The well-entrenched myth of the black hole dies hard, despite Dirac's clear assertion that the black hole will never completely form (takes forever). Somehow the myth was spawned into a whole subordinate category of physics, that is now "de rigueur". Please help to correct this unfounded myth. Thank you.

Dirac repeated the result of Einstein. I can add to this the opinion of Einstein:

Preprint Einstein's Last Will

Article Einstein's Equation

"Schwarzschild’s decision" should be translated as "Schwarzschild’s solution",

it is in Russian language that two different words decision and solution are translated as решение.

Спасибо, не уследил за гул-переводчиком.

The myth is a supernatural description of the universe, that is a non-natural description. Hence the myth isn’t a scientific description of the universe because science, for definition, is a description of the universe based on the scientific method that is composed of two prerequisites: experimental observation and theorization of observed data through physico-mathematical models.

The question is : Is black hole a myth or a physical fact?

The scientific answer to this question involves we have a scientific definition of black hole, but we don’t have a scientific definition of black hole because for definition black hole is something that cannot be observed and consequently it doesn’t satisfy the first prerequisite of the scientific method.

Anyway black hole belongs to the most wide question of dark matter. Also for dark matter we cannot have certain direct experimental observations because “dark” means just “non-observable”.

Consequently the discussion on black holes and on dark matter doesn’t belong to the scientific dimension but to philosophical dimension. In the order a philosophical discussion it is possible to do the following consideration: if a person, at the distance of 1m from me, has in his hand a lit lamp, I observe that lamp. If the person goes away from me I will see still that lamp even if its sizes reduce and when the person exceeds a threshold distance I not will see firstly the lamp and then increasing the distance also the person. It doesn’t mean nevertheless that person and that lamp don’t exist.

The presumption of post-modern physicists consists in the fact that they want to give a scientific and physical meaning to questions that cannot be considered scientific and physical.

Hence in this little scientific view of black holes, I am motivated to think if black holes exist effectively, their origin isn’t gravitational but dynamical and relativistic. In this context the prospective existence of black holes would give an important contribution to a new physical fact with respect to the mainstream view: the velocity of light can be exceeded in opposition to what Lorentz’s Transformations and Special Relativity postulate.

my dear unique scholars what about first image of black hole?

Daniele Sasso , dark matter is a phenomenon observed near galaxies and their clusters. There is no reason to doubt this experimental fact. Another matter is its nature has not yet been clarified. (although I have reason to believe that I know the nature of dark matter).

Another thing is a black hole. This is based on a region of space that is not a solution to the Einstein's gravitational field equation. those. in the area in which there is no solution. It’s ridiculous to look for meaning in the meaningless, but this is what people do after the death of Einstein. Instead of looking for the cause of the erroneous decision.

I found her. It turned out that the Einstein equation does not meet all the principles of general relativity.

That composite image has not been verified as what it is purported to be; therefore it is likely something else that remains to be identified.

Just a single sugar-cube worth of neutron-star material would weigh 100 million tons here on Earth, or about the same as the entire human population.

This statement is not science!

Due to spacetime, or science that we practice, everything is made of atom (chemical) , therefore top paragraph is fiction and over exaggeration.

https://www.academia.edu/38373675/Creation_of_a_Quantum_Mechanic_Universe_and_its_Rotation.doc

Hussainsha Syed "my dear unique scholars what about first image of black hole?"

There is no evidence that the dark area in the photograph is a black hole. This is exactly what a cold supermassive star with an accretion disk looks like. Now any massive faint body in space is called a black hole. Experts believe that there are no reliable tests to identify black holes. For example, one of the most famous astrophysicist Chernin.

respectfully Valery

Javad Fardaei ,

The diameter and mass of neutron stars are fairly accurately measured. There is no reason to trust measurements. Indeed, the density of neutron stars is comparable to the density of nuclei. In my childhood this was referred to as a hypothesis. Now this is a scientific fact.

respectfully Valery

Valery Borisovich Morozov

1st we do not know source of Gravity!

2nd, every object that sphere and rotate fast, we think, it has massive gravity and dense.

This perception is not science that we should practice.

If we believe GTR, (which I am rejecting it) the massive neutron stars, must have massive gravity, massive of planets go around it, massive solar system, and should make hole into the spacetime, due to GTR theory.

due to understand an atom, and knowing density of nuclei, both are just a theory to date.

to relate speed with density is just a theory, due to mechanical theory of gravity.

Unfortunately, everything is based on mechanical, while the Universe is quantum mechanics intelligent.

Dear Valery Morozov,

I have looked briefly at your preprint "Einstein's Last Will". Mainstream physicists have not been silent nor talked only in "whispers" about the problems with Einstein's field equations. Physicists are speaking loudly and regularly about them on Physical Review D. All the suggestions of Einstein are being explored: the problem of singularities, the possibility of extra dimensions, the addition of new quantities such as vector potentials, higher order field equations, quantization and more. Such modified gravities are active fields of interest. A review article discussing many of these new theories can be found at

Preprint Current conflicts in general relativity: Is Einstein's theor...

Most of the 100 references in this article are from Physical Review D. Perhaps this is the journal most active in the topic.

Valery Borisovich Morozov

in my comment I raised a doubt on the existence of dark matter and of black holes. I said there is no certainty on their existence and above all on their physical nature.

The doubt is important part of the scientific method and of scientific thought. A scientific thought that doesn’t cultivate the doubt is arrogance.

The post-modern scientific thought raises doubts in many researchers because many fundamentals of the post-modern physics are based on concepts that have no experimental evidence and no logical evidence. The scientific certainty isn’t guaranteed by the fact that many believe what Einstein, or other big scientists, wrote because if Einstein or others affirmed wrong postulates, subsequent scientists believed those wrong postulates.

It seems to me that you have some doubt on General Relativity but you would have to coltivate doubts also on Special Relativity and on other aspects of present mainstream physics.

And continuing to consider the question of gravity, if we aren’t able to understand the true nature of gravitation on the Earth in which we are immersed, I ask how we can understand what happens at milliards of light years from us.

Projects “Manifesto della Fisica Contemporanea” and “Dynamics of Gravitational Fields” , that are performed in this site, have the purpose of clarifying at least some of these doubts. If Physical Review D and other important journals are ignorant about these contemporary attempts to give a contribution to solution of questions and they consider only attempts of post-modern physics that doesn’t raise questions on validity of bases of the present physics, it isn’t responsibility of contemporary physicists.

Kathleen Rosser ,

I agree, it says a lot. But this is all at the level of hypotheses. Often these hypotheses see singularities as physical objects (black holes and big bang). Another part of the hypotheses is aimed at the unjustified expansion of GR, and sometimes at the revision of the principles of GR. In addition, a serious drawback of the theory is the lack of a local principle of energy conservation. At the same time, modest successes are presented as outstanding.

respectfully Valery

Daniele Sasso ,"The scientific certainty isn’t guaranteed by the fact that many believe what Einstein, or other big scientists, wrote because if Einstein or others affirmed wrong postulates, subsequent scientists believed those wrong postulates."

Whatever it was, but besides GR there is simply no other theory of gravity. You just need to be careful about that positive legacy. There is no reason to doubt the principles of general relativity. They worked perfectly.

I must pay attention to the fact that Einstein did not always strictly observe the principles of general relativity. So the rejection of the principle that the gravitational field should be the source of the gravitational field, as it has energy. This led to the fact that the Einstein equation is not a strict correspondence to the principles of general relativity.

Article Einstein's Equation

“The end of the black hole myth?”

Not so fast! As long as the “Big Brains” and Big Science” are controlled by Big Money and Big Theology:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/07/jeffrey-epstein-mit-funding-tech-intellectuals

Big Bang and religion mixed in Cern debate

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19870036

Big Bang: Is there room for God?

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19997789

And all these “experimental proofs”, graphic pictures of “Black Holes” and gravitational waves, Nobel Awards etc., even after Einstein (in whose name this bid fraud goes on) published a paper discounting the possibility of their existence even in theory!

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that mote general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Albert Einstein. https://www.cscamm.umd.edu/people/faculty/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

Gentlemen, about the topic.

The fact of the matter is that it will take a long time to fall onto a black hole. And this time is endless. Based on this, Einstein concluded that black holes do not exist.

Everything is much simpler. Einstein's equation does not meet the principles of general relativity. For two years, Einstein tried to make the “correct” equation (with the energy of the gravitational field on the right side) covariant. And only then he decided to throw out this "small" supplement and it turned out well. Mercury was spinning as it should. Einstein rejoiced and forgot that he threw out the additive, which, as it turned out, spoiled the conservation law and in the solutions appeared unremovable features (except for the singularity in the spherically symmetric problem, the singularity in time).

Article The General Theory of Relativity, a New Iteration

respectfully Valery

It is not only that the “GWs”, “black holes” and all other dark/black cosmic monsters are based on mathematical fantasy, the Minkowski “spacetime” on which the virtual edifice of GR is constructed is also a fiction and bogus!. Minkowski’s bombastic claim, “The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an in dependent reality”, has no merit at all! But Big Money and Theology promote and keep this charade of official physics going; otherwise their heaven on this wretched planet will collapse!

Even Einstein just before a year before his death expressed grave doubt about this “spacetime” manifold, in a letter to his friend Michele Besso, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics”. A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467,

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Abdul Malek ,

First of all, we must respect the work of scientists. Humanity is not able to thank them in their true worth. Neither money, nor officials, but scientists have created everything that surrounds us. It is ridiculous to start all over again just because it seemed incomprehensible to someone.

People neglecting experience will not succeed.

A couple of years ago, at a seminar at the Lebedev Physical Institute, Sergei Popov mentioned a neutron star, which seemed to exceed the double mass of the Sun. Perhaps it was about the same object.

This story has recently continued. A neutron star was discovered whose mass exceeds the theoretical limit calculated using the solution of the Einstein equation. This means that maybe black holes are not in nature. So far, Einstein's equation has been good at describing gravity. But now doubts about its absolute accuracy have received new confirmation. The need to replace the Einstein equation received another confirmation. I hope that the collision data of superheavy objects carried by gravitational waves will help to find the correct answer: Which of the equations more accurately describes gravity?

Valery Borisovich Morozov

Sir, you yourself are claiming "The end of the black hole myth?"; where a graphic picture of the of a REAL (directly observed) "black hole" was presented recently; and the "scientists" involved can expect a Nobel Award, the same way the "scientists" "discovering" GWs (doubted by many even in RG forums) received rewards and Nobel Award. I have given references above (and else where) of reports of how many of these leading "scientists" behind "Big Science" and theoretical physics, associated with these "discoveries" are being manipulated and receive favour from Big Money, which one journalist even termed with offensive words like "intellectual prostitution".

Your "black hole myth" has the same root and theoretical basis and are coming as various interpretations from the same premise of Einstein's theory of general relativity. If you can doubt one of those on good grounds; others (including me) also have the same prerogative to question the any other similar claims, if they have good grounds. I am not sure whether you are an expert and believer in GR, your reaction makes me think so; but if you are (a part of official physics and expert on GR), then you are at best being inconsistent, Sir; because you deny the same right to other people, which you claim (right to criticism) for yourself!

In any case, I would humbly let you know that I have been an opponent (rather a heretic) of Einstein's theories of relativity for decades, based on philosophical, scientific, theological, ideological, political etc. grounds. These are available in my published books, journal articles, comments in public forums etc. You do not have to go too far, Sir, just a peek at my RG profile and comments in RG forums, specially the following two would give you some idea.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible

Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory

A few considerations on General Relativity and Black Holes:

If equations of GR aren’t able to predict and to explain experimental facts, it doesn’t mean necessarily that black holes don’t exist.

There are at least other two solutions:

1. General Relativity is a wrong theory and this is the evidentl result of a good critical analysis. The question does’t regard some aspect of GR but the physico-mathematical structure of that theory.

2. Black holes exist but they don’t have a gravitational origin.

The Theory of Reference Frames demonstrates black holes have a dynamical and relativistic origin: it involves nevertheless the velocity of light can be exceeded.

In that case also Special Relativity is wrong in its deep structure.

Stories like this often have some 'spin' to them, hoping the unwary reader will be drawn in. Rapid rotation is one way of stabilising a very massive neutron star. Indeed, such objects could be formed in a toroidal configuration when stars with excessive angular momentum collapse.

Einstein pointed out a pertinent mathematical fact on the day that World War II broke out. It explains why black holes cannot form, and are merely nonsensical solutions to the field equations of GR. Whereas mathematics does not lie, large groups of unaccountable individuals, who think nothing of censoring attempts to uphold mathematical truths, do. And, the fact that they all THINK they know better than Einstein, despite pedalling in the wrong direction for 80 years, tells you a great deal about these strange creatures of the early universe.

The physical genesis of neutron stars is different from the physical genesis of black holes.

Daniele Sasso ,

"1. General Relativity is a wrong theory and this is the evidentl result of a good critical analysis. The question does’t regard some aspect of GR but the physico-mathematical structure of that theory."

It’s all right here. GR is an extremely clear and transparent theory with a powerful framework of principles and enormous predictive power. GTR predicted phenomena characterized by eccentricity and unusualness.

Of course, it is not perfect, there are internal imperfections. But everything is eliminated if this is done seriously.

"2. Black holes exist but they don’t have a gravitational origin."

There is no reason to think so. Black holes are one of the consequences of an imperfect equation of the gravitational field (Einstein's equation). If you replace the Einstein equation with another, you can eliminate black holes and get rid of troubles with conservation laws.

Article The General Theory of Relativity, a New Iteration

Robin Spivey ,

Not everything that is being done is useless now. Negative results are also results. However, great achievements in the field of observations and experiments do not correspond to the modest successes of the theory. Hypotheses now take the place of theory.

"The physical genesis of neutron stars is different from the physical genesis of black holes."

According to the supporters of black holes, starting with a certain mass, a neutron star should become a black hole. Against this is the detection of a neutron star with a mass above the critical one.

In my version of general relativity, the body can be arbitrarily large mass and remain a neutron star.

Valery Borisovich Morozov

I realize we subscribe to two different physical ideas: poat-modern viewpoint and contemporart viewpoint. I know the post-modern viewpoint, it isn't convincing and isn't able to surpass my critical analysis. Anyway it is right that everyone has his viewpoint and hence I don't intend to go beyond.

Regards.

Daniele Sasso

"Anyway it is right that everyone has his viewpoint and hence I don't intend to go beyond."

If the point of view is not supported by evidence, it is ineffective and dies quickly

I have specified my viewpoint in numerous papers and in my projects. I cannot reproduce it with little words. Please, you raise a precise and circumstantial question and I will answer the next week. Besides I think ideas don't die and their life is independent of the number of people who remind them.

Dear Valery Morozov,

I am reading and attempting to understand your paper "The General Theory of Relativity, a New Iteration." It looks as if you have done a thorough job.

I have a question about the assumption of gravitational field energy, relating to Section 2.1, Eqs. (1) and (2). I know you are not alone in assuming that the stress-energy tensor of the field in the absence of matter should be nonzero, and many GR scholars agree with you. It is simply that I have no intuitive belief this concept, and have doubted it throughout my career.

The question is: In curved spacetime, why should we expect the gravitational field to have energy in the absence of matter? To wit, I believe this expectation stems from Newtonian concepts. In Newtonian flat space, the field has "energy" in the form of potential energy. Yet potential energy is not real physical energy: it is a mathematical accounting device to make energy appear conserved. Thus, potential energy stores information, but not mass-energy, since potential energy itself does not cause gravitational attraction. When we go from flat Newtonian space to curved spacetime, the information encoded in the "potential energy" is now encoded in the curvature. It still does not have intrinsic mass-energy. And so curvature, in and of itself, also does not have mass-energy. That would mean there is no contradiction between Equations (1) and (2), and that Einstein's equations are correct as they stand.

Can you justify the assumption that either Newtonian potential energy, or the corresponding curvature of spacetime, should themselves cause gravitational attraction, such that gravitational energy would be stored in the field?

Dear Kathleen, my answer to your question is that Valery has put together two wrong concepts: the modern concept of curvature of spacetime and the post-modern concept of quantum vacuum.

The sum of two wrong concepts isn't a right concept.

"Not everything that is being done is useless now."

A claim that was far more credible before academia's censorious interference in science which, if it continues much longer, will result in the extinction of the species.

On the radio today, Richard Dawkins was peddling his latest book about that same old subject he finds so absorbing - human delusion. He also fielded a few calls from people claiming to have witnessed miracles - people with injuries and illnesses that had healed. Dawkins dismissed the evidence as anecdotal, forgetting that anecdotal evidence is better than zero evidence.

There is no evidence at al for extra dimensions of space. Those who believe in them are not even latching on to anecdotal hearsay. Ditto for all the "candidates" proposed for dark matter - except the unpopular one for which actual evidence exists: the sterile neutrino and its exotic physics which lies beyond the Standard Model.

When today's "physicists" discuss the black hole information paradox, they omit to mention that Einstein solved it back in 1939. That's worth than useless, it's like forgetting how to communicate verbally and returning to the forests. No surprise, then, that moves are already afoot to rid the galaxy of the species unless it can quickly get its act together.

Kathleen Rosser

An abstract 4-D "spacetime" geometrical manifold supposedly with tangible physical, mechanical, metric etc., attributes is a fiction:

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...

We have not seen a black hole, and recent picture of the black hole was just computer simulation only, therefore black hole is a myth, and it does not working with any science that we are practicing. By the way, GR is not a science that we should follow.

A guy that wanted to convince me he found "something" 4,600 light-years from Earth that is only 30 kilometers across and 2.17 times the mass of our sun would be sent to the nearest psychiatrist...

Dear Kathleen Rosser ,

The law of conservation of energy-momentum is the basis of physics, one of the symmetries of space. Einstein tried to include the field energy in the equation of the gravitational field as a source. But he did not succeed. Therefore, it would be strange to consider the Einstein equation useful in all respects. In my work, I tried to find an alternative equation, but so far this has not been possible.

Preprint A critical analysis of Schwarzschild-like metrics

Dear Valery Borisovich Morozov

Finding an alternative equation is an ambitious project, requiring a certain mastery of the formalism. Physicists have tried to modify Einstein's field equations for various reasons over the last century, including to incorporate energy conservation (see link below). None have gained general acceptance. I agree that conservation of energy has been considered a basic principle of physics. Intuitively though, I doubt this principle applies to curved spacetime. If not, it would explain why attempts to date have failed.

See for example:

Preprint Current conflicts in general relativity: Is Einstein's theor...

I am sure that among the possible Riemannian spaces there are spaces that correctly describe gravitational fields. Moreover, such a field is naturally associated with the energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational field. Some steps have already been taken.

Article The General Theory of Relativity, a New Iteration

However, this is not a satisfactory solution in every way.

Preprint A critical analysis of Schwarzschild-like metrics

Dear Valery Borisovich Morozov and Dear Kathleen Rosser We know the building block of our universe is a quantum mechanics phenomenon, and we know accretion of QM is creating classical physics, also, we know each atom is carry 100% of space of the Universe. It put us to believe space of the universe has character.

addition, we do not know origination of forces (gravity, gravitation..) we do not know source of energy (big bang and it four force)

BUT It surprising me that, how could we write formula for thing that all elements of a formula is unknown ?, yet universe acting QM ! ?

The fact is, when our legend could not describe his theory, how could we read his mind? Not to mention GTR is not even working with our small solar system, while just our galaxy has billions of it, yet universe is carrying billions of these galaxies?

All the scientists on past century they thought our universe is a mechanical, they thought our universe is one galaxy universe. I am very shuck that we are wasting our mind on old thinking, and instruments.

Not to mention Black Hole still is a theory, and some scientists in past made it up, without any observation.

Still I love to read your argument, for no reason.

https://www.academia.edu/38373675/Creation_of_a_Quantum_Mechanic_Universe_and_its_Rotation.doc

Best wishes to all

General relativity works great both in the solar system and in close relativistic stellar systems. Like any other branch of physics, it needs to be developed and combined with other branches of physics.

However, reality looks much worse. Researchers mired in a quagmire of hypotheses. The hypotheses took the form of a theory, but in fact remained hypotheses. In some branches of physics, a clear boundary has been preserved between science and hypotheses (models), for example, in solid state physics. In cosmology, the situation is blurred. Here hypotheses replace theory, try to control science. Instead of the development of general relativity, its modification is proposed, which destroys its principles. This is an easy way, but a way to grants, nothing more.

http://forum.lebedev.ru/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=7534

Dear Valery Borisovich Morozov

"I am sure that among the possible Riemannian spaces there are spaces that correctly describe gravitational fields." Interesting hypothesis. (I assume by "Riemannian space" you mean pseudo-Riemannian spacetime, correct?) Do you happen to know of a clear, concise, rigorous textbook on Riemannian geometry? My own knowledge is lacking. That said, given a metric ds2 =g00 dt2 + g11 dr2 + giidOMEGA2, what property of the metric makes it Riemanniani or not Riemannian? Or are all metric theories automatically Riemannian?

You are no doubt right about there existing a Riemannian spacetime for the universe as a whole, as desribed by the FRW metric. But without dark matter, is there a pseudo-Riemannian spacetime describing the the gravitational field of a galaxy? Also, is there a subset of pseudo-Riemannian spacetimes that conserve energy?

Sir Isaac Newton and MR. Albert Einstein both forgot to calculate the mass of oxygen (atmosphere) on earth. The reality is, earth does not have any gravity, or any mechanical gravity that these two legend stating. If earth had gravity nothing could be on the air, no cloud, no air plane, not hot balloon air, and this list can go on for long time, simply we would not be here, if earth had gravity. GTR in space has same mistake, nothing in the universe is working mechanically.

WE all trying to unify all four forces, mechanically, while the building block of universe is quantum mechanics, and Gravity is one of them.

Article Gravity is an Internal Force

Kathleen Rosser ,

You correctly noted that we are dealing with pseudo-Riemannian space. Here we distinguish a flat Minkowski space as a subspace of a (pseudo-) Riemannian space. In this case, the curvature of the space, for example, Riemann, is zero. In order to find out whether a space is flat, it is necessary to calculate its Riemannian curvature.

This is easily proven. From view metrics

ds^2=F(x) c^2 dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2

Only one has zero scalar curvature. And is flat.

ds^2=(1-gx/c^2 ) c^2 dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2

Dark matter is not a solution to the equations of the gravitational field. But it is assumed that the future theory will add energy to the gravitational field independence and it will accumulate near galaxies.

Preprint Dark energy as zero energy of gravity field

Refined calculation of g_ {00}. Этот параметр определяет гравитационное поле вблизи точечного заряда. The field does not look as mysterious, meaningless as in solving the Einstein equation.

Figure. Dependence of on ratio . Schwarzschild solutions to the Einstein equation (shown by dotted line) and numerical solution to the exact gravity field equation (shown by solid line).

Refined calculation of g_ {00}.

Preprint Exact equation of gravity field based on Einstein's separati...

Preprint Точное уравнение гравитационного поля на основе эйнштейновск...

Black Hole is Myth, it never been seen or observed, and all the picture of 2019-2021 all are computerized by artist.

Check and read LIGO in fine writing.

regards

It should be noted that there are no reliable tests proving that the object is a black hole. The only serious argument is Einstein's equation, which has singular (meaningless) solutions.

Einstein himself did not believe in the existence of such an object. But Einstein's equation doesn't work in large fields. I replaced Einstein's equation with a more precise one. There are no singular solutions there, see the picture.

New version of the article.

Preprint Точное уравнение гравитационного поля на основе эйнштейновск...

Valery Borisovich Morozov : " There is no evidence that the dark area in the photograph is a black hole. This is exactly what a cold supermassive star with an accretion disk looks like. Now any massive faint body in space is called a black hole. "

Indeed! It's a typical failing of many scientific commentators, that any object that is discovered that would be a black hole if Einstein's general theory was correct is referred to as a "black hole" for convenience ... and then people say that, because we've discovered these "black holes", it means that we've validated Einstein's general theory ...

And of course, we haven't. Super-dense stellar bodies with gravitational horizons also exist under, say, archaic Newtonian gravity (John Michell, Journal of the Royal Society, 1784), and, doubtless, under many other theories and their variants.

One of the defining features of an Einstein-Wheeler black hole is that, due to the use of SR Doppler relationships for gravitational shifts, the horizon is utterly inescapable rather than merely being almost inescapable, and the surface temperature is zero as opposed to something merely incredibly cold (and usually colder than the cosmological background!)

Even if we had some amazing technology that could let us theoretically measure the difference between a distant horizon temperature being a tiny fraction of a degree Kelvin (Newtonian gravity) and being absolutely zero (Einstein-Wheeler), this tiny temperature difference would be utterly overwhelmed by the blast of radiation from the roaring hot whirl of the accretion disc.

I'm bewildered when I see people who are supposed to be GR experts saying things like: "We've discovered black holes, therefore we know that Einstein's theory is correct" There seems to me to be a basic logical disconnect at work here.

PS: Thanks for starting this discussion, Valery, I wasn't aware of this news report, and it's an interesting data-point.

Mr. Einstein did not know anything about universe, period.

Any scientists like him, did copy other old dead papers and modify it to his version.

Mr. Einstein never study anything on universe when he wrote his formula for a universe that he did know anything about.

All his formulas are One dimension, while his GTR 4dimesions, and our universe presenting 3dimension. Not to mention all his thought was just one small solar system which it not even working.

Here we are talking about pseudoscience, not real science.

How could the author did not understand his own theory?

read new think. thanks

Article Earth Gravity is not Newtonian

regards

Eric Baird ,

I must correct you. A light wave does not change its frequency in a gravitational field. The gravitational redshift is caused by the fact that the rate of time depends on the gravitational potential. This has been proven by experiment.

"Mr. Einstein never study anything on universe when he wrote his formula for a universe that he did know anything about."

We do not know exactly as much about the universe as Professor Einstein did not.

Valery Borisovich Morozov : " I must correct you. A light wave does not change its frequency in a gravitational field. The gravitational redshift is caused by the fact that the rate of time depends on the gravitational potential. "

Hi Valery! I regard the two descriptions as dual. For instance ...

HOWEVER,

Einstein's 1911 argument then applies. If we are "downhill" of the emitting source, which could be drifting in deep space, we should be receiving a train of wavepulses from the source that are blueshifted, and therefore we should be receiving the pulses faster than they are emitted (!). Even if we somehow pull wavepulses that are "in flight" out of the intermediate region to make up the shortfall, eventually we woulld end up receiving pulses before the emitter generates them !

The only way to avoid this apparent paradox seems to be to say that the emitter is sending pulses into our region at the same rate, but that we see them to be blueshifted because our reference-clocks are running slow ...

... in other words, just as you say, "the rate of time depends on the gravitational differential."

I don't see the two explanations as being in conflict.Sometimes the "gravitational time dilation" description is more convenient, sometimes the gravity-shift description is more convenient.

Best regards, Eric

There is no need to complicate simple things. In order to understand what does not change the frequency at a fixed distance, you need to consider a simple problem.

There is a light source A frequency f and a light receiver B.

1. The speed of light between the source changes somehow (no need to make any assumptions about how the speed of light changes, it doesn't matter). take a medium with a variable refractive index. The speed of light changes accordingly too.

experience says that the frequency of light does not change. Just look at a green green frog in the water and in the air it is the same color here and there.

2. You know that light is made of waves. Count the number of waves emitted per minute emitted by A. Now count the number of waves in point B. Are you claiming that the frequency will change? But the number of waves between A and B is constant. So the number of waves emitted by A and the number of waves received are the same. This means that the frequency has not changed either.

A simple count of the number of waves and our experience shows that the frequency does not change. With a change in speed, the wavelength changes ... but this is already school physics. I think you know that.

Now how does light actually propagate in a gravitational field? Einstein answered this question in 1912. General relativity confirmed this. Light falling into the gravitational field propagates at a LOWER speed.

Experiment confirms this (Shapiro Effect).

Light slows down when it "falls"!

Mr. Einstein to me is like Mr. Graham Bell, one made theory on universe, one made the phone.

We made Bell's innovation to all the communication system that we have, because he explain it correctly, but Einstein pseudoscience that he couldn't explain, we still after 100yrs are in square one.

there is no comparison between these two legends.

regards

Einstein did not create a theory of the universe. He created the theory of gravity and quantum mechanics. And there is no theory of the universe, there is a set of hypotheses ... but they barely resemble our universe. Here is another hypothesis of a stationary homogeneous universe.

Article Cosmology of Uniform Empty Space

Valery Borisovich Morozov : " Light falling into the gravitational field propagates at a LOWER speed. Experiment confirms this (Shapiro Effect). Light slows down when it "falls"! "

Light speed is an average. When one wants to calculate a deduced underlying one-way propagation rate, one uses light velocity.

Under textbook GR, light-velocities are asymmetrical around a black hole, the inward propagation rate is described as being faster than the outward rate. This is sometimes illustrated by drawing Minkowski lightcones around the hole, and showing them as being progressively more tilted inwards as their locations approach the horizon.

If the hole rotates, the cones are also drawn tilted in the direction of motion of the nearest section of horizon. So a stationary gravitational source is supposed to drag inertial frames inwards, and a rotating gravitational source is also supposed to drag inertial frames around with it, the strength of the dragging effect supposedly going to 100% at the horizon surface.

Naively, one might try to describe the inward velocity of light approaching perhaps 2c towards the horizon, and the outward velocity approaching zero towards the horizon. So an infalling observer can be moving inwards at background lightspeed by the time they cross the horizon, and be travelling at more than background lightspeed once inside, without ever overtaking their own lightsignals, and without ever moving faster than the local velocity of light, and without local physics going wierd.

But the averaged speed of light in the region -- the time taken for light to move inwards, and for the resulting events' signals to move outwards again to be seen -- the apparent speed of light in the region, as perceived by a distant observer -- reduces as the gravitational field strength increases, and reduces to zero at the horizon.

So if we probe a region from a distance using signals and watch the result, we are perceiving the region's physics in terms of round-trip averaged lightspeeds. Averaged lightspeeds allow us to assign a single lightspeed value to each point in spacetime, and note that this speed of light reduces as the field-density gets stronger. In this sort of description, your statements about timeflow being a function of gravitational field strength and light speed slowing as it enters a denser region of field, are quite correct.

But if we are interested in possible underlying light velocity asymmetries, we may want to assign multiple light-velocity values to a single point in spacetime, depending on the direction of the light moving through the point.

When dealing with light-velocities (or when dealing with "lensing" situations where there are multiple lightpaths linking two locations), it can make more sense to calculate gravitational shifts as a function of the gradient and differential(s) along the lightpath.

It's difficult to use the "timeflow differential" explanation when two regions have a route dependent gravitational shift, as this would result in our assigning the two regions multiple supposed relative ageing rates, depending on the selected viewing path.

----

IMO, both approaches are legitimate, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. The approach that you suggest is simpler and less confusing, and is closer to normal perceived reality. But there are some hypothetical situations in which relative lightspeed asymmetries may be important (like, "What does an observer see when they fall through an event horizon"), and in which we may have to deal with the less obvious (and more dangerous) subject of underlying light-velocities, and in those, the second approach can be more useful.

I'll admit that the light-velocity approach is a bit counter-intuitive, and I won't pretend that I have fully gotten to grips with it yet (how does one train one's brain to "visualise" effects that do not correspond to a visual experience?). But it does sometimes seem to be necessary.

Eric Baird ,"Under textbook GR..."

Let's help your brain

90 The equations of electrodynamics in the presence of a gravitational field

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay

Perhaps soon people will be convinced that Einstein's equation can be refined and that the black hole is actually not that black.

Preprint Exact equation of gravity field based on Einstein's separati...

All the equation empirical flat plane and one dimensional phenomenon, while the universe is three dimensional with evolution journey to follow where each fractional of moment is changing through space & time.

Unfortunately no one from 500yrs ago to present time ever noticed it.

It is sad that we live at present time and think of last century dead science.

Simply, all the scientists from Newton to now ( Einstein included ) are wrong on universe...UNIVERSE...But they were perfect for their era.

Example: Black hole is just a jock in science.

It never been observed or seen, but we have tons of fake statement and computerized image of it.

regards

"All the equation empirical flat plane and one dimensional phenomenon..."

We have no data on the past of the Universe and its distant parts. And it never will.

By the way, Alexander Fridman considered the universe in Riemannian space, within the framework of the Einstein equation. He did not consider the expanding universe. Friedman considered ALL possible universes in the framework of Einstein's general relativity. The new equation refines the equation, but changes nothing in the universe.

Preprint Exact equation of gravity field based on Einstein's separati...

Preprint Exact equation of gravity field based on Einstein's separati...

You see the red curve does not continue to zero. The program has shut up, most likely the intermediate values ​​are too large. I hope the solution behaves exactly as you said. The point from which the rebound from the OX axis begins floats depending on the boundary conditions ... It would be good if an analytical solution was found, but no one promised that such a solution exists.

If I am right, then the solution in the region of large r / rg decreases rapidly to values ​​extremely close to the minimum possible potential c ^ 2. In this area, time flows extremely slowly. And light from matter with a temperature of millions of degrees goes out in the form of radio waves, which we mainly observe in pulsars. It looks like the inflection point determines the radius of neutron stars. What we call black holes is no different from neutron stars. The famous star M87 is clearly visible in the radio range.

Eric Baird : "Under textbook GR..."

Valery Borisovich Morozov : " Let's help your brain: "The equations of electrodynamics in the presence of a gravitational field"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay "

Oh, I fully appreciate and understand the arguments and behaviours of the gravitational time dilation argument, and even often find them useful.

But for some situations, one requires tools that are a little more flexible, and less interpretational. Using a broader toolset lets one tackle a broader range of problems.

The "gravitational time dilation" concept is very useful, but its success for simple problems doesn't mean that other parallel approaches are necessarily wrong.

====

I've decided not to be insulted by your "helpful" wikipedia reference, as I've decided to take it as a joke: I'm choosing to assume that you know full well that I'm operating at a far, far higher level than someone who needs the Shapiro effect to be explained to them. Perhaps if, at some future date, I make a similarly patronising implication about your abilities, you'll remember this episode and take it with the same good humour.

====

I find that one of the problems with the theoretical physics community is that apart from a few people at the very top of the profession who have nothing to prove (a Hawking or an Einstein), many practitioners appear to be scared to admit that there's anything in classical physics that they don't fully grasp yet, because any hint of not already knowing something is immediately used as ammunition by their opponents.

It makes for a toxic and bullishly-assertive environment in which bullshit seems to be the norm, and in which bright young students take one look and decide that to hell with having a career in which they have to deal with people that are this bad, and leave.

This leaves the subject mostly in the hands of authority-figures in their seventies, which is really not a healthy situation.

When I say that I haven't yet completely gotten my head around non-commutative light-velocity geometries (basically, complex gravitomagnetics), I'm not declaring myself to be a newbie who needs to be given a link to wikipedia: I'm saying that I'm working on problems that are post-SR, and one or two (possibly three) generations beyond textbook GR. I'm trying to solve problems where the mainstream GR community don't even have a sufficiently well developed conceptual vocabulary to be able to state the questions, let alone find answers.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and hoped you'd understand that. Perhaps I overestimated you.

Eric Baird , I looked at your articles. This is not physics. A physicist sets a problem, solves it, or proposes an experiment. What you are proposing is unclear. Perhaps you simply cannot make your own statement clearly.

You needlessly place yourself in a privileged position. You don't know physics. You do not know how to formulate tasks and solve them. It is unlikely that anyone will be interested.

You are making the usual amateur mistake. You attribute your own mistakes to theory.

This topic is intended for physicists and those interested in physics.

"This topic is intended for physicists and those interested in physics".

It seems that that the terms "physicists: and "physics" are too much subjectively and narrowly defined in this RG forum. I am not a formally trained Ph.D., "physicist", but would like to post the following comment on the topic "The end of the black hole myth:? ; as follows:

The notion of “Black Hole” is based on GR’s concept of gravitation and a “spacetime” abstract geometrical construct. But the fact is that both the theories of Newton and Einstein on extraterrestrial gravitation are not scientific theories, but are based on metaphysics and mathematical idealism. What is more, as quoted in one of my comments above, Einstein himself emphatically dismissed the possibility of “Black Hole” formation.

The following article uses mathematical equations to show why and how Newton’s adoption of an idealistic (Ptolemaic) perfect circular planetary orbit leads to the elimination of the “centrifugal force” from the planetary systems; to which Leibniz forcefully objected and proposed his own equation conforming to centrifugal force and the elliptical orbit of Kepler. The elliptical orbit shows the reality of the dialectical nature of gravity and a tendency of the orbiting cosmic bodies to a natural outflow. Please see the simulated or theoretically conceived diagram in the enclosed file, that dramatically demonstrate this difference in outflow between a circular and elliptical orbits of various eccentricities. If centuries old, much venerated and highly admired "theory of universal gravitational attraction" of Newton proves to be faulty, then what chance Einstein's esoteric theory of gravity has; to be a credible theory of cosmic gravitation or any other aspect of cosmology?

I have used Hegel’s dialectical idea of “Absolute Dynamics” of the cosmic bodies and Leibniz’s centrifugal force in an equation of gravity as shown below that eliminates the need of hypothetical “dark matter” and “dark energy”. This also discounts the possibility of “Black Hole” formation in agreement with Einstein.

Ep = ma/r^3 – GMm/r – mCr^2; the symbols are explained in the main article.

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

In my works, I also tried to show that the abstract and the esoteric concept of “spacetime” geometrical manifold of Minkowsky-Einstein has no philosophical foundation:

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Best regards, Abdul

Two things are not working on universe...

1) mathematical calculation.

2) Mechanical perception.

These two belong to Classical Physics, but unfortunately we think CP can breakdown to Quantum and Nature.

Quantum has its own science that totally different from mechanics aspect, which it means Atom must be study as whole, like all chemists, hi-techs, medicine use.

Nature science can not be used any math or mechanics, because it changes every moment to fraction of fraction of second.

I know this perception is unprecedented, but it is fact.

I have proved that our earth's gravity is not Newtonian...or simply it is not mechanical to write formula for it. THUS, NO BLACK HOLE

You as a good researcher must know this new evolution in our science.

Article Earth Gravity is not Newtonian

regards

Valery Borisovich Morozov : " You needlessly place yourself in a privileged position. You don't know physics. "

Oh dear. Perhaps I should give some historical background.

FYI, back in the 1990s, mainstream general relativity had two other major problems that it could only deal with by applying arbitrary manual overrides to bring the theory -- artificially -- back into line with observed reality:

The gravitational aberration problem:

This said that if the nominal speed of gravity was the same as the nominal speed of light (before one took into account nonlinearities and suchlike), then the gravitationally-sensed positions of objects ought to be the same as their optically sensed positions.

But this seemed to break things like Newton's First Law. If the background stars were uniformly distributed, and a spaceship travelled at high speed wrt the averaged starfield, then relativistic aberration of angles would make the ship see more stars in front of them than behind them. One would then tend to expect the moving ship to undergo a freefall acceleration towards the region of greatest apparent mass-density ... forwards ... leading to an unstable positive-feedback universe.

The response of mainstream physics to this apparently "rogue" result was to override the geometry and say that it was part of GR's specification to reduce approximately to Newtonian physics, and that therefore the effect was wrong, even though, logically, it couldn't be. It was declared that since we knew empirically that gravitational aberration did not happen in real life, that we knew (despite what theory told us) that gravitational point-sources did not attract light and matter towards their apparent positions, but -- through a sort of gravitational ventriloquism -- to their instantaneous positions.

It was a major fudge in the theory.

The gravitational dragging problem

The essence of the dragging problem was that, while we knew that the relativity of rotation required gravitomagnetic effects to have a velocity component, and the relativity of acceleration pretty much required accelerative effects to be a higher-order version of an underlying velocity-dependent dragging effect ... and while the assignment of curvature to masses combined with a finite speed of gravity pretty much dictated that a moving curvature-source should show a velocity-dependent curvature component ... velocity-dependent dragging again seemed to be in violation of Newton's First Law.

The problem was that if all moving masses dragged light and matter, then a spaceship moving at high speed wrt the background starfield would be dragged by all those stars, and would tend to "brake" until it was at rest wrt the local averaged starfield frame.

Once again, the theory predicted that the effect must exist, but simple observation suggested that it didn't, and theorists applied an override to bring GR back into line with observed reality.

GR was not just fudged, but double-fudged.

====

I was the guy who finally sorted out the mess.

I was reviewing GR's dependencies, spotted both problems, spotted that the experts had applied illegal procedures to make them go away, worked out the strength of both "impossible" effects, and noticed that, with a bit of back-of-an-envelope geometry, the two problem effects cancelled out if the background matter-distribution was sufficiently even.

In other words both effects were real under GR, even though their consequences weren't directly obvious. When the background distribution of matter was uneven, then the cancellation trick didn't work, and we got sensible gravitomagnetic effects. In the corrected version of GR, we no longer had to define that the theory should obey Newton's First Law, because N1L dropped out of the geometry as an emergent effect.

While I didn't manage to get the result through peer review, Steve Carlip later did:

Article Aberration and the Speed of Gravity

So I corrected two mistakes in standard GR that had eluded the usual experts, which I'm guessing is two more than most of the people you work with. Most GR experts probably haven't solved one.

That was twenty-five years ago, and since then I've advanced further, while the mainstream community have mostly stood pretty still.

Valery Borisovich Morozov " You do not know how to formulate tasks and solve them. "

Ummm. If we're talking more generally about my supposed shortcomings, I'm also the guy who discovered the first "proper" three-dimensional extrapolation of the "triangle-based" Koch curve. Just saying.

Oh, and I'm also the guy who suggested using Villarceau geometry to construct a variable-geometry toroidal particle accelerator-confinement device. That one was motivated partly by the desire to build a more stable alternative to the normal tokamak, and partly to allow the confinement beam to be tightened to increase the reaction rate and loosened to allow the extraction of the reaction products and generate power. Columbia built a prototype. It worked. I don't know whether they might have come up with the idea independently, but it was a radical concept, and it was successful.

I'm really quite good at solving things ... provided that they are soluble.

One of the reasons why I'm good at this is that before I start a problem, I run a set of solubility tests. Most theorists seem to accept problems presented to them uncritically, and as a result, they can badly damage their intuition and thinking by trying to find solutions to things that are inherently not soluble, because the question has been asked wrongly, or because the founding assumptions are incompatible.

The first stage of attacking a problem in theoretical physics is to question the question.

Valery Borisovich Morozov : " You are making the usual amateur mistake. You attribute your own mistakes to theory. "

Valery, do you understand how pompous, smug and self-satisfied that makes you sound?

If you want a scientific debate, then debate scientifically. Provide supporting arguments, geometry, logic, mathematics, physical evidence, unifying/simplifying principles, suggestions, extrapolations ... something that resembles scientific discourse.

Don't just dismiss people whose analysis you don't like on the grounds that you deem them mistaken and confused. Try defending your position with something at least vaguely scientific. Otherwise, people might start to suspect that you can't.

In 1913, Einstein defined the requirements that the gravitational field equation must satisfy. Among these requirements is the provision that the source of the field must be any energy, including the energy of the gravitational field. Thus, the equation of the gravitational field must contain the energy of the field. More precisely, the energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational field along with the same tensor of matter and electromagnetic field.

However, the field equation must be covariant at the same time. The search for such an equation took two years and ended in failure. Einstein did not find a covariant equation of the gravitational field with the energy tensor of the gravitational field included in it.

At the end of 1915, Einstein, using the simplest equation Rαβ = 0, finds the correct values for the deflection of light around the Sun and the perihelion precession of Mercury. Immediately after that, he makes a report and writes an article with the equation of the gravitational field, which is now called the Einstein equation.

How significant is the fact that Einstein excluded the field energy from the gravitational field equation? Few paid attention to the lack of field energy. Landau and Lifshitz explained the absence of field energy in the equation by the smallness of this energy (§ 95. Einstein's equations). However, the solutions to the Einstein equation did not satisfy the traditional law of conservation of momentum energy. In addition, in large fields, the solution to the equation was meaningless (the so-called black holes). Energy problems in general relativity have been discussed many times, but this problem has not been resolved. Einstein, until the end of his days, refused to give meaning to the meaningless part of the decisions. He argued that sinularities must be gotten rid of.

Preprint Einstein's Last Will

What if The Heart of The Milky Way Isn't Actually a Black Hole Like We Thought?

MICHELLE STARR

20 MAY 2021

We sort-of take it for granted that there's a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy, but we can't really go there and check. What if something else is actually lurking in this messy, dusty region?

We partially infer the presence and properties of a supermassive hole called Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*) from the gravitational effect it has on other objects, like the extreme orbits of objects like stars around that galactic center… but what if we're wrong?

......................................................

https://www.sciencealert.com/wild-new-paper-proposes-the-center-of-the-milky-way-might-not-be-a-black-hole

The fact is, darkmatter exist, but what dark-matter is or what it is doing in the universe....theory.is

https://www.academia.edu/39954648/Dark_Matter_in_the_Quantum_Universe

regards

What does the new equation of the gravitational field give? Instead of a black hole, which is meaningless both from the point of view of mathematics and from the point of view of physics (the metric changes, time flows backwards), a slightly larger area appears. This is an area where time flows extremely slowly. There are no special points. The gravitational field is continuous up to the origin.

Preprint Exact equation of gravity field based on Einstein's separati...

Preprint A Heuristic View on the Composition of Space

Preprint A New View on the Composition of Matter