Gamma-Ray Burst Detected Near Gravitational Wave Source Schmelzer Administrator Posts: 215 Threads: 31 Joined: Dec 2015 Reputation: 0 05-08-2016, 09:03 AM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2016, 09:31 AM by Schmelzer.) The fact that a Gamma-Ray Burst Detected Near Gravitational Wave Source may be interesting for GLET.  The point is that for the case of $$\Upsilon>0$$ the theory predicts that there are no black holes, but, instead, frozen stars of a size slightly greater than horizon size.  If the unknown parameter $$\Upsilon$$ would be sufficiently large, it would follow that we could see a difference between GR black holes and these frozen stars.  Two black hole candidates hitting each other would be a good candidate for showing such differences.   On the other hand, $$\Upsilon$$ cannot be too large for other reasons - it is the parameter which defines the minimal size of the universe, the point where the Big Bounce has happened, and, therefore, has to be small enough to make this happen before the background radiation was emitted.  Unfortunately, I see no chance to make any simulations to find out if this maximal value of $$\Upsilon$$ would be large enough to cause a visible gamma ray burst. Roughly, I would expect that this is not the case.  What makes me think so you can see in my paper "Black Holes or Frozen Stars? A Viable Theory of Gravity without Black Holes". Let's note: Whatever the result of this, GLET is not endangered by the outcome, because for $$\Upsilon>0$$ or sufficiently small $$\Upsilon$$ the predictions will be indistinguishable from GR.  So, the only result which could be deadly for GLET would be also one deadly for GR. John Duffield Junior Member Posts: 18 Threads: 1 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 05-19-2016, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 05-19-2016, 08:08 PM by John Duffield.) You should read Freidwardt Winterberg's paper Schemelzer. I'm confident the sense of it is correct: Gamma-Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity In the dynamic interpretation of relatively by Lorentz and Poincare, Lorentz invariance results from real physical contractions of measuring rods and slower going clocks in absolute motion against an ether. As it was shown by Thirring, this different interpretation of special relativity can be extended to general relativity, replacing the non-Euclidean with a Euclidean geometry, but where rods are contracted and clocks slowed down. In this dynamic interpretation of the special, (and by implication of the general) theory of relativity, there is a balance of forces which might be destroyed near the Planck energy, reached in approaching the event horizon. In gravitational collapse, the event horizon appears first at the center of the collapsing body, thereafter moving radially outward. If the balance of forces holding together elementary particles is destroyed near the event horizon, all matter would be converted into zero rest mass particles which could explain the large energy release of gamma ray bursters. I've attached the full paper below. As for the pros and cons of GR and GLET, I don't have a strong view because I'm happy with Einstein saying space is the ether of GR and there's more than one way to skin Schrödinger's cat. Attached Files   GRBs.pdf (Size: 1.37 MB / Downloads: 86) « Next Oldest | Next Newest »