<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">Hi Adam,</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">There are at two important reasons why black holes do not exist. The first is they are a mathematical prediction from Einstein’s gravitational field equations, which, as I mentioned below, he acknowledged they were an approximation. Second if you extend his early work, you get a metric in which the Schwarzschild term (1 - a/r), where a is Schwarzschild radius alpha, is actually exp-a/r, where exp is the natural log term. 1 - a/r is the first approximation of exp-a/r. There are other reasons as well.</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">The standard model proposes neutrons are made of quarks, 2 down and 1 up. When that theory is used, gravitational force can become so great that it overcomes the quark/gluon forces and causes neutrons to collapse. Treating them as point particles, the whole neutron star collapses down to a point. A black hole requires gravity to have a singularity at r = a. That means the gravity acts at distance a, not about the centre of mass. There is simply no mechanism by which that can occur because it requires gravitational “action at a distance”. Even Newton recognized that was a problem. It amazes me that, over 300 years later, modern cosmologists reckon that is not a problem and that it is alright to invoke action at a distance because it is supported by some mathematics they don’t recognize as an approximation. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">In the model of nucleons I propose, a proton is a fundamental particle composed of a rotating circularly polarized photon of the appropriate energy. A neutron is a neutral proton by virtue of having an electron, an anti-electron neutrino and a bit more energy embedded in its structure. Its intrinsic spin difference is determined by the proton’s rotating photon being circularly polarized and the neutron’s rotating photon being plane polarized. You can get more details at my website <a href="http://www.universephysics.com">www.universephysics.com</a>. There is no suggestion that gravity could ever be strong enough to compress such structures down to a point. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">Whether you use the quark model and all the neutrons collapse to a point or you use my model, the gravitational attraction depends upon the mass of the object. The mass at the centre of Sagittarius A* is about 3 million solar masses. That gives it a Schwarzschild radius a ≈ 10 million kilometers. Its neuron star radius would be about 2,000 kilometers. That would still give a sufficiently strong deflection to photons traveling near that radius would still be bent strongly by its mass. Whether gravity originates at 10 million kilometers from the centre or from the centre, when an object is about 50 million kilometers away, it is difficult to tell the difference between the two fields. To the best of my knowledge, resolution is currently limited to over 500 million kilometers. As such current observations can’t distinguish between the two. The swirling gas/dust cloud would still heat up. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">In summary, it is just a massive spinning neutron star. Barring some unforeseen circumstances, it spins in the same direction as the galaxy and the inner stars rotate. Astronomers have detected massive objects - neutron stars. It is theoreticians who call them black holes.</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">Hope that helps,</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">Vivian</div> <br> <div class="gmail_signature"></div> <br><p class="airmail_on">On 4 February 2020 at 3:59:20 PM, Adam K (<a href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com">afokay@gmail.com</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div dir="auto"><div></div><div>
<title></title>
<div dir="ltr">Hi Vivian,</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br></div>
<div dir="ltr">A vivid email! The second paragraph is
great. </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br></div>
<div dir="ltr">I’m curious — you say black holes do not exist with
great confidence. You probably also know that the stars and dust at
the center of the galaxy orbit extremely fast around a dark object
called Sagittarius A* which, if it moves at all, does so within the
margin of measurement error of the instruments recording it. Do you
have any theories as to what this object is? </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br></div>
<div dir="ltr">Best wishes,</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br></div>
<div dir="ltr">Adam</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Feb 3, 2020, at 5:41 PM, Viv Robinson
<viv@universephysics.com> wrote:<br>
<br></blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">Richard
and all,</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">As you all
know, standard model practitioners regard their model for the
structure of fundamental particles, quarks, gluons, leptons and
bosons as the most accurate theory ever forwarded by humans. It has
a number of problems, including but not limited to:-</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">It is
almost entirely a description that uses complex mathematics that
are too difficult for mere mortals to follow.</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">Particles
are treated as point particles. Their properties are attached
mathematically with no physical reason for their existence.</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">No quarks
and gluons have ever been independently isolated and
detected.</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">Effects
like Einstein’s special relativity corrections with velocity
(including the Lorentz transformations) and his gravitational field
equations from his general relativity theory are mathematically
superimposed upon particles with no physical description of what
causes them.</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">Being
unable to give the structure of electrons, photons and other
particles Schrödinger, Dirac and others developed wave equations to
explain their properties.</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;">They
(standard model practitioners) introduced the concept of a quantum
foam in a unified field theory in which all particles were said to
be harmonics in that quantum foam field.</div>
It enabled accurate calculations of small scale phenomena such as
the electron's anomalous magnetic moment and the Casimir
effect.
<div><br></div>
<div>As far as they are concerned, it really has only one problem.
It requires the energy density of the universe to be 10^120 time
larger than what is measured. The “average” person would tend to
suggest that a difference between theory and experiment of a factor
of 10^120 was the largest error between theory and experiment ever
forwarded.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>A standard model cosmologist statement has been “<i>Give us
one miracle and we can explain the rest</i>”. Their interpretation
of a "<i>miracle</i>” is something that has no physical explanation
or is not possible according to the laws of physics. Their
“miracle” is the origins of the Big Bang. They throw in a period of
hyperinflation (when the universe expanded faster than the speed of
light) as part of that miracle. To that they have developed a
theory in which luminous matter (that which can be seen with an
optical telescope) makes up 0.4% of the universe, non luminous
matter (gas and dust clouds) make up 3.6%, dark matter (which holds
galaxies together and bends some light trajectories) make up 23%
and dark energy, which is said to be blowing the universe apart)
makes up the remaining 73%. Despite decades of searching there has
not been the slightest hint of the detection of anything that
resembles dark matter or dark energy particles. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>To explain the 1:10^60 chances of the universe existing some
13.8 billion years after the Big Bang they introduced another 10^60
parallel universes outside our visible universe. That leaves them
with an error of something 10^180 between their models and
observation. That doesn’t include lack of knowledge of the
structure of quarks, leptons, gluons and bosons. Despite those huge
variations, they have made very little progress in understanding
the structure of the nuclei since the 1940’s (nuclei make up over
99.9% of the mass of the 4% of the observable (luminous and
gas/dust clouds) universe. There is still much they can’t explain
so they try “string theory” which requires a total of 10 spatial
dimensions, even though there is not the slightest experimental
evidence for any spatial dimensions beyond the three we observe
around us. The foolishness of modern standard model practitioners
is they insist they are doing a good job and have a good
understanding of the universe. Is it any wonder that non standard
model practitioners want to come up with other alternatives?
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature"></div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_signature">IMHO, it is no good trying to to
replicate standard model failures based on a set of undetected
particles that violate the laws of physics by using another set of
undetected particles that also violate the laws of physics.
Richard, apart from giving an equation with impossible dimensions,
your above presentation does nothing to overcome any of the
difficulties associated with the standard model. Like the Big Bang
theory, the presentation does nothing to explain where the
univon/sprinqs came from, nor how they decayed into the currently
known particles or give rise to the physical laws. </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_signature">As I mentioned in a previous email, if
you really want to advance beyond the standard model, it would help
if you stuck to the three space dimensions, time and known physical
properties. At the moment, the standard model fits nicely into a
primary school teacher’s comments to a student. “<i>If you can’t
get the right answer by cheating, there is no hope for you</i>.”
The standard model has so many undetected particles and so many
errors of many tens of orders of magnitude that it is hard to
believe that adults treat it seriously. </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_signature">For example, the Big Bang theory is
valid only if the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the
square of the distance between two masses. A quick look at Newton’s
Proposition 45 of his Principia and observations of the precession
of Mercury’s orbit shows that gravity can be weaker than inverse
square. A look at Einstein’s work on gravity shows that mass
distorting space-time is determined by photon redshift, z. Mass
distorting space means r becomes r(1 + z). Mass distorting time
means t becomes t/(1 + z). Applying gravitational force Fg =
GMm/[r(1 + z)]^2 and correcting for Earth’s motion, gives Mercury’s
perihelion a precession of 42.99 arc sec per century. Einstein
calculated 43 arc sec/century using 1915 values. More recent values
indicate 42.98. Personally I would not like to "make a living” off
their differences. </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_signature">Gravity is gravity, whether it is
inside or outside matter. As redshift increases, the force of
gravity decreases as 1/[r(1 + z)]^2, and not 1/r^2. As z is a
function of 1/r, it becomes apparent that as r tends to infinity,
the force of gravity tends to zero. An infinite static universe
will not collapse under its own mass. The gravitational redshift
also accounts for the observed time dilation without needing a
Doppler effect. Together they mean the pillars of the Big Bang
theory have no foundation that can’t be explained by a steady state
universe based on Newton and Einstein’s work on
gravity. </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_signature">It is surprising the number of people
who comment on gravity yet appear not to have read Newton’s
Principia or Einstein’s early gravitational work. In his early
gravity work, Einstein commented on the property of space-time that
mass distorts. In the same manner, in his work on photons, Einstein
indicated they had mass mp = hv/c^2. Yet standard model
practitioners indicate photons are massless. </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_signature">Standard model physicists have such
tight censorship in mainstream journals they will not allow
alternative viewpoints to be published. That helps explain why so
many people try to come up with alternative explanations. My
suggestion is that you don’t try to match standard model physics.
There was no Big Bang. There are no black holes. (Einstein did not
believe in them. He admits the derivation of his gravitational
field equations was an approximation. Anybody who read and
understood his work would see his approximations. An exact solution
to an approximation is still an approximation.) No quarks or
gluons, or even fractional charge, have ever been detected. And
don’t forget, the standard model requires an energy density to the
universe of about 10^110 J/m^3 for some of their accurate
calculations, such as an electron's anomalous magnetic moment. The
experimentally measured value is about 10^-10 J/m^3. (If my memory
serves me correctly, the energy density of a neutron star is about
10^45 J/m^3.)</div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_signature">IMHO, well equipped and documented
experimental results take priority over theoretical calculations.
That is particularly when there is a difference measured win orders
of magnitude, let alone 120 orders of magnitude. </div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_signature">I will continue the comment of my
previous email. The universe is composed in three space dimensions
and time with constants e, h, G and c [= 1/epsilon0.mu0)^2]. They
are all you need to explain many properties the standard model can
explain, with the universe having an energy density of about 10^-10
J/m^3. They are all you need to make sense of nuclear physics,
quantum mechanics, Einsteins relativity theories and more.</div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_signature">So Richard, my comments on you above
paper:-</div>
<div class="gmail_signature">1) “Brownie points” for trying to come
up with something different.</div>
<div class="gmail_signature">2) IMHO, replacing one set of
undetected particles and violations of physical laws with another
set of undetected particles and violations of physical laws does
not necessarily constitute the next scientific revolution.</div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_signature">Sincerely,</div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_signature">Vivian Robinson</div>
<p class="airmail_on">On 1 February 2020 at 2:11:06 PM, Richard
Gauthier (<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>)
wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq">
<div class="">
<div><span>Hello all,<br class=""></span>
<div class=""><span><br class=""></span>
<div class=""><span> Here’s the link to my
just-published (on <a href="http://Academia.edu" class="">Academia.edu</a>) new article:</span></div>
<div class="">
<h4 class="media-heading"><span><a href="http://www.academia.edu/attachments/61954870/download_file?s=portfolio" target="_blank" class="">Big Bangs Created by Univon Particles from
a Conscious Quantum Field - Towards the Next Scientific
Revolution</a></span></h4>
<div class=""><span>It’s also the first article at <a href="http://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research" class="">richardgauthier.academia.edu/research</a> </span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span><br class=""></span></div>
<div class=""><span>I would appreciate hearing any comments any of
you might have.</span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span><br class=""></span></div>
<div class=""><span>You are welcome to forward the link to
interested colleagues.</span></div>
<div class=""><span><br class=""></span></div>
<div class=""><span>Comments are welcome.</span></div>
<div class=""><span><br class=""></span></div>
<div class=""><span>all the best,</span></div>
<div class=""><span> Richard</span></div>
<div><span><br class=""></span></div>
<span>_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
Light and Particles General Discussion List at
viv@universephysics.com<br>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
afokay@gmail.com</span><br>
<span><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></span><br>
<span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br>
<span></a></span><br></div>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv@universephysics.com
<br><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
<br>Click here to unsubscribe
<br></a>
<br></div></div></span></blockquote></body></html>