Right again, Einstein! Scientists find where matter 'waterfalls' into black holes

[Admin]

Einstein was right! Scientists found the first-ever evidence of "plunging regions" of spacetime where matter inexorably falls into black holes, as predicted by general relativity.

Right again, Einstein! Scientists find where matter 'waterfalls' into black holes : Read more

 

[Rod Mack]

While there might be evidence of a rapidly accelerating energy, due to the immense gravity in these regions, it's difficult to determine the fate of the energy involved. Whether it gets compressed to a near standstill around the object, forming a kind of energetic layer, or somehow gets incorporated remains a mystery. Each has a different set of implications.

 

[billslugg]

When someone falls into a Black Hole, they don't know when they pass the event horizon. All they see is a dot of light straight ahead, darkness to the side and behind. They must deal with tidal forces.

When an outside observer sees someone fall into a Black Hole, they see the person slowing down, becoming red shifted, disappearing into black.

 

[Questioner]

The standard stretched rubber sheet is mind pollution at its worst.

For light speed to remain consistent from all frames of reference,
slowed/dilated time must be paired with reduced [straighter, tighter] space.

The use of the term 'curvature' implies bending, lengthening into an additional dimension,
as does the stretched rubber sheet 'ILLustration'.
That would increase space in a mass field which is fundamentally wrong in its implications.

A mass field is a geometric transition from external fully 3 dimensional space to less than fully 3 dimensional space.

To make the shorter path through a mass field requires a straighter line not a curved longer one.
It only appears curved to the external viewer.

 

[Questioner]

Easier crib notes,

A mass field has reduced time flow,
So a traversing EM photon makes less phase changes from entry to exit.

For that photon to be traveling at the speed of light (phase oscillations per distance) that means it has to have crossed less space in/through the mass field.

Seems elementary to me....

 

[billslugg]

A mass field has reduced time flow only to an external observer, the traversing photon sees nothing out of the usual. To an external observer the photon's clock runs slow and the photon is Lorentz contracted and the two exactly cancel out.

 

[Questioner]

And to make it to the far side of the mass field with its (the photon's) lower number of phase oscillations it can only have traveled a shorter distance of contracted space to be traveling at its speed of light.

And to the external viewer the photon also traveled at their speed of light because from entry point A to exit point B it took their faster expected travel time.

The only inconsistencies are the age of the photon and its seeming redirection/'curve'.

 

[billslugg]

The photon never changes the number of waves. The photon goes slower, the waves are closer together, the number of waves never changes for a given photon. If you want to change the number of waves you must absorb and then re-emit the photon. Time dilation and Lorentz contraction exactly compensate for each other. Everyone sees the speed of light to be the same.

 

[Questioner]

"...the waves are closer together,..."
In space? In time?

If one takes a velocity measuring device that is launched at one foot per second from the outer edge of a mass field and counts how many seconds it takes to arrive at the far edge of the mass field because time is relatively slower in a mass field we know it will measure less feet than expected from externally calculated Euclidean geometry.

If we take a long enough tape measure its measure will concur with that measure.
So is the tape measure stretching or is there just less space in a mass field?

 

[Questioner]

A given frequency of light has a fixed number of oscillations per distance.

 

[Questioner]

If light slows down in a mass field and space is Euclidean normal in the mass field it will take longer for light to travel through that mass field than expected to the external viewer.

That light speed would be inconsistent depending on one's POV.

 

[Marvas]

When was Einstein right before ? All experiments which allegedely proved him right, have actually proved him wrong. Take the gravitational redshift experiment for example, where they used a bag of helium to prove that light is redshifted/blueshifted by relativistic gravity. Except helium aint gravity, and it changes the wavelength of light from refraction into air. So gravitational redshift doesnt exist, as it was confused with refractional redshift by Pound and Rebka.

Or take the gravitational time dilation experiment, where Shapiro makes the same mistake of confusing an effect of refraction with that of gravitation, ignoring that radio waves are slowed down in the sun's atmosphere according to the equation v=c/n, where n is the index of refraction, while he simply uses c for the speed of light in his calculations.
So Einstein's gravitational time dilation does not exist either, as it was confused with another effect of refraction, which is the slowing of radio waves in the atmosphere of massive objects- which obviously generates a slight delay in the time it takes the radio wave to travel back to earth.

And not to mention Eddington's solar eclipse experiment, which has been disproved by Dr Edward Dowdie from NASA, who showed there is no light bending outside the sun's corona- where it is bend by REFRACTION.

So all these effects of refraction have been mistaken for and illogically presented as evidence for general relativity, for which in reality there is absolutely no experimental evidence.

Others have shown that his gravitational waves dont exist, as they were confused with star dust, and all experiments which claim to have proven einstein right are a nebula of confusion and utter stupidity. All that they prove is Einstein's prediction that: 'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity'.

 

[Marvas]

Are you sure that is a black hole ? Because I proved general relativity is wrong, and therefore black holes cannot exist, as they are modelled on relativistic pseudo-science.

An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift

An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift Marius L. Vasile @ Vasile effect In this article I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with...

forums.space.com

Also, there is a clear contradiction between 'nothing can escape a black hole, not even light', and massive jets of plasma errupting from the black hole at 80% the speed of light. So that thing clearly cannot be a black-hole, and is just another proof that Einstein was wrong.

The Black hole conundrum

A black hole is an area of such immense gravity that nothing—not even light—can escape from it. https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/black-holes/en/ Located around 10,000 light-years from Earth with a mass of around eight suns, the black hole component of MAXI J1820+070 is pulling material from its...

forums.space.com

 

[Questioner]

Pairing slowed time with contracted space means a photon transiting a mass field or not still tracks the same way to an external viewer.
As far as they can discern it is moving at the speed of light in either case.

 

[Marvas]

What exactly contracts in a space ? And what dilates in a time ? You are just making a word salad out of physics, because a curly haired crack pot smoked too much pot and saw the sky bending and his wrist watch melting from all that smoke. But that was also caused by refraction, from smoke into air. His theory does not stand as I disproved it with basic refraction physics, and elementary maths.

 

[Questioner]

Changing elevation makes the difference in time flow measurable.
Clocks closer to the Earth's center run slower.
GPS satellite clocks run faster.
Time dilation is measurable.

If the same amount of space were in a time slowed mass field and one strobed light through it the strobing would be slowed down by elongated time.
It's not.
Contracted space must companion dilated time which is why it still synchs up.
That way light makes the same progress to the external viewer as well as the internal viewer.
That keeps the progress of light and apparent speed uniform to all viewers.

 

[Classical Motion]

Time does not change. Only your ticker does.

 

[Questioner]

If my train unexpectedly slows down for 30 miles of a hundred mile trip i will arrive later than expected.
If those 30 miles of track accordion together proportionately i will still arrive at the expected time.

Light always arrives at the expected time.

 

[Classical Motion]

All starlight has a different velocity, whether the star is moving or not.

Because we are moving. It a law of motion. And it supersedes all math. And man's understanding.

 

[Questioner]

Let's say we are watching a perceptibly moving body in space and our viewing gets encroached upon by a massive body with its slowed time.
The viewed movement would seem to slow down because the encroached upon light would slow down through the mass field before arriving at our eyeballs.
The way the viewed body doesn't seem to slow is if there is less space light has to traverse through the encroaching mass field.

 

[Classical Motion]

Velocity has two components. Speed and direction. So when light passes thru mass, does the speed change or does the direction change....or does both change?

When sunlight strikes our air, what does light do? Is cloudy day light slower than sunny daylight?

Velocity is more than just speed.

Did you know that we can give c a relative velocity. While keeping the speed of it?

This is the function of a particle...e. It can take c, and give it a relative velocity, while maintaining true c. Sounds impossible? This is done by putting one rotation within another. This particle can adjust it's absolute length....to a relative length. But only in certain steps. This is due to EM rotational resonance. NOT oscillation. It's quantum. It's set. Set with physical geometry, EM field length and c.

A particle can spin at non c rates......and still maintain that c velocity....with this spin. Because the spin has another spin. The inner spin is c, but it's length can be adjusted, and that adjustment sets the outer spin, which is less than c. A relative c spectrum. Quantum spectrum.

 

[Classical Motion]

Find a roll of solid wire. Find a broomstick. Cut wire length to match broomstick. Now while stretching the wire, wrap one turn around the broomstick. Remove wire.

The wire is now shorter than the broomstick......but still has it's length......now it has a relative length. Add another turn. Now it has a shorter relative length, but it still has all it's length.

Now form wire into circle. Now.....that first c spin's length sets the whole wire spin length.

The number of turns on the first spin sets the length of the second spin.

Simple. But ONLY certain spins will rotationally resonate. The other spins are emitted and excreted. And add to the background static. Or heat.

A relative length is a relative velocity.

 

[billslugg]

A given frequency of light has a fixed number of oscillations per distance.

Correct. As the distance shortens due to Lorentz contraction, the number of waves stays the same but the wavelength shortens.

 

[Questioner]

Light speed is a distribution of time (clock turn) across space.
If one reduces the time passage (clock turn) to remain consistent the space must also be proportionately reduced.
For an external viewer to measure light transiting a mass field at light speed there must be less space for it to transit.

Measuring space using light is analogous to rolling a clock across space. If we roll the clock slower but expect the action to get to the far side of a mass field when we externally expect it it must be rolling across less space.

 

[Questioner]

Light speed is a mapping of time to distance.
A rolling clock maps one geometry to another.

Outside of a mass field the clock rolls without variation.
Inside the mass field the rolling is relatively slower,
but if light is measured as the same from all frames of reference (the clocks make the same progress; roll in parallel) the mass field transit must entail a transit of less space.

Perfect synchronization of parallel paths if not corrresponding rotations.

The turtle crossing the mass field has less distance to cross (a shortcut) so it matches up with the hare at their extended finish line.

It's just correlating, if non-Euclidean geometry.