Are Black Holes a Mathematical Mistake?

[psionl0]

Actually, there would be gravity from the surrounding shell. The gravity would be pulling the object outward, towards the closest wall of the shell.

(Or so I assume.)

Incorrect. There would be no net force if you were at the centre of a spherical shell because each part of the shell would pull equally. It is not difficult to show mathematically that the same is true (net force = 0) for all points inside the shell.

When you burrow inside a solid sphere, gravity weakens until it is zero at the centre. You can liken it to being inside an outer shell and on the surface of an inner shell.

 

[Brian-M]

Incorrect. There would be no net force if you were at the centre of a spherical shell because each part of the shell would pull equally. It is not difficult to show mathematically that the same is true (net force = 0) for all points inside the shell.

Ah, so the larger mass of the more distant parts of the shell combined exactly balances out the closer proximity of the nearer parts?

I stand corrected.

 

[MG1962]

Eski, feel free to refute this information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

 

[Ziggurat]

Ah, so the larger mass of the more distant parts of the shell combined exactly balances out the closer proximity of the nearer parts?

I stand corrected.

Indeed it does cancel, and exactly so. The proof of the shell theorem at my link is a bit abstract, but if you consider some small solid angle, the mass that you encounter going in opposite directions will always scale as r² (the surface area the solid angle intercepts), which cancels the 1/r² force law.

 

[DrDave]

Multichoice poll so I have to vote for all responses

 

[Eski]

I've made four tries to post an explanation as to the errors that lead to Black Hole interpretation of what might be more correctly called a "Black Spot Focus" of shading by Matter against the the" "True Force."

The "True Force" being the pressure exerted on any unit of matter by the "Rest of Existence." (Gravity as an attraction is a Pseudo-force, and the equation, therefore, is subject to misinterpretation. Considered as a "pressure toward a common center" phenomenon, it becomes its own equal and opposite and hence a true force.)

Somebody please be intelligent enough, and open-minded enough to take it from there!

 

[IMST]

What the..? I don't even?
You're going to have to be a little more clear about what you're saying if you want someone to take your idea and overturn all of physics with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've made four tries to post an explanation as to the errors that lead to Black Hole interpretation of what might be more correctly called a "Black Spot Focus" of shading by Matter against the the" "True Force."

The "True Force" being the pressure exerted on any unit of matter by the "Rest of Existence." (Gravity as an attraction is a Pseudo-force, and the equation, therefore, is subject to misinterpretation. Considered as a "pressure toward a common center" phenomenon, it becomes its own equal and opposite and hence a true force.)

Somebody please be intelligent enough, and open-minded enough to take it from there!

Nothing in your post is even remotely coherent enough for anyone to do anything with it.

Your original post in this thread made sense, it was just completely wrong for the reasons I and others already gave. But this post? There's no way to even begin making sense of it.

 

[cwalner]

I've made four tries to post an explanation as to the errors that lead to Black Hole interpretation of what might be more correctly called a "Black Spot Focus" of shading by Matter against the the" "True Force."

The "True Force" being the pressure exerted on any unit of matter by the "Rest of Existence." (Gravity as an attraction is a Pseudo-force, and the equation, therefore, is subject to misinterpretation. Considered as a "pressure toward a common center" phenomenon, it becomes its own equal and opposite and hence a true force.)

Somebody please be intelligent enough, and open-minded enough to take it from there!

stundied

 

[theprestige]

I've made four tries to post an explanation as to the errors that lead to Black Hole interpretation of what might be more correctly called a "Black Spot Focus" of shading by Matter against the the" "True Force."

Keep trying. It's up to you to explain your idea and make it work.

The "True Force" being the pressure exerted on any unit of matter by the "Rest of Existence." (Gravity as an attraction is a Pseudo-force, and the equation, therefore, is subject to misinterpretation. Considered as a "pressure toward a common center" phenomenon, it becomes its own equal and opposite and hence a true force.)

What equation. Show us the math. You have done the math, right?

Somebody please be intelligent enough, and open-minded enough to take it from there!

You first.

If you can't explain your idea, and you can't do the math, you probably shouldn't run around telling people you think there's a mathematical mistake.

 

[jaydeehess]

I've made four tries to post an explanation as to the errors that lead to Black Hole interpretation of what might be more correctly called a "Black Spot Focus" of shading by Matter against the the" "True Force."

The "True Force" being the pressure exerted on any unit of matter by the "Rest of Existence." (Gravity as an attraction is a Pseudo-force, and the equation, therefore, is subject to misinterpretation. Considered as a "pressure toward a common center" phenomenon, it becomes its own equal and opposite and hence a true force.)

Somebody please be intelligent enough, and open-minded enough to take it from there!

Several people have indeed been intelligent enough to take it from there. In fact they have pointed out your error in how objects are affected by gravity and form orbits. The first of these being:

This is a gross misunderstanding of the shell theorem. The mass of a spherically symmetric object can be treated as being a single point only for regions outside that sphere. But you have failed to grasp the second half of the shell theorem: when you're inside a spherically symmetric shell, there is NO gravity from the surrounding shell.

The orbits of stars near these central black holes are far inside the mass of most of the galaxy. Their orbits are determined by something inside that orbit, and not by the surrounding mass.



There is a math mistake here, but I'm afraid you made it, not astronomers.

Your theory fails at first assumption.

Furthermore, the evidence for black holes also includes the behaviour of material being accellerated at the event horizen, x-ray emmisions etc.

If you are going to rewrite astrophysics you will need to accomodate all of these phenomena in your new theory.

 

[phildonnia]

At exactly this same point exists the Center of Balance/Focus of Mass Vectors/"Center of Gravity." This is a point at which for mathematical purposes, all the matter of the object, e.g. Galaxy, may be considereded to be concentrated.

This is essentially true as regards objects outside the galaxy. You probably are aware that for calculating the orbits of objects orbiting the Earth, that we can model the Earth as a point mass located at the center.

However, within the mass, things are different, since things are gravitationally attracted to mass "above" them. Within a large mass, the net strength of gravity actually declines as you approach the center, becoming zero at the center. Any extreme gravity encountered at the center of the galaxy will be due to local objects.

There was no voting option for "It's wrong, but worth replying to".

 

[Eski]

I keep trying to make the point that Gravity has always been formulated as an ATTRACTIVE FORCE. However, there is no "Equal and opposite." Therefore, Gravity, as formulated in the Universal Law of Gravitation, is a "Pseudo-force," and the mathematics has severe limitiatiions. The formulation is for two hard spheres of known "mass" and radius, who are attracted toward their mutual center of gravity. If one "Sphere" be much greater in mass than the other the mutual center of gravity is very near the center of that one.
If one goes back to the Ancient Greeks and more or less accepts their ideas of an Aether, a universal something, and Atomos, a smallest unit of that something--we may never know the extent of the Aether or the size of the Atomos--one may postulate that the Actual Force, that Isaac formulated is the "Pressure of All That Exists" as expressed at any given point.

Looked at this way, the two units are being pressed together into each others "shadows" as there is less of the "Universal Aether/Substance/Substrate between them.

If the formula be looked at in this manner, it can be seen that the real effect of the mass of a given bit of matter is to partially block the surrounding pressure in a given direction.

Used this way, the principle can applied to multiple "shadings" within a unit. That is each and every matter unit within the unit under consideration will block the pressusre behind it. (Al Zeeper, a Canadian theorist calls Gravitation the result of 'photon pressure,' which is probably as good a name for the pressure phenomenon as any.)

This blockage of pressure creates a shadow cone toward the center of the unit under consideration which will tend to block pressure from all directions and create a dot in the center of maximum "darkness," or lack of pressure.

The push into this point from the pressure behind any one of the component units will exactly mimic the situation that would arise were all of the other units combined as a mass at that point. Therefore, we can go back to the Law of Universal Gravitation to determine the value of that total mass, assuming that we know the mass of the one unit we focused upon.

In short, yes, ther is something there where people see Black Holes, it acts as if it were a Mass. It could be considered as a "negative mass," if one wishes to. Yes, you can figure a size for it. It would be the size that all the matter involved would have were that matter all pressed together about this point. Is it an all devouring hole? No. A material object that entered this spot would simply go on and, probably, end up eventually orbiting it...There is no need for there to be a material object at that position. This is not to say that the position will be necessarily "empty."

Incidentally, I consider the "Shell Theorem" as probably in error, as it appears to be based on the "Pseudo-force" formulation of Gravity.

I suppose that this is as clear as mud, and you still are in love with the Classic Black Hole.

The ironic thing is that predecessors of Galaxies could well have been what might be called "Grey Holes," powerful, rotating oscillators in the "Substance of Existence" which sucked matter into and around themselves, eventually filling up to lose the powerful rotation and develop into Galaxies. There is some evidence that would suggest Quasars to possibly be such units.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

No.

 

[Ziggurat]

I keep trying to make the point that Gravity has always been formulated as an ATTRACTIVE FORCE. However, there is no, "Equal and opposite." therefore, Gravity, as formulated in the Universal Law of Gravitation, is a "Pseudo-force" and the mathematics has severe limitiatiions.

As I explained in my first post, you have the mathematics completely wrong. So how do you know what limitations there are on that math when you don't understand it?

The formulation is for two hard spheres of known "mass" and radius, who are attracted toward their mutual center of gravity.

Uh, no. The theory of gravity is formulated for any mass distribution, and yes, the answer does generally depend on that distribution and not simply its center of mass. The case of a sphere is simply the simplest case to consider.

If one be much greater in mass than the other the mutual center of gravity is very near the center of the larger.

You clearly misunderstand what the term "center of gravity" actually means.

If one goes back to the Ancient Greeks and more or less accepts their ideas of an Aether=a universal something, and Atomos, a smallest unit of that something

Why would we want to do that? I mean, it's historically interesting, but the Greeks were still fairly clueless about physics. You would be a fool to turn to them for guidance.

Looked at this way, the two units are being pressed together into each others "shadows" as there is less of the "Universal Aether/Substance/Substrate between them. If the formula be looked at in this manner, it can be seen that the real effect of the mass is to partially block the surrounding pressure in a given direction.

That's actually an old and discredited theory, you aren't the first person to think it up. It attempts to produce a mechanism to explain Newtonian gravity, but we know Newtonian gravity is actually wrong. Newtonian gravity is merely a weak-field approximation of General Relativity. So every piece of experimental evidence for General Relativity (and there are quite a few) disproves your theory.

Incidentally, I consider the "Shell Theorem" as probably in error, as it appears to be based on the "Pseudo-force" formulation of Gravity.

No. The shell theorem would remain correct even under your wrong "shading" theory: every point within the shell would be equally shaded from all directions, and so no net force would be experienced anywhere within a shell.

 

[Brian-M]

I keep trying to make the point that Gravity has always been formulated as an ATTRACTIVE FORCE. However, there is no, "Equal and opposite." therefore, Gravity, as formulated in the Universal Law of Gravitation, is a "Pseudo-force" and the mathematics has severe limitiatiions.

There is an equal and opposite. Everything that exerts a gravitational force on another object also experiences an equal and opposite force. This objection of yours is nonsensical.

ETA:

If object A exerts a force X pulling object B south, then object A experiences a force X pulling it north. Equal and opposite.

The formulation is for two hard spheres of known "mass" and radius, who are attracted toward their mutual center of gravity. If one be much greater in mass than the other the mutual center of gravity is very near the center of the larger.

A better way to explain it is that each object is drawn towards the center of gravity of the other object.

ETA: And radius doesn't matter.

If the formula be looked at in this manner, it can be seen that the real effect of the mass of a given bit of matter is to partially block the surrounding pressure in a given direction.

Incidentally, I consider the "Shell Theorem" as probably in error, as it appears to be based on the "Pseudo-force" formulation of Gravity.

Ah, here we have a testable prediction. Inside a shell, there should be less aether (because it's being blocked by the surrounding mass), and so if you're right then the force of gravity should be weaker inside the shell.

So all we have to do is set up a rig that directly measures the gravitational attraction of two masses and take it to a large underground cavern. If your claim is right, then the force attracting these two masses should be less below ground than it is above ground.

But I'm wondering about exactly what properties this aether is supposed to have. I don't see how it could work as you claim.

ETA: It couldn't just be a free-floating substance like air, because it'd rush in to fill the shadowed areas and you'd have no attraction. To work as you claim, it'd have to be some kind of repulsive force radiating from multiple directions. But then the force of gravity between objects of given mass and distance wouldn't be constant, it'd depend on how much of this repulsive force is blocked by other objects in the galaxy.

 

[Eski]

The discreditation of the Greek ideas is due to a misinterpretation of the Michelson-Morely Experiment as "Disproving the Aether" rather than an alternative explanatiion of
determining characteristics of what exists where there is no matter.
General Relativity also has to be suspect. Einstein made a number of bad mistakes in his assumptions. Assuming "c," a"Speed" to be a limiting velocity, he seems to have overlooked that all velocities are relative to a point or a line and the relative velocities of two independently moving objects has no logical limit.

Closer examination of Einstein's work shows that it appies to INFFORMATION TrANSFER amd is further limited by the fact that information can not travel faster than approximately 0.7 the velocity of the carrier wave upon which it rides.

The Speed of Light makes much more sense as an average velocity of rotation of the actual "Carriers."

Yes, I am unorthodox, and most of you,, knowing nothing of the computer that is doing this work, will scream, "Uninformed Crackpot."

My view, however, is that the current status of physical science theory is a conglomerated mess with a number of major problems: Misinterpreted data, over dependence on math. without really understanding some of the limitations caused by such things as universally used math. conventions whic no one thinks of the implications of, the fact that math, is an idealization that often can be misleading. There is also the reverence for past geniuses, "Einstein said it, so it has to be true, etc.

Another problem is simply that no one has ever explicitly defined many widely used terms, including "Mass," "Energy," and "Charge."

Often one misinterlpretation has been piled upon another leading to such nonsense as the "Standard Model of Particle Physics, and even the myth of "Anti-Matter-Matter" Annihilation....Have your fun laughing. Remember, who laughs last, laughs longest....

 

[dafydd]

I keep trying to make the point that Gravity has always been formulated as an ATTRACTIVE FORCE. However, there is no "Equal and opposite." Therefore, Gravity, as formulated in the Universal Law of Gravitation, is a "Pseudo-force," and the mathematics has severe limitiatiions. The formulation is for two hard spheres of known "mass" and radius, who are attracted toward their mutual center of gravity. If one "Sphere" be much greater in mass than the other the mutual center of gravity is very near the center of that one.
If one goes back to the Ancient Greeks and more or less accepts their ideas of an Aether, a universal something, and Atomos, a smallest unit of that something--we may never know the extent of the Aether or the size of the Atomos--one may postulate that the Actual Force, that Isaac formulated is the "Pressure of All That Exists" as expressed at any given point.

Looked at this way, the two units are being pressed together into each others "shadows" as there is less of the "Universal Aether/Substance/Substrate between them.

If the formula be looked at in this manner, it can be seen that the real effect of the mass of a given bit of matter is to partially block the surrounding pressure in a given direction.

Used this way, the principle can applied to multiple "shadings" within a unit. That is each and every matter unit within the unit under consideration will block the pressusre behind it. (Al Zeeper, a Canadian theorist calls Gravitation the result of 'photon pressure,' which is probably as good a name for the pressure phenomenon as any.)

This blockage of pressure creates a shadow cone toward the center of the unit under consideration which will tend to block pressure from all directions and create a dot in the center of maximum "darkness," or lack of pressure.

The push into this point from the pressure behind any one of the component units will exactly mimic the situation that would arise were all of the other units combined as a mass at that point. Therefore, we can go back to the Law of Universal Gravitation to determine the value of that total mass, assuming that we know the mass of the one unit we focused upon.

In short, yes, ther is something there where people see Black Holes, it acts as if it were a Mass. It could be considered as a "negative mass," if one wishes to. Yes, you can figure a size for it. It would be the size that all the matter involved would have were that matter all pressed together about this point. Is it an all devouring hole? No. A material object that entered this spot would simply go on and, probably, end up eventually orbiting it...There is no need for there to be a material object at that position. This is not to say that the position will be necessarily "empty."

Incidentally, I consider the "Shell Theorem" as probably in error, as it appears to be based on the "Pseudo-force" formulation of Gravity.

I suppose that this is as clear as mud, and you still are in love with the Classic Black Hole.

The ironic thing is that predecessors of Galaxies could well have been what might be called "Grey Holes," powerful, rotating oscillators in the "Substance of Existence" which sucked matter into and around themselves, eventually filling up to lose the powerful rotation and develop into Galaxies. There is some evidence that would suggest Quasars to possibly be such units.

No.

 

[dafydd]

The discreditation of the Greek ideas is due to a misinterpretation of the Michelson-Morely Experiment as "Disproving the Aether" rather than an alternative explanatiion of
determining characteristics of what exists where there is no matter.
General Relativity also has to be suspect. Einstein made a number of bad mistakes in his assumptions. Assuming "c," a"Speed" to be a limiting velocity, he seems to have overlooked that all velocities are relative to a point or a line and the relative velocities of two independently moving objects has no logical limit.

Closer examination of Einstein's work shows that it appies to INFFORMATION TrANSFER amd is further limited by the fact that information can not travel faster than approximately 0.7 the velocity of the carrier wave upon which it rides.

The Speed of Light makes much more sense as an average velocity of rotation of the actual "Carriers."

Yes, I am unorthodox, and most of you,, knowing nothing of the computer that is doing this work, will scream, "Uninformed Crackpot."

My view, however, is that the current status of physical science theory is a conglomerated mess with a number of major problems: Misinterpreted data, over dependence on math. without really understanding some of the limitations caused by such things as universally used math. conventions whic no one thinks of the implications of, the fact that math, is an idealization that often can be misleading. There is also the reverence for past geniuses, "Einstein said it, so it has to be true, etc.

Another problem is simply that no one has ever explicitly defined many widely used terms, including "Mass," "Energy," and "Charge."

Often one misinterlpretation has been piled upon another leading to such nonsense as the "Standard Model of Particle Physics, and even the myth of "Anti-Matter-Matter" Annihilation....Have your fun laughing. Remember, who laughs last, laughs longest....

No. Your physics is gibberish, you will never laugh, you will never collect your Nobel prize. Amusing thread, this. Carry on.

 

[phildonnia]

Looked at this way, the two units are being pressed together into each others "shadows" as there is less of the "Universal Aether/Substance/Substrate between them.

If the formula be looked at in this manner, it can be seen that the real effect of the mass of a given bit of matter is to partially block the surrounding pressure in a given direction.

Used this way, the principle can applied to multiple "shadings" within a unit. That is each and every matter unit within the unit under consideration will block the pressusre behind it. (Al Zeeper, a Canadian theorist calls Gravitation the result of 'photon pressure,' which is probably as good a name for the pressure phenomenon as any.)

This blockage of pressure creates a shadow cone toward the center of the unit under consideration which will tend to block pressure from all directions and create a dot in the center of maximum "darkness," or lack of pressure.

The push into this point from the pressure behind any one of the component units will exactly mimic the situation that would arise were all of the other units combined as a mass at that point. Therefore, we can go back to the Law of Universal Gravitation to determine the value of that total mass, assuming that we know the mass of the one unit we focused upon.

This theory has been proposed before. It is actually empirically testable. If several bodies are in a linear alignment, then the total pressure "darkness" on one of the outside bodies should be less than the combined gravity predicted by the Gravity law.

Suppose, for example, that the Sun attenuates 1% of the "pressure" on the earth and the moon, and the Earth attenuates 0.5% of the "pressure" on the moon. When a lunar eclipse is imminent, the Earth and the sun are together cutting off 1.5% of the pressure, resulting in the attraction of the moon in accordance with the Gravity law. Now when the eclipse actually happens, the Sun cuts off 1%, and the Earth 0.5% of the remaining 99%, for a total of (grind, grind, grind) 1.495%. Thus, the moon should be momentarily loosened from its normal orbit during an eclipse. (Note: I'm making up the numbers here).