No Trouble with Tribbles

NO TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES

There is no trouble with Birkhoff’s Theorem which says: All gravity fields (including BHs’) act like normal Newtonian fields because all gravity fields drop out of GR naturally and so must be “asymptotically flat”, that is, they must vanish at large distances, i.e. they must follow an inverse square law.

BUT, Birkhoff is based on the particulars of the massive bodies that are treated, like stars; such particulars as the metric are used as premises. The theorem says any unperturbed spherically symmetric field must be asymptotically flat because any mass already behaves as if all its mass was concentrated at the center. It already behaves like a point mass. So, Birkhoff should rule out the hyperbolic (1/kr) supermassive Black-Hole singular galactic gravitational field.

Yet, none of the BH scenarios that are theoretically covered can be considered real. All real BHs are perturbed beyond recognition by their rapid rotation and by their immense quantities of environmental matter and energy, including enormous external gravity fields. Such fields emanate from huge galactic disks or from other whole galaxies with their own embedded supermassive BHs. The direct superposition of such axially coincident and rotationally concurrent mass concentrations with their enormous gravitational fields may well augment the black-hole field in such a way as to force it into compliance with the hyperbolic field "law" for black-holes. Relativistic frame dragging alone could effect this process.

Real conditions should invalidate the theorem.

Also, one critical consideration is that black-holes are NOT mere point masses. They have been shown by Kretschmann and Schwartzchild to be physically real as infinitely dense point particles (within Heisenberg limits) with an infinitely deep gravitational potential well. They are NOT like a planet or a star. This is not properly reflected in the metrics with their singularities necessarily excluded, and is not adequately treated by Birkhoff, or else it represents an exception. Cosmologists say that the laws of physics break down at the intense spacetime curvatures present near the singularity of a black-hole. What else might this means except that even Birkhoff's Theorem cannot be depended upon. These observations may indicate a flaw or shortcoming in the way that Birkhoff's theorem and general relativity are interpreted for spacetimes in the vicinity of black-holes, particularly near the singularity at r = 0.

Birkhoff used the Schwartzchild Metric. But, he could not rightly use the existence of an infinitely deep gravitational well or an infinitely dense point particle because these singular infinities cannot be handled normally. “The physics at a singularity is not well defined.”

It is far easier to accept the possibility of a flaw or exception than to accept the idea of some sort of unfalsifiable Dark Matter comprised of, say, undetectable WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles). By their very nature WIMPs are supposed to be so “weakly interacting” that they cannot even show up in particle accelerator experiments. The WIMP hypothesis is formulated to be as unfalsifiable as any of the other Dark Matter proposals. As such, it does not merit the label “science”. It is more like science fiction.

So, an hyperbolic (F = GMm/kr) supermassive BH galactic gravity field is possible after all: k = constant = 1m (S.I.), for dimensional integrity. Einstein referred to his equations as being hyperbolic/elliptical in nature. That is, hyperbolic geometry is not outside the realm of GR.

Kretschmann’s invariance and Schwartzchild’s analysis mean that the singularity at the core of a BH is physically real. From our external frame of reference, the exact location of a BH singularity cannot be found because of the Heisenberg limit. So, from our external perspective, a BH core density and central gravity strength cannot be directly “measured” to be “infinite”. But, mathematically, it is so.

And, elementary analytic geometry says that an infinitely deep graphical gravity potential growing from an hugely heavy infinitely dense point mass MUST be asymptotic in nature (NOT asymptotically flat). By symmetry, the other arm of the graphical curve must be asymptotic too, the definition of a hyperbola.

If you can collaborate on a paper, let us prove that an hyperbolic spacetime geometry around a realistic supermassive black-hole can be genuine and that the postulated hyperbolic (1/kr) field can, indeed, account for all effects currently ascribed to so-called “Dark Matter”. As a partner, of course, I shall do a yeoman’s share of work, including the scut-work of referencing & literature search. I am in an ideal position to do this!

garyakent@aol.com

"It is far easier and demonstrates much less intelligence to shoot down an idea than to show how to make it work."

Dark Energy Debunked Still More

Re: Dark Energy Debunked

O.K. Suppose the expansion of the universe is accelerating against all previous hypotheses that it should be decelerating. How could it be?

Well, Dark Energy is one explanation. Dark Energy is supposed to act, physically and mathematically, like negative pressure. It is as if the universe was immersed in a big vacuum, except that it is already a vacuum. But, it may be what is called a "false vacuum" with many more quantum entities seething just below the level of detectability (without huge accelerators probing muon decay, that is).

The true vacuum would act on our false vacuum universe the same way that a vacuum would act on a balloon, and, as the membrane got thinner, it would weaken. This is because the tension or overall force had surpassed the elastic limit and the expansion rate of the balloon would therefore accelerate. The tension seems to have surpassed the elastic limit of our universe about 9 billion years ago, it is said.

But this is just analogy. It is meaningless if it does not lead to a testable result or deduction. We cannot apply a force to the universe as a whole nor to spacetime. We cannot stretch spacetime in an experimental apparatus.

Perhaps spacetime stretches naturally as a result of the expansion that has already gone before. Then, as the receding galaxies recede faster from one another depending on their distance, it constitutes increased stretching of spacetime. As a matter of fact, the relativistic redshift is said to result from a "stretching" of spacetime.

But, I am only restating my analogy in different words (dodging or begging the question). This is not experimental or observational proof.

We need to put spactime in a sort of tensiometer to stretch it until it deforms more rapidly or else breaks. We need to find a way to rip spacetime. And hope that we do not tear a hole in the universe that will swallow us up!

This is all unproductive speculation. It would be more productive to follow the lead that this Dark Energy conclusion, reached by reductio ad absurdum, has given us. Carrying an argument to its extreme this way, to the point where an absurd contradiction occurs, is a standard method of proving logical falsehood.

Dark Energy proves itself false.

Let's work on this!

Then the calculations that indicate that the theoretic prevalence of heavier nuclei in the early universe are wrong, and the premises leading to this conclusion of too few heavy nuclei, need to be revised. Furthermore, the premises behind the interpretations of observations of too little "grey dust" that is made of such heavy nuclei (Be, B, C, N and O with traces of Mg, Al and Si) must also be wrong. There is a goldmine of research opportunity here!

Yes, scientists have made an 180 on the deceleration/acceleration trajectory of their thinking. And, yes, there could indeed be 1,000 million big bangs and other even weirder local parcels in a truly infinite universe. So, what is so special about it, even if our packet of the universe's expansion rate is accelerating. Who gives a rat's ass?

Well, we do, because we are here. And we do indeed live in a universe that just happens to have physical constants that support its existence and the existence of intelligent life. Presuming that we are indeed intelligent, that is. So, it matters to us because such conundrums fascinate. The irony is irresistible.

Another explanation of accelerating expansion is that spacetime is exploding. The negative pressure that shows up in relativistical equations is itself only relative. From the outside, looking in - even with an explosion - the pressure is negative. Just as energy is negative if it is released from the inside to the outside. The result is the same as before.

Except it is more like the original "phase change" that the "false vacuum" underwent at the time of the Big Bang. When water begins to boil, the expanding bubble drinks in more vapor at an accelerating rate because its surface area is increasing so rapidly that it ensnares more and more liquid, allowing it to turn into vapor. The false vacuum returns to its ground state, the true vacuum state, releasing energy that goes to accelerate the expansion rate. The bubble of spacetime that is our universe increases in size at an exponentially increasing rate, like a bubble of steam that grows larger so fast that it almost explodes out of the tea kettle.

These two scenarios are called the "quintessence" hypothesis and the "cosmological constant" hypothesis, respectively. Not only do we have to prove Dark Energy exists, but we have to distinguish between these two alternatives!

It would be much simpler to suppose that the premises underlying theoretical calculations and observational interpretations about the disparity between luminosity distances and redshift distances to far off type 1a supernovae are wrong.

Another alternative would be that the universe is growing. Spacetime may be reproducing itself and it is doing so at the usual exponentially increasing rate typical of a population of living organisms. The spacetime population underwent an initial accelerating increase initially (the BB), slowed down when waste products (like neutrinos) accumulated and sped up again when the volume increased sufficiently (and neutrino density decreased enough) for a new growth spurt to begin. Perhaps the conclusion should be, from this if it is true, that the universe is alive!

Gary Kent