AOL has successfully sent UFT227, and I will proof it early tomorrow. Many thanks to CISP.
I am glad that Stephen’s views are getting the support they deserve. Since torsion cannot be neglected (e..g UFT137) the black hole and big bang metrics are incorrect mathematically (e.g UFT88). A very heavy object is a different thing entirely. Both UFT88 and UFT137 have been thoroughly read worldwide for several years, ad also accepted.
Hello Stephen Crothers and all interested in the concept of the Black Hole:
As I indicated to Stephen and those who are interested as I and Stephen, the idea here is:
- A Super Massive gravitational collapse of MATER (Nobody has ever seen one, much less, seen the EVENT take place)
- I believe in all intuitive measure of COMMON SENSE, and we all have that, “there is nothing sporadic about a Black Hole; …. only that sporadically MATTER falls into it. A whole lot of matter; it’s now more the 4 million times the mass of our Solar System, the Sun and all the planets. (That is evident, lots of evidence Gentlemen!). The Astronomy is FULL of it. Take a good look at the stars orbiting about Sagittarius A*, believed to be a BLACK HOLE at our Galactic Center.
- The BLACK HOLE does not come into being (exist) and then without explanation suddenly disappears, or simply vanishes (or not exist anymore.) Laws of conservation of energy and momentum is for real.
- A Singularity in Matter is just a theoretical idea. An infinite density (or namely rho = infinity) is NOT a reality. a) A Black Hole in common sense science has to have the density of Neutrons, or is a Neutron Star. b) A Neutron Star has to have a “finite” density. There can’t be a mass point that has no size or vanishes as an infinite density mass.
- Finally, the so-called “Big Bang” never happen and it never will. All such ideas that all the matter of the Universe was at the pin-head of a needle is really NOT science. It is a ridiculous idea. I believe we are all better than that Gentlemen. So, Let’s not go there. Let us do intuitive reasoning on this stuff.
I have done considerable research on the Super Massive Object located located at our galactic center known asSagittarius A*,
Take a look at my website: http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings08.htm (Click here)
I will send you a Press Release on updates soon.
Edward H. Dowdye, Jr., Ph.D. Physics
Founder, Pure Classical Physics Research
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Stephen Crothers <thenarmis> wrote:
Professor John Friedman,Distinguished Professor EmeritusDepartment of Physics
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Your short email does not actually possess any scientific content. You have in fact ignored all the salient issues I raised concerning the incongruent claims made by Bland-Hawthorn et al, and proponents of the black hole and big bang generally, instead limiting yourself to revealing that the alleged supermassive black hole Sgt A* is a rotating one, “with negligible charge” (issues that make no difference to my previous email to Bland-Hawthorn et al), some uninformative comments on the singularity of the alleged rotating black hole, and some damage control on the embarrassing nonsensical statement made by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, viz.
“One crucial assumption underlies the standard hot big-bang model: that the universe ‘began’ in a state of rapid expansion from a very nearly homogeneous, isotropic condition of infinite (or near infinite) density and pressure.”
[Misner C. W., Thorne K. S., Wheeler J. A.,
Gravitation, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York,
You mention only their “near infinite” density. What about their “near infinite” pressure? The assertion made by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is patently absurd. To defend it is no less. Your attempt to twist their nonsense into “a rough way of saying the density at which classical gravity is not valid” is merely a common evasive technique; not science. Your 10^94 g/cm^2 alleged “Planck density” is no more “near infinite” or valid than 10^99999999 g/cm^3 phantasmagorical density. And while we’re at it, what about the infinite hotness of emptiness?
“At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size, and to have been infinitely hot.”
[Hawking, S. W., A
Brief History of Time from the Big Bang to Black Holes, Transworld
Publishers Ltd., London,
Misner, Thorne and Wheeler are not the only to propose such “near infinite” nonsense. It is quite standard fare for the proponents of black holes and big bangs.
“But is that, in fact, because of discovering that empty space has energy, it seems quite plausible that our universe may be just one universe in what could be almost an infinite number of universes and in every universe the laws of physics are different and they come into existence when the universe comes into existence.”
L., Q&A, television station ABC1, Australia,
(Monday, 18 February, 2013a) www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3687812.htm]
I ask, just how close to infinite must one get to attain “an almost infinite number”? This is little different to the “near infinite” density and pressure of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.
Your remarks on the singularity of the alleged rotating black hole also make no difference to the fact that it is routinely stated by proponents of black holes that the singularity of the rotating black hole is an infinitely dense circumference of a circle. Resorting to ignorance is to no avail. Your “speck” is no different to the “speck” of Rees. Such ‘specks’ are in fact alleged to be points or circumferences of circles. All alleged black hole singularities have no volume, yet are alleged to be of infinite density.
“The work that Roger Penrose and I did between 1965 and 1970 showed that, according to general relativity, there must be a singularity of infinite density, within the black hole.”
[Hawking, S. W., The Theory of Everything, The Origin
and Fate of the Universe, New Millennium Press, Beverly
The matter that you say “one can observe is matter outside the event horizon” comes not from any alleged solution to Einstein’s field equations for a rotating black hole or from any other alleged black hole solution thereto. You have put it in by superposition, and you have added to your black hole, again by superposition, The Milky Way, and all the rest of the matter in the Universe, despite the fact that all alleged black hole universes contain only one mass and are not expanding by definition and cannot coexist with themselves or any big bang universe because their defining characteristics contradict one another, and the fact that the Principle of Superposition is invalid in General Relativity.
If you are truly willing to engage in a scientific discussion, then please address all the issues contained in my previous email to Bland-Hawthorn et al. They have been eerily silent.
Stephen J. Crothers
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, John Friedman <friedman> wrote:
Dear Stephen Crothers,
Here’s a quick reply to a few of your questions.
> What type of black hole do you allege at Sgt A*? Is it rotating or not, is it charged or not?
Rotating and with negligible charge.
> Now I ask yougentlemen, how close to infinite must one get to be “near infinite”?
This is a rough way of saying the density at which classical gravity is not valid,
around Planck density, or over 10^94 g/cm^3. Within the classical theory, as you
note, the density becomes infinite, if a positive energy condition is satisfied.
> The singularity of the alleged rotating black hole is the circumference of a circle . . .
This singularity is present in an analytically extended solution and is not part of
the time-evolution of a collapsing star. What happens to the speck into which
the matter collapses is not known. What one can observe is matter outside
the event horizon, a surface with a circumference of several million km.
John Friedman************************************************************ John L. Friedman friedman Distinguished Professor Emeritus Phone 414 229 4476 Department of Physics FAX 414 229 5589 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Physics 422 PO Box 413 Milwaukee, WI 53201 ************************************************************
I could not agree more about Alwyn van der Merwe, who is Editor Emeritus of J. Found. Phys. Chem. He published all the replies to various early attacks on B(3), and published the first fifteen of the ECE papers. He is undoubtedly among the most eminent editors of late twentieth century physics. His journals were “Foundations of Physics”, and “Foundations of Physics Letters”. After the most vicious campaign of libel I have ever witnessed, ‘t Hooft was placed in charge of FP, and FPL was shut down. It is now well known that Bruhn was a fraudster, and that ‘t Hooft has been ignored entirely. Rodrigues was also involved in this campaign, as was Lakhtakia. Rodrigues was admonished by a barrister for being wildly pejorative, and is probably involved with organized company fraud. I certainly hope that some enlightened publisher will appoint Alwyn van der Merwe to edit a revival of FP and FPL with his unique editorial skills, vast experience ans many contacts.
Many thanks again!
This is the proof direct from the Pauli matrices, and eq. (11) shows directly that the SU(2) basis introduces new quantum effects, in this case electron spin orbit resonance (ESOR). This technique can now be extended to all aspects of ESR and NMR theory systematically. The Pauli matrices give the SU(2) cyclically symmetric relations of spin angular momentum as in eqs. (1) to (3).
Pauli could get very angry at rubbish theories which contain so many unobservables that they cannot be tested, examples are big bang, black holes, Higgs boson, aspects of QED and QCD and myriads of other forgettable imposters in physics. He called them “not even wrong”. He was an Austrian prodigy who was educated at Ludwig Maximillian University in Munich. His Ph. D. supervisors were Sommerfeld and Born. He became a full professor at the age of 28 in ETH Zurich in 1928 and emigrated to the US in 1940 where he was a full professor at the Princeton Institute. He was nominated for a Nobel Prize for the exclusion principle by Einstein, and received it in 1945. He returned to Zurich and became a Swiss citizen in 1949. He fell out with Heisenberg and the former ignored his funeral. Pauli could be cuttingly critical of any theory that was lacking, which is exactly the line taken by AIAS scholars today. In UFT174 I derived the empirical Pauli exclusion principle from geometry. I met a descendant of Pauli who was a friend of my first wife on a visit to Minneapolis Minnesota. The Mississippi river crosses the campus of the University of Minneapolis Twin Cities and is just a small river in those latitudes. I refuted the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in UFT175 with Horst Eckardt making valuable computational contributions and checking the maths and concepts as usual. These papers have been read thousands of ties without a single objection, and are mainstream physics by now. Jose Croca has refuted Heisenberg in many ways experimentally. Big Bang has been refuted by ECE in many ways, and has also been refuted experimentally. The dogmatists still cling to these outmoded ideas and are able to give each other huge prizes for rubbish, “not even wrong” but we will give you the prize anyway.
This note shows that the electron spin orbit absorption frequencies for strong and weak magnetic fields, eqs. (14) and (16) respectively, are different in general from the anomalous Zeeman effect absorption frequencies (5) and the Zeeman effect absorption frequencies (8). The root cause of ESOR is the operator result (25), the use of the SU(2) basis in the Zeeman effect produces the electron spin orbit term through the Leibnitz Theorem. The ESOR term has no classical equivalent, and appears to be completely new to spectroscopy. This simple first theory can be greatly developed with contemporary computational quantum chemistry packages. As usual I sketch out the fundamentals of a new theory or new spectroscopy.
There were 1521 hits from 451 distinct visits, 33.4% spiders from baidu, google and MSN. Auto1 121, Auto2 29, CEFE 26, Englynion 13 since 7th Sept. 2013. Sao Paulo State University Brazil F3(Sp); University of Chile UFT166(Sp); Royal Library Copenhagen Denmark general; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Educational Note 2; University of Texas UFT152; Jyvaskyla University Finland UFT10. Intense interest all sectors, attached usage file updated since Sept. 7th. 2013.
This note gives a simple and clear derivation of electron spin orbit coupling from the well known hamiltonian of the anomalous Zeeman effect. The origin of ESOR is the operator equation (7), which appears to have been missed completely in the subject of spin resonance. The spin S in quantum mechanics is a vector operator defined by
S = (1/2) h bar sigma
where sigma is the Pauli matrix. For real L and B
sigma dot L sigma dot B = L . B
sigma dot L sigma dot B psi is not equal to L. B psi
The ESOR resonance frequency is given in Eq. (12) and it shifts the ESR frequency and splits it due to a new type of spin orbit coupling which gives a new type of spectroscopy. This is another in quite a long list of new spectroscopies that I have discovered in the past forty years plus of research. In my experience it takes a long time for the experimentalists to catch up with the theory. However all of these new spectroscopies are archived in the UFT papers and Omnia Opera on www.aias.us and in the National Archives in the British Library in London on www.webarchive.org.uk, Sceince and Technology, AIAS.