# Black Holes De-Mystified (and much more)

by R.D. Pearson B.Sc.(Eng)*M.I.Mech.E

* -prior to retirement and switch to physics

Essential reading for school A level Physics students

Accessible to the general reader and humanists

For all engineers astronomers and open minded physicists with an interest in cosmology, especially those wishing to investigate the spin-offs: non-polluting power and propulsion!

Basic maths appended requires only elementary calculus

© Ronald Pearson

This is the first part of a new book by Ronald Pearson, called Black Holes De-Mystified, which is planned to be published. The culmination of over 14 years work, this book will present solutions to outstanding problems in physics, for which theoreticians are still searching: the Cosmological constant and quantum gravity to replace relativity.

Please be aware that this draft may still contain errors.

Accessible to the general reader and humanists

For all engineers astronomers and open minded physicists with an interest in cosmology, especially those wishing to investigate the spin-offs: non-polluting power and propulsion!

Basic maths appended requires only elementary calculus

© Ronald Pearson

This is the first part of a new book by Ronald Pearson, called Black Holes De-Mystified, which is planned to be published. The culmination of over 14 years work, this book will present solutions to outstanding problems in physics, for which theoreticians are still searching: the Cosmological constant and quantum gravity to replace relativity.

Please be aware that this draft may still contain errors.

## Introduction

The interior structure of black holes still remains a mystery. It suddenly occurred to me, however, that a simultaneous solution to a number of vexed questions in cosmology I had developed over the last 16 years could also provide the required new insight for resolving this issue. An eight page summary of this author's (1) solution to cosmological problems was published in 1997 in the scientific journal "Frontier Perspectives" showing that at least some physicists give it support.

The new inspiration occurred during a TV program about "Supermassive Black Holes" on BBC2 Thursday 30th November. This gave convincing evidence that a black hole exists at the centre of our own galaxy: a few star images were shown circling a central dot at speeds measured as 1000 kilometres per second--which fits the expectations of a black hole.

Black holes were predicted from Einstein's theory of gravity, called "general relativity". They are described as places where the gravitational field is so extreme that even light cannot escape so that spherical "event horizons" form. There, in Earth units of space and time, the speed of light has fallen to zero in the void. All the millions of Sun's worth of matter inside a supermassive black hole is confined in the centre at a "singularity": a point of infinite density and zero size.This is something about which physicists always admit new physics is required because the singularity is accepted to be an impossibility. Before the reader is able to judge whether or not the new picture provides that required new physics, however, it is necessary to summarise the complete solution involving some other cosmological problems.

## Associated Cosmological Problems in Need of Solution

Other difficulties the new approach appears to resolve arose from a revision of the "big bang" which, cosmologists freely admit, still contains unacceptable false predictions. It assumes all the energy, ultimately to become the universe, was created in a massive explosion--all over in a split second. After that, energy, though interchangeable through many different forms, remained fixed forever, so providing matter with a source from which it could condense. Matter appeared flying out radially at immense speeds in all directions but slowing ever-afterwards by mutual gravitational attraction. Depending on the total mass, the universe could go on expanding forever, ending in "heat death", or collapse to a "big crunch".

Theorists can, however, find no way of switching off this explosion, called "inflation". So the theory then predicts that galaxies should still be accelerating away from one another at rates 10

^{120}(a one with 120 noughts after it) higher than astronomical observations can allow. (Some error!) This was the figure given by Greene (2) in 1999 when writing about this problem, known as the "cosmological constant". On page 225 he says:

"quantum mechanical fluctuations in the vacuum of empty space tend togeneratea nonzero cosmological constant whose value is some 120 orders of magnitude (a 1 followed by 120 zeros) larger than experiment allows! This represents a wonderful challenge and opportunity for string theorists: Can calculations in string theory improve on this mismatch and explain why the cosmological constant is zero, or if experiments do ultimately establish its value is small but nonzero, can string theory provide an explanation? Should string theorists be able to rise to this challenge - as yet they have not - it would provide a compelling piece of evidence in support of the theory".

This was written by a physicist: an

*enthusiast*and expert in string theory! String theory is the present spearhead of mainline physics. Written in eleven dimensions including time, it is aimed at providing a "Theory of Everything". The seven extra spatial dimensions are described as "curled back on themselves" in minute balls called, "Calabi-Yau spaces".Greene also states on page 211,

"physicists have not as yet been able to make predictions with the precision necessary to confront experimental data"

followed by:

"Is string theory right? We just don't know."

Obviously when such exotic assumptions are involved it is advisable to keep alive an alternative approach, based on the three spatial dimensions of common experience. Indeed this is necessary as an insurance, just in case theoreticians could be misleading themselves by an excess of sophistication. This is one raison d'être of the argument summarised here. It is strongly backed by my finding that the problems which most bedevil the pure theorists are ones which overlap the expertise of the mechanical engineer. Mechanics, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics are our main specialisations and so some cross collaboration seems desirable.

A second difficulty met with in big-bang theory is that some stars seem older than the universe, whose age cosmologists set at about 12 billion years. Thirdly, in 1998 observations of remote supernovae were claimed by Schwarzschild (3) which show that the expansion of the universe is speeding up instead of slowing down as they had supposed. Puzzled cosmologists are saying that some new mysterious repulsive force must be acting and two invoke "quintessence" having strange anti-gravity effects.

The major problem, however, interrelated with all these, is that Einstein's relativity theories, which describe large scale mechanics of the cosmos, do not match up with quantum theory. The latter covers the dynamics of small things like atoms and their "sub-atomic particles". It is indeed this problem which Greene (2) shows string theory is set up to solve.

The simultaneous solution, to be summarised here, parallels the achievements of general relativity yet fits in perfectly with quantum theory. Furthermore, it appears to resolve all three difficulties of the big bang. It also throws up as spin-off,

**waves propagating many times faster than light, plus new insights about free-energy and anti-gravity devices. It finally offers to de-mystify black holes and suggests a new means for the unification of forces and matter**.

These all appear from a revision of Newtonian mechanics, the basis of modern science and this author's area of specialist expertise. Revision was needed to extend this mechanics to cover speeds up to that of light and make it applicable to the most extreme gravitational fields.

## A Brief Summary of the Solution

Briefly, a revised Newtonian mechanics is applicable at the macroscopic level of common experience, but additionally applies at a basic sub-quantum level. Only at the quantum level, sandwiched in between, are wave mechanics applicable (the basis of quantum theory). This is because the new theory depends on the very existence of a sub-quantum level of reality, that of the background medium, which I call the "i-ther" to distinguish it from the old "aether" or "ether". Only here do true particles really exist. These are the "primaries" but only some of them are made from positive energy. The rest are made of negative energy--a feature of crucial importance because such a mixture can be shown to have self-creative properties -as described by the author (1).

Negative mass and energy arise when directions of the forces of "action" and reaction are reversed: it has nothing to do with "potential energy". Everything else is made from this i-theric mixture, including the so called "elementary particles" like electrons, photons and quarks; indeed all such sub-atomic "particles", which are not really particles at all.

Here they are built by focused waves, hence wave mechanics, the basis of the intermediate level. Then with some of these vibrating structures organised to form huge numbers of atoms and molecules, particle-like behaviour dominates again to form the macroscopic level--our universe.

A problem remaining is one called "non-locality" but this is dealt with in Part II of the full book.A computed solution is illustrated on the last page, and is described by its caption, providing an alternative to the big bang for resolving its three problems. This solution requires only the calculus which Newton originated, but expressed in only the three spatial dimensions of common experience plus universal time, it is easy to describe and understand.This approach should not be taken to mean that I abhor sophisticated maths: it is just that they are not required for the problems I have considered. It is my hope that mathematicians will add their expertise in areas such as electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force, if modifications are needed there. The contribution outlined here depends on subtle changes in the concepts of mechanics and as such I think they are worthy of careful study.

## What the Present Solution, Presented on the Last Page, Achieves

The solution shows that what amounts to a very weak cosmological constant appears directly from the mathematics, to provide the mysterious new repulsive force which cosmologists have been puzzling over. It builds a universe in which both the velocity of recession and the acceleration of remote galactic clusters is directly proportional to their distance from us: the accelerating expansion has appeared naturally and the problem of the cosmological constant has been eliminated simultaneously.

The age of the universe is no longer limited to 12 billion years and indeed is now seen to be indefinitely old. So it is no longer possible for any stars to appear older than the universe!The solution corresponds with what is known as a "Hubble constant" of 10 megaparsecs (MPC's) whereas a value of about 50 MPC's is measured. However, Aspden (4) has shown that considerable absorption of light-energy, producing "red-shifts", must occur during transit over the vast distances involved.Time in billions of years, shown vertically, is plotted against the radius of the huge ball of background medium, the i-ther, shown horizontally in billions of light years. This comprises a mixture of primary particles, the "primaries" some built of positive and the rest of negative energy.When primary-pairs collide energy is conserved. However, both pure creation and annihilation are then permitted and occur, at enormous rates, although the changes for each pair collision sum to zero. Only a tiny net creation remains which is the same everywhere. The result is that, from any observer such as "A", remote galaxies recede with both velocities and accelerations proportional to their distance from "A". Their matter is built from a tiny fraction of the primaries.

It is the law of "momentum conservation" of primaries which dictates that pair collisions result in mutual creation, whilst multiple collisions, favour mutual annihilation. An i-theric structure results having the potential to organise the waves the structure spontaneously generates. These waves are similar to sound waves in air. They are used to build matter.

Waves are focused to produce density concentrations, which are then interpreted by us as "sub-atomic particles". Then as the same waves re-expand they produce the energy density and pressure gradients responsible for the universally attractive force of gravity. The i-ther had to evolve first. Then billions of years later it would create matter everywhere, flying out with itself and also yielding the background radiation we observe today.

Bulk accelerations of each phase of the i-ther are only transmitted by collisions of primaries of like energies (see PART II of the book, of which this is Part I). Pressure gradients are therefore required and so pressures build up, maximising at the origin point. Pressure profiles are superimposed shown mostly at 50 billion year intervals for the positive phase only. There are negative pressure profiles for the negative phase, but these are not shown.

Light propagates relative to the i-ther at any point so that it has to fight against the flow as seen by any observer. Light therefore appears to speed up as it approaches and so "light-cones" are curved, such as that shown chain dashed, converging to "A". For relativity these would have straight sides. This is because that theory is based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant everywhere according to any observer. This is one reason it had to be replaced by a quantum-compatible alternative. This would make them seem redder than if no absorption occurred. Since this red-shift is used as a measure of recession speed the Hubble constant will be overestimated. However, computations with the observed value still resolve all three problems, but the radius of the i-ther is then too small to see 40 billion years ago, on the scale used in the figure.

## Why Newtonian Mechanics Needs Revision to Replace Relativity

In Einstein's theory of special relativity any observer in linear motion is considered as if standing still in order to provide a "frame of reference" for determining the velocity of other objects. This leads to apparent contradiction because two observers moving relative to one another then each see the other's clock running slower than his own, due to "time dilation". Professor Herbert Dingle (5), originally an advocate and lecturer in relativity, suddenly realised this and switched to ardent critic. He says, "Clocks cannot run both fast and slow at the same time."

Relativists dispute this, claiming it can be so. However, they are unable to counter an associated difficulty: that concerning "relative mass". Objects in relative motion behave as if having increased mass and so two observers moving relative to each other will each see a different mass for a third object. So the relative mass increase is an illusion--an impossibility when the acceleration of an object is investigated. We turn to this problem.Newtonian mechanics is free from these objections but implicitly assumes the mass of an object to be always equal to its "rest mass": the value it has when not in motion. To make it an exact "classical" mechanics it needs to be revised so that it can explain the radiation pressure of light. Light was shown by Einstein to be carried by discrete particles called "photons" and these need to have some form of mass in order to carry the momentum responsible for this radiation pressure. Momentum is defined as the mass of a particle multiplied by its velocity: it is the

*product of mass and velocity*. Photons need to have a mass proportional to their energy of motion and nothing else: they only have "kinetic energy".

Hence ordinary objects must also experience an increase of mass proportional to their kinetic energy as they are speeded up. To their rest mass an extra "kinetic mass" must be added when in motion. Furthermore, to make an object accelerate, a "force of action" has to be applied over a certain distance. Force, multiplied by the distance this force moves, defines a most basic form of energy called, "mechanical work".

Hence energy is added to the object to speed it up and makes it more massive and heavier. This mechanical work, for an object totally free to move, becomes converted to the object's gain in kinetic energy: the energy of an object due to its speed. The accompanying mass increase is now clearly an alternative way of defining kinetic energy.

Worked out in detail this yields the equation,

*E = mc*, for which Einstein is famed, yet no reference of any kind is made to the theory of "special relativity" he used.

^{2}*E*is the "total energy" of the object, here defined as the sum of the "rest energy"

*E*of the object, the energy it is made from when standing still, and its kinetic energy,

_{0}*E*. (This is not the same definition as is used with the original Newtonian which includes "potential energy"). The "inertial mass" is

_{K}*m*, being the sum of the "rest mass"

*m*and "kinetic mass"

_{0}*m*and

_{K}*c*is the speed of light when propagating in an i-ther of uniform density. The mass increase with speed yields the speed of light as a limiting value for any object because here the inertial mass becomes infinite. (I am told this derivation was partly anticipated by Whittaker (6))

This mass increase also yields the same life increase of cosmic rays as does special relativity and, together with allowance for the magnetic effects of moving electric charge, the same slowing of clocks which Einstein attributed to "time dilation". Universal time has, however, now been re-introduced. Furthermore time is no longer regarded as equivalent to space.

Reduction of clock frequency can be crudely demonstrated by hanging an object on a spring and vibrating it up and down at its natural frequency. Then when the mass is increased the frequency reduces.

## Gravitation

The photons of light fall in a gravitational field and so an initially horizontal beam is bent down. The photons have to go slower on the inside of the bend than on the outside and so the value of

*c*is changed from Einstein's universal constant to a variable. Dr. Louis Essen FRS (7), the famous inventor of the caesium beam atomic clock, was another ardent critic of relativity. He said that Einstein broke the rules of logic by fixing the speed of light as a universal constant and then altering the basic unit of time to keep it so. He also quoted Rutherford who said it was a joke and continued,

"I do not think Rutherford would have regarded the theory as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science".

Essen finally stopped his critiques in the 60's after he had been told that he was "placing the tenure of his post in jeopardy".

I have a much treasured letter from Dr. Essen dated March 12th 1991, saying that as he was 81 he felt too old to attend a scientific conference in Russia, to which he had been invited. He then suggested that, since it was impossible to publish alternatives to relativity in the West, that I go in his place to present my theory there. I did just that and found a welcome degree of open mindedness and willingness to listen. A summary paper was published in their proceedings (8) and I was so impressed with this visit that I attended the following and highly appropriate, "Sir Isaac Newton Conference" in 1993. The idea of a structure of the i-ther arising from the collisions of primary-pairs was published in these proceedings (9).

The new theory of gravity, as already explained, has to treat

*c*as a variable, reducing as the level in a gravitational field is reduced. This means that since

*E = mc*then even for cases when

^{2}*E*stays constant (and the rest energy of an object does so) the mass

*m*must increase as level falls to compensate for the fall in

*c*. This "gravitational mass" increase reduces vibration frequency, yielding exactly the same equation as given by Einstein's "gravitational time dilation". This revision, together with non-uniform i-theric density, led to an alternative theory of gravity which matched every prediction previously claimed to be the unique achievements of both special and general relativity. More importantly this new approach

**requires**the existence of the i-ther.

Consequently more than quantum compatibility appears: an enhancement of that theory is offered. Einstein's frames of reference exclude the existence of any real background medium and general relativity does not accept the existence of any real gravitational force. ("Gravitons" of string theory give a real force) These are the main reasons, in my opinion, why all attempts to make relativity quantum compatible have ended in failure.

It is worth noting that Richard Milton, writing in the Mensa Magazine dated March 1997, describes the conclusions reached by Paul Dirac, André Sakharov, Louis de Broglie and David Bohm: all Nobel laureates.

All these famous physicists pleaded for a resurrection of the aether as a fluid. The i-ther has fluid properties and a study has shown its velocity structure needs to match the early speculations of Descartes, Lord Kelvin and Sir George Stokes: that it exists locally as a Sun-centred vortex with the Earth moving with the fluid. I arrived at the same conclusion when looking into a mismatch between experiment and theory.

When a radar beam, which can be considered as low frequency light, is sent from Earth to be reflected back by one of the nearby planets, like Venus, it is slowed each time it nears the Sun. An excess delay therefore occurs as compared with the time taken with no Sun present. It is this excess which is known as the Shapiro Time delay and the predictions of the revised Newtonian are almost identical with one derived from general relativity and quoted by Shapiro (10) in 1964 prior to his experiments. However, both fall far short of the observations he (11) reported in 1971, a discrepancy pointed out by Svetlana Tolchelnikova during the 1991 conference in Russia. Later, however, I computed a "vortex time delay" as required to supplement the "Shapiro time delay" and this matched up theory with observation.In this way the Michelson-Morley experiment also becomes explicable. This aimed to find the speed of the Earth through the aether, but the null results always returned were interpreted to mean that no aether existed. However, a refined interferometer using two laser beams was developed by Brillet and Hall (12) who reported in 1979 what they termed a "persistent anomaly". (It could not be explained by relativity theory.) Then Aspden (13), in 1981, showed this could be explained as an accurate measure of the surface speed of the Earth with respect to an aether: something incompatible with relativity. All the data now seems to have fallen into place so that there seems no longer any doubt about the existence of a fluid background and, therefore, also the need to replace both relativity theories.

The revised Newtonian demands an i-ther of non-uniform density which reduces with distance from a ponderous mass, like the Sun. The density gradients involved obey an inverse square law. This suggests that a buoyancy force might explain gravity. A buoyancy force, like that pushing a balloon upwards, is opposite the pressure gradient and equals the product of this gradient and the volume of the object being pushed. Here the volume is proportional to the

*E*values of the objects and coupled with the specified i-theric gradients gives all the correct predictions.

For example, a wide horizontal beam of light will pass through a medium in which the primaries are more closely packed on the lower side than on the upper. This makes the beam move in a curved path even without allowing for any gravitational force. In fact these curved paths have to be used as datum from which the accelerations and motions of all particles, caused by the gravitational force, need to be addressed.In the case of light the predicted deflection is doubled when that due to the force itself is added, giving exactly the same deflections as does Einstein's theory and as measured by Eddington in 1919 during an eclipse. The change in observed speed of light with level is also doubled.

The revised Newtonian with

*c*and

*m*variation plus the curved reference path, yields exactly the same "perihelion advance of Mercury" as general relativity. This is a slow rotation of the long axis of the elliptical orbit of the planet of only 43 arcseconds per century. It was Einstein's first triumph.Furthermore, the buoyancy model yields a gravitational force of the correct order of magnitude. This represents another achievement of the theory because cosmologists say it is a mystery why this force is so weak compared with the force of electromagnetism. Now it is explained! The explanation arises because the density gradients are so incredibly small. For example, a white dwarf star has the mass of the Sun confined to the size of the Earth giving a density of about 1.8 million times that of water, but the i-theric density at its surface, from this theory, has only increased in the ratio 1.00069 from its value at Earth orbit!

## Some Primaries are Made of Negative Energy

There is, however, one problem: the force pushes the wrong way! In mathematics the word, "negative" usually means "opposite to" (some chosen reference direction for example). So far a repulsive instead of an attractive force has appeared. This can be reversed only by making the effective pressure of the i-ther dominantly negative instead of positive. Such a switch can be produced if the i-ther is considered to include primaries made of negative energy; moving fast enough to generate pressures swamping those of slower moving primaries made of positive energy.How this can be when more of the positive kind needs to exist to allow for the creation of matter will also be left to Part II, but is also covered in Ref.1. This logic, starting with the search to explain gravity, led to the description for the i-ther as a positive/negative mixture and to a "quantum wave theory of gravity". The mixture is able to self-create from a void of zero energy and grow spontaneously as described by Fig.1 and its caption.

(The meaning of negative energy is explained in Part II where it is shown to be an unused alternative to Newton's laws. Now both alternatives have to be used together. It does

**not**mean negative

**potential**energy.)

## De-Mystifying the Black Hole (at Last)

The foregoing summary of the new approach has now provided sufficient detail for application to black holes. Results of computations listed below quantify predictions of the theory. A discussion to follow seems to resolve the mysteries attributed to these exotic objects.In the calculations below for weak fields and strong fields, all the results are expressed as ratios of quantities defined at a chosen datum position, denoted by suffix

_{D}. The datum is chosen as the Earth's orbital radius about the Sun.

## Weak Fields

### 1 Earth's Surface from Earth's Orbit About the Sun.

Using the equations of the new theory, the aim is to determine the following:

- The energy density (e) of the i-ther at any position in comparison with the value (e
_{D}) measured at the datum position selected. - Then, the change (d) in the speed of light (
*c*) caused by the force of gravity. - The additional change in the speed of light with correction due to the change in spacing (
*L*) of primaries from the datum value (*L*). The latter produces a change in the speed of light without involving the force of gravity._{D} - Finally, the total change in the speed of light is d
*c*._{T}

We will look at the connection between the following factors:

Factor | Explanation |

M = 5.976 x 10^{24} kg | Earth mass |

R_{S}=6378 km | Earth surface radius |

S.G. = 5.517 | Specific gravity of Earth.The specific gravity of water = 1. |

e _{D} (J/m^{3}) | Datum i-theric energy density for the positive phase.The i-theric density e changes so little in weak fields that it is necessary to express the result as the difference e - e _{D} denoted as d e. |

149.6 Mkm | Earth orbital radius about the Sun. |

This data yields the following results:

Results | Explanation |

d e /e _{D} = 2.09 x 10^{-9} | The change in energy density divided by the density of the i-ther at the datum position. |

d L/L_{D} = -6.968 x 10^{-10} | Change in spacing of the primaries, corresponding with the change in energy density. |

d c/c_{D} = -6.968 x 10^{-10} | Change in speed of light, caused by the force of gravity alone. |

Note that in the case of weak fields, d L/L_{D} and d c/c have the same value._{D} |

The observed speed of light

*c*

_{T}is affected by both d

*L*and d

*c*, yielding the end result:d

*c*

_{T}_{ }/

*c*

_{D}= 13.936 x 10

^{-10}The detailed equations are presented in Part II of the book, of which this is Part I.The following cases are arranged in order of increasing changes in i-theric energy density and in changes of the speed of light.

### 2 Earth's Orbit to Infinity

Solar mass is

*M*

_{S}of 1.99 x 10

^{30}kg and the distance changes from 149.6 Mkm to infinity. Changes in the results are about fifteen times as great as in case 1, being:

Results | Explanation |

d e /e_{D} = -2.96 x 10^{-8} | The change in energy density divided by the density of the i-ther at the datum position. |

dL/L_{D} = 9.876 x 10^{-9} | Change in spacing of the primaries, corresponding with the change in energy density. |

dc/c_{D} = 9.876 x 10^{-9} | Change in speed of light, caused by the force of gravity alone. |

The observed speed of light

*c*

_{T}is affected by both d

*L*and d

*c*, yielding the end result:

*d*

*c*

_{T}/c

_{D}= 19.752 x 10

^{-9}In all subsequent cases, the changes that result appear in increasing order of magnitude, despite the fact that the change in distance is progressively reduced.

### 3 Earth Orbit to Surface of the Sun

The distance change is from Earth's orbital radius of 149.6 Mkm to the surface radius of the Sun,

*R*

_{S}= 696,000 km. The resulting changes are about 200 times greater than case 2.

Results | Explanation |

de/e_{D} = 6.339 x 10^{-6} | The change in energy density divided by the density of the i-ther at the datum position. |

dL/L_{D} = -2.113 x 10^{-6} | Change in spacing of the primaries, corresponding with the change in energy density. |

dc/c_{D} = -2.113 x 10^{-6} | Change in speed of light, caused by the force of gravity alone. |

The observed speed of light

*c*

_{T}is affected by both d

*L*and d

*c*, yielding the end result:d

*c*/

_{T}*c*

_{D}= -4.226 x 10

^{-6}

### 4 Earth Orbit to Surface of a White Dwarf

A white dwarf is assumed to have a mass equal to that of the Sun,

*M*= 1.99 x 10

_{S}^{30}kg, but its surface radius is only that of the Earth,

*R*

_{S}= 6387 km. The resulting changes are about a 100 fold increase compared with case 3:

Results | Explanation |

de/e_{D} = 6.939 x 10^{-4} | The change in energy density divided by the density of the i-ther at the datum position. |

dL/L_{D} = -2.312 x 10^{-4} | Change in spacing of the primaries, corresponding with the change in energy density. |

dc/c_{D} = -2.313 x 10^{-4} | Change in speed of light, caused by the force of gravity alone. |

The observed speed of light

*c*

_{T}is affected by both d

*L*and d

*c*, yielding the end result:d

*c*/

_{T}*c*

_{D}= -4.625 x 10

^{-4}Note that in this moderately strong field a difference between the last two figures is just becoming apparent. The matter density has risen to yield a specific gravity

*S.G.*of 1,830,000, which represents a huge change in mass density for so small a change in the i-theric energy density. The i-theric energy density is changed in the ratio:1 + de/e

_{D}= e/e

_{D}= 1.000693

## Strong Fields

For strong fields these differences are further amplified but now the changes are large enough to make it convenient to discard the "difference from datum" values used so far and use ratios direct instead. Strong fields are summarised in Table I below in order of mass: Sun's mass = 1.

**TABLE I Strong Fields**(Note 3.0E14 means 3.0 10

^{14}to save space)

(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) |

M/Msun | R_{S} km | L/L_{D} | c/c_{D} | S.G | e/e_{D} | Rkm_{BHole} | R_{S }/R_{BHole} |

1.4 | 13.03 | .8783 | .8322 | 3.00E14 | 1.476 | 4.137 | 3.151 |

10 | 19.17 | .6709 | .2710 | 6.74E14 | 3.312 | 29.55 | .6489 |

100 | 22.39 | .3637 | 1.6E-18 | 4.23E15 | 20.79 | 295.5 | .0758 |

120 | 22.48 | .3436 | 6.8E-26 | 5.02E15 | 24.66 | 354.6 | .0634 |

300 | 22.75 | .2562 | <1E-38 | 1.21E16 | 59.44 | 886.5 | .02567 |

500 | 22.83 | .2169 | <1E-38 | 1.99E16 | 98.05 | 1477.5 | .01546 |

Case

*M/Msun*=1.4 represents conditions at the surface of a neutron star. The surface radius

*R*is about 13 km, but even here e

_{S}*/e*is less than 1.5.

_{D}Column (2) gives the surface radius of the spherical mass of uniform density given by the revised Newtonian theory. Column (7) gives the radius of the "event horizon" as calculated from general relativity and column(8) gives the new radius

*R*as a ratio of that of the event horizon of a black hole,

_{S}*R*. The neutron star has about three times the event horizon radius, but see how our new surface radius plunges to lower values than the event horizon as the mass column(1) is further increased.

_{S }/R_{BHole}The product of columns (3) and (4) gives the speed of light

*c*as observed from the datum level. At the event horizon, again according to units at our datum, the speed of light corresponding to our

_{T }/c_{D}*c*, has fallen to zero according to Einstein's theory, but clearly the new approach always gives a finite value at the radius of the event horizon and even at

_{T }/c_{D}*R*.

_{S}For all computations, inclusive of those for weak fields, the primaries at datum state, Earth orbit, have been assumed to occupy 1% of the total volume available. The primaries have the ultimate density and are assumed incompressible. When the i-ther is compressed, so that primaries occupy about 25% of total volume, then a liquid-like state will obtain, the "i-theric liquidus", at which creation and annihilation processes balance. This corresponds with case

*M/Msun*=120 and now the speed of light has fallen almost to zero, though it never quite does so. But the radius is only about 6% of that of Einstein's black hole, even though this has increased in proportion to the mass and so has increased greatly as given in column (7) showing how Einstein's theory is going wildly wrong at these conditions.

For case

*M/Msun*= 500 the primaries occupy 98% of total volume and in the region between cases 120 and 500 annihilation progressively dominates until total annihilation obtains. The ultimate size of the black hole is therefore predicted to be at 500 solar masses. It would represent a tremendous annihilation so that the i-ther would be streaming inwards very fast to supply primaries at the rate needed to maintain this effective mass.

So now the mysteries of the black hole have dissolved. There is no matter inside, located at an impossible singularity, just primaries of both kinds moving towards the centre as they squeeze each other out of existence, yet always filling the entire sphere of radius

*R*.

_{S}A "quantum-wave theory of gravity" developed from this new approach and is explained in Ref.1 and Part II. The latter will show how imploding waves produce the black hole but the field inside will not be excessive. Hence no tendency to produce a singularity will be present.Neither is there any empty space within a mysterious event horizon where time has dilated to infinity. So no need exists any longer to speculate upon time going backwards inside. Indeed all problems of the black hole have now been resolved except for one: black holes at the centres of galaxies have to be measured in terms of millions of solar masses and our limit is 500.

For the extreme fields considered so far, however, no spinning motion has been assumed and this is a special and unlikely situation. In general the i-ther will be spiralling in to form a vortex pattern and so primaries will then arrive with high angular speeds. Instead of a sphere of primaries, a rotating hoop will form. Then the mass will not be limited to 500 suns. Indeed there will now be no limit. It could be that the black hole is nature's means for providing the extra annihilation required to prevent the universe growing to an excessive size.

The only sacrifices required are the dumping of string theory, relativity and "wormholes". The latter consist of two black holes interfering in such a way as to provide a tunnel in space-time. An astronaut is said to be able to jump through such a wormhole to emerge at some remote part of the universe: so taking a short cut. Other features to be described in Part II, however, should more than compensate for these sacrifices. They include free-energy and anti gravity propulsion: showing theoretical feasibility.

© Ronald Pearson

### References for PART I

1. | Pearson, R.D.: Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon Frontier Perspectives, Spring/Summer 1997, Vol.6,No.2.pp70-78 |

2. | Greene, Brian: The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions and the quest for the Ultimate Theory.: Johnathon Cape, London (1999) |

3. | Schwarzschild, B.: Very distant supernova suggest the cosmic expansion is speeding up: Physics today, 51(6), 17-19, 1998 |

4. | Aspden, Harold: The Steady-State Free-Electron Population of Free-Space: Letters Al Nuovo Cimento. Vol.41,N.7(1984) |

5. | Dingle, Herbert: Science at the Crossroads Martin Brian & O'Keeffe, London (1972) |

6. | Whittaker, Sir Edmund: A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity Vol.7: Tomash Publishers: American Inst. of Physics (1987) |

7. | Essen, Louis: Relativity - joke or swindle? Electronics and Wireless World |

8. | Pearson, R D.: Alternative to Relativity including Quantum Gravitation Second International Conference on Problems in Space and Time St. Petersburg, Petrovskaja Academy of Sciences & Arts 1991 |

9. | Pearson, Ronald D.: Quantum Gravitation - the Structured Ether Sir Isaac Newton Conference. St. Petersburg March 1993 |

10. | Shapiro, Irwin I.: Fourth Test of General Relativity. Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol.13, No.26, 28 Dec.1964 p.789. |

11. | Shapiro, Irwin I. et al: Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result: Physical Review Letters 26, 1132-35 [1971]. |

12. | Brillet, A. Hall, J.L.: Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of Space Physical Review Letters, Vol.42,No.9, 26 Feb.1979 |

13. | Aspden, Harold: Laser Interferometry Experiments on Light Speed Anisotropy: Physics Letters 85A,No.8,9: 19 October 1981 |

14. | Martin, Brian: Suppression Stories: "Fund for Intellectual Dissent", Box U129 (a disillusioned Ph.D physicist of Wollongong University NSW 2500, Australia.Note Ref.14 shows how scientific journals are operating a closed shop preventing the publication of works of this kind. As a result theoreticians are still researching outstanding problems when solutions, which no assessor has been able to fault, have been available for years! This book also provides the sound knowledge of mechanics which is not available in the maths and physics schools of universities. |

This is why the new book

**Black Holes De-Mystified**, is essential reading for university entrants: a study of which will allow the highly mathematical basis of physics courses to make sense. The book is split into 4 parts of which this is Part I. Parts II to IV give details, including algebra where required, but is mostly descriptive and accessible to the non-technical reader. Included are ideas for new experiments, each of which discriminate between this theory and general relativity. Physicists worry about the paucity of experimental checks for relativity theory and these about double the existing number. Part 4 is a technical appendix but Part 3 is a surprise package.