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

On Sep 12, 6:48 am, "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.

Hm, I don't understand this recommendation.

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.

I don't understand what you mean.

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.

And if I arrive with less complex mathematics?

Thankfully, you have some observables that are different from GR,
although you keep claiming they are unobservable.

I do not claim they are unobservable. I simply do not expect
decisive observations.

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.

I don't think so. What we want to know is truth. Comparison
with observation is only a tool to reject false proposals.
Metaphysical critique can as well reject false proposals.

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.

As I have said, I do not expect decisive observations in near
future. There is a large array of values for Xi, Y, which
lead to nonsense and may be easily falsified, but the smaller
the Xi, Y, the more problematic becomes the distinction.

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.

The bremsstrahlung would have to reach the photosphere before it
would be able to communicate with the accretion disk.

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?

My equations contain a term with Y which becomes more and more
important
if the time dilation becomes greater and greater. The particular
radius 2M is quite irrelevant, because the time dilation will be
finite everywhere.

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

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

As if the number would be relevant. What is relevant is the energy
which is able to leave the surface, more accurate, the part of the
infalling energy.

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.

No.

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.

No. I have an additional term, which becomes more and more
important if the time dilation becomes greater and greater
(that's sloppy). This term is irrelevant as long as the
time dilation is slow, thus, in these parts we can expect
the GR solution. Where time dilation becomes extremely large,
the Y term becomes the leading one and stops the further
collapse.

Thus, what should be expected is that we obtain some inner
part with a time dilation which corresponds to the value
of Y (the smaller Y, the greater the time dilation)
and some outer part where the GR solution is fine.

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.

No. The stop of the collapse has nothing to do with matter
densities. The density of black holes of different size is
different.

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

Details of how a surface near horizon size would prevent
these 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 know. As I have explained, the surface is highly redshifted
and most of its emitted surface radiation falls back on the
surface.

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 haven't understood your question. The density of matter
in the minimal state and the density of matter in stable
frozen stars are not related with each other. It is not
matter density which stops the collapse.

You arrived at a granularity, a scale, a "fixed" (???) size
"aetheric cell" or "pixel".  How does this size vary with
expansion?

It expands together with the universe. The "expansion" is
in fact a shrinking of our local rulers.

.

Quantcast