LouiseM: Thanks for your contribution to this subject and, it took me some time to view the article presented. I must agree with Stephen Crothers in that the math is not there to prove the existence of “Black holes” however, I must add that the division by “zero” leads to an empty universe but does propose a variable that cannot be ignored. What it does seem to prove IMO, that in-order to mathematically prove the existence of “black holes” we must assume that the universe is empty or visually does not exist. Therefore, I have presented other theorem below which may extrapolate that, from inside the box there is no visible universe but from outside of the box (or from the UB celestial point of view) our understanding of the universe may be different.
My purpose of introducing “white holes”, previously presented in a “black hole” topic, was not to disprove “black holes” but to possibly indicate that the term “black hole” is not exactly as described by current theories of astrophysics but might be better perceived as something different, which does not involve a destructive outlook as includes a singularity — where a “white hole” may be the equivalent of a singularity. Also, that the term “black hole” as assumed by science might need to be redefined or updated.
It is interesting that the UB does not use “black hole” in its text but, I assume that it is because what they present is not or should not be compared to a “black hole” based on today’s understand and theory. It does use “dark gravity bodies” which seems is being interpreted as “black holes”, and those attempting to align the UB with “black holes” and to justify their existence in the visible universe using the UB text as a proofer. The UB also uses “antigravity” and based on the current “black hole” theories would not include any interaction thereof and that “gravity pressure” (as listed below) is not implied as the gravity of a black hole but does imply a link with “the antigravity behavior of the ultimatonic energies”, which might be more in line with “Black star (semiclassical gravity)” — listed below.
Throughout all of this never-ending metamorphosis of energy and matter we must reckon with the influence of gravity pressure
and with the antigravity behavior of the ultimatonic energies
under certain conditions of temperature
, and revolution
. Temperature, energy currents, distance, and the presence of the living force organizers and the power directors also have a bearing on all transmutation phenomena of energy and matter.
It would make no sense that the UB celestial’s would present such information if we did not have the understanding to correlate this info with today’s science and/or theory. Dark Star (Newtonian mechanics)http://en.wikipedia....ian_mechanics)
Dark star (dark matter)http://en.wikipedia...._(dark_matter)
. . . .
A dark star is a theoretical object compatible with Newtonian mechanics that, due to its large mass, has a surface escape velocity that equals or exceeds the speed of light. How light is affected by gravity under Newtonian mechanics is questionable but if it were accelerated the same way as projectiles, any light emitted at the surface of a dark star would be trapped by the star’s gravity, rendering it dark, hence the name.
Unlike a modern black hole, the object behind the horizon is assumed to be stable against collapse.
Dark star history
John Michell and dark stars
During 1783 geologist John Michell wrote a long letter to Henry Cavendish outlining the expected properties of dark stars, published by The Royal Society in their 1784 volume. Michell calculated that when the escape velocity at the surface of a star was equal to or greater than lightspeed, the generated light would be gravitationally trapped, so that the star would not be visible to a distant astronomer.
“If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity. This assumes that light is influenced by gravity in the same way as massive objects.”
Michell’s idea for calculating the number of such "invisible" stars anticipated 20th century astronomers' work: he suggested that since a certain proportion of double-star systems might be expected to contain at least one "dark" star, we could search for and catalogue as many double-star systems as possible, and identify cases where only a single circling star was visible. This would then provide some sort of statistical baseline for calculating the amount of other unseen stellar matter that might exist in addition to the visible stars.
Dark stars and gravitational shifts
Michell also suggested that future astronomers might be able to identify the surface gravity of a distant star by seeing how far the star’s light was shifted to the weaker end of the spectrum, a precursor of Einstein’s 1911 gravity-shift argument. However, Michell cited Newton as saying that blue light was less energetic than red (Newton thought that more massive particles were associated with bigger wavelengths), so Michell’s predicted spectral shifts were in the wrong direction. It is difficult to tell whether Michell’s careful citing of Newton’s position on this may have reflected a lack of conviction on Michell’s part over whether Newton was correct, or whether it was just academic thoroughness.
Laplace and dark stars
In 1796, the mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace promoted the same idea in the first and second editions of his book Exposition du système du Monde, apparently independently of Michell. It may have been removed from later editions because of the development of the wave theory of light; light was then thought to be a massless wave, and therefore not influenced by gravity.
Dark stars and black holes both have a surface escape velocity equal or greater than lightspeed, and a critical radius of r ≤ 2M.
However, the dark star is capable of emitting indirect radiation – outward-aimed light and matter can leave the r = 2M surface briefly before being recaptured, and whilst outside the critical surface, can interact with other matter, or be accelerated free from the star by a chance encounter with other matter. A dark star therefore has a rarefied atmosphere of “visiting particles”, and this ghostly halo of matter and light can radiate, albeit weakly.
Comparisons with black holes
A dark star may emit indirect radiation as described above. Black holes as described by current theories about quantum mechanics emit radiation through a different process, Hawking radiation, first postulated in 1975. The radiation emitted by a dark star depends on its composition and structure; Hawking radiation, by the no-hair theorem is generally thought of as depending only on the black hole's mass, charge, and angular momentum, although the black hole information paradox makes this controversial.
Although "historical" Newtonian arguments may lead to the gravitational deflection of light (Newton, Cavendish, Soldner), general relativity predicts twice as much deflection in a lightbeam skimming the Sun. This difference can be explained by the additional contribution of the curvature of space under modern theory: while Newtonian gravitation is analogous to the space-time components of general relativity's Riemann curvature tensor, the curvature tensor also contains purely spatial components, and both forms of curvature contribute to the total deflection.
. . . .
A dark star is a type of star that may have existed early in the universe before conventional stars were able to form. The stars would be composed mostly of normal matter, like modern stars, but a high concentration of neutralino dark matter within them would generate heat via annihilation reactions between the dark-matter particles. This heat would prevent such stars from collapsing into the relatively compact sizes of modern stars and therefore prevent nuclear fusion among the normal matter atoms from being initiated.
Under this model, a dark star is predicted to be an enormous cloud of hydrogen and helium ranging between 4 and 2000 astronomical units in diameter and with a surface temperature low enough that the emitted radiation would be invisible to the naked eye.
In the unlikely event that dark stars have endured to the modern era, they could be detectable by their emissions of gamma rays, neutrinos, and antimatter and would be associated with clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas that normally wouldn’t harbor such energetic particles.
Black star (semiclassical gravity)http://en.wikipedia....sical_gravity)
A dark-energy star is a hypothetical compact astrophysical object, which a minority of physicists feel might constitute an alternative explanation for observations of astronomical black hole candidates.
The concept was proposed by physicist George Chapline. The theory states that infalling matter is converted into vacuum energy or dark energy, as the matter falls through the event horizon. The space within the event horizon would end up with a large value for the cosmological constant and have negative pressure to exert against gravity. There would be no information-destroying singularity.
In March 2005, physicist George Chapline claimed that quantum mechanics makes it a "near certainty" that black holes do not exist and are instead dark-energy stars. The dark-energy star is a different concept than that of a gravastar.
Dark-energy stars were first proposed because in quantum physics, absolute time is required; however, in general relativity, an object falling towards a black hole would to an outside observer seem to have time pass infinitely slowly at the event horizon. The object itself would feel as if time flowed normally.
In order to reconcile quantum mechanics with black holes, Chapline theorized that a phase transition in the phase of space occurs at the event horizon. He based his ideas on the physics of superfluids. As a column of superfluid grows taller, at some point, density increases, slowing down the speed of sound, so that it approaches zero. However, at that point, quantum physics makes sound waves dissipate their energy into the superfluid, so that the zero sound speed condition is never encountered.
In the dark-energy star hypothesis, infalling matter approaching the event horizon decay into successively lighter particles. Nearing the event horizon, environmental effects accelerate proton decay. This may account for high energy cosmic ray sources and positron sources in the sky. When the matter falls through the event horizon, the energy equivalent of some or all of that matter is converted into dark energy. This negative pressure counteracts the mass the star gains, avoiding a singularity. The negative pressure also gives a very high number for the cosmological constant.
Furthermore, 'primordial' dark-energy stars could form by fluctuations of space-time itself, which is analogous to "blobs of liquid condensing spontaneously out of a cooling gas." This not only alters the understanding of black holes, but has the potential to explain the dark energy and dark matter, that are indirectly observed.
. . . .
A black star is a gravitational object composed of matter. It is a theoretical alternative to the black hole concept from general relativity. The theoretical construct was created through the use of semiclassical gravity theory. A similar structure should also exist for the Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac equations system which is the (super)classical limit of quantum electrodynamics and for the Einstein-Yang-Mills-Dirac system which is the (super)classical limit of the standard model.
A black star need not have an event horizon, and may or may not be a transitional phase between a collapsing star and a singularity. A black star is created when matter compresses at a rate significantly less than the freefall velocity of a hypothetical particle falling to the center of its star, because quantum processes create vacuum polarization, which creates a form of degeneracy pressure, preventing spacetime (and the particles held within it) from occupying the same space at the same time. This energy is theoretically unlimited, and if built up quickly enough, will stop gravitational collapse from creating a singularity. This may entail an ever-decreasing rate of collapse, leading to an infinite collapse time, or asymptotically approaching a radius less than zero.
A black star with a radius slightly greater than the predicted event horizon for an equivalent mass black hole will appear very dark, because almost all light produced will be drawn back to the star, and any escaping light will be severely gravitationally redshifted. It will appear almost exactly like a black hole. It will feature Hawking radiation, as virtual particles created in its vicinity may still be split, with one particle escaping and the other being trapped. Additionally, it will create thermal Planckian radiation that will closely resemble the expected Hawking radiation of an equivalent black hole.
The predicted interior of a black star will be composed of this strange state of spacetime, with each length in depth heading inward appearing the same as a black star of equivalent mass and radius with the overlayment stripped off. Temperatures increase with depth towards the centre.
With the presentation of the theorem above, it would be an interesting task to present corresponding UB text or passages which may support or better define what may be prevalent to what the text in the UB is attempting to reflect.
I have my own understanding of how there are similarities but would prefer to have some logical interaction before I present any lay prospectus on these in relation to the UB or vise versa.
Edited by EEB aka AASB-AWSW, 04 January 2013 - 04:30 PM.