beecee Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 On 6/22/2021 at 9:55 PM, 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. https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html extract: The Schwarzschild solution of the gravitational equations is static and demonstrates the limits placed on a static spherical body before it must collapse to a black hole. The Schwarzschild limit does not apply to rapidly expanding matter. much more...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SergUpstart Posted June 25 Author Share Posted June 25 On 6/22/2021 at 3:54 PM, swansont said: 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. Dimensionless constants these are true constants and their numerical values should not change we are talking about dimensional constants. The laws of physics have the same mathematical description in reference systems, which can be obtained from one another using the shift and rotation operations. If the scale changes, the equations remain the same, but the proportionality coefficients or dimensional constants change in them. For example, in the pound-foot system, the gravitational constant will become 1.068846 x 10-9 ft3 lb-1 s-2 instead of 6.67*10^-11 m^3 kg-1 s-2 in SI. If we use coordinate systems with a variable scale, the mathematical expression of physical laws will depend on the chosen coordinate system. Take for example the law of radioactive decay Next, we take a reference system in which the duration of a second increases in proportion to the time elapsed from the beginning of the reference, that is, t' = t^2 Then the equation of this law will take the form N(t') = N0 exp(-lambla*sqrt(t')) This equation can be given its original form by making the decay constant variable N(t) = N0 exp(-lambda(t')*t') where lambda(t')=lambda0/sqrt(t') And space-time, curved by gravity, is a coordinate system with a variable scale along the axes of spatial coordinates and time. If we measure the speed of light at different gravitational potentials, we will always get the same value c = 299,792,458 m / s because all our measuring and observing devices give us a picture of the world in a space-time curved by gravity . But if we further use mathematics to recalculate the coordinates into the non-curved space-time of Galileo, then the speed of light becomes variable. Therefore, the formula C^2=-Phi does not contradict the postulate of the theory of relativity C=const. It's just that these formulas work each in their own coordinate system. However, there is a contradiction on the question of the existence of black holes.This contradiction can be solved in two ways, the first way is to make the gravitational constant in GRT variable, and then black holes will not appear in it, the second way is to leave the gravitational constant constant in GRT and make it a variable in Yanchilin's theory of gravity, then black holes will also appear in Yanchilin's theory of gravity. But the second is illogical, because it is GRT that uses a coordinate system with a variable scale along the axes, and besides, black holes are objects that should not be in nature. Many well-known scientists do not believe in their existence, including the creator of the relativistic theory of gravity Logunov and Laura Mersini-Houghton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

beecee Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 13 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: And space-time, curved by gravity, is a coordinate system with a variable scale along the axes of spatial coordinates and time. Spacetime is not curved by gravity, it is curved by mass, which we interprete as gravity. 15 minutes ago, SergUpstart said: Many well-known scientists do not believe in their existence, including the creator of the relativistic theory of gravity Logunov and Laura Mersini-Houghton. Ahh yes I remember reading about Laura, and I also remember her thoughts being invalidated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 1 hour ago, SergUpstart said: But if we further use mathematics to recalculate the coordinates into the non-curved space-time of Galileo, then the speed of light becomes variable. Therefore, the formula C^2=-Phi does not contradict the postulate of the theory of relativity C=const. A) a variable speed of light most certainly contradicts a constant speed of light. B) c^2 = -phi is speculation, and the rules preclude building further speculation on it. You may defend the claim by providing evidence for it, or try and disprove it, but that’s it. It’s not evidence of any mainstream idea being wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

beecee Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 1 hour ago, beecee said: Spacetime is not curved by gravity, it is curved by mass, which we interprete as gravity. Just to be clearer, what we interpret as gravity is the curvature/warping of spacetime in the presence of mass/energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SergUpstart Posted June 26 Author Share Posted June 26 5 hours ago, beecee said: Just to be clearer, what we interpret as gravity is the curvature/warping of spacetime in the presence of mass/energy. More precisely, gravity is the curvature of space-time by energy-momentum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SergUpstart Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 Let's look at this topic from the point of view of the main law of physics, namely the Law of Conservation of Energy. Let two bodies be at a distance R, their gravitational binding energy is equal to U = Gm1m2/R. Now, let them approach the third massive body, the distance R between them has decreased due to an increase in the length of the meter near the massive body, therefore the gravitational binding energy should increase. Official science claims that energy is stored locally. Moreover, she claims that in Cosmology, the main law of physics, the Law of Conservation of Energy, does not work. I will quote from a lecture by a cosmologist from Russia, Valery Rubakov, "there is no law of conservation of energy in cosmology, there is no such value that would be preserved in cosmology. So forget the law of conservation of energy as a terrible dream, if you are studying cosmology, there is no such thing as the "law of conservation of energy" in it. " If we consider two electric charges, we will come to the same conclusion. But if we admit that the dimensional constants change in accordance with the change in the time/distance scale, it turns out that the energy is stored not locally, but globally, but the numerical values of the dimensional constants are local. Gentlemen, don't you think that this will turn physics from its head to its feet. And also the Law of Conservation of Energy will return to cosmology. Further, it can be concluded that if the dimensional constants change in accordance with the change in the time/distance scale, it turns out that the gravitational energy of the Universe does not change when the space of the universe expands due to the change in the distance scale. Thus, to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe, such an additional entity as Dark Energy is simply not needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

beecee Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 5 hours ago, SergUpstart said: Let's look at this topic from the point of view of the main law of physics, namely the Law of Conservation of Energy. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.1629.pdf#:~:text=For a universe starting from,a commensurate change in mass. Does the universe obey the energy conservation law by a constant mass or an increasing mass with radius during its evolution? Abstract: How the energy conservation law is obeyed by the universe during its evolution is an important but not yet unanimously resolved question. Does the universe have a constant mass during its evolution or has its mass been increasing with its radius? Here, we evaluate the two contending propositions within the context of the Friedmann equations and the standard big bang theory. We find that though both propositions appeal to the Friedmann equations for validity, an increasing mass with increasing radius is more in harmony with the thermal history of the big bang model. In addition, temperature and flatness problems that plague the constant mass proposal are mitigated by the increasing mass with radius proposal. We conclude that the universe has been increasing in mass and radius in obedience to the energy conservation law. I. Concluding remarks: The knowledge that the mass of the universe now seems to be a mixture of radiation, matter and dark matter forms has become fairly established. But the exact way the universe obeys the energy conservation law remains fundamental to our understanding of cosmic evolution. Has all that mass always been there, the proportion of the various forms depending on the prevailing temperature that permits their stability? Or does additional mass appear with increasing radius, taking the form dictated by the energy densities and ambient temperatures prevailing at its appearance? The psychological barrier, where additional mass can come from, especially when considered alongside the law of conservation of mass, must undoubtedly have played a significant role in the speculations leading to the constant mass hypothesis. Alternative ideas of creation from nothing which later emerged have however become increasingly popular. Despite remaining hesitations about where additional mass could be coming from, on the overall balance of consistency, we conclude that the energy conservation law is better obeyed by means of increasing mass of the universe with its radius. The bases for our conclusion include compatibility with the Friedmann equations with fewer assumptions and improvisation, better harmony with the thermal features of the standard big bang model and the mitigation of the temperature and flatness problems which characterize the constant mass proposal. The findings here are obtained almost entirely within the context of General relativity, which has a wide acceptance in the scientific community. However, not too different conclusions can be described outside GR, as for example based on the behaviour of a primeval photon fluctuating from nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 6 hours ago, SergUpstart said: But if we admit that the dimensional constants change in accordance with the change in the time/distance scale, it turns out that the energy is stored not locally, but globally, but the numerical values of the dimensional constants are local. Gentlemen, don't you think that this will turn physics from its head to its feet. And also the Law of Conservation of Energy will return to cosmology. ! Moderator Note If you present speculation, you MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR IT After 200+ posts, ignorance of the rules isn’t an excuse that buys you additional chances 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts