Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

Photons with mass approaching a dark star.

Many thanks. To give a rough first answer to the question on why a central mass evolves, these data show that a mass m is captured by a dark star, so over time the mass of the dark star becomes larger and larger as it captures more and more objects. It is possible to use the same set of equations to study the trajectory of a photon of mass m captured by a dark star, or in orbit around a smaller mass M than that of a dark star. In the next note I will develop the theory of the trajectory of a photon of mass m in the vicinity of a dark star of mass M. In that problem m << M, for any M. Horst’s code is so powerful that it can be applied to any problem with the production of many new results. He plans toput it in the public domain with instructions on how to use it. The standard dogmatists have not advanced in fifty years. In fact, according to Hawking’s rejection of black holes in 2013 / 2014, they have gone backwards. The photon mass m is very tiny but as I showed in 1991 with the discover of the B(3) field, is identically non zero. Vigier pointed out the connection between B(3) and photon mass.

Fascinating results – congratulations both!!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

Constant m Orbits

Coming too near a dark star is like stepping in to a coal pit. Any self consistent numerical method can be used and your method looks very promising.

Constant m Orbits

I like the name "dark star". There was a Russian SciFi film in the sixties where a spaceship came near to a dark star. The star was only visible by hiding the view to other stars and nebulae behind the object. Unfortunately the star had a devastating effect on the crew…

Coming back to notes 438(1,2): I found that with the parameters of the S2 star it is quite difficult to keep closed orbits when changing the central mass. One has to search new initial conditions for each parameter set, and numerical stability limits are quickly reached when increasing the central mass. Since we are planning to study different effects as
– relativistic vs. Newtonian theory
– constant and non-constant m functions
it seems to make more sense to use a model system with unified parameters. This will also give more numerical stability.

Am 23.04.2019 um 12:35 schrieb Myron Evans:

Constant m Orbits

These are defined by Eqs. (1) and (2) and when solved give a precessing orbit. In the particular case m = 1 they give the precessing orbits of special relativity. It would be very interesting to investigate the properties of the precession as M becomes infinite and the dark star is formed. I use Michel’s appellation "dark star" (1783). For different values of constant m the orbit departs more and more from special relativity because it is an orbit of generally covariant m theory. The complete orbit equations are Eqs. (7) and (8) of Note 438(1). It would be very interesting to investigate what happens to the orbit as M approaches infinity and the dark star is formed. It is already known that the complete orbit equations spark off new physics of many different kinds. In order not to waste the astronomical data on the fictitious "black holes" they can be reinterpreted in terms of the dark star and m theory. The unhealthy obsession or fixation on black holes is due to the fact that funding depends on finding them, even though they do not exist. The same type of idee fixe is present in the obsessions about the Higgs boson and gravitational radiation. This is the age hold habit of forcing nature into anthropomorphic preconceptions – the opposite of Baconian science.

Constant m Orbits

These are defined by Eqs. (1) and (2) and when solved give a precessing orbit. In the particular case m = 1 they give the precessing orbits of special relativity. It would be very interesting to investigate the properties of the precession as M becomes infinite and the dark star is formed. I use Michel’s appellation "dark star" (1783). For different values of constant m the orbit departs more and more from special relativity because it is an orbit of generally covariant m theory. The complete orbit equations are Eqs. (7) and (8) of Note 438(1). It would be very interesting to investigate what happens to the orbit as M approaches infinity and the dark star is formed. It is already known that the complete orbit equations spark off new physics of many different kinds. In order not to waste the astronomical data on the fictitious "black holes" they can be reinterpreted in terms of the dark star and m theory. The unhealthy obsession or fixation on black holes is due to the fact that funding depends on finding them, even though they do not exist. The same type of idee fixe is present in the obsessions about the Higgs boson and gravitational radiation. This is the age hold habit of forcing nature into anthropomorphic preconceptions – the opposite of Baconian science.

a438thpapernotes2.pdf

438(1): Orbit Around a Pseudoinfinite Mass in m Theory

Many thanks, this is exactly what is required, graphing the effect of an increasing central mass. The complete m theory orbit equations were used in UFT419 with the S2 star. They were also used in UFT416 and UFT417 to produce very interesting results. So we just have to increase the central mass M in that code to as large a value as the computer can take. The Newtonian limit is fully analytical and will show the characteristics of the dark star, named by Michell in 1783. The complete equations (7) and (8) can be developed in several ways, for example by using a static m(r) to begin with, then repeating the method you suggest in the Newtonian limit. Finally the complete equations can be used with a finite dm(r) /dr and m(r) with various models. These are all well read papers so it is well known that all claims about dark holes completely ignore modern scholarship. It is well known that they ignore scholarship, so their claims are immediately rejected. The astronomical data probably indicate the existence of a Newtonian dark star modified by m theory. The complete equations (7) and (8) can be analyzed in many ways, some of this work has already been done in UFT416 ff.

438(1): Orbit Around a Pseudoinfinite Mass in m Theory

In which paper exactly did we use eqs.(7-8)? I will reactivate the calculation.
I think besides the mass m the intital conditions should be kept the same so that we see the impact of changing M. We will have to rescale the orbits because they shrink to zero.

Horst

Am 22.04.2019 um 10:50 schrieb Myron Evans:

438(1): Orbit Around a Pseudoinfinite Mass in m Theory

This is a development of UFT419, the orbit equations of m theory being the richly structured Eqs. (7) and (8) which can produce any observable orbit. Note carefully that they are not based on the Einstein field equation. In the Newtonian limit they reduce to the well known equations (9) and (10), which give conic section orbits (11). It is shown that if the central mass becomes infinite in the Newtonian limit, the orbit shrinks to a point of infinite mass density, the half right latitude approaches zero, the eccentricity approach 1, and the orbital velocity approaches infinity. A photon of mass m is captured by the pseudoinfinite M, and can never escape, because its escape velocity (26) must be infinite. All the characteristics of this type of orbit can be graphed in various ways. The area around the infinite mass will look completely dark, because all the photons have been captured. These graphics will probably reproduce the object claimed by standard model propaganda to be a "dark hole". The use of the complete m theory will produce a large amount of other information. However Newtonian dynamics can explain the so called "dark hole" photograph. The use of Newtonian graphics will show that "black hole" theory can be explained almost completely without using event horizons. In fact this was Hawking’s last thoughts on the subject. So the computer graphics could illustrate what happens to a Newtonian orbit as the central mass approaches infinity. Animations would be even better. There are no "black holes" because they are inferred from an incorrect geometry, the 1902 second Bianchi identity. The correct second Bianchi identity is the JCE identity of UFT88 to UFT313. Crothers, Robitaille and many others including Einstein and Hawking have argued against black holes.

Photon Mass and Dark Stars

My idea of the dark star (Note 438(1)) is based on photon mass, which I proved in 1991 from the inverse Faraday effect and the B(3) field. This became the basis of the ECE unified field theory and has apparently been nominated several times for a Nobel Prize, for what that is worth. Vigier pointed out in 1993 that the B(3) field implies photon mass. In 1783 Michell was not sure what attracted light to a mass. So if we just use common sense and dark stars, the photon mass m would be attracted to the super heavy mass M according to Newton’s universal gravitation. The m theory is general relativity, but has nothing to do with Einstein’s field equation. It gives a huge amount of new information (UFT415 ff).

438(1): Orbit Around a Pseudoinfinite Mass in m Theory

This is a development of UFT419, the orbit equations of m theory being the richly structured Eqs. (7) and (8) which can produce any observable orbit. Note carefully that they are not based on the Einstein field equation. In the Newtonian limit they reduce to the well known equations (9) and (10), which give conic section orbits (11). It is shown that if the central mass becomes infinite in the Newtonian limit, the orbit shrinks to a point of infinite mass density, the half right latitude approaches zero, the eccentricity approach 1, and the orbital velocity approaches infinity. A photon of mass m is captured by the pseudoinfinite M, and can never escape, because its escape velocity (26) must be infinite. All the characteristics of this type of orbit can be graphed in various ways. The area around the infinite mass will look completely dark, because all the photons have been captured. These graphics will probably reproduce the object claimed by standard model propaganda to be a "dark hole". The use of the complete m theory will produce a large amount of other information. However Newtonian dynamics can explain the so called "dark hole" photograph. The use of Newtonian graphics will show that "black hole" theory can be explained almost completely without using event horizons. In fact this was Hawking’s last thoughts on the subject. So the computer graphics could illustrate what happens to a Newtonian orbit as the central mass approaches infinity. Animations would be even better. There are no "black holes" because they are inferred from an incorrect geometry, the 1902 second Bianchi identity. The correct second Bianchi identity is the JCE identity of UFT88 to UFT313. Crothers, Robitaille and many others including Einstein and Hawking have argued against black holes.

a438thpapernotes1.pdf

This looks good, it looks as if Wikipedia made another error, so students are advised not to cite wikipedia.

437(3).pdf

437(3).pdf

Thanks for going through this note. The meticulous checking by Horst and others has resulted in complete acceptance of ECE theory, and rejection of the standard model. In this case the integral is log sub e (mc / h bar) – log sub e (pi / a0) = loge sub e (mc a0 / h bar pi). The Bohr radius is a sub 0 = 4 pi eps0 h bar squared / (m e squared), so the integral is log sub e (4 eps0 h bar c / e squared) = loge sub e (1 / (alpha pi), where alpha is the fine structure constant. I checked this many times for past UFT papers, and it is based on a treatment of the Lamb shift given by googling "Lamb shift". Wikipedia is usually full of errors, which is why I checked the calculation. It was used for illustration only, in order to find the fluctuating m(r). The idea of using a charge density in multi electron states is a very good one, and leads into using computational quantum chemistry for the Lamb shift.

I have some difficulties in understanding this note. Assuming that eq.(11) is correct, The integral over (d kappa)/kappa should be

.
However there is only one log term in eq. (12), and this term contains constants that are not present in the limits of the integral. How can this be?

In eq. (13) the modulus of a single wave function psi(0) appears. This relates to a single state. In multi-electron systems we have for the charge density at r=0:

rho(0) = sum | psi_i (0) |^2

for all electrons i. Only s states contribute to psi_i(0). I guess that it would be allowed to use the total charge density rho(0) in eqs.(14/15). This would give an expression that is suited for quantumchemical calculations. The Lamb shift must be based on the total <Delta U>. It has to be added to the total electron potential. Thus it can be used in the self-consistency cycle.

Horst

The m Theory and "Black Holes"

By reference to Carroll’s chapter 7 of his online notes, the black hole is defined by the event horizon of m theory with m = 1 – r0 / r. However the singularity at r0 = r does not imply the existence of a "black hole" in our interpretation. The standard model uses the same m theory to imply the existence of a black hole, with m = 1 – r0 / r. Our interpretation is based on the famous UFT88, which shows that the second Bianchi identity is changed completely by torsion, and becomes the JCE identity of UFT313. This means that the Einstein field equation is completely wrong. Furthermore the attached survey shows that people in all the best universities agree that it is totally wrong. The propagandists try to ignore UFT88 and blast out their rubbish. In so doing they do a great amount of damage to science, pushing it back into mediaeval times. The standard model forces torsion to vanish by using a symmetric connection. This is a completely arbitrary procedure. UFT99 and its definitive proofs show that if torsion is forced to be zero, curvature also vanishes, and the geometry becomes utter nonsense. Crothers and Robitaille, and many others, have argued independently in many ways that there cannot be black holes. It is very important to realize that ECE and m theory are not based on the Einstein field equation. Therefore m is not restricted to m = 1 – r0 / r, and our theory is much stronger than the standard model. I reject physics by media propaganda. Those who read or casually glance at propaganda but never study anything, never read anything, do not have any understanding of physics. They merely quote the media. In UFT419, already a well read paper, the m theory was applied to the orbit of the S2 star. In the standard model propaganda this orbits a "black hole" in the Milky Way. UFT419 showed that the orbit of S2 is almost an ellipse, but it is not Keplerian, nor is it Newtonian. Its precession is an order of magnitude different from that of the Einstein theory. In my opinion the large central mass is just that, a large mass. It would be interesting to see what happens to the graphics of UFT419 when we make the central mass approach infinity. I think that this would be worth another paper, UFT438. UFT437 is scheduled to be on the Lamb shift. I would like to know how a photograph can be taken of an object, the black hole, from which no light can escape. Can anyone provide me with a convincing answer to this common sense question? If not, then ignore the propaganda and develop the real physics, that given by ECE theory. Horst Eckardt, Douglas Lindstrom and myself have shown in many UFT papers that torsion, correctly considered, changes Einsteinian general relativity completely. The term "black hole" was coined by John Wheeler, who was Einstein’s assistant. Wheeler was appointed because my co author Jean-Pierre Vigier was refused a visa after being invited by Einstein. Wheeler was not aware of the role of torsion, but became interested in B(3) theory. He sent me a very long fax message at UNCC, but by that time I had been chopped for B(3), nominated several times for a Nobel Prize. So the general public has turned against universities, which no longer hold the moral high ground, not that they ever did. This was also Einstein’s view.

SURVEY_OF_INTEREST_IN_UFT88.PDF