Re: Difference between predictions of SR and LET - perhaps!

Dear Ilja:

"Ilja" <ilja.schmelzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3d7bd5d9-9f48-43ce-adbf-67b3e0e04991@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 11 Sep., 05:55, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
The redshifting at teh surface will be large, but not
infinite. You have an observable condition, what is
required for falsifiability.

I do not want to argue that my theory is not falsifiable.

No, but you have been attempting to "sand over" the
differences between your theory and GR, where you
should not.

That's not clear if I should or should not.

You should highlight observables. You should not concern
yourself with appearances.

But not none.

But I strongly suspect that in the limit Y->0 of my
theory we will see less and less, with limit 0.

Then your work is undifferentiable from GR, and your
work is a complete waste of time.

I don't think so. BTW, I have started all this trying to
quantize GR,

Yes. A fruitless task, since classical "integration" techniques
will pave over your results.

without any aim to modify GR. And I don't consider
to find other interpretations of the same physical
theory a waste of time.

If you arrive at the same destination with more complex
mathematics and an appended "mechanism", it *is* a waste of time.
Thankfully, you have some observables that are different from GR,
although you keep claiming they are unobservable.

Instead, different interpretation of the same theory
show us what really follows from observation (the
shared part) and what is metaphysics (the different
part).

Metaphysics is only brain candy. If it helps us to look in new
places, fine. Otherwise it serves only as distraction.

Having only one interpretation makes this far less
obvious.

Now, in my case, what I have found was not another
interpretation of GR, but a different theory. Hard (but
not completely impossible) to distinguish by
observation from GR. Even better.

If you arrive at observables. So far, you have backpedalled at
those things my feeble brain can discern.

Two out of three infalling massive particles are
charged. The possibility of observation is
approaching unity, for a finite observation period.

I don't understand this point. Charged particles
are even more probably to be scattered away
from bouncing back in the ideal reverse direction,
thus, have much less probability to be able to get
out.

Accelerating charges produce photons by the boat
load. And very energetic ones in cases such as this.
And since they do, there will be less / no energy
available to bounce back out.

Thus, charged infalling particles have less chance to
lead to visible effects comparable with their energy.

Absolutely not. Bremstralung, remember? And "rising" to the
accretion disk would answer the infinity problem, as there is
matter there that will interact with the photons and spray them
(or their daughters) to the Universe at large.

Not sure what your surface is comprised of, but
there are problems here as well...

Take usual infalling matter, heat it up to arbitrary high
temperature, and you know ... ;-) I don't know too.
Nobody knows.

Matter recoils, compresses. Even neutron stars, as dense as they
are, have large amplitude surface waves. What happens if your
surface drops below the classical event horizon (2M) at even one
place?

Not matter, Ilja. Light.

Light from infalling matter is scattered away in very
different directions. Thus, almost all of it will
be unable to leave the photosphere.

Light can (eventually) escape from outside the event horizon.

Light emitted from the surface escapes with a probability
of order 1/z^2.

And with potentially thousands of energetic photons per charged
particle...

.... <snipping down to (hopefully) discussions of expansion ...>

...
But I disagree: already the pure theoretical differences
(trivial topology, no BH and BB singularities,

Suitable coordinate choices eliminate the singularity at the
horizon in GR,

That's different. The whole GR solution has a singularity at
0.

So does your model.

The complete GLET solution does not have it (Eric is right
that I have no proof of this, nonetheless I'm sure that this
is the case.)

You have a problem also at 2M, which is why you achieved a
surface above it. By design.

and rather than saying "no" singularity, you provide no
means to describe the early Universe. I think you
harm yourself here.

There is a flat FRW solution of my theory which coinsides
with the GR hot big bang scenario as close to the GR
BB singularity as one likes. But before the moment one
is free to choose (fitting my parameter Y) we have a
time-symmetric big crunch. They fit smoothly, without
any singularity.

Except that your mathematics forbids the necessary density, which
is how you arrive at an observable surface.

Formula (26) of gr-qc/0205035 gives the lower bound for
a in dependence of Y.

If there is a solid unyielding surface such as you
describe, it *must* emit radiation. Radiation that
can (eventually) be observed at infinity.

Or it is too weak to be observable.

It sings and shouts from the surface of neutron stars,
and they are highly redshifted surfaces. And so far
we know that black holes that "feast" always produce
polar jets of matter and antimatter. A solid suface
cannot achieve such a miracle (much less a
mathematical sheet with v_escape = c).

Details please.

Of which?
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3163
.... one of many on neutron star surface emissions

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1154
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1060
.... on jets from black holes.

AFAIK, all these jets and so on are effects of
infalling matter and magnetic fields and strong rotation
of all this, and does not depend on the existence of
some surface close to the Schwarzschild radius.

With neutron stars, there is surface emissions. With black
holes, everything else is the same, but no surface emissions.

I have reasons to expect that my Y will be extremely
small - it should allow a hot big bang.

I don't see how you achieve the dense initial state
required for homogeneity, how your choice of
granularity is affected by "universal expansion", nor
how you achieve expansion / acceleration of
expansion. Perhaps my concentration wanes...

The dense "initial state" is an intermediate state after
a big crunch.

Not an answer.

I have to admit that I have not done anything about
inhomogeneities. It is based on pure homogeneous
FRW.

Expansion follows as in GR from a simple
FRW ansatz and the equations of the theory. Accelerated
expansion can be obtained as in GR with /\.

You arrived at a granularity, a scale, a "fixed" (???) size
"aetheric cell" or "pixel". How does this size vary with
expansion? Referring me to FRW does not help. I see FRW from
the eyes of GR... not your theory.

David A. Smith


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Need some assistance
    ... supernova, is giving off dark energy waves, and other matter of the ... further resist expansion of the universe because of their mass. ... When a planet has enough mass, and age, it becomes somewhat round. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Expanding Earth?
    ... The source of the matter, ... process is at work to cause the expansion needs extraordinary evidence ... support Earth Expansion" and "Earth Expansion is impossible" expressed ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: viewing light from the earliest stages of universe
    ... > every area of the universe. ... external from the matter in the singularity. ... > assuming that the expansion is caused by a force upon every bit of matter ... >, like a kid that can walk down the aisle of a moving bus, has no problem ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
    ... Science is a matter of building models and testing them. ... It represents a sort of intrinsic tendency for spacetime to expand or contract on its own, whether or not there is matter or energy in it. ... So yes, in that sense it's a "randomly introduced factor" -- he put it in because of his own personal philosophical view of how the Universe _should_ work, not because observation dictated it was necessary (the Hubble expansion was discovered later). ... Until it can do that it is not a theory that can be tested, and a theory that cannot be tested is not a theory in the scientific theory sense of the word. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Quantum Gravity 432.0: Expansion/Acceleration of Universe is Caused by either a Big Bang Singularity
    ... Principle of Big Bang Infinity Point/Brane: ... Brane at Infinity. ... Contracting subset of the Universe (including possibly the Universe ... Constant underlying Expansion and/or Acceleration of the Universe, ...
    (sci.physics)