Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[harrycostas]

G'day Ramparts

Wow! a mod.

Maybe thats why they put this topic in the unexplained.

Basically so called black holes made up of matter that we can apply known laws.

Knowing the activity and size of these compact bodies, as they are directly related to the evolution of galaxies.

The growth in mass (gain and loss) caused by infalling and ejected matter may explain a recycling processes.

A true black hole having a singularity would not allow matter to escape. A black hole with trapped horizons may allow the formation of jets via magnetic fields that originate within the core of a so called black hole. These magnetic fields may carry Nutrinos at electrons close to the speed of light, neutrons and protons at various speeds forming knots as we see in observations.

and so on.

 

[yevaud]

As Ramparts says, yes, I am a Moderator. Dunno about "Godlike."

Matter really doesn't escape from a Singularity. The matter in the polar jets is that which is trapped in the accretion disc, and ejected via the jets. As things stand for now, the only way anything may escape from beneath the event horizon is via Hawking Radiation.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day yevaud

The question is this.

Does a singularity exist? Does a black hole defined by a singularity exist?

If not what we see is mimic black holes formed by compact matter that is able to eject matter from the core via a jet that also collects matter from the accretion.

Accretion discs are unable to form stable jets that remain stable for millions of years.

Jets formed from the accretion discs usually blow out in the short run into the halo.

The axion formation from the core gives it the direction and form such as a helix magnetic field that cannot be formed from accretion, its not like a cyclone on planet earth, its origin lies in magnetic reconnection of magnetic fields that originate in combination with the core and the surrounding activity.

This maybe of interest

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0005009
One a topological secret of gravity and its surprises for astrophysics, cosmology and particle physics

Authors: Zahid Zakir (CTPA)
(Submitted on 5 May 2000 (v1), last revised 8 Jun 2007 (this version, v3))

Abstract: It is argued that the surface radius of a compact source can not be less than its gravitational radius due to the strong gravitational time dilation effects. The such "topological" difference between the Newtonian and relativistic gravity leads to the known observable effects. The hierarchy of supercompact stars, more massive than neutron stars, such as heavy baryon, quark (subquark?) and other heavy particle stars is predicted instead of the black holes. The lack of the cosmological singularity and a gravitational nature of the regularizations of loop divergencies in quantum field theory are also discussed.


We see the AGN mass increase and decrease depending on the activity. The question is: What does the growing?

 

[csmyth3025]

ramparts wrote:

"...I don't think the point here is to discuss an important point of physics - as I said, this is not something experts worry about, as it's just a matter of being careful with your math. The point is rather to inspire all of us to learn more about physics..."

I couldn't agree more, ramparts. In this regard I, too, consider this forum and (dare I say it?) this thread a success. I picked this quote from a book entitled "Understanding Calculus":
"...As Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman said, " Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined and original manner possible."

I don't know about the undisciplined part but GR does interest me and I'm willing to study hard. I don't expect to become an expert on GR, but I hope to eventually not be completely clueless about the language that the experts are speaking when they discuss the concepts of GR.

Also, I know what your saying about "working the problems". It's sort of like driving a car. You can read all the pamphlets and manuals - but you don't really learn how to drive until you get behind the wheel and step on the gas.

Chris

 

[yevaud]

Does a singularity exist? Does a black hole defined by a singularity exist?

We have certainly imaged them, or more accurately, their predicted gravitational effects on other masses. "Black Hole" is a popularized name for the masses, coined by John Archibald Wheeler.

If not what we see is mimic black holes formed by compact matter that is able to eject matter from the core via a jet that also collects matter from the accretion.

If it so precisely mimics what has been predicted for a Singularity, then it would be a Singularity. Nor has matter been seen to be ejected from what is, after all, a supremely powerful gravity well, save from the accretion disc or polar jets. However, the effects of accretion discs and polar jets are known, and what we have imaged meets those predictions.

Accretion discs are unable to form stable jets that remain stable for millions of years.

A tiny problem with that thought: know anyone who's been around several million years to verify that claim?

Jets formed from the accretion discs usually blow out in the short run into the halo.

This may sound good, but has never been seen.

I'll read the abstract later, when I have some time.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Well, I have been following this thread on/off whenever I get some time with some interest. It is harrycostas vs speedfreek and SDC gang. But it gives us, the bystanders, a chance to learn more about the state of cosmology/astrophysics. I do have a comment and a question anyone can give an answer.

First comment. It appears to me a whole bunch of theories of cosmology/astrophysics are completely dependent on 'red shift'. If use of redshift as a measure of 'correct speed' later turns out to be unacceptable, that would make currect astrophysics not only meaningless but the blow the scientific community would take from average public would push science back by 100s years. I hope astrophysicists have contingency plans.

Now the question. Long time ago I read astrophysicists have calculated how elementary particles were formed from a hot soup right after big bang, in fact within nano/micro seconds. The theory gave us a nano second by nano second running commentary about the events from the time of bigbang to the present time. That theory dealt with only the particles we know of and before the arrival of theories with dark matter and dark energy. Do they have a theory that also shows how dark matters were created within pico/nano/micro seconds after big bang?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well no danger of the red shift problem that you describe.

The ONLY way to rpoduce red shift in the spectra is the recssion of objects at high speed.

There are whack-a-doodle ideas out there proposing other ways, but every one has been thoroughly detsroyed by all physics and observations.

Regarding dark matter, since we don't know what it is, there are plenty of hypotheses that propose how different possible candidates were formed; without knowing what it is, it is in the realm of pure speculation.

 

[dangineer]

There seems to be this fear among people that if certain theories are found to be wrong, than all of science will collapse and we will be sent into some sort of dark age. I really think this is a misconception that stems from the sensationalist headlines that came out with Einstein's GR. Einstein was very famous for a physicist during his time and sensationalism in the media was running rampant while he was publishing. Thus, every time someone studies relativity, they hear about how Einstein shook the foundations of all of science. New discoveries are made all the time that significantly alter our perception of the universe - that's how science evolves. If a theory appears to have some problems, the scientific community always identifies them and adjusts, modifies or proposes new theories accordingly.

For example, if a valid alternative to redshift is ever found, the consequences will be mulled over by hundreds and new theories and models will begin forming and the scientific community will slowly transition from one model to the next - no cataclysmic disaster necessary.

 

[ramparts]

Indeed - the one other thing I should point out is that there aren't many well-accepted scientific theories (and this is certainly true of the big bang) that only stands on one pillar. If there were an alternate explanation for redshift (which, as MW says, looks these days to be pretty darn unlikely), there would be a lot of pretty unrelated questions to answer before we up and dropped the big bang

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

The formation of gets from reconnection of magnetic fiels is well documented from the surface of the Sun.

The jets formed on the surface have a short life compared to the jets formed within the suface and the jets formed deep within.

Black holes are written in thousands of papers and yet we have not seen one nor an Event Horizon or a singularity. Yet we talk as though we know their make up from their influence on their surroundings, which can be formed from ultra dense matter.

So when we see jets formed we may (??) predict their origin based on their stability by observing their formation over millions of years. If their Origin is from the core or the disc then there maybe some form of evidence or science logic to indicate.

This galaxy gluster shows a giant jet. This is a repeat.

Galaxy Cluster Takes It to the Extreme
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/07_rel ... 53007.html
Great movie
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3 ... nim_sm.mov
The jets are well formed indicating their origin from the compact object.

 

[ramparts]

G'day from the land of Southern California

Our main evidence from black holes isn't from seeing jets in galaxies - if that was the best we'd got, our evidence wouldn't be very good at all, would it?

You say we've never observed an event horizon or a singularity - well, strictly speaking that's true, but by the nature of black holes we're unlikely to see a singularity, and the telescopes aren't powerful enough to image an event horizon yet (we'd need to use very high resolution imaging on a galaxy where matter is falling into the black hole to see the shape of an event horizon). But that doesn't mean we can't infer their existence!

Since the first result in the late 1960s (I believe), there have been a string of observations, getting better and better, confirming black holes by showing stars and gas in orbit around very massive objects. The best example is probably the black hole at the center of our own galaxy - there are absolutely beautiful images taken of stars in the center of our galaxy orbiting, over the period of a few years, around a common mass from which we see absolutely zero light. You can watch them all tracing out their orbits around this center - it's quite striking!

The most recent observation shows that the central object has about 3.7 million times the mass of our Sun (think about that for a second!), and a radius of no more than 6.25 light-hours. How do we get those numbers? Well, we've known since Newton's time how orbits work - if we see an star moving at a certain speed, and at a certain distance from a massive object, we know how much mass it has, since we know how much force is needed to keep the star in that particular orbit. We observe many stars in orbits around this central object (let's not call it a black hole yet!) in our galaxy, and they all suggest about the same answer for this object's mass, so we're on the right track Meanwhile, since it's not giving off any light we can see, we don't know how big it is, but we see stars moving around it, so obviously it has to be smaller than the smallest orbit.

The beautiful thing is this: even if the mystery object is as big as it's allowed to be (that is, it goes up and touches the closest orbiting stars), it's still way too dense to be anything other than a black hole!

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Ramparts

What you say maybe correct and yet these objects can be explained by ultra dense objetcs that do not require a singularity. Killing vectors can be created by dense matter.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Ramparts

This paper maybe of interest, this is what science is all about to question and keep on questioning.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1355
Can accretion disk properties distinguish gravastars from black holes?

Authors: Tiberiu Harko, Zoltán Kovács, Francisco S. N. Lobo
(Submitted on 8 May 2009)

Abstract: Gravastars, hypothetic astrophysical objects, consisting of a dark energy condensate surrounded by a strongly correlated thin shell of anisotropic matter, have been proposed as an alternative to the standard black hole picture of general relativity. Observationally distinguishing between astrophysical black holes and gravastars is a major challenge for this latter theoretical model. In the context of stationary and axially symmetrical geometries, a possibility of distinguishing gravastars from black holes is through the comparative study of thin accretion disks around rotating gravastars and Kerr-type black holes, respectively. In the present paper, we consider accretion disks around slowly rotating gravastars, with all the metric tensor components estimated up to the second order in the angular velocity. Due to the differences in the exterior geometry, the thermodynamic and electromagnetic properties of the disks (energy flux, temperature distribution and equilibrium radiation spectrum) are different for these two classes of compact objects, consequently giving clear observational signatures. In addition to this, it is also shown that the conversion efficiency of the accreting mass into radiation is always smaller than the conversion efficiency for black holes, i.e., gravastars provide a less efficient mechanism for converting mass to radiation than black holes. Thus, these observational signatures provide the possibility of clearly distinguishing rotating gravastars from Kerr-type black holes.

 

[ramparts]

For logical clarity, and so I don't put some monster of a post up, I'm splitting this up in half. So that was how we know that at least one object (the thing in the center of our Milky Way, which has the best observations) is super dense. Now for Part Two

Why is that so dense it means this object must be a black hole? General relativity has one answer, which is that if mass is constrained in a tighter radius than its Schwarzschild radius, than it is necessarily a black hole. General relativity is pretty well-tested, so this would work for most people, but in case there are holdouts like noblackholes (where'd he go, by the way?), let's just look at this using Newtonian gravity. After all, general relativity is just a generalization of Newtonian gravity (when you have really weak gravitational fields and slow speeds, the equations of GR become Newton's equations), and if you don't believe in Newtonian gravity, which is about as well-tested as the existence of shoes, then you're certifiably insane

In Newtonian gravity, there's a formula for the escape velocity around an object of mass M:

v^2 = 2GM/r

Where G is Newton's constant, and r is your distance from the massive object. So if you plug in the object's mass and the distance of a particle from it, then you get the minimum velocity, v, you need in order to not be sucked back in.

Now let's rearrange it:

r = 2GM/v^2

Exact same equation, but now if we put in a velocity v, we find out the minimum distance r for which your speed is "good enough" to escape the object's gravitational pull. That's all the mathematical set-up we need: now we can ask, at what distance from the object is the speed of light not enough to escape the gravitational pull? So we replace v with c and get the answer:

r = 2GM/c^2

This is the Schwarzschild radius, or the location of a black hole's event horizon. This is derived by general relativity, but as you see, you don't need it - even Newton could have predicted black holes this way!

So if you plug in the numbers from my last post for the mass of the object in the center of our galaxy, and the maximum size it has, what you find is that maximum size is less than the radius I just derived, 2GM/c^2. In other words, if the object in our galaxy's center is a sphere with matter all throughout, the stuff on the outside of the sphere isn't going to be able to escape the constant inward gravitational pull of the rest of the matter, because it can never reach the escape velocity! So the only thing that can happen is, everything gets pulled in...tighter...and tighter...and once something goes in past the Schwarzschild radius, not even light can escape. Now we can call it a black hole

And there you have it. Even if you don't believe in general relativity (which is about level 7 of Crazy), even Newton's gravity says the object in the center of our galaxy must be a black hole. And if you don't believe in Newton's gravity, then you're somewhere around level 20 of Crazy

 

[ramparts]

Aw, Harry, you split up my beautiful two-part post! No problem.

The point of my last post was to show why no matter how you cut it, nothing that dense can be anything but a black hole. Is there a singularity? That's a way different question. It's very possible that once matter is sufficiently condensed, quantum effects will prevent the formation of a singularity, and until we have a theory of quantum gravity, there's not much more we can say there. Thankfully, not much astrophysics relies on black holes containing singularities, but rather just that they're black holes - in other words, really massive things that don't give off any light, and suck everything in. As I said above, we can't avoid the fact that objects like that exist. Whether there's a bona fide singularity is a different question, and one of faith until our math gets better

No offense at all meant, but do you know what a Killing vector is? Killing vectors exist in any spacetime, they don't get specifically "created" by dense matter.

 

[csmyth3025]

ramparts wrote:

"...The most recent observation shows that the central object [in the Milky Way] has about 3.7 million times the mass of our Sun (think about that for a second!), and a radius of no more than 6.25 light-hours..."

and:

"...We observe many stars in orbits around this central object (let's not call it a black hole yet!) in our galaxy, and they all suggest about the same answer for this object's mass, so we're on the right track Meanwhile, since it's not giving off any light we can see, we don't know how big it is, but we see stars moving around it, so obviously it has to be smaller than the smallest orbit..."

and:

"...So if you plug in the numbers from my last post for the mass of the object in the center of our galaxy, and the maximum size it has, what you find is that maximum size is less than the radius I just derived, 2GM/c^2..."

For those reading these posts who haven't "plugged in the numbers" I offer my result based on the following:

1) A "radius of no more than 6.25 light-hours" would be (using a rounded-off value for c of 300,000 km/sec):
300,000km/sec x 60sec/min x 60min/hr x 6.25 hr = 6,750,000,000 km

2) The term "2GM" is widely used in astrophysics. Because of its common usage it's called the standard gravitational
parameter and it's been named the Greek (lower-case) letter "mu" which looks like the English letter "u" with a little
tale appended to the front. The value of mu has been calculated for a number of astronomical objects, as can be
found in this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_g ... _parameter

In the case of our calculation, the value of mu for the Sun is applicable: 132,712,440,018 km^3/sec^2. If the central
object in the Milky Way "...has about 3.7 million times the mass of our Sun..." then mu for this object would be:
132,712,440,018 km^3/sec^2 x 3,700,000 = (4.91 x 10^17) km^3/sec^2 and 2mu = 9.82 x 10^17 km^3/sec^2

3) Dividing the 2mu obtained above (which is the same as 2GM) by c^2, i.e. (300,000 km/sec)^2 or
(9 x 10^10) km^2/sec^2 produces a result of 10,911,111 km.

4) If I understand ramparts correctly, then if this central object has a radius of almost 11 million km, the escape
velocity from its surface would be the speed of light. In other words, the "event horizon" is at a radius of almost
11 million km from the center of this object.

5) My calculation presents me with a problem. Either my math is wrong or I've miss-applied these equations or I've
miss-understood ramparts' statement that "...what you find is that maximum size is less than the radius I just derived,
2GM/c^2...".

I welcome any comments or corrections that anyone would like to make about my calculation and/or the apparent conflict with ramparts' statement that my result seems to present.

Chris

 

[ramparts]

Hi Chris - you're right, I got ahead of myself a little bit The maximum radius of this object (i.e., the distance of the closest star we see around it, which is presumably much larger than the actual size of the object) isn't equal to the Schwarzschild radius. This makes sense - if it were within the Schwarzschild radius, we wouldn't be able to see it! The arguments for why this is a black hole center around the fact that nothing so dense has any other viable explanation. The arguments are in this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306130

Although they're not terribly easy to follow without a bit of a physics background

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Evidence is prime.

The definition of a black hole contains a singularity and an event horizon.

Now reading most papers, they say a singularity cannot exist.

So what type of black hole are we talking about?
Just sharing the reading, maybe you will find something that I cannot understand.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4043
Very fast optical flaring from a possible new Galactic magnetar

Authors: A. Stefanescu, G. Kanbach, A. Słowikowska, J. Greiner, S. McBreen, G. Sala
(Submitted on 23 Sep 2008)

Abstract: Highly luminous rapid flares are characteristic of processes around compact objects like white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes. In the high energy regime of X- and gamma-rays, outbursts with variability time-scales of seconds and faster are routinely observed, e.g. in gamma-ray bursts or Soft Gamma Repeaters. In the optical, flaring activity on such time-scales has never been observed outside the prompt phase of GRBs. This is mostly due to the fact that outbursts with strong, fast flaring usually are discovered in the high-energy regime. Most optical follow-up observations of such transients employ instruments with integration times exceeding tens of seconds, which are therefore unable to resolve fast variability. Here we show the observation of extremely bright and rapid optical flaring in the galactic transient SWIFT J195509.6+261406. Flaring of this kind has never previously been reported. Our optical light-curves are phenomenologically similar to high energy light-curves of Soft Gamma Repeaters and Anomalous X-ray Pulsars, which are thought to be neutron stars with extremely high magnetic fields (magnetars). This suggests similar emission processes may be at work, but in contrast to the other known magnetars with strong emission in the optical.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3520
Time is not the problem

Authors: Olaf Dreyer
(Submitted on 22 Apr 2009)

Abstract: Attempts to quantize general relativity encounter an odd problem. The Hamiltonian that normally generates time evolution vanishes in the case of general relativity as a result of diffeomorphism invariance. The theory seems to be saying that time does not exist. The most obvious feature of our world, namely that time seems to progress and that the world changes accordingly becomes a problem in this presumably fundamental theory. This is called the problem of time. In this essay we argue that this problem is the result of an unphysical idealization. We are caught in this "problem of time" trap because we took a wrong turn in the early days of relativity by permanently including a split of geometry and matter into our physical theories. We show that another possibility exists that circumvents the problem of time and also sheds new light on other problems like the cosmological constant problem and the horizon problem in early universe cosmology.

 

[ramparts]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Evidence is prime.

The definition of a black hole contains a singularity and an event horizon.

Now reading most papers, they say a singularity cannot exist.

What papers are you reading? It's very presumptuous to say a singularity can't exist when the existence or non-existence of a singularity (and its properties) come down to physics we don't know yet

I should emphasize again, Harry, the object in the center of our galaxy, and many like it, can be black holes without actually having a central singularity. The point is that it's an object within its event horizon - that is, it sucks things in (it's a hole), and doesn't let light escape (it's black)

Astrophysics can't tell us anything about what happens inside the event horizon, so the nature of the singularity or whatever is at the center is irrelevant as far as what we've just been talking about.

So what type of black hole are we talking about?
Just sharing the reading, maybe you will find something that I cannot understand.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4043
Very fast optical flaring from a possible new Galactic magnetar

Authors: A. Stefanescu, G. Kanbach, A. Słowikowska, J. Greiner, S. McBreen, G. Sala
(Submitted on 23 Sep 2008)

Abstract: Highly luminous rapid flares are characteristic of processes around compact objects like white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes. In the high energy regime of X- and gamma-rays, outbursts with variability time-scales of seconds and faster are routinely observed, e.g. in gamma-ray bursts or Soft Gamma Repeaters. In the optical, flaring activity on such time-scales has never been observed outside the prompt phase of GRBs. This is mostly due to the fact that outbursts with strong, fast flaring usually are discovered in the high-energy regime. Most optical follow-up observations of such transients employ instruments with integration times exceeding tens of seconds, which are therefore unable to resolve fast variability. Here we show the observation of extremely bright and rapid optical flaring in the galactic transient SWIFT J195509.6+261406. Flaring of this kind has never previously been reported. Our optical light-curves are phenomenologically similar to high energy light-curves of Soft Gamma Repeaters and Anomalous X-ray Pulsars, which are thought to be neutron stars with extremely high magnetic fields (magnetars). This suggests similar emission processes may be at work, but in contrast to the other known magnetars with strong emission in the optical.

This seems interesting but largely irrelevant to the current topic, that is, black holes and their existence or otherwise

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3520
Time is not the problem

Authors: Olaf Dreyer
(Submitted on 22 Apr 2009)

Abstract: Attempts to quantize general relativity encounter an odd problem. The Hamiltonian that normally generates time evolution vanishes in the case of general relativity as a result of diffeomorphism invariance. The theory seems to be saying that time does not exist. The most obvious feature of our world, namely that time seems to progress and that the world changes accordingly becomes a problem in this presumably fundamental theory. This is called the problem of time. In this essay we argue that this problem is the result of an unphysical idealization. We are caught in this "problem of time" trap because we took a wrong turn in the early days of relativity by permanently including a split of geometry and matter into our physical theories. We show that another possibility exists that circumvents the problem of time and also sheds new light on other problems like the cosmological constant problem and the horizon problem in early universe cosmology.

There are lots, and lots, of very interesting theories out there with different takes on the nature of time. It's one of the bigger fundamental questions in physics today. Unfortunately, theories are theories until our physics gets better and the observations and experiments start to catch up Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at Caltech, is writing a book on time called "From Eternity to Here" that should be a great read for experts and laymen alike, coming out in January. I'd recommend you check that out!

 

[harrycostas]

G'day ramparts

Just because an object forms killing vectors does not make it a black hole. The hole is actually not a hole but the apperance of a hole so to speak and yet we have not even seen this.

Ultra dense matter have 5 time the density of a Neucleus of an Atom would probably create EMR fields preventing electrons from escaping. Its the final matter that is in question. Once this is resolved that we can predict its properties and even apply the propert of double layers and piching of EM fields.

Neutrons 10^ 17 Kg/m3
Just google for Neutron Star density, I hope I got my units right for some reason I cannot go into the web, I'm locked into this link.
Our sun would have a 10 Km Dia

The following theoretical values.

Qaurk matter 10 ^ 17 to 10^25 Kg/m3 Our Sun would be the size of a socer ball

Preon particles are said to go up to 10^35 Kg/3 Our sun would be the size of a Rice seed

 

[dangineer]

Not that I'm not on your side or anything, but I just wanted to point out a flaw in your argument above, ramparts:

If we envoke only Newtonian physics, then black holes still wouldn't be black as Newtonian physics doesn't predict that light is affected by gravity. Also, the speed of light wouldn't have any special meaning since it's significance is only the basis for relativity, not Newtonian physics. Since there is no speed limit in Newtonian physics, objects would still be able to escape the gravity of a blackhole-sized (in terms of density) object.

I don't think this has any bearing on the argument though...

 

[ramparts]

Well, the light thing has no bearing on my argument, but to be rigorous then, yes, you do need special relativity to set light as maximum speed. But then even without that, you can just take c as some very large speed which obviously the outside of a star will never travel at relative to the rest of the star

 

[ramparts]

G'day ramparts

Just because an object forms killing vectors does not make it a black hole. The hole is actually not a hole but the apperance of a hole so to speak and yet we have not even seen this.

G'day Harry!

As I've said above, Harry, all spaces have Killing vectors; no one argues that black holes exist because "they create Killing vectors" or something (by the way, best not to think of it as objects "creating" Killing vectors, they're properties of a geometry). Do you know what a Killing vector is? It's not exactly a trivial concept, it's fairly mathematical and really only of use to people solving problems on this sort of thing...

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Ramparts

I understand what you say and yet my mentor directs me to read up on loop quatum cosmology, quatum cosmology and magnetic reconnection and trapping horizons amongst other topics ( no rest) search in arXiv or ADS.

I posted this link before

I cannot remember if you had a comment on this. Sorry I'm in an out of the forum and forget sometimes what posts I have posted.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3155
Vector theory of gravity in Minkowski space-time: flat Universe without black holes

Authors: Anatoly A. Svidzinsky
(Submitted on 21 Apr 2009)

Abstract: We propose a new classical theory of gravity which is based on the principle of equivalence and assumption that gravity, similarly to electrodynamics, is described by a vector field in Minkowski space-time. We show that such assumptions yield a unique theory of gravity; it passes all available tests and free of singularities such as black holes. In the present theory, gravity is described by four equations which have, e.g., exact analytical solution for arbitrary static field. For cosmology our equations give essentially the same evolution of the Universe as general relativity. Predictions of our theory can be tested within next few years making more accurate measurement of the time delay of radar signal traveling near the Sun or by resolving the supermassive object at the center of our Galaxy with VLBA. If general relativity is correct we must see a steady shadow from a black hole at the Galactic center. If the present theory is right then likely the shadow will appear and disappear periodically with a period of about 20 min as we predicted in JCAP 10 (2007) 018. Observation of such oscillations will also provide evidence for dark matter axion with mass in meV range.

Hello Dangineer as for gravity holding back EMR, we may need to look at the stronger forces that are with the Nucleus of an atom.

 

[ramparts]

Harry, who is this mentor of yours? I'm not sure I trust someone who directs you to read papers on the arXiv on quantum cosmology without having a serious math and physics background first

As for that paper, as I've said, there are lots of theory papers out there claiming to modify or extend GR or quantum mechanics - they all say some pretty interesting and different things, but the vast majority make, unlike GR or quantum mechanics, no new predictions testable now. So these theories remain plausible, but it's hard to judge either way. New theories pop up all the time describing various modifications to gravity, and they tend to get shot down within a few years when the details are looked at (there are some very interesting ideas still alive, however!). I haven't read it in detail but it doesn't look immediately crazy, and it's certainly interesting, but it's incumbent upon this guy to give us some observational confirmations that GR doesn't have (or that contradict GR).