Pretty sure I mentioned that before. -an earlier post discusses this fact from the perspective of observation and uncontested physics. This post is more focused on what prevailing physics has to say about the situation, and why its input is not as valid as presumed. After all, we got black holes from Relativity; it was Carl Schwarzschild's solutions of Relativity that gave us black holes. In the "TIME" essay it was argued that the Standard Model of quantum mechanics cannot/does not distinguish their proverbial forest from their trees; in this essay it will be argued that Relativity (our macro view of universe) does the exact same thing!
Let's step back from what Relativity says for a moment to recognize what Relativity is. Einstein's Relativity was born of Galileo's Relativity (better articulated by Newton... -that there are no privileged inertial frames of reference) mixed with the "constancy of light speed" (-that all observers see light to move at the same speed irrespective of relative motion); Lorentz transformations already existed at the time, the real innovation of Relativity was taking all observations seriously, making time and space malleable whereas in Newtonian Physics lightspeed would have to be... It's not wrong! -The universe behaves just as Relativity says, to a reasonable extent. Let's make this very clear: Relativity is an outline of circumstances, the circumstance of no privileged reference frames mixed with the circumstance of light moving at the same speed for all irrespective of how fast they move relative to each other. These are very real circumstances that exist in our universe, and subsequently we can, shall, and do experience the implications of such circumstances much as Relativity says we should. However, our universe is composed of more than circumstances. Relativity is not talking about particles; Relativity does not consider what we're (our universe) actually made of (all the neutrinos, photons, ions, molecules, solar systems...). The extent of Relativity's scope is circumstance; and yes, Relativity is an astute assessment of what happens in those circumstances, but it is by no means any type of authority on all macro circumstances. Relativity's view is far too narrow to have the audacity to presume authority beyond its circumstances.
More unintelligible gobbledegook. You are not Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, you do not get to choose what the words you use mean. If you wish to totally redefine modern physics you need to come up with more than this word salad.
There are a number of observed phenomena that strongly indicate the existence of black holes. If black holes don't exist, to what do these phenomena owe their existence?
They recently made a photo of a black hole, that is all the evidence that I need.
Astronomers Just Found the First Evidence That 'Mini Black Holes' Exist (https://www.livescience.com/mini-black-holes-could-exist-universe.html?fbclid=IwAR1wF1_hXnllybfh-mkJPJIUvNsAQysK3dTWSbTReihl0g4CUX9KVkLi9uk)
How Scientists Captured the First Image of a Black Hole (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2019/4/19/how-scientists-captured-the-first-image-of-a-black-hole/)
Gravitational waves hint at detection of black hole eating star (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01377-2)
Evidence for Black Holes (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/300/5627/1898)
Observational Evidence for Black Holes (https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~narayan/Benefunder/Narayan_McClintock.pdf)
A luminous X-ray outburst from an intermediate-mass black hole in an off-centre star cluster (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0493-1)
Google Scholar search 2019 'black holes' (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=black+holes&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5)
Quote from: Rift Zone on October 30, 2019, 07:11:47 PM
Pretty sure I mentioned that before. -an earlier post discusses this fact from the perspective of observation and uncontested physics. This post is more focused on what prevailing physics has to say about the situation, and why its input is not as valid as presumed. After all, we got black holes from Relativity; it was Carl Schwarzschild's solutions of Relativity that gave us black holes. In the "TIME" essay it was argued that the Standard Model of quantum mechanics cannot/does not distinguish their proverbial forest from their trees; in this essay it will be argued that Relativity (our macro view of universe) does the exact same thing!
Let's step back from what Relativity says for a moment to recognize what Relativity is. Einstein's Relativity was born of Galileo's Relativity (better articulated by Newton... -that there are no privileged inertial frames of reference) mixed with the "constancy of light speed" (-that all observers see light to move at the same speed irrespective of relative motion); Lorentz transformations already existed at the time, the real innovation of Relativity was taking all observations seriously, making time and space malleable whereas in Newtonian Physics lightspeed would have to be... It's not wrong! -The universe behaves just as Relativity says, to a reasonable extent. Let's make this very clear: Relativity is an outline of circumstances, the circumstance of no privileged reference frames mixed with the circumstance of light moving at the same speed for all irrespective of how fast they move relative to each other. These are very real circumstances that exist in our universe, and subsequently we can, shall, and do experience the implications of such circumstances much as Relativity says we should. However, our universe is composed of more than circumstances. Relativity is not talking about particles; Relativity does not consider what we're (our universe) actually made of (all the neutrinos, photons, ions, molecules, solar systems...). The extent of Relativity's scope is circumstance; and yes, Relativity is an astute assessment of what happens in those circumstances, but it is by no means any type of authority on all macro circumstances. Relativity's view is far too narrow to have the audacity to presume authority beyond its circumstances.
Quoted for the record.
Quote from: Bluenose on November 01, 2019, 04:33:30 AM
More unintelligible gobbledegook. You are not Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, you do not get to choose what the words you use mean. If you wish to totally redefine modern physics you need to come up with more than this word salad.
'Word salad' -- those are the words I was looking for to describe his ramblings. :smilenod:
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2019, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Bluenose on November 01, 2019, 04:33:30 AM
More unintelligible gobbledegook. You are not Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, you do not get to choose what the words you use mean. If you wish to totally redefine modern physics you need to come up with more than this word salad.
'Word salad' -- those are the words I was looking for to describe his ramblings. :smilenod:
8)