[Zyxzevn]

Trying to find some more non-nasa data on gravitational lensing,
I found this link.
It seems to confirm the observation from extinctionshift that only near the sun the stars are moving,
but not outside a certain range. Likely caused by solar plasma.
Please not that the false mainstream model of the sun states that the pressure is extremely low around
the sun, which causes them to ignore the plasma.

I disagree. We use clocks to create a "count", and that is all time is.

I also prefer to use "clocks" instead of "time".

There seem to be changes in certain "clocks", according to GR-proponents,
and all clocks are related to physical processes.

Let me list a few clocks:
1) pendulum -> gravity, momentum
2) hourglass -> gravity, resistance
3) mechanical watch -> momentum and spring
4) atomic clock (most stable: frequency of Caesium atom) -> magnetic resonance, momentum and magnetism
5) atomic decay -> "energy" level
6) day, year -> Earth's path (varies)
7) speed of light in laboratory -> speed of light
8) time of laser light to moon or to Jupiter -> speed of light

According to mainstream scientists, I have seen experiments with changes in 4,5 and 8,
depending on "gravity".
But there are still some problems:
4-> According to Ron Hatch the change in 4 is actually different than GR really predicts.
8-> According to Sheldrake, the speed of light varies too. So 8 may not be so exact.
They might also have neglected the plasma around the sun.
5-> Radioactive decay varies per season according to some studies.

If I can trust these studies, we still have no good confirmation of the influence of gravity
on clocks in the way GR predicts.
So I think we need better (less biased) experiments.
And when the experiments are really following GR's model, we can also use this model to
alter the clock-physics instead of time itself.

[Solar]

What do you understand by the "speed of time"?

Good question.

In experiments scientists see changes in the speed of the clocks and the physical processes behind it.
Clocks are the means with which we measure time.

I disagree. We use clocks to create a "count", and that is all time is. Only if clocks were driven by "time" could we say we use them to measure time. But clocks are driven by: gravity or a mechanism with springs, or by the rotation of the Earth if we use solar clocks. We can make them faster or slower, or stop them completely. They are not driven by time. Nothing is driven by time. Changes in the world have other causes. Yes there is past and future, but it's not time that changes the world or makes the clock tick. I can turn the knob of the clock and - look time has gone backwards. I am more powerful than the forces of time that drive the clock.

Then there atomic clocks. Somehow atomic clocks, unlike the macro world - are "driven by time". I don't believe that. Have not heard that CERN is looking for the "forces of time", at atomic level.

Agreed.

Time is a human construct. The construct can be changed as much as one would like:

Time as a length: “It took all day long to get a table at the restaurant.”
Time as a quantity: “How much time do you have to spare?”
Time as finite: “I will love her ‘till the end of time”
Time as velocity: “It was a quick race.”
Time as contradiction: “During a nap he dreamed that he was trapped for several days.”
Time as differences of Time: “Her lunch hour is irrelevant when compared to Cosmic time.”

The construct called Time is a relational contrivance applied to the duration of events. Events may be quite real and/or imaginary but it is humankind that created and applies the concept of Time as a development stemming from observing the duration of the events that constitute the rhythms, beats, patterns, and cycles of Nature.

One of the things Ron Hatch showed was that two clocks placed in areas of different gravitational potential (one clock in space; the other clock on Earth) will deviate. The reason for the deviation has more to do with the molecular, atomic, and subatomic constituents of the physical matter composing the physical clocks experiencing gravity differently.

Gravitational Effects upon the Clock Rates
The experimental evidence shows that the gravitational potential affects: (1) the rate at which clocks run; (2) the speed of light; and (3) the size of physical particles.
(…)
Consider first those experiments which show that clocks run slower the lower they are in the gravitational potential. The clocks run slow (measured time appears dilated) as compared to the rate at which they would run if they were located external to the gravitational field. – RELATIVITY AND GPS Ronald R. Hatch[/url]

As a result the constituents of the two, supposedly identical, physical mechanisms will behave differently. That’s literally all there is to it. It’s irrelevant which device subsequently moves faster; or which moves slower. It’s simply the fact that the influence of gravity is different at the two locations and this is but one of several factors influencing the rate at which the components of the physical mechanisms behave. Their “counts” will deviate.

One does not then say that Time sped up, or slowed down, or “dilated” because the clocks themselves are not “driven by” actively participating with a ‘substance’ (or "field") called “time" moving, or flowing, through them. Clocks are not Meters.

What does any of this have to do with A Fundamental Assumption About Black Holes being Overturned

[jacmac]

It is time to get back to the main topic.

If a Black hole is spherical why is there an event horizon disc ?
What determines the angle of the plane of the disc ?
If a black hole is flat like it's event horizon, does stuff still go in above the center of the hole ?
Or underneath ?
If yes, without going into the disc ? How does that work ?
If not, why not? Does not gravity pull in from that direction ?

Black holes are self contradictory.
They don't make sense.
They are stupid.

Michael,
Thanks for the original post, but I cannot take these things seriously.
Jack

[Roshi]

What does any of this have to do with A Fundamental Assumption About Black Holes being Overturned

Black holes are "bent spacetime". If time cannot be bent, because it is only a count created by us, there are no black holes.

https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicist ... space.html

https://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientist ... nsion.html

No time dimension

They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... rom-space/

[Solar]

What does any of this have to do with A Fundamental Assumption About Black Holes being Overturned

Black holes are "bent spacetime". If time cannot be bent, because it is only a count created by us, there are no black holes.

Agreed.

https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicist ... space.html

https://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientist ... nsion.html

No time dimension

They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... rom-space/

The quoted section is spot on.

[orrery]

The orbital behavior of objects around the supposed black hole is a typical Plasma Crystal phenomenon. There is no super massive dense object. This phenomenon was researched in the PKE experiments on the ISS. Evoking the black hole is completely unnecessary when existing laboratory physics exists to explain it.

[Michael Mozina]

Michael,
Thanks for the original post, but I cannot take these things seriously.
Jack

It's totally fine. I don't take their "singularity" concepts seriously either. It's just interesting to note that one of the core tenets they've been basing their claims upon has been shown to be complete nonsense in real experiments.

There's really nothing 'good' about mainstream astronomy. The mainstream model fails from the moment we start to discuss the sun's corona.

It's pretty clear that their entire basis for discussing the mass of such exotic objects is entirely based on quicksand that fails to work correctly in the lab. They'll never get anything right until they stop being electrophobic as it relates to events in space.

[comingfrom]

Being an expert on Black Holes must be one of the safest careers paths one can choose.
No one is going to bring back a piece of one and prove them wrong.
Not for a long time, and probably not ever.

But a few minutes of common sense thinking disproves them instantly.
Staying within the known laws and definitions of math and physics doesn't allow black holes.

Black Holes are a psychological weapon.
Believing in them destroys basic understandings.
And it doesn't matter if fundamental assumptions are overturned, when even the fundamental assumptions of Math and Physics are overturned by them.
They will persist in feeding us on black holes.
They will keep overturning fundamental assumptions, definitions, and understandings.
Until the people are no longer even sure what space and time are anymore.
Paul

[Metryq]

Of course black holes are real! Hollywood VFX artists have hired experts—experts, I tell you!—to insure that black holes and wormholes are rendered correctly for movies!