Pentcho Valev

2017-02-11 20:11:18 UTC

A crucial argument in the black hole "theory":

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reluctant-father-of-black-holes-2007-04/

"...Snyder found out that what happens to a collapsing star depends dramatically on the vantage point of the observer. Two Views of a Collapse. LET US START with an observer at rest a safe distance from the star. Let us also suppose that there is another observer attached to the surface of the star - co-moving with its collapse - who can send light signals back to his stationary colleague. The stationary observer will see the signals from his moving counterpart gradually shift to the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum. If the frequency of the signals is thought of as a clock, the stationary observer will say that the moving observer's clock is gradually slowing down. Indeed, at the Schwarzschild radius the clock will slow down to zero. The stationary observer will argue that it took an infinite amount of time for the star to collapse to its Schwarzschild radius."

The antecedent

"If the frequency of the signals is thought of as a clock"

suggests that gravitational time dilation could or could not be an illusion. This is doublethink - Einsteinians use it to confuse the public. In fact, according to general relativity, gravitational time dilation does exist (no illusion):

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilliam/Chapter%2013%20General%20Relativity.pdf

"The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."

Is that true? Will the upper clock show more time elapsed? No, but then how does the fraud work?

Einsteinians measure the gravitational redshift and then inform the gullible world that they have measured gravitational time dilation, a miraculous difference in the clocks' rates fabricated by Einstein in 1911:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/einsteins-gravitational-redshift-measured-with-unprecedented-precision/

"A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/22/record-breaking-clock-invented-which-only-loses-a-second-in-15-billion-years

"Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye."

Clever Einsteinians know that gravitational time dilation does not exist. The gravitational redshift (blueshift) is not due to time dilation - rather, it is the result of "what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

What "befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation"? They accelerate of course, just as ordinary falling objects do, and this variation of the speed of light (predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) causes the gravitational redshift (or blueshift):

https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Conclusion: Black holes may or may not exist, but in either case Einstein's general relativity (which is an empirical concoction, not even wrong) is totally irrelevant.

Pentcho Valev

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reluctant-father-of-black-holes-2007-04/

"...Snyder found out that what happens to a collapsing star depends dramatically on the vantage point of the observer. Two Views of a Collapse. LET US START with an observer at rest a safe distance from the star. Let us also suppose that there is another observer attached to the surface of the star - co-moving with its collapse - who can send light signals back to his stationary colleague. The stationary observer will see the signals from his moving counterpart gradually shift to the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum. If the frequency of the signals is thought of as a clock, the stationary observer will say that the moving observer's clock is gradually slowing down. Indeed, at the Schwarzschild radius the clock will slow down to zero. The stationary observer will argue that it took an infinite amount of time for the star to collapse to its Schwarzschild radius."

The antecedent

"If the frequency of the signals is thought of as a clock"

suggests that gravitational time dilation could or could not be an illusion. This is doublethink - Einsteinians use it to confuse the public. In fact, according to general relativity, gravitational time dilation does exist (no illusion):

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilliam/Chapter%2013%20General%20Relativity.pdf

"The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."

Is that true? Will the upper clock show more time elapsed? No, but then how does the fraud work?

Einsteinians measure the gravitational redshift and then inform the gullible world that they have measured gravitational time dilation, a miraculous difference in the clocks' rates fabricated by Einstein in 1911:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/einsteins-gravitational-redshift-measured-with-unprecedented-precision/

"A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/22/record-breaking-clock-invented-which-only-loses-a-second-in-15-billion-years

"Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye."

Clever Einsteinians know that gravitational time dilation does not exist. The gravitational redshift (blueshift) is not due to time dilation - rather, it is the result of "what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

What "befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation"? They accelerate of course, just as ordinary falling objects do, and this variation of the speed of light (predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) causes the gravitational redshift (or blueshift):

https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Conclusion: Black holes may or may not exist, but in either case Einstein's general relativity (which is an empirical concoction, not even wrong) is totally irrelevant.

Pentcho Valev