🚀 go-pugleaf

Sue... писал(а):

> ytyourclothes@p.zapto.org wrote:
> > None wrote:
> > > Dear Colleagues,
> > >
> > > We are going on publishing the 5th volume of works of our laboratory
> > > with the paper
> > >
> > > " On reality of black holes "
> >
> >
> > That sounds like it might be fun.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > *Abstract*
> > >
> > > We will analyse the basic phenomenological and mathematical approaches
> > > of Relativity
> >
> >
> > Ohhhh -- all of eleven words before you brainfarted yourself into
> > oblivion.
> >
> >
> > Black holes have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with relativity --
> > they are the necessary outcome of *any* theory of gravity that obeys a
> > 1/r^2 law and were already known to Newton.
>
> That is an interesting point. Some of the induced dipole
> quantum models we (Significant_zero and I ) were tinkering
> with were not well behaved in adhering to a 1/r^2 law.
>
> You seem to be making a ?valid?  point that they should not
> be. IOW the earth's gravity can not diminish by 1/r^2 from
> both the surface (its maxima) and its barycenter?
>
> Sue...
>
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/dwx3c
> >
> >
> > Pity.
> >
> > Well, better luck next time.
> >
> > cordially
> >
> >
> > Y.T.
> >

Naturally, it cannot. This is the whole reason. I read the
colleagues’ posts and permanently encounter one and the same. They
all try to discuss the corollaries of conventional theory of black
holes, although our paper analyses just the causes, why black hole
theory is wrong. The theory itself in its basis, not corollaries. If
speaking of gravity field of a body having finite diameter, it is easy
to establish that immediately in the near of its surface the gravity
field will be really transformed, and inside this body the gravity
force will fall with the depth. Therefore, for example, in a
(conventionally) homogeneous cloud, the gravity affection on the
central part of cloud will be zero - and no singularity on which
relativists build their theory of black holes. And if we consider a
point mass, as Schwarzschild did, we have no right to approach it
nearer than few sizes of physical point, as at nearer distances we will
deal with gravity field of the finite-size body, with all consequences.
So all the skirmish which I read here is, truly speaking, fruitless. To
show the awareness in Hawking works is not a great merit. On the
contrary, to penetrate into the nut of model, to manage the complex
analysis of parameters, and utmost amount of parameters – this is the
merit of physicist and what I would expect from colleagues. Such
opinions I would be happy to hear.

Sergey
> > --
> > Remove YourClothes before you email me.