preprints related with this question for your kind reference:

A Discussion about the Propagation of Black Hole Gravitational Field and Time as a Physical Quantity

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18216.03843

A Discussion about the Growth of a Black Hole and the Formation of a Black Hole

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21833.62560

A Discussion about the Propagation of Black Hole Gravitational Field

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25608.49921

Dear Xinghong Wang ( Xinghong Wang )

First you have to be sure in existence of black holes and after try to get answer to your question. You are Chinese... You have a great teacher Laozi He created a philosophy of nature and life that in many respects surpasses the philosophy of modern science. If you consider that, there is no black hole! We always have to start from what is around us. Not from that which is so far away that we will never reach it.

I agree with what you wrote! The idea of a black hole itself is an absurdity. The creation of a black hole itself contradicts the laws of thermodynamics...

You can also see the next project:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/A-new-formulation-of-the-possible-nature-of-the-graviton

The electromagnetic theory of gravity which permit existence of gravity waves and gravitons which is concordant to nature considers, imposible the existence of balck holes!

Regards,

Laszlo

Even if you find 10,000 pieces of evidence denying GR, you can't shake the status of GR, GR is religion, not science. When Einstein was still at Princeton University, no one wanted to communicate with him, and his theory was considered wrong, but after his death, Einstein was put on the emperor's new clothes, and he became a physicist. God, the GR religion began to rule the world. Cultists are all over the world.

即使你找到了1万条否定GR的证据，你也无法撼动GR的地位，GR宗教，不是科学。爱因斯坦还在普林斯顿大学的时候，已经没有人愿意和他交流，他的理论已经被认为是错误的，但是在他去世后，爱因斯坦被穿上了皇帝的新衣，他成了物理之神，GR宗教开始统治世界，邪教徒遍及世界。

Tony Yuan

Thank you for your kind input, Professor.

But I am not seeking to deny GR. I also have highest respect for Einstein.

I am just conducting scientific research and hope to contribute something valueable to science and to society.

感谢教授您的评论。

但我不致力于否定GR。我个人对爱因斯坦充满最高的尊敬。

我只是乐于从事科学研究，希望为科学事业和人类社会做出有价值的贡献。

Xinghong Wang

爱因斯坦在离开这个世界之前不但没有能够坐上皇位，反而被认为是一个非常愚蠢和自私的人。

但是在爱因斯坦死了后，信徒们给他穿上了皇帝的新衣，他成为了至高无上的物理之神。爱因斯坦成为了信徒们的摇钱树，只要吹捧，歌颂，维护爱因斯坦的谬论，信徒们就可以得到金钱、地位、荣誉。这是一次非常成功的案例。

Einstein not only failed to sit on the throne before leaving this world, but was considered a very stupid and selfish person. But after Einstein died, believers dressed him in the emperor's new clothes, and he became the supreme god of physics. Einstein has become a cash cow for believers. As long as they tout, praise, and uphold Einstein's fallacies, believers can get money, status, and honor. This is a very successful case.

When Einstein went to the Princeton institute of advanced study he worked for 20 years on a combination of General relativity with Electromagnetism and what he understood about nuclear physics in order to come up with a Unified Field theory, Freeman Dyson went to Einstein's office the Institute of Advanced Study, talked to Einstein, looked at his equations and decided that Einstein's work was JUNK. Freeman Dyson refused to talk to Einstein at all in the 1950s. Just flat out ignored him.

Shiing-shen Chern, a member of the American Academy of Sciences, also commented on Einstein. He believed that Einstein's GR was completely wrong, and that Einstein's mathematics was extremely poor. Chen rejected Einstein's invitation to cooperate.

Enough of this philosophical all fun and play physics! if we need to move further in gravitational research and want to reach to the stars then we have to out of this GTR quick sand. No wonder Freeman Dyson and Shiing-shen Chern refused to collaborate with Einstein. Einstein was notorious with collaborating with others but taking all the credit. I must agree with Chern that Einstein was at best an average to below average physicist and a very poor mathematician. Late professor Seymour Margulies said the same thing and he disliked GTR/STR and considered Einstein as just hype without real substance.

Tony

NASA has given the orbital precession data of the planets in the solar system, which come from astronomical observations and fitting based on the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann equation. (E-I-H equation). It's a really amazing job. So does this mean GR is correct?

If you have studied and used the E-I-H equation, you should know that it does not consider the gravitational delay brought by the slow gravitational speed c, that is to say, the E-I-H equation is based on the premise that the gravitational speed is very huge. The same is true from the description of the E-I-H equation "GR is reduced to Newton's theory under the weak field approximation".

The E-I-H equation has already negated GR's view that the gravitational speed is equal to the light speed c. The E-I-H equation is more like an improvement of Newton's gravitational equation based on Newton's gravitational theory.

GR tells us that the sun bends the space-time, then in what direction does the space-time bend? Is it the direction of the velocity of 240 km/s that the sun revolves around the center of the Milky Way? Or other directions? Have you ever thought that the sun is also moving with the Milky Way at a velocity of 600 km/s?

Have you ever thought that the galaxy cluster where the Milky Way is located is not absolutely static?

Physics is not religion, but physics is science. I very much hope that we can realize the harm that GR brings to human beings. thank you very much.

Preston Guynn

Thank you very much Professor Preston Guynn for your informative comment.

I checked the statement of Tom van Flandern and found many scientists wrote academical articles to disprove his statement that gravity speed is 2x10^10xc. I also just wrote an article proving that the speed of gravity being equal to or similar to light speed will not necessarily cause members of celestial body systems to break away from each other(DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.32842.03527).

And, yes, I was informed about the topic of the "one way speed of light". But it is probably very difficult to measure it because it is commonly acknowleged light slows down in higher gravity field(when a photon approachs a black hole, it will slow down infinitely and never enter into the black hole because of the extreme gravity field), thus it is necessary to find a big space where gravity field intensity is uniform which is almost impossible?

Anyway, if we don't go so far as to deny the main stream scientific views, the discussion of my preprint article can be summarized as,

according to main stream views:

(a). light speed is always 299792458m/s locally.

(b). gravitational time dilation is correct, time really stops near black holes.

(c). black holes gravitationally interact with other celestial bodies.

then, my conclusion: "gravity speed is higher than speed of light unless gravity field intensity is zero" is correct?

Thank you very much Professor for the communication with you. And I congratulate you for your scientific research achievement in measuring speed of light that will be published soon. I will also seek to publish my articles currently uploaded as preprints here on Research Gate.

Dear Prof. Dr. Xinghong Wang,

with all due respect I think your question in its current form is moot - or at least has to be much precised with respect to the effects of gravitational waves and their speed of propagation (arguably agreeable to be experimentally verified by now to be the speed of light by gravitational wave detectors) as well as (by now) some purely hypothetical effects of other propagation hypothesis (like maybe instant relativistic bending of connected spacetime itself or propagation speeds of gravity changing events above speed if light).

So *after* either a blackhole has just been formed by gaining critical mass, *or* a blackhole has swallowed some significant adfitional matter (say a whole star) beyond its Schwarzschild horizon.

Whatever the answer or hypothesis perused (faster than light effects, or even instant propagation of changes after such event) it should be clear that gravity is all about the distribution of mass and that distribution has *not much changed* on cosmological scale due to such cosmological event (whatever impressive a Nova or Supernova explosion might look like).

Summarized in simple words, the matter and it’s mass have been already present before such event in nearly identical distribution when viewed from cosmological distance for sure.

The pure hypothetical question if the earth would instantly fly away tangential when a god like actor would be able to remove our sun and it’s mass instantly or if it would take about 8 minutes until we feel such gravitational effect is what ia imho at the core of your question - to be imho precised much before it can be usefully discussed further.

I do hope we all agree on it would be suddenly pitch black (and cold) on earth only *after about 8 minutes* which the light needs to travel from the former position of the (taken-away) sun to the earth (and it’s now doomed inhabitants).

Preston Guynn

Thank you very much Professor. I actually completely agree with you about your principles of doing scientific research. It was probably related to choice of words and different understanding of these words because of personal differences. If any of the wordings caused misunderstandings, my apologies, Professor, my friend. My understanding and my intended indication of "Anyway, if we don't go so far as to deny the mainstream scientific views ..." is: There are many scientific research conclusions made by so many people, some conclusions could be correct, some could be incorrect. And it is true that mainstream scientific views might be incorrect and some non-main-stream views might be correct, however, mainstream scientific views have a much higher credibility. For example, someone concluded that the delayed arrival of gravity fields will make the solar system unstable. But this non-main-stream conclusion is disproved by many people. So if our research conclusions are based on mainstream scientific views, our conclusions are more likely to be true. If our research conclusions are based on theories which are against non-main-stream ideas, we need to be more careful in trying to ensure that our basis is well founded. Also, after we submit our articles which are based on non-main-stream views or whose conclusions are against non-main-stream views to journals to publish them, the editors of journals will also be more careful in deciding whether to accept to publish them? And, of course, I never blindly accept mainstream views. For example, it is a mainstream view that accelerating expansion of the universe is caused by dark energy, but, as far as I am aware of, I am the first scientific researcher who made the point that the accelerating expansion of universe could probably be caused by stellar radiation pressure forces and pushing forces of cosmic rays and made a convincing calculation about this point in my published articles. And, the conclusion in my preprint that gravity is faster than light speed, which is although derived from mainstream views, is already against mainstream views. And for what I said about "I am not seeking to deny GR ... .", the indication is that I don’t regard denying GR as my target of conducting scientific research. My target of conducting scientific research is to achieve valuable discoveries. If my discoveries proves GR to be correct, I am satisfied, if my discoveries proves GR to be incorrect, I am also satisfied. Even if some friends prove that my discoveries are incorrect or flawed, I am genuinely grateful to them and I will not take it as a personal loss but I consider it as an opportunity to improve. Of course we all wish to gain legitimate benefits, either in terms of money, or in terms of social recognition, or in terms of pure spiritual satisfaction of self-actualization, from doing scientific research, but my target is not to go against any scientist’s theory, I just make my findings and contribute to the world of science and the society. I believe that my targets are the same as yours, Professor, my friend. And my apologies again for misunderstanding caused by different wordings. By communicating with you, Professor, I find that you are not only knowledgeable in physics, but also your thinking is logical and reasonable, and your academic principles are admirable, I truly appreciate your valuable inputs regarding my questions posted. I thus wish to invite you to become my partner in writing some scientific research articles and publish them as co-authors. Are you interested in this please?

Preston Guynn

Thank you very much Professor, I hope to interact with you often and to have the pleasure to cooperate with you in scientific research in the very near future at your earliest convenience.

BR

Albert

Preston Guynn

Dear Professor,

I have just updated my article "A Discussion about the Highest Speed in the Universe" (DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.35486.41285) based on your kind input. Can I have the honor of receiving your kind comment about it? And, because I am also trying to publish it on scientific journals, can you please kindly help to suggest a scientific journal which is suitable for publishing this article please?

My genuine gratitude.

BR

Albert

Preston Guynn

Dear Professor Preston Guynn,

Thank you very much for your kind reply. Yes, I then try to find independent reviews. Again, I am genuinely grateful to you for your kind helps.

BR

Albert

Sorry to tell but the reference:

"A Discussion about the Highest Speed in the Universe" (DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.35486.41285)

provides an answer of "nothing found" in Google

Ramon Carbó-Dorca

Thank you very much professor. Please kindly find the article as follows:

Preprint A Discussion about the Highest Speed in the Universe

(DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.35486.41285)

BR

Albert

Dear Professor Xinghong Wang,

The assumption that no body can overcome the horizon of a black hole is based on the properties of the Schwarzschild metric, in which time near the event horizon stretches to infinity. However, when approaching the event horizon, the energy of particles increases without limit Preprint Dynamics of particles in a gravitational field

This energy, transmitted by the gravitational field, is taken from the vacuum

Book The dynamics in general relativity theory: variational methods

and breaks the structure of the Schwarzschild metric. With the help of coordinate transformations, it is reduced to the Lemaitre metric, in which there is no event horizon.

Happy New Year!

Wladimir Belayev

Thank you for your kind reply, Professor.

"when approaching the event horizon, the energy of particles increases without limit"

Just follow your logic:

if the energy of particles increase without limit, it will contain more energy than the entire universe, and this energy will exert gravitational field to the universe, so not only will this limitless energy break the structure of Schwarzschild metric, it will also break the entire universe, so it is not possible, our universe remains intact.

But I thank you for your kind input.

BR

Albert

Dear Professor Xinghong Wang,

As soon as the energy of a particle reaches a certain limit in the Schwarzschild space-time, it deforms its structure, and then the energy of the particle ceases to increase.

Wladimir Belayev

Thank you for your kind reply, Professor.

Can I have the pleasure of asking you to read and comment on my article:

Preprint A Discussion about the Highest Speed in the Universe

• DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35486.41285

The content inside this article is related with the current topic we are discussing now.

Specifically, according to mainstream idea, if a photon approaches a black hole, it will travel, of course, at light speed locally towards the black hole, but it will never enter into the black hole due to gravitational time dilation, according to observers on the earth.

According to your idea, which is different from mainstream idea, a photon can enter into the black hole, because it will gain energy during the process of approaching the black hole and will thus break the structure of spacetime near the black hole. However, if the energy the photon gains during the process of approaching the black hole exerts effect on the structure of the space time by way of gravity, the gravity also travels at light speed, which is the same speed of the photon, thus the gravity field of the photon will never have any influence on the spacetime between the photon and the black hole, even if the photon's gravity has any influence, the influence is in other directions, not in the direction of its movement, so the photon's energy(graivtational field) will not break the spacetime structure locally for the photon, so for the photon, event horizon is intact, the photon will not be able to enter into the black hole. UNLESS, gravity propagates faster than light speed, which is exactly the conclusion of my above-mentioned article.

I thank you again for your kind input, Professor.

Happy new year.

BR

Albert

Thanks for your suggestion, Professor Xinghong Wang. I'll take it with pleasure.

I have read your article with great interest. In general, your reasoning is logical and fair. In the light of the results of observations of gravitational radiation, your statement ".. in most places insidethe universe, speed of gravity is only very slightly higher than light speed. Only in places where gravitational field is very strong, speed of gravity is much higher than speed of light.." seems close to the truth. It is not entirely clear why you think that the speed of gravity is inversely proportional to the dilation of time.

Indeed, a photon could not affect a black hole if the speed of gravity would always coincide with the speed of light. I am pleased to find ideas in your article that I share. But how does the speed of gravity change near the horizon of a black hole, it makes sense to ask those who have calculated models of the merger of compact stellar objects, which were then used to identify the sources of gravitational waves.

Best regards,

Wladimir

No time at all. Even if a star were capable of collapsing into a black hole, the spherical distribution of matter would cause the gravitational field to remain constant both before and after black hole formation.

Kathleen Rosser

Thank you very much for your kind comment, Professor.

It is my scientific discovery that it takes time for gravity field generated by mass/energy inside event horizon of a black hole to propagate/travel to places outside of the event horizon of the black hole. please kindly refer to my preprint:

Preprint A Discussion about propagations of electric field and gravity field

your comments upon my preprint is welcomed with gratitude.

Thank you again for your kind attention, Professor.

BR

First. We must observe a BH, then detect Gravitational wave...

The whole universe does not working under any force, except, Temperature, pressure, and universal law.

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

As you suggest in your original question, no influence from the boundary of a black hole can ever reach us in finite time. However, the gravity of everything that is about to fall into it can reach us, and everything that ever fell into a black hole we still see just outside it, together with all its gravitational influence on space-time.

Malcolm White

Thank you very much for your kind comment, Professor.

It is true that "the gravity of everything that is about to fall into it can reach us, and everything that ever fell into a black hole we still see just outside it, together with all its gravitational influence on space-time".

And it is also true that gravity field generated by everything that is about to fall into it and everything that ever fell into a black hole propagate/travel into deep space. Thus, for nearby celestial bodies, they already cannot "feel" any gravity of a black hole(this conclusion is apparently absurd. thus it seems, either graviational time dilation theory is incorrect, or the propagation speed of gravity/the speed of gravitational interaction is not influenced by gravitational time dilation, which is my research conclusion).

For detailed descriptions, please kindly refer to my preprint:

Preprint A Discussion about propagations of electric field and gravity field

Thank you again for your kind attention, Professor.

BR

I think I disagree with you. Although we cannot see anything inside the black hole, as it remains forever in our future, the red shifted and time dilated effects of everything that ever fell into it are still reaching us. The closer things get to it, the longer it takes for us to feel their effects, and to see the radiation. We will still be seeing radiation from the first ever thing that fell into a black hole, the last bit from just before it crossed the event horizon will reach us infinitely red shifted at infinite time (i.e. never and with no energy). Everything before that will arrive earlier and, I think, in the right order, not infinitely red shifted and in finite time, so we will be able to see and feel its gravity. As far as we are concerned, all the matter "in" a black hole has not yet fallen in so is outside the event horizon and affects space-time in the normal way.

Malcolm White

Thank you very much for your kind comment, Professor.

It is true:

"As far as we are concerned, all the matter "in" a black hole has not yet fallen in so is outside the event horizon and effects space-time"

and I discussed this in my previous preprint:

Preprint A Discussion about the Growth of a Black Hole and the Format...

but it can not be true that they effects space-time "in the normal way".

becuase their effect will be red-shifted.

so, if gravitational time dilation has effect on the propagation of gravity field, then the gravity field will also be red-shifted, i.e., gravity field intensity become smaller. isn't this apparent?

and when matter falls into a black hole, its gravity will be more and more red-shifted, indicating its gravity field intensity will be smaller and smaller. correct?

please kindly refer to my updated preprint for details:

Preprint A Discussion about the Growth of a Black Hole and the Format...

as said in this preprint,

we can see, for observers on the earth, or on any other celestial bodies, the gravity of any black hole is extremely red-shifted, thus is very small, and it will become smaller and smaller, if gravitational time dilation holds for gravitational interactions.

This is apparently not supported by current cosmic observations.

Thank you again for your kind attention, Professor.

BR

It may be that the variations in the gravity field - gravity waves, are red shifted, and so have reduced energy content, but the "DC" or near DC component depends, at least closely, only on the mass in a region of space that can be considerably larger than the event horizon and so has only small time delay and small red shift. The gravity from several thousand stars a thousand light years away will be very closely the same here whether they are a light year apart or are just about to fall behind the event horizon.

Malcolm White

Thank you for your kind reply, Professor.

Can you bee so kind to inform me the indication of "DC"?

And why you consider "The gravity from several thousand stars a thousand light years away will be very closely the same here whether they are a light year apart or are just about to fall behind the event horizon."?

coz, I thiks

Apparently the difference could be millions of times(although the absolute values are still tiny) if they are a light year apart or are just about to fall behind the event horizon.

As you are discussing this topic here and you seem interested, so I also wish to keep you informed that I am seeking to publish my articles in some SCI scientific journals. Could you help me on this please?

Thank you for your kind attention genuinely.

Kind Regards

By DC I mean direct current - the part that doesn't vary, or doesn't vary very quickly, like the sun's gravitational field. I know it isn't current, that is why it is in quotes "DC".

No, I am not interested in discussing this further. I suspect you have a wrong understanding of this, but I am not good enough at it to be able to explain why.

Malcolm White

Thank you very much for your kind reply, Professor.

I will bee happy to hear reasonable comments on my research results. If some people are able to point out the real flaws in my article, I am truly grateful.

I am straight in communication. I think it necessary for science lover.

True, I agree that the sun's gravity is constantly propagating, but not static.

Apparently my research conclusion has merits? For instance, I think I am the first scientific researcher in the world to suggest the red-shift for gravitational field? I am also convinced that the idea of us are highly valueable.

Thank you again for your kind attention.

Kind Regards

I do not think you are the first to suggest red-shift for the gravitational field. The LIGO researchers include this in the predicted gravity wave profiles that they use to correlate with the signals they detect in order to find and identify events from the profile of their gravity waves.

Malcolm White

Thank you very much for your kind reply, Professor.

Regarding to:

"I do not think you are the first to suggest red-shift for the gravitational field. The LIGO researchers include this in the predicted gravity wave profiles that they use to correlate with the signals they detect in order to find and identify events from the profile of their gravity waves."

Could you be so kind as to inform me the source of this information? Because as far as I know, I originally suggested the concept of "gravitational redshift". But, if some people has already suggested before, I am happy to know about it.

Thank you again for your kind attention.

Kind Regards

Read and study the publications of the LIGO teams, and the methods that they are using to detect gravity waves. This is the source of that information.

If gravity waves are red-shifted, which I expect they are, which is not surprising, then the LIGO teams will have needed to have predicted that, because they produced thousands of different gravity wave profiles to compare with the waves that arrived at the detectors. The waves are detected using correlation, and they use predicted wave forms for many different merger events as the correlation templates. If the real waves are red shifted, and the predicted waves weren't, there wouldn't be any correlation. Most scientists in the field would agree that LIGO have detected gravity waves that agree with their predictions.

Malcolm White

Thank you very much for your kind reply, Professor.

We understand that gravity field is a concept different from, although related with, gravitational waves.

Thus,

As I said, as far as I know, I am the first person in the world suggesting the concept of "the redshift of gravity field", which is different from the concept of "the redshift of gravitational waves" mentioned inside the publication of LIGO team.

Thank you again for your kind attention.

Kind Regards