SergUpstart Posted June 22, 2021 Posted June 22, 2021 I have already found an error in the GRT equation for about six months, but I still did not dare to share this idea here. If you look at the equation of Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's equation of general relativity, you can see that they both include the gravitational constant G. But this constant is dimensional, and its SI dimension is m^3/kg*s^2. In Newton's theory, space and time are absolute, i.e. the scales along the axes of spatial coordinates and time are unchanged, so it is logical that in Newton's theory G is a constant. But in GRT, when approaching a massive body, time slows down, i.e. the value of the second increases, therefore the numerical value of G must change in accordance with the changes in the meter and second. And since the meter in the SI system is the distance that light travels in one second,the meter lengthens with each second. The dimension of G can be written as (m/kg)*(m^2/s^2), from which it can be seen that G must change inversely with the length of the meter or inversely with the deceleration of time. And the GRT equations should look like http://www.yuniverse.org/img/ngre.jpg Thus, when approaching a massive body, the gravitational constant should decrease and singularities and the event horizon should not occur. In addition, other basic physical constants, namely the dielectric and magnetic constants and Planck's constant, must also change their values depending on the time dilation. Therefore, such physical constants as the ratio of the Coulomb repulsion force of two electrons and two protons to the force of their gravitational attraction should not change their values. Here is a simple answer to the question, if even a photon cannot fly beyond the event horizon, then how did it happen that as a result of the BB, the entire Universe flew out of the singularity point.
swansont Posted June 22, 2021 Posted June 22, 2021 19 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: therefore the numerical value of G must change in accordance with the changes in the meter and second. No such change is required. In relativity length and time both vary, such that c remains the same. Alternately, you can analyze a situation from one reference frame, where the value is known, and not have to worry about this at all. Quote Here is a simple answer to the question, if even a photon cannot fly beyond the event horizon, then how did it happen that as a result of the BB, the entire Universe flew out of the singularity point. The BB does not go all the way back to the singularity, but to the extent this question makes any sense, the BB does not say there are any photons flying past any event horizon. Since your scenario is not predicted, it's a moot question.
SergUpstart Posted June 22, 2021 Author Posted June 22, 2021 8 minutes ago, swansont said: In relativity length and time both vary, such that c remains the same That's right, the meter and the second change so that C remains a constant. m/s=1/C. But then it is logical to assume that the physical constants, in the dimension of which the meter and second are uncompensated, should change their numerical values in accordance with their dimensionality and the change in the meter and second.
swansont Posted June 22, 2021 Posted June 22, 2021 15 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: That's right, the meter and the second change so that C remains a constant. m/s=1/C. But then it is logical to assume that the physical constants, in the dimension of which the meter and second are uncompensated, should change their numerical values in accordance with their dimensionality and the change in the meter and second. No, that's not "logical" at all. The laws of physics are the same everywhere, so far as we know. We usually like to check the dimensionless constants, owing to the problems of any artifacts of using a particular set of units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-variation_of_fundamental_constants
exchemist Posted June 22, 2021 Posted June 22, 2021 (edited) 59 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: I have already found an error in the GRT equation for about six months, but I still did not dare to share this idea here. If you look at the equation of Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's equation of general relativity, you can see that they both include the gravitational constant G. But this constant is dimensional, and its SI dimension is m^3/kg*s^2. In Newton's theory, space and time are absolute, i.e. the scales along the axes of spatial coordinates and time are unchanged, so it is logical that in Newton's theory G is a constant. But in GRT, when approaching a massive body, time slows down, i.e. the value of the second increases, therefore the numerical value of G must change in accordance with the changes in the meter and second. And since the meter in the SI system is the distance that light travels in one second,the meter lengthens with each second. The dimension of G can be written as (m/kg)*(m^2/s^2), from which it can be seen that G must change inversely with the length of the meter or inversely with the deceleration of time. And the GRT equations should look like http://www.yuniverse.org/img/ngre.jpg Thus, when approaching a massive body, the gravitational constant should decrease and singularities and the event horizon should not occur. In addition, other basic physical constants, namely the dielectric and magnetic constants and Planck's constant, must also change their values depending on the time dilation. Therefore, such physical constants as the ratio of the Coulomb repulsion force of two electrons and two protons to the force of their gravitational attraction should not change their values. Here is a simple answer to the question, if even a photon cannot fly beyond the event horizon, then how did it happen that as a result of the BB, the entire Universe flew out of the singularity point. Re your last line, I think you may be confusing motion through space with expansion of the metric. Edited June 22, 2021 by exchemist
SergUpstart Posted June 22, 2021 Author Posted June 22, 2021 The next astrophysical experiment would be very interesting to measure the coherence length of photons emitted by galaxies several billion years away and compare it with the coherence length of photons emitted by the Sun. If the coherence length of the photons increases as they move away from the Sun, this is evidence that Planck's constant was smaller in the past of the universe.
swansont Posted June 22, 2021 Posted June 22, 2021 3 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: If the coherence length of the photons increases as they move away from the Sun Is there any evidence that they do?
SergUpstart Posted June 22, 2021 Author Posted June 22, 2021 9 minutes ago, swansont said: Is there any evidence that they do? And whether such measurements were carried out? 49 minutes ago, exchemist said: I think you may be confusing motion through space with expansion of the metric. No, I'm not confusing you. I propose to look at the problem of hyperinflation of the universe immediately after BB. As cosmological models show, in the early universe, individual parts of it scattered faster than the speed of light. Alternative physicist from Russia V. Yanchilin explains this by the fact that in the early Universe the speed of light was higher. Official cosmology says that space itself was expanding, which does not contradict the theory of relativity. But if you think about it, both of these explanations are equivalent. Yanchilin operates in absolute Galilean space, in which the meter and the second are constant, and therefore the speed of light must be variable. But a decrease in the speed of light in the absolute space of Galileo means an expansion of the relative space of Einstein. (If the object is removed at a distance of a million light-years, and the speed of light suddenly halves, then this object will be removed by two million light-years).
swansont Posted June 22, 2021 Posted June 22, 2021 32 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: And whether such measurements were carried out? That would be part of the evidence. Were they? Quote Alternative physicist from Russia V. Yanchilin explains this by the fact that in the early Universe the speed of light was higher. Which means that this is a conjecture that has little or no support. Not something to base ideas on. Such an idea carries no weight here. Quote Yanchilin operates in absolute Galilean space, in which the meter and the second are constant, and therefore the speed of light must be variable. IOW he's wrong, since we have confirmation that relativity is how things work.
exchemist Posted June 22, 2021 Posted June 22, 2021 33 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: And whether such measurements were carried out? No, I'm not confusing you. I propose to look at the problem of hyperinflation of the universe immediately after BB. As cosmological models show, in the early universe, individual parts of it scattered faster than the speed of light. Alternative physicist from Russia V. Yanchilin explains this by the fact that in the early Universe the speed of light was higher. Official cosmology says that space itself was expanding, which does not contradict the theory of relativity. But if you think about it, both of these explanations are equivalent. Yanchilin operates in absolute Galilean space, in which the meter and the second are constant, and therefore the speed of light must be variable. But a decrease in the speed of light in the absolute space of Galileo means an expansion of the relative space of Einstein. (If the object is removed at a distance of a million light-years, and the speed of light suddenly halves, then this object will be removed by two million light-years). OK, I see what you are saying, but if that were a valid explanation for the cosmological red shift, then presumably GR would be false and would predict results contrary to observation in other respects. Is that the case? Or can you somehow preserve GR AND this idea at the same time?
SergUpstart Posted June 22, 2021 Author Posted June 22, 2021 12 minutes ago, exchemist said: OK, I see what you are saying, but if that were a valid explanation for the cosmological red shift, then presumably GR would be false and would predict results contrary to observation in other respects. Is that the case? Or can you somehow preserve GR AND this idea at the same time? And the cosmological redshift seems to have two components: first, the galaxies actually scatter, and second, there is an expansion of the relative Einstein space. But the spread of galaxies should slow down with time by their mutual gravity and the red shift should decrease with time, but this decrease in the speed of the scattering of galaxies is compensated by the expansion of the relative Einstein space, so the relative value of red shift is constant in Hubble's law. I do not propose to reject the GRT , but to modify it so that the holes in space that are unnatural to nature disappear from it.
swansont Posted June 22, 2021 Posted June 22, 2021 10 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: the spread of galaxies should slow down with time by their mutual gravity and the red shift should decrease with time, but this decrease in the speed of the scattering of galaxies is compensated by the expansion of the relative Einstein space, so the relative value of red shift is constant in Hubble's law. Are you claiming this is what GR predicts? If so, I find it odd that nobody has pointed this out before.
SergUpstart Posted June 22, 2021 Author Posted June 22, 2021 17 minutes ago, swansont said: If so, I find it odd that nobody has pointed this out before. The Hubble parameter is not thought to be constant through time. There are dynamical forces acting on the particles in the universe which affect the expansion rate. It was earlier expected that the Hubble parameter would be decreasing as time went on due to the influence of gravitational interactions in the universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
swansont Posted June 22, 2021 Posted June 22, 2021 I think you may have missed the part where it says thus the ultimate fate of the ΛCDM universe is a near vacuum expanding at an ever-increasing rate under the influence of the cosmological constant.
SergUpstart Posted June 22, 2021 Author Posted June 22, 2021 4 hours ago, swansont said: thus the ultimate fate of the ΛCDM universe is a near vacuum expanding at an ever-increasing rate under the influence of the cosmological constant. Continue.. The universe has expanded to a near-vacuum. Planck's constant has grown to almost infinity, which means that, in accordance with the Heisenberg uncertainty relation, it is possible to produce pairs of ultra-high-energy particles ( with an energy comparable to the total energy of the Universe). And this is a new pair of big bangs. From here follow the outrageously simple answers to the questions of why the big bang happened, what happened before the big bang, what is the future of the Universe, what is beyond the universe.
swansont Posted June 22, 2021 Posted June 22, 2021 25 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: Planck's constant has grown to almost infinity You need to provide evidence of your claims.
SergUpstart Posted June 22, 2021 Author Posted June 22, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, swansont said: You need to provide evidence of your claims. C^2 = - Phi In turn a change in the speed of light means a change in the Planck constant h= e^2/( alpha*epsilon0*c) = e^2/(alpha*epsilon0*sqrt(-phi)) If the gravitational potential is close to zero, then Planck's constant rushes to infinity. This is when viewed in absolute Galilean space. Edited June 22, 2021 by SergUpstart
beecee Posted June 22, 2021 Posted June 22, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, SergUpstart said: Here is a simple answer to the question, if even a photon cannot fly beyond the event horizon, then how did it happen that as a result of the BB, the entire Universe flew out of the singularity point. Probably because a BH occurs in spacetime, while the BB was the evolution of spacetime, in an expansion mode [as we know it] from an unknown state. A not so subtle difference which I see as important. Planck units or the Planck scale....... Wiki says it better then I ever could....... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Planck_scale Edited June 22, 2021 by beecee
swansont Posted June 22, 2021 Posted June 22, 2021 2 hours ago, SergUpstart said: C^2 = - Phi Explain, please. What is phi? Quote If the gravitational potential is close to zero, then Planck's constant rushes to infinity. This is when viewed in absolute Galilean space. Which we aren’t in. And none of this is evidence.
SergUpstart Posted June 23, 2021 Author Posted June 23, 2021 18 hours ago, beecee said: Probably because a BH occurs in spacetime, while the BB was the evolution of spacetime, in an expansion mode [as we know it] from an unknown state. A not so subtle difference which I see as important. And the reason for the evolution of space-time is the change in the distribution of energy-momentum in the Universe 16 hours ago, swansont said: Explain, please. What is phi? Phi is the gravitational potential of the universe, which is equal to the sum of the gravitational potentials from each particle in the universe. By the way, the Schwarzschild radius has a different physical meaning, which can be seen from the equation 2GM/R = C^2 On the left side of the equation is the local gravitational potential created by the mass of the material point, on the right side of the equation is the global gravitational potential of the universe. Thus, the Schwarzschild sphere is not an event horizon, from within which information transmission is impossible, but a sphere where the local gravitational potential of the mass of a material point becomes equal to the global gravitational potential of the Universe.
swansont Posted June 23, 2021 Posted June 23, 2021 19 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: Phi is the gravitational potential of the universe, which is equal to the sum of the gravitational potentials from each particle in the universe. Source for this claim? 19 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: By the way, the Schwarzschild radius has a different physical meaning, which can be seen from the equation 2GM/R = C^2 On the left side of the equation is the local gravitational potential created by the mass of the material point, on the right side of the equation is the global gravitational potential of the universe. Thus, the Schwarzschild sphere is not an event horizon, from within which information transmission is impossible, but a sphere where the local gravitational potential of the mass of a material point becomes equal to the global gravitational potential of the Universe. I keep asking for evidence, and your response is more things claimed without evidence. That’s not how this works.
Phi for All Posted June 23, 2021 Posted June 23, 2021 32 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: Phi is the gravitational potential of the universe, which is equal to the sum of the gravitational potentials from each particle in the universe. By the way, the Schwarzschild radius has a different physical meaning, which can be seen from the equation 2GM/R = C^2 On the left side of the equation is the local gravitational potential created by the mass of the material point, on the right side of the equation is the global gravitational potential of the universe. Thus, the Schwarzschild sphere is not an event horizon, from within which information transmission is impossible, but a sphere where the local gravitational potential of the mass of a material point becomes equal to the global gravitational potential of the Universe. ! Moderator Note SergUpstart, you need to establish your claims before building on top of them. Your methodology is flawed, and your discussion style is breaking our rules of evidence. Please go back to the responses to your opening post, and satisfy the arguments there, or acknowledge they're wrong. Then look at responses to your second post, and also address the concerns there rather than continuing to add more conjecture. Lather, rinse, repeat. This is the only way anyone (including you) can trust the explanations you have. You need more rigor.
SergUpstart Posted June 23, 2021 Author Posted June 23, 2021 32 minutes ago, swansont said: Source for this claim? http://top-formula.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-Light-Formula-and-its-Consequences.pdf
swansont Posted June 23, 2021 Posted June 23, 2021 So, Yanchilin. IOW, another non-mainstream claim. He even calls it an hypothesis in the opening line of the abstract, and offers it as a postulate in the paper, which means that there is no evidence that it’s correct.
beecee Posted June 23, 2021 Posted June 23, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, SergUpstart said: And the reason for the evolution of space-time is the change in the distribution of energy-momentum in the Universe Nup...we don't know why the BB banged and why it resulted in the evolution of space and time as we know them. Or perhaps you alone have a validated QGT? The crux of the matter is simply that it has been shown time and time and time again, that GR works and matches what we observe. That includes the evolution and expansion of space/time/universe and gravitational radiation from colliding BH's. Edited June 23, 2021 by beecee
Recommended Posts