Physics Help Forum New theory of black holes.

 Special and General Relativity Special and General Relativity Physics Help Forum

 Jan 15th 2018, 09:43 PM #1 Senior Member   Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 163 New theory of black holes. The purpose of providing this theory is to overthrow Einstein from his established position and Reestablish Newton to the position of God. For which I am providing this new theory. Observe what happens when you throw a ball in space the ball moves in a straight line at constant speed and there is no gravity acting on it. Why? If gravity is a fictitious force then we need to prove F=ma but in outer space there is no acceleration since the ball moves in a straight line at constant speed so F=0. Now we need to prove it is not a real force which is proved because the ball moves in a straight line at constant speed proving there is no real force. So it is proved that there is no gravity by either of Newtons two laws Now come to light near a black hole using the same logic F=ma cant be proved since light has no mass mass=0 means F=0. Now newtons first law: when light is pulled in a black hole it moves in a straight line and there is no acceleration since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. By this observation it is proved that there is no gravity acting on light. See my earlier thread in which i said gravity is not conserved. Taking these observations it is proved that light is not trapped inside a black hole. If there was an infinite curvature of spacetime then light would have been pulled inside a black hole. Thus proving wrong the fact that mass causes spacetime to curve. This proves the observation wrong that Mass causes spacetime to curve. Rather this proves my earlier theory correct that a planet does not move in orbit due to curvature of spacetime but due to the astronomical concept of kinetic energy due to formation of planet. Which could also prove that general relativity cant be used at the speed of light.
Jan 15th 2018, 10:51 PM   #2

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,167
 Originally Posted by avito009 Observe what happens when you throw a ball in space the ball moves in a straight line at constant speed and there is no gravity acting on it. Why?
Because when we are saying this to show how to use Newton's 1st we assume there are no masses around to have a gravitational effect.

 Originally Posted by avito009 If gravity is a fictitious force then we need to prove F=ma but in outer space there is no acceleration since the ball moves in a straight line at constant speed so F=0.
Why do you keep saying that gravity is a fictitious force? You can look at it from the standpoints of either mass creating a deformation in spacetime, or you could look at it from the standpoint that the math merely mimics such a deformation. Either way it is an actual force.

 Originally Posted by avito009 Now we need to prove it is not a real force which is proved because the ball moves in a straight line at constant speed proving there is no real force. So it is proved that there is no gravity by either of Newtons two laws
See above where I mentioned the no mass comment.

 Originally Posted by avito009 Now come to light near a black hole using the same logic F=ma cant be proved since light has no mass mass=0 means F=0. Now newtons first law: when light is pulled in a black hole it moves in a straight line and there is no acceleration since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Newton's 1st is not valid here, at least how you are applying it. However here's a link to an effect called "gravitational redshift" here. There is a force acting on the photon, but it is easier to explain in terms of energy: the photon is losing energy trying to get out of the potential well. That loss of energy makes the wavelength of the light longer while it is "climbing out."

 Originally Posted by avito009 By this observation it is proved that there is no gravity acting on light. See my earlier thread in which i said gravity is not conserved. Taking these observations it is proved that light is not trapped inside a black hole. If there was an infinite curvature of spacetime then light would have been pulled inside a black hole. Thus proving wrong the fact that mass causes space-time to curve.
There isn't an "infinite curvature of space-time" at the event horizon of a black hole. The Schwarzschild radius is defined as a region of space where the escape speed of an object is at or larger than the speed of light. It really isn't a singularity at all. (But that's a topic for another thread.) There is an infinite curvature of space-time at the very center of the black hole...that one is a real singularity. (Again, a topic for another thread.)

 Originally Posted by avito009 This proves the observation wrong that Mass causes spacetime to curve. Rather this proves my earlier theory correct that a planet does not move in orbit due to curvature of spacetime but due to the astronomical concept of kinetic energy due to formation of planet.
This is indeed a topic where we don't need GR. For most purposes of Astronomy in the Solar System Newtonian gravity is a very close approximation to GR and most Astronomers don't even bother with GR because of it. There are only some slight measurements, such as precession of the perihelion of Mercury, that aren't accounted for by Newtonian gravity.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

Last edited by topsquark; Jan 15th 2018 at 10:55 PM.

Jan 16th 2018, 10:31 AM   #3
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,314
 Originally Posted by avito009 The purpose of providing this theory is to overthrow Einstein from his established position and Reestablish Newton to the position of God. For which I am providing this new theory.
Good luck on that. Over the last 100+ year's many have tried, all have failed.

 Observe what happens when you throw a ball in space the ball moves in a straight line at constant speed and there is no gravity acting on it. Why?
If you really understood gr8 then You'd know that's a frame dependant statement. In fact this is closely related to Einstein's first thoughts on the subject leading to gr. He noted that if you're in a frame of reference which is in free fall in a gravitational field then it would be in an inertial frame, at least in your immediate vicinity. In a unicorn g-field it would be exact.

 If gravity is a fictitious force then we need to prove F=ma but in outer space there is no acceleration since the ball moves in a straight line at constant speed so F=0.
In the first place it's better to refer to such forces as inertial, otherwise it gives the wrong impression that such forces aren't real, which is contrary to what Einstein held to be true. Also F=ma is really more of a definition of force than it is a law.

More later.

By the way. Curved peacetime is merely a different way to refer to gravitational to do forces, which are caused by massive obects.

 Tags black, holes, theory

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post wad New Users 22 Jul 18th 2017 11:38 AM Unes Special and General Relativity 10 Aug 29th 2016 02:03 PM plard56 Light and Optics 5 Jan 25th 2015 04:44 PM Pmb Special and General Relativity 0 May 21st 2012 09:26 AM synclastica_86 General Physics 0 Mar 2nd 2009 11:21 PM