Dear Andrew,

We should not trust the results of giant projects like LIGO, CERN any more.

All of them have a common philosophy:

• They are set up in order to prove a hypothesis from mainstream theory
• They spend enormously large amount of money for many years
• Just before the expected end of funding ... suddenly the so many years wanted "Holy Grail" is found and a publication with hundreds or thousands signatures follow...

Three years ago I had been studying LIGO project, see Data Big data analysis of Livingston and Hanford logfiles for LIG...

and Working Paper Statistical text analysis of Livingston logfiles for LIGO pr...

The only hope is that:

• In order to prove the non existing they have to fall in logical loopholes like your above mentioned...

Dear Andrew Worsley,

An object near the black hole event horizon can still send out light that reaches the observer. That light might need to spiral out of the black hole gravity well. the time dilation makes that what is sent out by the source in its time reference as two wave fronts separated by a short time becomes wavefronts separated by an ever increasing time for the observer outside. But that light appears to come from the photon sphere. When the energy emitted in a short time, as seen by the source, is spread out to a long time for the observer, then the intensity of the source will fade very fast when the source approaches the BH.

When two black holes merge, then the information of the black hole is the missing of light, it is not emitting. So, the part of the BH that reaches the Event Horizon of the other will be visible as 'no light' in the photon sphere. The gravity coming from the BH is not a radiation like light. There are no wavefronts like light. It is the intensity that does change over time that we see. The intensity quickly fades in the same way as the intensity of light and only the superposition of the BH and the gravity of the merging object remains but appears to come from the photon sphere.

So, there is no contradiction between infinite time dilation and the observation of the merger.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Hi Paul,

Not a bad answer-

so that implies that gravity (or gravitons) which are supposed to travel at light speed, effectively travelling faster than light.

Hi Andrew Worsley,

Andrew>: so that implies that gravity (or gravitons) which are supposed to travel at light speed, effectively travelling faster than light.

Where do you get that gravity can be represented as particles. A particle has a wave duality. You should get positive and negative values and you should have shielding and reflection in gravity. That all is not observed. GW are changes in the gravitational potential, that relates to light intensity only.

When two black holes are near each other then as seen from outside the field becomes equal to spherical. What happens underneath the new Event Horizon is undefined and can only be speculated about.

You could think of a model where gravity makes that the speed of light in the direction of the gravitational source is reduced while the speed of light perpendicular to the direction to the source remains constant. This makes that the radial speed of light at the EH becomes zero. The gravitational potential at a given location in spacetime, event, defines the gravitational potential for the surrounding environment like with light such that it propagates with light speed.

However, with light we have an amplitude and the wavelength. This makes that we have wave fronts. A light source with, an intensity that is not homogeneously to all directions but has two stronger opposite directions and that is rotating around an axis perpendicular to the stronger intensity directions, would generate a changing intensity light visible for a far away observer with a variation linked to the source rotation with a quadrupole characteristic, but the light itself, that carries the intensity information, would have its wavelength with their maxima and minima. A GW has only the quadrupole and no carrier waves.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul

Interesting that you should exclude the graviton from your model as it appears in the standard model , albeit termed as "hypothetical". In any case it would not have the classical characteristics of a standard particle.

Equally I have never understood how scientists think gravity can be conceived as an emergent force, something surely must mediate this force as with the other forces of nature.

In any case, to get to the original discussion, the fact that the matter which constitutes a black hole (and yes a black hole does have a mass)- can merge in the time frame of a few milliseconds strongly implies that infinite time dilation is not occurring here.

Regular science has no proper idea of what a black hole is. Nobody knows anything about its internals. A black hole can be a region inside the universe that is not a continuum like the surround of the black hole. Field excitations can only exist inside a continuum.

Also what happens at its border is subject to speculation. Regular physics also has no proper idea of the structure of a photon. The current general accepted idea is that it is a wave or wave package of the electromagnetic field. this conflicts with the fact that the human eye can perceive very distant stars and galaxies. EM wave packages cannot perform that trick.

So first determine what a black hole is and what photons are before you draw any conclusions with knowledge that any holds for continuums and waves.

Hi Hans

Thanks for your comments

Truth is i have already published on the inner workings of a black hole. Please see the project black hole and dark matter modelling, complete with international peer reviewed publications (not ArXiv or Vixra).

Andrew,

You must be convinced that reviewers are omniscient and unbiased. I am convinced that peer review is hampering renewal of science, It is slow, costly and unreliable. It is the duty of the author to write correct, self-consistent and trustworthy text. It is the duty of the reader to check the validity of what he reads.

Agreed Hans,

You really have no idea how difficult it is to get solid new ideas, even with correct self consistent and trustworthy text, published in these peer reviewed journals. There is so so much bias amongst reviewers who's rather backward comments the author cannot challenge even if the reviewer is clearly wrong.

But about reading please do read the project on "black hole physics and the modelling of dark matter".

Andrew,

The Hilbert Book Model Project applies spherical shock fronts to explain gravity, dark matter and the expansion of the universe. The HBM sees black holes as regions inside the dynamic field that represents the universe, which are dense sets of discrete objects rather than a continuum. The envelop is a continuum (minimal) surface. Thus, inside these regions no field excitations exist.

Shock fronts are solutions of the wave equation that are known for more than two centuries. Their effect is so tiny that in isolation no instrument can detect them. However in huge numbers they become noticeable. Physical reality applies them for generating photons and elementary particles.

Read: http://vixra.org/abs/1904.0388

This explanation differs significantly from what is described in "black hole physics and the modelling of dark matter"

The referred paper contains a section on quaternionic field equations that reveal two homogeneous second order partial differential equations that support shock fronts as their solutions.

See also

Quaternionic differential calculus applies the quaternionic nabla operator ∇. This calculus uses proper time τ, where Maxwell equations apply coordinate time t.

We use boldface to indicate vectors.

∇≡∇ᵣ+∇

∇≡{∂/∂x, ∂/∂y, ∂/∂z}

∇ᵣ≡∂/∂τ

In the quaternionic differential calculus differentiation is a multiplier operation.

Compare:

c=cᵣ+c=a b≡(aᵣ+a)(bᵣ+b)=aᵣbᵣ−〈a,b〉+abᵣ+aᵣb±a×b

and

ϕ=ϕᵣ+ϕ=∇ψ≡(∇ᵣ+∇)(ψᵣ+ψ)=∇ᵣψᵣ−〈∇,ψ〉+∇ψᵣ+∇ᵣψ±∇×ψ

∇ψ represents the change of field ψ. This change covers five terms. Part of these terms can compensate other terms. For example, ∇ᵣ ψ can compensate ∇ψᵣ.

ϕᵣ=∇ᵣψᵣ−〈∇, ψ〉

ϕ=∇ψᵣ+∇ᵣ ψ ±∇×ψ

Double differentiation leads to the quaternionic second order differential equation:

ζ=∇*ϕ=(∇ᵣ−∇) (∇ᵣ+∇) (ψᵣ+ψ)= {∇ᵣ∇ᵣ+〈∇, ∇〉} (ψᵣ+ ψ)=ρᵣ+J

ζ={∇ᵣ∇ᵣ+〈∇, ∇〉} ψ

The equation can be split into two first-order partial differential equations ϕ=∇ψ and ζ=∇*ϕ

This equation offers no waves as its solutions. The quaternionic equivalent of the wave equation is:

φ= {∇ᵣ∇ᵣ−〈∇, ∇〉} ψ

The homogeneous version of this equation offers waves as its solution:

∇ᵣ∇ᵣ ψ=〈∇, ∇〉ψ =−ω² ψ

Corresponding Maxwell-like equations are:

E=−∇ψᵣ−∇ᵣψ

B=∇×ψ

ρᵣ=〈∇,E〉

J=∇×B−∇ᵣE

∇ᵣB=−∇×E

The corresponding second order differential equations are:

{∇ᵣ∇ᵣ −〈∇,∇〉}ψ=J

{∇ᵣ∇ᵣ −〈∇, ∇〉}ψᵣ=ρᵣ

Solutions

The two second-order partial differential equations describe the behavior of dark objects.

φ=(∂²/∂τ²± 〈∇, ∇〉)ψ

A third equation skips the first term

φ= 〈∇, ∇〉ψ

This is the Poisson equation.

In fact, these equations are quaternionic differential equations. Thus, φ and ψ are quaternionic functions that own a scalar real part and an imaginary vector part. The solutions are quaternionic functions.

The equation using the − sign is the quaternionic equivalent of the wave equation. The equation using the + sign splits into two quaternionic first order partial differential equations. This second equation does not offer waves as solutions.

The homogeneous wave equation can be written as:

∂²ψ/∂τ²= 〈∇,∇〉ψ =-k² ψ

This delivers the quantized wave solutions of the Helmholtz equation

The dark objects behave as shock fronts and operate only as odd dimensional field excitations. During travel, all shock fronts keep the shape of the front.

All solutions of a homogeneous second order partial differential equation superpose in new solutions of that equation

One-dimensional shock fronts

The one-dimensional shock fronts also keep their amplitude. Consequently, the one-dimensional shock fronts can travel huge distances without losing their properties. Combined equidistantly in strings they represent the functionality of photons. This means that the one-dimensional shock fronts are the tiniest possible packages of pure energy.

Depending on the PDE the solutions can be described by different equations. The solution for the wave equation is

g(q ,τ)=f(c τ ± |q−qₒ|)

This solution cannot represent polarization.

The solution for the other equation is

g(q ,τ)=f(c τ ± |q−qₒ| i)

The vector i can indicate the polarization of the shock front.

A photon is a string of equidistant energy packages that obeys the Einstein-Planck relation

E = h ν.

Since photons possess polarization, they use the second solution for their energy packages. Thus, the constituents of photons are not solutions of the wave equation.

Green’s function

One of the solutions of the Poisson equation is the Green’s function

g(𝐪)=1/|𝐪−𝐪ₒ|

∇g(𝐪)=( 𝐪−𝐪ₒ)/|𝐪−𝐪ₒ|³

〈∇, ∇〉 g(𝐪)= 〈∇, ∇g(𝐪)〉=4πδ( 𝐪−𝐪ₒ)

Thus, the Green’s function is a static pulse response under purely isotropic conditions.

Three-dimensional shock front

The three-dimensional shock fronts require an isotropic trigger. These field excitations integrate over time into the Green's function of the field. That function has some volume, and the pulse response injects this volume into the field. Subsequently, the front spreads the volume over the field. The corresponding solution of the wave equation is

g(r ,τ)=f(c τ ± r)/r

The parameter r is the radius of the spherical front. The formula can also be written as

g(q ,τ)=f(c τ ± |q−qₒ|)/|q−qₒ|

The solution for the other PED is

g(q ,τ)=f(c τ ± |q−qₒ| i)/|q−qₒ|

In this solution the vector i acts as a spin vector.

Thus, the initial deformation quickly fades away. but the expansion of the field stays. Having the capability to deform the carrier field corresponds to owning a corresponding amount of mass. This means that temporarily, the spherical pulse response owns some mass. This mass vanishes, but the expansion stays.

A huge coherent recurrently regenerated swarm of spherical pulse responses can generate a significant and persistent deformation that moves with the swarm. This happens in the footprint of elementary particles. The spherical pulses are generated by the hop landing locations of the particle. The hopping path forms a hop landing location swarm that is described by a location density distribution. This distribution equals the square of the modulus of the wavefunction of the particle.

Hi Hans,

Nice work,

I didn't know that vixra was refereed.

Arxiv.org and vixra.org both are free of cost open access e-print archives that offer an excellent revision service. Arxiv.org requires registration, which involves endorsement by another registered author that publishes in the same category. Since I publish rather controversial and unorthodox texts, I do not want to bother others to endorse me. Since I am retired, I am also not involved with a recognized institution. This is why I do not publish on arxiv.org. As an author of scientific papers you are regularly invited by journals that claim to be open access peer reviewed journals. I do not publish in these journals because the peer review process is slow and often quite costly. Using those channels would have cost me quite a fortune. My retirement budget is far too small to cope with such costs. So I stick with vixra.org. I sometimes publish on ResearchGate.net or on Academia.edu.

Currently I am preparing to publish "The Mathematics of Physical Reality" via print on demand with a local distributor. The book is also available via a pdf file on http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen. The file contains a front cover and a back cover such that a local printshop can produce an affordable ring band book.

Hi Hans,

You are quite right to avoid predatory journals, and in fact these journal have a low impact score- so you will be unlikely to get much attention or hit the mainstream.

But as you say peer reviewed journals do not like new ideas so you are a little hamstrung by the system.

Self published science is also a bit of a dead end.

I do not know quite what the answer is. I am trying to build up a body of international publications.

I try to make my publications very convincing and trustworthy. I am an old author (78yrs) My papers form my inheritance. In fact I wrote them mostly for myself. It is great fun to dive deep into the crypts of physics.

Arxiv.org is a shadow journal with a non-declared publishing policy, see here for a story about it: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_going_on_with_arXivorg_Is_it_a_shadow_journal_with_jungle_rule_to_govern_it

Totally agree Demetris,

The problem is once they have rejected an author, which includes Nobel Laureates, their systems are very efficient at black listing that Nobel laureate

In any case we are drifting away from the topic,

The question asked is does millisecond mergers of black holes disprove infinite time dilation at the event horizon.

Hi Andrew Worsley,

Andrew>: The question asked is does millisecond mergers of black holes disprove infinite time dilation at the event horizon. There are functions that go to infinity while their integral is limited. The integral of e-x for x from zero to infinity is one. When the masses merge then the merging process never finishes but the damping is strong. Within milliseconds the merging process results in a shape of the Black Hole that is nearly the perfect shape of before the merger and the energy that would carry the information from lightly above the event horizon needs to be spread out over infinite future time. That leaves extreme little energy per unit of time to keep observing the changes. Like the e-x function the total information of the millisecond merger has to travel out of the gravity well in an ever slower pace.

So, the answer is. They are no contradiction at all. After some milliseconds 99% of the information is emitted out and the next milliseconds the remaining 0.99% is emitted then another similar time step later another 0.0099% did come out. The rest of the information until 100% takes to infinity. Mathematically there is an event horizon. For any real observer there is little to be seen there.

Paul Gradenwitz

Hi Paul,

Classically time is slowed and the red shift is accentuated near the event horizon.

So why does the rate of oscillation go up, and the frequency of the emissions go up when the opposite has been predicted.

Dear Andrew Worsley ,

Andrew>: Classically time is slowed and the red shift is accentuated near the event horizon. So why does the rate of oscillation go up, and the frequency of the emissions go up when the opposite has been predicted.

The frequency of the GW from merging objects increases while they are in orbit around each other. There is no problem with that. The GW is not light. The information from close to the event horizon, where we would see a redshift, is not even in the measured data because the amount of energy per unit of time emerging from there is so low that it never can be measured from the distance we talk about.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Hi Paul,

Well here's the interesting bit. I went to a conference recently and the cogniscenti said "Kerr black hole" that explains everything - photosphere etc etc. etc. So we can dispense with infinite time dilation, red shift, slowing of time.

So as we know a Kerr black hole applies only to rotating black holes and the "a" factor relates to how fast they are spinning. Whereas if they are not spinning or spinning slowly then we have a standard Schwarzschild black hole

So I said so how fast are they spinning, they said - wait.

They said "They are not spinning at any significant rate."

So all the maths they produce form the Kerr model is in a word contrived to save the general theory of relativity (GTR) and us simple folk are meant to believe the emperor is wearing new clothes.

This is the most contrived science since Earth was placed at the center of the Universe.

@Andrew

GTR is a theory of approximation based on weak field approximation. This predicts infinite time slowing at event horizon.

Following article derives radius of event horizon without using weak field approximation. This gives eqn.(2.10) comparable to GTR. Here time slowing is not infinite. When radial component of velocity is ignored and when elliptical trajectory is approximated to circular, only then one can talk about infinite slowing of time as in eqn.(2.12). Otherwise slowing of time is finite in this theory. Actually what happens is that the direction of radial velocity reverses.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338884376_Spin_of_M87_Black_hole_in_flat_space_time

The chirp measured by LIGO and Virgo gives a fairly accurate report of what happened during the cosmological event that happened at the start of the gravitational shock front that occurred millions of years ago. The front that passed LIGO and Virgo is a superposition of a huge number of spherical shock fronts that are pulse responses. which reflect the activity of the actuators.

Spherical pulse responses are solutions of second order partial differential equations. These are the only field excitations that temporarily deform end persistently expand the dynamic field that we call our universe.

"Representing Basic Physical Fields by Quaternionic Fields"; https://vixra.org/abs/2001.0298 or download http://www.e-physics.eu/Base%20model.pptx

Thanks Vikram/ Hans/Paul

What is important is not to disregard data that does not fit with theory, in this case GTR

And these mergers do not fit with the predictions of GTR. GTR predicts the slowing of time to infinitely slow at the event horizon.

Nor do the Kerr spinning black hole models fit- because under their modelling, the black holes are not spinning in the first place.

But hey ho lets ignore the data.

And yes Paul people have been going through logical contortions to explain everything with GTR, not unlike the pre -Copernicus astronomers of old

Hans van Leunen

A shock-front makes only sense if the mass was suddenly (abracadabra) appearing/disappearing... both is impossible, like gravitational waves are

Mass is related to the deformation of the universe. A moving mass deforms the universe in a dynamic way. This change of the dynamic field that represents our universe can only occur if the deformation is recurrently regenerated. Spherical pulse responses that are recurrently regenerated establish the change of the field. Quaternionic differential calculus describes accurately the interaction between point-like actuators and the field that gets excited by these actuators. Stochastic processes generate the hopping path of elementary particles. The hop landings cause the spherical pulse responses. The spherical pulse response acts as a spherical shock front. It temporarily deforms the field and persistently expands the field. This is explained in detail in "Representing Basic Physical Fields by Quaternionic Fields"; https://vixra.org/abs/2001.0298 Please try to understand the solution that describes the field excitation.

g(q ,τ)=f(c τ ± |q−qₒ| i)/|q−qₒ|

In this solution, the vector i acts as a spin vector.

This solution represents a dark matter object.

When integrated over time τ the spherical pulse response integrates into the Green's function of the field g(q )=1/|q−qₒ| . That function represents some volume. The pulse injects this volume into the field. The front spreads the volume over the field. Thus, the initial deformation quickly fades away. The injected volume stays inside the field.

Hi Hans,

good response, but please define all the parameters in your equation, as you only define one of the parameters "i "as the spin vector

Andrew Worsley

Quaternionic differential calculus and a powerful and flexible development platform for quaternionic field theory is treated in great detail in "Representing Basic Physical Fields by QuaternionicFields";https://vixra.org/abs/2001.0298