Something Strange Happens When You Follow Einstein's Math.

[expat500]

Einstein was wrong about black holes, what else?

 

[rampart]

Einstein was wrong about black holes, what else?

excellent graphics in that clip.

 

[luiza]

See Miles Mathis and Einstein's array of maths errors .

Miles outlines each blunder and then provides the correct answers .Both for his 1905 paper and then in 1915 when he knows things are wrong but still cannot solve the problems .
Miles did, and not one person has even tried to refute him .

The greatest scientist that you have never heard of , and is feared by the CIA .

 

[Innocynioc]

In the part of Alabama where I grew up we learned all that in 7th grade science.

 

[scruffy]

None of that matters.

What matters is, the gravitational constant isn't a constant.

Einstein's constant is a complicated multidimensional tensor.

 

[ReinyDays]

Doesn't QM predict that the wavelength of a particle be smaller than the particle itself ... thus singularities are impossible ...

Einstein's constant is a complicated multidimensional tensor.

... over non-Euclidian domains ... [eyes glazing over] ... or so I'm told ...

 

[Resnic]

Einstein was wrong about black holes, what else?

So?

I mean how many scientific discoveries have you been correct about?

It's also pretty low hanging fruit to call him out for being wrong on something we dont know much about today, let alone 90 years ago. They had virtually no scientific equipment to understand a black hole. It was all just guessing and theorizing.

He died in 1955. We didn't even actually find evidence of one or have a detection of one until 1964, 9 years after he died.

Black holes: Everything you need to know

These gluttonous beasts are some of the most fascinating objects in space.

www.space.com

I'd say it's pretty amazing what he came up with about something no one had even actually seen or had verified really existed.

 

[ding]

Einstein was wrong about black holes, what else?

People misuse the term singularity all the time. It seems like these guys think singularity is a physical phenomenon. It's not.

 

[expat500]

People misuse the term singularity all the time. It seems like these guys think singularity is a physical phenomenon. It's not.

What is it then?

 

[ding]

What is it then?

It's a mathematical artifact of Einstein's field equations. It's the point where the equations yield infinite density. Something which isn't possible. It's a mathematical limitation of the equations. No one believes there is a point where there is an actual infinite density. It's basically the equations showing - mathematically - where they don't work anymore.

 

[scruffy]

It's a mathematical artifact of Einstein's field equations. It's the point where the equations yield infinite density. Something which isn't possible. It's a mathematical limitation of the equations. No one believes there is a point where there is an actual infinite density. It's basically the equations showing - mathematically - where they don't work anymore.

That's what renormalization is for.

It keeps the calculations from running off to infinity.

 

[ding]

That's what renormalization is for.

It keeps the calculations from running off to infinity.

Which is a mathematical gimmick. Bottom line is that singularities are not a physical phenomenon but many people treat them as such. It’s just where the solutions to the field equations stop working.

 

[scruffy]

Which is a mathematical gimmick.

Some people say it's a trick. But it's something nature itself could do. There is considerable evidence for instance, that entanglement mitigates many of the infinities. Renormalization works "most" of the time. Topological lifting would work 100% of the time, but it"s so computationally intensive no one has the resources.

Bottom line is that singularities are not a physical phenomenon but many people treat them as such. It’s just where the solutions to the field equations stop working.

I disagree with your reasoning. Mathematically, any discontinuity could be considered a singularity. For instance, divide by 0 could happen at a point, but it could also happen over a region. (For example in fiber bundles, in places where there are no fibers).

Physically, there are many examples of non-point singularities. My favorite example is the gap around t=0 in the brain. It can be viewed as a vanishingly small interval in the limit, but calling it a point makes no sense.

A similar concept would apply to something like a Cantor dust, which can't be simply differentiated, but is integrable everywhere. The weirdo thing Cantor proved, is the dust has the same number of "points" as the real number line. Therefore, one can transform to the reals, do math, and transform back.

 

[zaangalewa]

Einstein was wrong about black holes ...

What a nonsense. In 1915 Karl Schwarzschild did some fundamental work on classical black holes basing on the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein.

 

[zaangalewa]

excellent graphics in that clip.

Do you understand anything what they say there? Example: So called "parallel universes" are an idea - an idea which no one never will be able to prove (="ignoramus, ignorabimus" = "We do not know, we never will know"). With black holes have parallel universes nothing to do. Black holes are a part of our universe here - with a high energy (gravitation) which stays here in our universe.

Here an article from Lars Jaeger which explains our current problem in context theory of relativity, quantum theory and black holes. Widersprüche zwischen den zwei grossen theoretischen Gebäuden der heutigen Physik – Zur Phänomenologie schwarzer Löcher

Here an excerpt of this text - in the original German language - and it will follow an English translation:

Gemäss der Einstein’schen Theorie kann nichts und gar nichts jemals aus einem schwarzen Loch entkommen. Alles, was in ein solches hineinfällt, verliert seine Struktur und Form. Das schwarze Loch selbst lässt sich alleine durch seine Masse, Spin (Eigendrehimpuls) und Ladung eindeutig charakterisieren. Oder, wie es der bekannte theoretische Physiker John Wheeler einmal formulierte: „Schwarze Löcher haben keine Haare“. Dieses „klassische“ Bild schwarzer Löcher brachte der heute wie ein Popstar verehrte Physiker Stephen Hawking in den 1970er Jahren ins Wanken (was ihm schliesslich den Ruf des Genies einbrachte – wozu allerdings sicher auch seine tragische Erkrankung beitrug). Unter Verwendung quantenfeldtheoretischer Überlegungen kam Hawking zu dem Schluss, dass aus einen schwarzen Loch durchaus etwas herauskommen kann, und zwar in Form der heute so genannten „Hawking-Strahlung“. Damit könnte ein (isoliertes) schwarzes Loch zum Schrumpfen gebracht werden, was wiederum bedeuten würde, dass es früher oder später verschwinden würde, mitsamt allem, inklusive jeglicher Information, was es je verschluckt hat. Das wiederum widerspricht den Gesetzen der Quantentheorie, weshalb Hawking forderte, diese entsprechend abzuändern (um solchen Informationsverlust zu erlauben).

Die Sache führt uns in tief in die Problemstruktur der heutigen theoretischen Physik. Tatsächlich kommen wir, um schwarze Löcher zu beschreiben, nicht darum herum, eine dritte wesentliche Theorie der heutigen Physik herbeizuziehen, die Thermodynamik. In ihr verfügt jedes physikalische System über ein so genannte „Entropie“, ein Mass für die darin enthalten Unordnung (oder äquivalent seine Information). Gemäss Hawking sollte sich auch einem schwarzen Loch ein solches Mass zuordnen lassen (was die Relativitätstheorie aufgrund ihrer „Haarlosigkeit“ nicht zulässt). Lässt sich aber einem schwarzen Loch Entropie zuordnen, so müsst es dem zweiten Hauptsatz der Thermodynamik gehorchen, nachdem in einem (geschlossenen) System die Entropie niemals sinken kann. Gemäss der klassischen Sicht wäre ein schwarzes Loch jedoch ein „Entropie-(oder analog „Informations-) Vernichter“. Das Dilemma, vor welchem die theoretischen Physiker stehen, lässt sich also wie folgt formulieren:: Entweder sie lassen den Verlust der Information (oder Entropie) zu und müssen die Quantentheorie (und die Thermodynamik) entsprechend modifizieren, oder sie lassen Information aus schwarzen Löchern entkommen, was einer Ergänzung der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie bedarf.

Translation:

According to Einstein's theory, nothing and absolutely nothing can ever escape from a black hole. Everything that falls into one loses its structure and shape. The black hole itself can be clearly characterized by its mass, spin (intrinsic angular momentum) and charge alone. Or, as the well-known theoretical physicist John Wheeler once put it: "Black holes have no hair". This "classic" image of black holes was shaken in the 1970s by physicist Stephen Hawking, who is now revered like a pop star (which ultimately earned him the reputation of a genius - although his tragic illness certainly contributed to this). Using quantum field theory considerations, Hawking came to the conclusion that something could indeed come out of a black hole, in the form of what is now known as "Hawking radiation". This could cause an (isolated) black hole to shrink, which in turn would mean that sooner or later it would disappear, along with everything, including any information, that it has ever swallowed. This, in turn, contradicts the laws of quantum theory, which is why Hawking called for it to be modified accordingly (to allow such loss of information).

This leads us deep into the problem structure of today's theoretical physics. In fact, in order to describe black holes, we cannot avoid using a third essential theory of modern physics, thermodynamics. In this theory, every physical system has a so-called "entropy", a measure of the disorder it contains (or, equivalently, its information). According to Hawking, it should also be possible to assign such a measure to a black hole (which the theory of relativity does not allow due to its "hairlessness"). However, if entropy can be assigned to a black hole, it must obey the second law of thermodynamics, according to which entropy can never decrease in a (closed) system. According to the classical view, however, a black hole would be an "entropy (or analogously "information) destroyer". The dilemma facing theoretical physicists can therefore be formulated as follows: Either they allow the loss of information (or entropy) and have to modify quantum theory (and thermodynamics) accordingly, or they allow information to escape from black holes, which requires an addition to the general theory of relativity.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Comment: In case of the Hawking radiation not really something leaves the black hole. Our vacuum is not totally empty. In the vacuum appear particles and anti-particles and destroy each other again. (0 energy -> positive and negative energy -> 0 energy). One of this particles at the event horizon (or Schwarzschild radius) is able to fall into the black hole while the other one moves into the free rest of our universe. (Hawking radiation). In this case the gravitation of the black hole sinks.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Bottom line is that singularities are not a physical phenomenon ...

How do you know this? More concrete: How do you know that the mathematical description of a "singularity" is not also basing on a real physical phenomenon which we also could call "singularity"?

 

[zaangalewa]

See Miles Mathis and Einstein's array of maths errors .

Miles outlines each blunder and then provides the correct answers .Both for his 1905 paper and then in 1915 when he knows things are wrong but still cannot solve the problems .
Miles did, and not one person has even tried to refute him .

The greatest scientist that you have never heard of , and is feared by the CIA .

Eh? ... Who is Miles Mathis? ... Okay - got it ... no serios source for nothing.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

What matters is, the gravitational constant isn't a constant.

Einstein's constant is a complicated multidimensional tensor.

Newton used the gravitational constant a first time in this way:

plus/minus

.

No idea what you call "multidimensional tensor" in this context.

 

[rampart]

Do you understand anything what they say there? Example: So called "parallel universes" are an idea - an idea which no one never will be able to prove (="ignoramus, ignorabimus" = "We do not know, we never will know"). With black holes have parallel universes nothing to do. Black holes are a part of our universe here - with a high energy (gravitation) which stays here in our universe.

Here an article from Lars Jaeger which explains our current problem in context theory of relativity, quantum theory and black holes. Widersprüche zwischen den zwei grossen theoretischen Gebäuden der heutigen Physik – Zur Phänomenologie schwarzer Löcher

Here an excerpt of this text - in the original German language - and it will follow an English translation:

Gemäss der Einstein’schen Theorie kann nichts und gar nichts jemals aus einem schwarzen Loch entkommen. Alles, was in ein solches hineinfällt, verliert seine Struktur und Form. Das schwarze Loch selbst lässt sich alleine durch seine Masse, Spin (Eigendrehimpuls) und Ladung eindeutig charakterisieren. Oder, wie es der bekannte theoretische Physiker John Wheeler einmal formulierte: „Schwarze Löcher haben keine Haare“. Dieses „klassische“ Bild schwarzer Löcher brachte der heute wie ein Popstar verehrte Physiker Stephen Hawking in den 1970er Jahren ins Wanken (was ihm schliesslich den Ruf des Genies einbrachte – wozu allerdings sicher auch seine tragische Erkrankung beitrug). Unter Verwendung quantenfeldtheoretischer Überlegungen kam Hawking zu dem Schluss, dass aus einen schwarzen Loch durchaus etwas herauskommen kann, und zwar in Form der heute so genannten „Hawking-Strahlung“. Damit könnte ein (isoliertes) schwarzes Loch zum Schrumpfen gebracht werden, was wiederum bedeuten würde, dass es früher oder später verschwinden würde, mitsamt allem, inklusive jeglicher Information, was es je verschluckt hat. Das wiederum widerspricht den Gesetzen der Quantentheorie, weshalb Hawking forderte, diese entsprechend abzuändern (um solchen Informationsverlust zu erlauben).

Die Sache führt uns in tief in die Problemstruktur der heutigen theoretischen Physik. Tatsächlich kommen wir, um schwarze Löcher zu beschreiben, nicht darum herum, eine dritte wesentliche Theorie der heutigen Physik herbeizuziehen, die Thermodynamik. In ihr verfügt jedes physikalische System über ein so genannte „Entropie“, ein Mass für die darin enthalten Unordnung (oder äquivalent seine Information). Gemäss Hawking sollte sich auch einem schwarzen Loch ein solches Mass zuordnen lassen (was die Relativitätstheorie aufgrund ihrer „Haarlosigkeit“ nicht zulässt). Lässt sich aber einem schwarzen Loch Entropie zuordnen, so müsst es dem zweiten Hauptsatz der Thermodynamik gehorchen, nachdem in einem (geschlossenen) System die Entropie niemals sinken kann. Gemäss der klassischen Sicht wäre ein schwarzes Loch jedoch ein „Entropie-(oder analog „Informations-) Vernichter“. Das Dilemma, vor welchem die theoretischen Physiker stehen, lässt sich also wie folgt formulieren:: Entweder sie lassen den Verlust der Information (oder Entropie) zu und müssen die Quantentheorie (und die Thermodynamik) entsprechend modifizieren, oder sie lassen Information aus schwarzen Löchern entkommen, was einer Ergänzung der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie bedarf.

Translation:

According to Einstein's theory, nothing and absolutely nothing can ever escape from a black hole. Everything that falls into one loses its structure and shape. The black hole itself can be clearly characterized by its mass, spin (intrinsic angular momentum) and charge alone. Or, as the well-known theoretical physicist John Wheeler once put it: "Black holes have no hair". This "classic" image of black holes was shaken in the 1970s by physicist Stephen Hawking, who is now revered like a pop star (which ultimately earned him the reputation of a genius - although his tragic illness certainly contributed to this). Using quantum field theory considerations, Hawking came to the conclusion that something could indeed come out of a black hole, in the form of what is now known as "Hawking radiation". This could cause an (isolated) black hole to shrink, which in turn would mean that sooner or later it would disappear, along with everything, including any information, that it has ever swallowed. This, in turn, contradicts the laws of quantum theory, which is why Hawking called for it to be modified accordingly (to allow such loss of information).

This leads us deep into the problem structure of today's theoretical physics. In fact, in order to describe black holes, we cannot avoid using a third essential theory of modern physics, thermodynamics. In this theory, every physical system has a so-called "entropy", a measure of the disorder it contains (or, equivalently, its information). According to Hawking, it should also be possible to assign such a measure to a black hole (which the theory of relativity does not allow due to its "hairlessness"). However, if entropy can be assigned to a black hole, it must obey the second law of thermodynamics, according to which entropy can never decrease in a (closed) system. According to the classical view, however, a black hole would be an "entropy (or analogously "information) destroyer". The dilemma facing theoretical physicists can therefore be formulated as follows: Either they allow the loss of information (or entropy) and have to modify quantum theory (and thermodynamics) accordingly, or they allow information to escape from black holes, which requires an addition to the general theory of relativity.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Comment: In case of the Hawking radiation not really something leaves the black hole. Our vacuum is not totally empty. In the vacuum appear particles and anti-particles and destroy each other again. (0 energy -> positive and negative energy -> 0 energy). One of this particles at the event horizon (or Schwarzschild radius) is able to fall into the black hole while the other one moves into the free rest of our universe. (Hawking radiation). In this case the gravitation of the black hole sinks.

do you understand that sometimes surprising insight can emerge from the math?

transforming a problem from the time domain to the frequency domain allows us to model well, much of the physical universe, but i would never suggest thar the square root of -1 is "real"

 

[zaangalewa]

do you understand that sometimes surprising insight can emerge from the math?

No. But I have a little bad conscience because I did not write a book about an extension of the golden ratio. A totally superflous book but very interesting theme - for very few people.

transforming a problem from the time domain to the frequency domain allows us to model well, much of the physical universe, but i would never suggest thar the square root of -1 is "real"

Very sure is the square root of -1 - result "i" - real in sense of reality otherwise for example chaos theories would be idiotic. That the two dimensional numbers of the complex numerical plane are called "real numbers" and "imaginary numbers" has nothing to do with. In German for example we use the word "reelle Zahlen" (="real numbers") and not "reale Zahlen" (=verbally "real numbers").