a-cosmology-group/acg#141

@HanDeBruijn I would not be entirely opposed to a variable mass model. For my comments below you may insert (your favourite term for space) where I mention aether.

My approach insists that an aether must exist, and by extension, a functional aether cannot be static, nor the ‘same everywhere’. If aether can vary, then so must mass. From $E = mc^2$ then E is the energy of the portion of aether that interacts with mass, thus e.g. if the same object finds itself where there is somehow ‘less aether’ then mass will be lower.

I find the explanation in the video for our lack of observing ‘low mass electrons’ sketchy at best. There have also been uncountable amounts of particles created at LHC, with never a hint of an electron ‘fading’ into existence.

The hypothesis is that these red-shifted galaxies should be low in mass. if those galaxies in observation were ‘young and low mass’, then how do we explain the fully formed galaxies of JWST. Should these not have a blue-shift, according to this model? I have not seen any graph with outlier measurements in the blueshift region. None.

Consider this : An inertial mass can only be tested ‘locally’ by applying a known force, and by observing an acceleration. It is unlikely that aether would vary significantly in an area within which you can physically accelerate a mass, and still observe in a finite time.

For gravitational mass the observation opportunity is much more. We can see gravitational interactions way into the distant past. Here is a problem though, in that in every gravitational interaction calculation, the values $G*M$ are inseparable. Since both are possibly emergent from an aether, which one should be variable? We have just assumed G as constant so in our minds it must be M that varies.

@Francois-Zinserling . >My approach insists that an aether must exist [ .. ]

My approach insists that an gravitational (self) energy field must exist (I’m not sure about a proper name). But it may be that we are talking about the same thing. And if such is the case, then a more detailed account of the properties of our “aether” is given in Self Energy Field. It is shown beneath the last horizontal rule in the webpage that in the neighborhood of our sun this Energy Field / your Aether might provide an alternative explanation for the Perihelion precession of Mercury. In a previous post it has been derived that mass and radius of our so-called Observable universe are respectively given by

$$ M_O = \frac{W}{2}\frac{c^3}{G.H} \quad ; \quad R_O = W\frac{c}{H} \quad \mbox{where} \quad W = 3.383634283 $$

$c=$ lightspeed, $G=$ gravitational constant, $H=$ Hubble parameter. Numerically: $M_O \approx 2.87\times 10^{53}\mbox{ }kg$, $R_O \approx 4.26\times 10^{26}\mbox{ }m$. But the Aether itself contains gravitational field energy and therefore it has also a mass, which is derived to be

$$ M_A = - \frac{G}{c^2}\frac{M_O^2}{2R_O}.W.\mbox{VMT} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad -\frac{M_O}{M_A}=\left(\frac{1}{4}W^2.\mbox{VMT}\right)^{-1}\approx 15.47019772 $$

The mass of our thus defined Aether is roughly fifteen times smaller and negative when compared with the Observable mass. (Corrected 2023 Nov 15)

What do you think?

@Francois-Zinserling >Here is a problem though, in that in every gravitational interaction calculation, the values $G.M$ are inseparable. Since both are possibly emergent from an aether, which one should be variable? We have just assumed $G$ as constant so in our minds it must be $M$ that varies.

You’re quite right. The product $\mu = (G.M)$ is known as the Standard gravitational parameter. In the book Origin of Inertia we find, indeed, that it is the gravitational constant $G$ that varies, instead of the mass $M$. In equation (4.4) the following form of the gravitational force is suggested.

$$ F = G_0 e^{-\lambda r}\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2} $$

In Amitabha’s book, gravitons are assumed to be the carriers of gravitational force. Their energy varies according to the above $\exp(-\lambda r)$. Later on, in section 6.2, very much the same relationship is derived for (tired light) photons. And $\lambda = H/c$ is finally found to be equal to the Hubble parameter divided by lightspeed. The point is that I do not believe in such Cosmic Fine Tuning: one for gravitons and exactly the same for photons. The Variable Mass Theory assumes only the variation of mass, with one and the same exponential growth. And it explains both gravitational phenomena as well as the cosmological redshift. It’s Occam’s razor that counts here.

@HanDeBruijn there was a lot to think about … Assigning mass to the aether does not sit well. Firstly it is very ‘GR’ which would oddly say that space has ‘no’ energy. Secondly if mass is a measure of resistance to acceleration in aether then assigning mass to aether itself causes a conundrum. If aether had any mass whatosever, it would interact with itself and implode. Energy, yes. Mass, no. From the equation $E=mc^2$, consider that E is the aether energy, but it is the energy of only the tiny fraction that interacts with mass!

The fraction Ma/M0 ~0.00167 does not sit well. I read the Self Energy Field and it is an interesting observation. It’s a sensible argument and I will try to reconcile it with my thinking. Consider though that the only part of aether we ‘observe’ is the part that interacts with matter, the rest is ‘invisible’. Then this Ma/M0 fraction is huge. And with a $1/r^2$ drop-off ratio the bulk of it will be around masses. We do not see evidence of gravitational shielding, but with that size of fraction we would have noticed something. On an ‘observable universe’ scale I would argue that we must observe the weakening of aether. Vector pointing inward to us from the origin of time and distance. (Insert H?) However, it must still be strong enough that we don’t see things falling apart after the vector passes us.

In my model (warning - pushgravity) based on absorption, the fraction of aether that is absorbed: fraction u=4piG / $c^2$ which is in the order of 9.33 * 10^-27 also, the absorbed energy is positive.

L@Francois-Zinserling >Assigning mass to the aether does not sit well. Firstly it is very ‘GR’ which would oddly say that space has ‘no’ energy.

One of the main concerns in Relativity Reexamined is that $E=mc^2$ unifies mass and kinetic energy, but it does not include potential energy. Very much recommended reading that book !

If aether had any mass whatsoever, it would interact with itself and implode.

But the mass according to the VMT would be negative. Does that implode too?

The fraction Ma/M0 ~0.00167 does not sit well.

I am another sort of theory builder. The only additional assumption besides common physics is the Variable Mass Theory. Then I sit down and let the mathematics go. Leading to results that can no longer be disputed theoretically, only be refuted empirically.

I read the Self Energy Field [ .. ]

In the (2000) NASA paper it is said that >While eq. 3 represents the energy density for the electric field, and a similar expression represents the energy density for the magnetic field, no such energy density term has ever been defined for the gravitational field. But one suspects that it could be, and possibly even should be.

Not quite true. The book by Léon Brillouin was published in 1970, one year after his death. There is a section Gravistatics Compared to Electrostatics in there which is an even more elaborate presentation of the same theory.

Your formula $u=4\pi G/c^2$ has physical dimension $length / mass$ on the right. How does that match with the left hand side?

So much to read and so little time. @HanDeBruijn I regret I have not read enough of your works to fully contribute. Most of your links on ‘alternatiewewiskunde’ (Hup Holland Hup?) thus far have been of others’ works, and I am also a recent addition to this group (read: latecomer). Do you have a summary of your ideas I can peruse?

unifies mass and kinetic energy

I still prefer to use it as total energy $E=γmc^2$, since m is equivalent in both inertial and gravitational, where-as γm is only inertial. Kinetic energy does not add to gravitational mass. Then kinetic energy $KE=(γ-1)mc^2$ and the original mass-energy remains seperated as $E=1mc^2$ Just a question here (maybe premature). Is your VMT based on γm?

does not include potential energy

Thank you very very much for this book reference. I have just added a very NB paragraph to my aether works. This is why we engage here, so that we may stimulate each others’ thinking. I can only hope that I contribute as well as I receive.

The fraction Ma/M0 ~0.00167 does not sit well.

This only relates to me, because the energy contained in ‘my’ aether is more like the quantum physiscists surmise at $10^{120}J$. If such a fraction 0.00167 of aether is dissipated in a local mass, there is very soon nothing left. Maybe you think this field originates from the mass, and therefore all is ok, but in terms of energy this is not ok and not sustainable. The energy for gravity must come from outside of the mass. If it were from inside, it should wither the mass away rapidly.

mass according to the VMT would be negative

I’m sorry, but negative energy only comes from Tarot Cards and Astrology predictions. No, just kidding. Apologies if this offends. Gravity should theoretically be negative energy, I agree, but only because we are still looking for something that ‘pulls’. Negative energy fixes one problem only. In pushgravity the aether has positive energy.

Your formula $u=4\pi G/c^2$ has physical dimension length/mass on the right

Yes, it is a linear absorption coefficient. I have tried to be very careful with the units. From an aether absorption principle, using this u, I was able to derive Newton mechanics, but I have yet to put the exponential back into the equation. (rev 4 is in the works)

I noted from an earlier post that Amitabha’s book has a $e^{λr}$ which does not result in a dimensionless exponent. Problem.

…. and look at me I finally get my equations to look nice too!

@Francois-Zinserling >Do you have a summary of your ideas I can peruse?

My website is sort of a private sandbox, always has been and I think it still is. I’m continuously trying to re-order it, but I’m affraid it’s going to remain a bit of a mess, not suitable for a paper. And yes - not only for the English proze - I’m leaning very much on what others have written. >Is your VMT based on $\gamma m$ ?

No, it is just based on “rest mass” $m$. By the way, $KE=(\gamma-1)mc^2$ and $E=1mc^2$ are good ideas of yours ! Never thought of it this way. >I’m sorry, but negative energy only comes from Tarot Cards and Astrology predictions.

Uhm, I would not say that Brillouin’s book is a bunch of Tarot Cards:

I noted from an earlier post that Amitabha’s book has a $e^{\lambda r}$ which does not result in a dimensionless exponent. Problem.

No, I think it’s correct, not a Problem.

@MJoseph315 Arp’s explanation for quasar-galaxy association is a different story.

and his variable mass hypothesis seems to just fly right in the face of the law of [energy] conservation.

It does, and if all matter is eventually created following Arp’s and Narlikar’s variable mass hypothesis, it contradicts energy conservation for all matter in the universe (not just peanuts).

However there are empirical observations that falsifies Arp’s variable mass hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the frequency of an optical transition of an atom should increase with the age of the atom at the rate given by the Hubble parameter: $2\times 10^{-18}$ per second giving the relative frequency change. Hence, as Arp’s explanation goes, young atoms in quasars ejected by galaxies would have a lower frequency and appear redshifted.

With precision metrology we can now compare the absolute frequency of two atoms to an uncertainty of about $10^{-18}$ (optical clocks can make frequency measurements with 18 digits of precision). It is measured that the frequency of all atoms of a given species are the same within the measurement uncertainty. Atomic clocks built by different laboratories all tick at the same rate, even after a new sample of atoms is loaded into the clock.

Therefore, Arp’s variable mass theory would imply that all atoms on Earth have the same age to within a fraction of a second, which is not plausible. In addition, Arp’s variable mass theory does not explain the observed Karlsson quantization demonstrated empirically by Fulton et al. Not only the variable mass theory proposed by Arp and Narlikar does not conserve energy, it does not explain redshift-quantization and it is falsified empirically.

Halton Arp will be remembered for observing the quasar-galaxy associations that justified his opposition to Big Bang cosmology.

all atoms on Earth have the same age to within a fraction of a second, which is not plausible.

Why wouldn’t it be?

@RedshiftDrift

Therefore, Arp’s variable mass theory would imply that all atoms on Earth have the same age to within a fraction of a second, which is not plausible.

Essential for a proper understanding of the variable mass theory is the existence of two kind of clocks: modern Atomic clocks and good old Orbital clocks. Argumentation is found in the above reference 63 and more detailed at my website - A Basic Equation - with empirical evidence provided as well. I know that you will argue that Orbital clocks are simply outdated. But if you say so, then the Variable Mass Theory (VMT for short) is invalid beforehand. It’s a simple proof. Assuming that there is NO difference between atomic clocks with timing $t$ and orbital clocks with timing $T$, then we have, assuming variable mass $m$ :

$$ \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta t_0} = \frac{m_0}{m} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \frac{\Delta T}{\Delta T_0} = \sqrt{\frac{m_0}{m}} $$

$$ \frac{m_0}{m} = \sqrt{\frac{m_0}{m}} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \frac{m_0}{m}\left(\frac{m_0}{m}-1\right) = 0 $$

With $m=m_0$ for $m\ne 0$ as the only solution. So we have NO variable mass. Contradiction. In short: with the VMT you also have to accept the existence of Orbital time, which (un)fortunately is a bit distinct from Atomic time. Otherwise there is no argument, at all, and we are finished right now.

Still with us?

Your statement is not true. Because the same age in VMT can only have a meaning in Orbital time, not in Atomic time.

In The Refutation section at my webpage it is proved that an electron with the age $(T_0-A_U)$ of the Big Bang (that never happened) and an electron with the age $(T_0-A_E)$ of the Earth can hardly be distinguished from each other. This is also clear from the picture, with atomic time as two functions of orbital time. Slopes of the two curves at the synchronization timestamp $T=t=0$ are nearly equal. Therefore it is not at all necessary for the VMT to be valid that all atoms on Earth have the same age to within a fraction of a second.

@Pierre314159

all atoms on Earth have the same age to within a fraction of a second, which is not plausible.

Why wouldn’t it be?

Atoms are created in supernova explosions/quasars over several hours or longer, and are spread over large distances. There is no observed physical mechanism that creates atoms in a more synchronized way. Atoms that collected on Earth can hardly have the same age within hours, let alone within seconds. This is not plausible from the observed mechanisms of new atom production.

@RedshiftDrift I’m curious about what you mean by “making atoms” here. Are you just referring to the fusion process or something else?

@budrap00 Halton Arp and Jayant Narlikar came up with a model where particles are “created out of nothing” with a null mass, hence respecting energy conservation! This is what I mean by “making atoms” in this discussion, not the usual nuclear processes. Based on Mach’s principle, the particle acquires mass as a function of time (see (1) below) and eventually form quasars. Consequently “young” atoms made of these particles emit radiation at much longer wavelengths compared to the “old” atoms we use on Earth as reference, so an apparent redshift of quasars is detected for distant astronomical objects (see (2) and (3), which is known to be wrong, the redshift-distance relationship is exponential).

Arp & Narlikar did not accept the instantaneous creation of mass at the Big Bang, but instead proposed that particles appear at close distances from ‘mother’ galaxies who ‘gave birth’ to ‘daughter quasars’ with higher redshift (supported empirically by quasar-galaxy associations).

I don’t subscribe to Arp’s model. My opinion is that there is no such thing as “creation out of nothing”, not in the Big Bang, not in creating one particle at a time. Energy is strictly conserved and the idea of a variable mass is unacceptable. We can only make atoms by transforming pre-existing energy/matter.

Empirical observations support my opinion against time variable mass model. Since we can measure redshift differences as small as $z = 10^{-18}$ in controlled laboratory experiments between pairs of atoms, the masses of different atoms are measured to be the same to high accuracy. In the context of variable mass models, the only explanation is that all atoms were “born” simultaneously, which is equivalent to saying that they all appeared together from a Big creation event. Variable mass models are therefore a Big Bang model in disguise.

@RedshiftDrift The Arp-Narlikar theory never made sense to me either. Arp was a great astronomer but his theory wasn’t of comparable quality. So, over all we agree but I think you overstate the case against variable mass here:

My opinion is that there is no such thing as "creation out of nothing", not in the Big Bang, not in creating one particle at a time. Energy is strictly conserved and the idea of a variable mass is unacceptable.

I agree completely with the first sentence but I do not see how it justifies the second, which is overly general. Fusion and fission are variable mass reactions after all. It is the something from nothing component that is the problem with Arp-Narlikar - not the variable mass part. For instance it does not violate matter-energy conservation to suggest that a body of matter could shed mass via electromagnetic radiation under extreme gravitational conditions and then regain that mass via absorbing electromagnetic radiation if it reverts to non-extreme gravitational conditions.

We only disagree on the semantics: the meaning of “variable mass” is not the same in the context of “variable mass cosmology model” as it is for the “variable mass reactions of fusion, fission or gravitation”. It’s the “variable mass cosmology model” that is contradicted by experiments, and therefore unacceptable.

Your example where a body of matter could shed mass via electromagnetic radiation under extreme gravitational conditions is not what is meant by “variable mass model” of Arp & Narlikar. Their model describes a temporal change of the mass of particles (e.g. protons, electrons, hydrogen atoms, etc.), not a change of mass of these particles changing their configuration in a larger system (nuclear, gravitational, or otherwise).

Arp-Narlikar explain that less massive hydrogen atoms in interstellar space, away from extreme gravitational conditions, emits redder wavelengths that are incorrectly interpreted as a ‘space expansion’ redshift.

@RedshiftDrift . >(see (2) and (3), which is known to be wrong, the redshift-distance relationship is exponential).

Yes, and that is only because everybody is continuing to mix up Orbital time $T$ with Atomic time $t$. The two time-scales are related by a formula that has been published here more than once. The desired redshift-distance relationship is exponential on the right hand side.

$$ \left[1+\frac{1}{2}H(T-T_0)\right]^2 = \frac{m}{m_0} = \Large e^{H(t-t_0)} $$

Therefore the formulas (2) and (3) are not so much “wrong”, as they are in a different time-frame. And of course the time-frame employed by Arp and Narlikar is the Orbital one, coming from gravity and general relativity. Which is a bit different from the Atomic time-frame as employed by optics and plasma physicists.

In the context of variable mass models, the only explanation is that all atoms were “born” simultaneously

I have debunked that argument too in a previous post, just above this one.

Notes.

• Orbital time is a bit different from atomic time. Let’s specify this for eartly circumstances. Take the square root from the above and make a series expansion for the exponent:

$$ 1+\frac{1}{2} H(T-T_0) = e^{H/2.(t-t_0)} \approx 1 + \frac{1}{2}H(t-t_0) + \frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{2}H(t-t_0)\right]^2 $$

Let both the atomic and orbital clock be synchronized as usual $(t_0=T_0)$ and let them run free for a year, that is

$$ T-T_0 = (\mbox{year})_T \quad \mbox{and} \quad t-t_0 = (\mbox{year})_t $$

Then we see that the atomic clock is running slightly faster than the orbital clock:

$$ \quad (\mbox{year})_T - (\mbox{year})_t \approx \frac{1}{4}H(\mbox{year})^2 \approx 0.55 \mbox{ ms/year} $$

• Edward Arthur Milne died on 21 September 1950. Yet he has accurately predicted the formula that relates orbital time to atomic time as presented, in three publications: Kinematics, Dynamics, and the Scale of Time. Though he has done it with different names - kinematic/dynamical time - and in a somewhat different format (Milne $\Longleftrightarrow$ Han):

$$ \tau = t_0\log\frac{t}{t_0}+t_0 \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad t-t_0 = (T_0-A)\ln\left(\frac{T-A}{T_0-A}\right) \quad \mbox{with} \quad H=\frac{2}{T_0-A} $$

• Electromagnetic radiation is the cosmic ocean where we swim in (: thanks @budrap00 ). Everything is observed in atomic time. Gravity has its own timescale, though, which can only be observed indirectly. I’m pretty sure that a lot of surprises not yet understood arise from this dualism.

@budrap00 : >Arp was a great astronomer but his theory wasn’t of comparable quality.

Sorry ? One cannot be an exellent observer and a brilliant theoretician united in the same person. That’s why I am jumping in here all the time, trying to fill gaps in Arp’s heritage wherever I can.

One does not exclude the other, Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Arthur Ashkin, Bill Phillips, etc. are all excellent theoreticians and experimentalists.

@Pierre314159 I think you’re mostly on the right track here. The path of a recycled universe goes right through quasars, or, more precisely, supermassive black holes (SMBHs), which is where the quasars are ejected from.

I would add a few points. As black holes, SMBHs have to follow a specific law connecting their mass to the Schwarzschild radius. Their mass has to be proportional to their radius and so they can only increase in mass by also increasing their radius. If they can’t increase their radius fast enough, the matter they have assimilated would have to be ejected. It’s a useful concept that you have, that SMBHs stay within their Schwarzschild radius by having their atoms reduced in mass. But maybe this process only goes so far and ejection becomes necessary.

It’s been decades since I studied Arp’s work closely. I did write a book review on Seeing Red for Apeiron way back when and I have attached it below. It’s the second of the three reviews on it. I can’t believe how long it was! I’m not sure I’m on point with everything I said there, but I too mentioned Paul Marmet’s work in this connection, in my last paragraph. Perhaps we should all have another go at Marmet pere’s work!

Arp book reviews.pdf

@ExpEarth One of the problems I’m having with this discussion is the slippery usage of the term black hole. A BH as derived from the Schwarzschild Solution to GR has an event horizon (a coordinate singularity) and a physical singularity at the BH center - which is a physical impossibility. So a Schwarzschild BH is not a realistic model. Physical reality is not accurately described by the SS - because the physical singularities of the model cannot and do not exist in physical reality.

You cannot invoke the term Black Hole while dismissing the physical singularity that characterizes and defines it. If an object does not contain a physical singularity then it is not a BH. That is what I mean by slippery usage of the term black hole - you invoke BHs but ignore their consequent singularity as if they were a mere inconvenience rather than an intricate component of BH theory. A BH without a singularity is not a BH.

The path of a recycled universe goes right through quasars, or, more precisely, supermassive black holes (SMBHs), which is where the quasars are ejected from.

That sentence would make a lot more sense if it were restated as, The path of a recycled universe goes right through quasars, or, more precisely, supermassive quasars (SMQs), which is where the quasars are ejected from. The misbegotten concept of BHs has no useful role to play in the formulation of a theory that is consistent with physical reality because the theory of BHs is not consistent with physical reality.

Just some musings ..

@Pierre314159 there is so much to like from this idea. Allow your BH to recycle material down to neutron level, eject along the axes where gravity is at a minimum and magnetism is at a maximum, and the ejected blobs eventually decay to a hydrogen clouds. The rest takes care of itself and you have a new galaxy. As for the 2 blobs, there is plenty potential to retain symmetry. We already have charge symmetry.

@budrap00 I think the idea of a BH without a singularity is reconcilable. A singularity may be proposed as a certain viewpoint, but it is not the only one. There is really nothing that says the ‘matter’ isn’t simmering right underneath the event horizon. Not even GR. Especially not GR! But it will still be a BH because ‘light cannot escape’. That’s a basic conclusion from Newtonian and GR physics. Maybe blasphemy to compare with Newtonian physycs, but Newton gravity also considers all objects as point masses … erm .. singularities? Same goes for electrodynamics if you are completely shunning Newton. Everything is a ‘point charge’. (not to be confused with quantum point particles, which is an abomination)

@budrap00 in absolute agreement, however, this is fighting the windmills: don’t put it on Matt’s shoulders, physicists want black holes to exist so badly, heck, they even have photos of some!

You will notice that I never use the term ‘black hole’ without the double hyphens or the prefix ‘pseudo’ or the qualifier ‘so-called’, unless I refer to the mathematical conjecture. Paul Marmet once told me: there is nothing that theoretically prevents one to pile up as much matter as he wishes, however, the known laws of physics tell us that at some point, the pile will have an escape velocity superior to the speed of light, and that is impossible. That was back in the ‘70, and no satisfactory explanation of black holes has been given so far. Not surprisingly, because nobody will dare investigate it, lest they break Einstein’s beautiful GR.

Still, the problem is simple: something happens at the Schwarzschild radius, and that something is not the formation of an event horizon. So, what Is it?

@Francois-Zinserling You are comparing apples to oranges. In the case of Newton or electrodynamics the point mass or point charge are just mathematical approximation techniques that produce reasonably accurate mathematical results. Newton did not think that as a consequence of his results the Sun was a physical point mass.

The situation with Black Holes and the Big Bang is not like that. There the physical singularities are a direct physical consequence of the model - both models describe matter and energy physically converging on and arriving at a physically meaningless point. That means the models are wrong in their depiction of physical reality. Pretending that incorrect models are OK by ignoring their physically impossible or invisible consequences is how theoretical physics arrived at its current state of babbling incoherent nonsense.

Aside from that objection what do you need BHs for anyway? If you’re going to throw out the singularity you might as well ditch the event horizon too. In that case you’ve arrived at a quasar which has the huge advantage of being an observed phenomenon that is not dependent on invisible and/or impossible things.

@Pierre314159 I know there is a lot we agree on in this arena but this where we disagree:

Still, the problem is simple: something happens at the Schwarzschild radius

My view is that the Schwarzschild radius does not exist because the Schwarzschild Solution is incorrect and it is incorrect because it leaves out the critical fact that the speed of light diminishes as the gravitational field strength increases. That the SOL diminishes in a gravitational field is as much an explicit part of GR as the constancy of the SOL in all inertial frames is an explicit part of SR. The slowing of the SOL is also an observed fact. I think the syllogism that follows from this is pretty air tight:

1. If $E=mc^2$
2. and the speed of light diminishes as gravitational field strength increases
3. Then the mass of a unit of matter diminishes in a gravitational collapse and consequently gravitational collapse is self-limiting

In the past when I have suggested this the only objection raised has been the so-called Einstein Equivalence Principle which seems to me to be just a “convenient” conjecture unjustified by any physical or logical reasoning. Is that still your only objection, and do you want to defend the EEP?

As far as GR goes it is and is not the problem. The Principle of General Relativity is just fine, but the field equations are famously intractable; solving them usually entails making simplifying assumptions - and that’s where the problems arise. FLRW assume that the Cosmos is a homogeneous and isotropic gas bag while Schwarzschild left out the variation in light speed. Garbage in, garbage out as the old saying goes. The field equations need an Oliver Heaviside to make them more user friendly. That obviously won’t be me.

@budrap00

My view is that the Schwarzschild radius does not exist

I may not have made myself limpid enough. Let me reformulate: As a mass accretes, something happens as it reaches the Swarzschild radius that prevents an event horizon from forming.

If $E=mc^2$ and the speed of light diminishes as gravitational field strength increases

I have come to consider the “speed of light” (represented by $c$) as a constant of nature that has its place in theoretical physics, being something different than the “velocity of EM radiation” which we know can travel at various velocities and can be measured as such. IOW, $E$ is still equal to $mc^2$ even if the EM radiation considered travels at a lower velocity. Think of how fast light travels in water or glass… I said the problem was simple. The solution might not be.

do you want to defend the EEP?

I couldn’t care less about the EEP or whatever else triggered the idea of GR in Einstein’s brain. I have long considered Einstein as a genius in drawing correct conclusions from incorrect assumptions, which by the way, is a valid reasoning in formal logic. Is the EEP right? I don’t know, and I don’t give a rat’s ass.

@Pierre314159 Modern theoretical physics is full of things that have nothing to do with physical reality, among them dark energy, dark matter and a universally constant speed of light. The relationship $E=mc^2$ comes from Relativity Theory (Einstein’s version that predates the current theoretical mess) and in RT the speed of light varies with position in a gravitational field - in a vacuum:

“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).”

• Albert Einstein, Relativity The Special And General Theories

As to Einstein’s Equivalence Principle it has nothing to do with Einstein. It was postulated and promulgated, after he stepped off the Merry-Go-Round in 1955, by the same miscreants who also reified spacetime, thereby laying the foundation for the current theoretical mess. The belief in a universal SOL is usually justified by invoking the EEP.

@Pierre314159

I never use the term ‘black hole’ without the double hyphens or the prefix ‘pseudo’ [etc.]

I would recommend the use of the standard term “Active Galactic Nucleus” (AGN) which indicates something very massive that actively produces light and jets. As for the massive thing at the center of our galaxy, it’s not an AGN so the expression “the massive thing at the center of our galaxy” should be appropriate.

@Pierre314159

here’s the scenario: for some (yet-to-be-determined) reason, the [AGN] spits out two blobs of matter in opposite directions… all atoms in each blob has the same “age”, to within milliseconds…!

Causality, the speed of light and milliseconds imply that the blobs of matter have a maximum size of $1 \ ms \times c = 300 \ km$, too small to contain the mass of a galaxy. There is no possible “(yet-to-be-determined) reason” unless energy conservation is violated.

Otherwise, like most commenters, I agree with most of what you say.

@Pierre314159

Let me reformulate: As a mass accretes, something happens as it reaches the Swarzschild radius that prevents an event horizon from forming.

The problem is, writing “Swarzschild radius” is equivalent to writing “black hole”. None of those things exist, and there is no “special” radius worth mentioning. As mass accretes, clocks slow down for everything in the high density region, preventing further rapid accretion. The high “energy” pressure counteracts gravity and it becomes possible to eject matter, completing the “matter-recycling mechanism”.

@ExpEarth Thanks for the Ex Libris reference ! Two points from your contribution (part 2). >Another difficulty concerns Olbers’ paradox, or why the night sky is not bright.

This issue is resolved in the G. de Vaucouleurs at my website. Proper extension of Arp’s theory leads to an Observable universe with a finite radius $R_O = 3.383634283 \times (\mbox{Hubble length})$ , hence no Olbers’ paradox. >the related Seeliger-Neumann paradox.

This issue is resolved too, in our Seeliger’s Paradox section.

Welcome back, Roy Keys !(?)

You write: >the metric takes the form ds^2 = -dt^2 + e^{-2\frac{Gm}{r}} (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) and therefore does not allow event horizons.

When formatted as

the metric takes the form $ds^2 = -dt^2 + e^{-2\frac{Gm}{r}} (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)$ and [ .. ]

you get >the metric takes the form $ds^2 = -dt^2 + e^{-2\frac{Gm}{r}} (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)$ and [ .. ]

I suppose that the lightspeed is taken equal to $1$ in the Yilmaz theory ? Then we get a somewhat analogous formula as in Origin of Inertia by Amitabha Ghosh. Which is at least dimensionally correct:

$$ m = m_0\exp\left[\frac{GM}{c^2r}\right] \qquad (2.23) $$

So I think that, without $c=1$ conventions, it must be the following. Right ?

$$ ds^2 = -(c.dt)^2 + e^{-2Gm/c^2r} (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) $$

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I would care to pursue a discussion along these lines.

Hello Han, good to be back. I opened a github account for my DNA research some time ago, hence the cryptic name. Rather than take my word for the technical details on Yilmaz theory, I suggest that you consult published sources. For a quick answer, see https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.0080.pdf or https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0008040.pdf. I am pleased that you have brought up the question that I inevitably would have asked, namely: what relation does Yilmaz bear to Ghosh? Cheers, Roy

Sorry Roy, my brain can’t be motivated to try to understand the content of these two references.

John Hartnett used Yilmaz theory to produce a 5-dimensional metric (3 spatial, 2 temporal dimensions). Hartnett’s model had no Big Bang in the $Time_1$ dimension, but a creation of the universe 6000 years ago in the $Time_2$ dimension. John later abandoned that model.

Yilmaz uses the Einstein equations which he modifies arbitrarily so that the Swarzschild and other discontinuities don’t appear in the high gravitation limit. (More about Yilmaz theory here and see reference [1] by Michael Ibison, a former ACG member.) The problem is, Yilmaz’s modification is ill defined and can produce any absurdity such as a five-dimensional universes with both a Big Bang and a creation by god in the time dimensions…

Ghosh introduces an arbitrary drag coefficient in classical equations of motion and follows Mach’s ideas. Yilmaz theory being ill conctructed, it probably can be adapted to resemble Ghosh’s, but the resemblance would only be superficial and due to the vagueness of Yilmaz theory.

Good to read you here Roy. [You can add your name to your profile if you want people to recognize you. Also, you can “watch” the ‘acg repository’ to get notifications for new posts, see https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/15#discussion-5258529.]

Thank you, Louis, for clearing this up ! It’s a small world after all. I know Dr John Hartnett via creationism, where, at least for me, the whole Alternative Cosmology story has started with. Of interest to you perhaps: He now runs a private company developing and selling ultra-stable clocks. Another creationist, Barry Setterfield, meets Halton Arp here: >I had a discussion with him by letter early in the formulation of his theory. He showed some interest in our graph of the increase in subatomic rest-masses with time and other data from the 1987 Report. However, there were several sets of observational data which I pointed out to him that were not in agreement with his theory. This included slowing of atomic clocks and the maintenance of standard energy conservation. His response was simply “Too bad”. He seemed to feel that his theory was more important than the data.

Barry called me a minimalist because I refused to accept the whole bunch of his varying constants of nature, while maintaining Arp’s varying elementary particle (rest) mass as the only exception to the rule.

I think creationism hurts the cause of promoting alternative cosmology ideas, it leys the Big Bang supporters oof he hook, by letting the Big Bang supporters ignore the gaps and holes in the Big Bang Theory