**SR, GR, EXTRA DIMENSIONS, BLACK HOLES & MORE**

**CORRESPONDENCE WITH DR. H. WEHRLI**

There are lot of talk about indiscernibles.The propositional logic A = A is
still valid, because A is not the same as the object, but the defining
characteristic of the object. More than one object can have the same
characteristic. Otherwise the number sequence would be impossible, as it
defines more than one similar object. If the As are always distinct, temporally
or spatially, they would not be different, but the same. Yet, chirality, which
is a distinctly different characteristic, is also true.

It is true that infinity is not
perceivable fully. It is like one – without similars, with the exception that
while the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity
are not fully perceptible. Space and time are examples of infinity. They are
perceptible as without similars. If infinity is not perceptible, you would not
have even mentioned it. Einstein never defined anything conclusively. He always
gave an operational definition that suited him. Your examples of pi, e, sqrt(2)
have characteristics of infinity in a limited way, because while we cannot know
their precise value, we know that it lies between two known values – hence not
infinite. Thus, we chose a value of these as precise as we require. However, a
similar argument is not possible for space and time at the universal scale.

Event is a type of interaction
involving mass and energy and reality includes objects with matter. Thus, the usual
four entities in physics, i.e. space, time, matter and interactions cannot be
replaced by the term event alone. Process is a chain of events.

MILKY-WAY MASS: The paper uses
two assumptions: the dark-matter hallow and the gravitational effect of Milky
Way on Leo I, both of which can be misleading. Firstly, there is no clear cut
view regarding what constitutes dark matter. The galaxy-rotation problem may
actually be a questionable concept – especially with the discovery of the “axis of evil” which shows that the
cosmic microwave background (CMB), the so-called afterglow of the big bang, is
not perfectly smooth and hot and cold spots speckle the sky. These spots are not quite as randomly
distributed as they first appeared - they align in a pattern that point out a
special direction in space.

The so-called “huge hallow of
dark matter” could be something else like the “magnetic highway” that is
expected to lead Voyager-1 out of the heliosphere.

The gravitational effect of Milky
Way on Leo I may be as misleading as the others. The planets in the solar
system are also gravitationally affecting each other and sometimes appear to
move away and at other times coming closer to each other while orbiting the
Sun. We have repeatedly asserted that this explains both dark matter and dark
energy: the rotation problem and the expanding universe problem. The galaxies
are orbiting the galactic center and appear to move away from each other at the
present juncture. We must not forget that this 83 year old observation is
insignificant in cosmic time scales and there is a possibility that both in the
past and in future, an apparently reverse motion may be observed. Further, the expansion
is restricted to large galactic clusters only and not at all perceptible in
local scales. This puts a question mark on the assumption that the universe is
expanding – especially when we do not know the contours of the universe. Thus,
there is no need to sensationalize it. Scientists should be down to Earth and
objective.

You are right that time is
independent of observers. However, for any particular space, time may or may
not be at now, because the designation of time as “now” depends on the observer.
When the observer perceives, it is now for him. Since the observer has a fixed
position at any given instant, the now is also related to position. But it is
true for all positions making now a variable. Hence you are correct that
everyone's consciousness is at now regardless of the space they are at.
However, unlike position, which is static, time is dynamic – flowing
continuously from now to future relegating now to past continuously. Only past
and future have longer duration than now. Now is instantaneous. Hence it may
not be proper to say that for any particular space, time is at now. Further,
space and time are intrinsically related as space orders the arrangement of
objects and time orders the changes in objects in space. Yet, both are independent
of each other as they show different characteristics. Unlike time-evolution,
there is no spatial evolution: it can only be accumulation or reduction of
objects (not space) in time. Further unlike space, we cannot move backwards in
time. The bull enters a china shop and breaks everything. The broken pieces do
not assemble and arranged as the bull goes backwards.

You are right that “space time is
not instantaneous with regard to light or sound”. It is because light and sound
are different kinds of waves moving in space in time. Without motion, neither
light nor sound would be perceptible. Thus they cannot be instantaneous.

Time travel, as it is commonly
understood, is not possible because all motions in time are forward temporal
motions only. Yet, all measurements show the state of objects as they were in a
designated past. Thus, it describes the position and its state of temporal
evolution of the past. In a sense it is also traveling backwards in time.

Space describes the order of
arrangement of objects and time describes the order of arrangement of events,
i.e., the changes in objects. Both co-exist independent of each other. An
object placed in space does not change the space or its space in time. It only
gets transformed in time. That is temporal evolution, which does not depend on
the space. An object will evolve in the same manner irrespective of the space
it occupies. Yet, both space and time being infinite, cannot be separated from
each other as no mathematics is possible with infinities. The manipulations
called renormalization are not mathematically valid, as it fails the test of
logical consistency. Thus, while the space-time fabric is true, motion has
nothing to do with it. Motion comes into existence with the application of
force, which generates a chain reaction (which may appear as evolution), which
may affect time evolution. However, it is different from time evolution, which
can occur even while the object is relatively at rest in its space.

When you are describing “space as the sum of all points and the point as
an infinitely small place in space”, you must consider whether you are talking
about mathematical space or physical space. The time evolutions depict rate of change. When
such change is related to motion; like velocity, acceleration, etc, it implies
total displacement from the position occupied by the body in space and moving
to the adjacent position. This process is repeated due to inertia till it is
modified by the introduction of other forces. Thus, these are discrete steps in
space that can be related to three dimensional structures only. Mathematics
measures only the numbers of these steps, the distances involved including
amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc. Mathematics
is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph – the so-called
mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the
basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and
vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces,
whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever
combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current
definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one
dimension less from physical space as described below.

The graph may represent space, but it is not
space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other
physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a
two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square
represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure
(including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent
an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation
of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification
or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic
abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve
physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to
the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of
paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a
number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain
distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a
point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another
point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by
itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper
exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional
force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but
oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always
unidirectional and depicts distance – linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is
different from its mathematical representation.

There is no fundamental
difference between our concepts of physics and mathematics. Only you have used
different words to express the same idea. However, we beg to differ on the
meaning of definition. We define an object or a concept by observing some
intrinsic characteristics of the objects related to the concept. These
descriptions can be proper (the same at all times and places under similar
conditions) or improper. If it is improper, then it is a wrong definition.
Otherwise it is the correct definition. For example, if you define space as “the sum of all points and the point
as an infinitely small place in space”, the definition is circular – hence
unclear. Further, if the space is the sum of all points, then points are
fundamental. In that case, you must define how they are held together. If you
define a point as “an infinitely small place in space”, you must admit that
space is more fundamental than points and all pervasive. We agree with this
part of your definition. Hence we define space as the universal base, which
orders the interval between objects. These intervals can be called vacuum, but
one has to be careful.

The word vacuum has always been
used to mean “the thing that is not material or particulate”. By definition,
the vacuum is supposed to be nothing, but often it is used to mean something.
This is a contradiction because it begs the paradox of Parmenides: If the
vacuum is composed of virtual particle pairs, then it no longer is the vacuum:
it is matter. If everything is matter, then we have a plenum in which motion is
impossible. Calling this matter “virtual” is camouflage. When required to be
transparent, treat it as nothing and when it is required to have physical
characteristics (like polarity), treat it as something! Defining something as
both x and non-x is not physics.

There is no surprise that the
equations of QCD remain unsolved at energy scales relevant for describing
atomic nuclei! The various terms of QCD like “color”, “flavor”, the strangeness
number (S) and the baryon number (B) etc, are not precisely defined and cannot
be mechanically assigned. Even spin cannot be mechanically assigned for quarks
except assigning a number. The quantum spin is said to be not real since quarks
are point like and cannot spin. If quarks cannot spin, how does chirality and
symmetry apply to them at this level? How can a point express chirality and how
can a point be either symmetrical or non-symmetrical? If W bosons that
fleetingly mediate particles have been claimed to leave their foot-prints,
quarks should be more stable! But single quarks have never been seen in bubble
chambers, ionization chambers, or any other experiments. We will explain the
mechanism of spin (1/6 for quarks) to show that it has macro equivalents and
that spin zero means absence of spin – which implies only mass-less energy
transfer.

Your observation that: “space, time, mass (substance, energy) and
interaction are never directly perceivable as such and therefore not real” are interesting. We agree that space and
time are only intervals between objects that arise due to our perception of
comparative sequence (far and near or former and later) and thus, have no
physical presence. They are described only by the alternative symbolism of the
objects (space) and events (time) respectively through an easily intelligible
and repetitive cross section that is called the scaling constant or the unit.
Mass is also not perceived directly because our brain has different regions dedicated exclusively to
different forms of sensory perception, such as sight, hearing, smell, taste and
touch. In the past three decades studies in psychology and neuroscience have
revealed that the brain is an extensively multi-sensory organ that constantly
melds information from the various senses. When we “see” an object, what
actually happens is that the field set up by our eyes interacts with the field
set up by the object emitting electromagnetic radiation. These radiations
emanate from the object, but they are not the same as the mass of the object. Thus,
we cannot “see” mass. We can only “touch” it, where the radiation emanated by
it is totally cut off. Since these two perceptions by themselves are different,
we have two different perceptions of color and hardness. Since we can only
perceive multi-sensory functions, we cannot perceive these individually. Thus,
what we “see” is not what we “touch” and vice versa. To this extent, mass is
not directly perceptible. Energy does not have colors nor fixed dimensions.
Hence we cannot “see” energy directly. We can only feel its effect by “touch”
or “see” its effects on objects with mass. To this extent, energy is not
directly perceptible. Interactions are effect of energy on mass. Hence it is
also not directly perceptible.

Earlier we have discussed space and time to show that they are
perceptible only through an alternative symbolism of the objects (space) and
events (time) respectively. The alternative symbolism of the objects and
changes in them (events) are physical descriptions. These are not mathematical
models because the concepts of space and time are infinite, which, like one, is
perceived, but its full extent is not perceived, so that no number can be
assigned to it. However, their different aspects or digitized segments are
measured mathematically.

All sensory perceptions are not conveyed by photons – only ocular
perceptions are done so. In fact, the so-called photon is also described using
alternative symbolism. What we describe as the photon is the background
structure of space disturbed by the energy traveling through it by transfer of
momentum. Thus, the speed of light is background variant – it slows down in
denser mediums. We follow the trajectory of the momentum transfer and call it
photon through alternative symbolism of position. That is how the photon is
said to have zero rest mass. If there is no momentum transfer, the background
structure is undisturbed and is not perceptible, as perception is possible only
during transition. Also, the objects entering that space do not experience any
force. This is zero energy, which is said to be zero mass. The color depends
upon the density of the background structure, which affects the wave length of
the so-called photon like the color of water and ice. We see the contrasting
colors through the interaction with similar fields only in our eyes. Thus, a
born blind has no sense of color. The double-slit experiment conforms this
description of photon, as what travels is not a particle which cannot travel
through both slits, but only momentum transfer in a background structure
through two slits. The background structure spreads in both sides of the
partition like water flowing through two channels and the films record the
interactions that travel through different slits.

Regarding SR, we have already pointed out that the problem with
Einstein and others is that they do not give precise scientific definitions of
the terms used by them, but always give operational definitions, which can be
manipulated to suit one’s convenience. For example, in his SR paper of 30-06-1905,
he used clock A as a reference clock to synchronize the clocks at B and C. Yet,
immediately thereafter, he denied the existence of any privileged frame of
reference. A similar proposition can be seen in his method of measurement of a
moving rod. We quote Einstein:

“(

*a*) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest”, or
(

*b*) “By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a clock in the moving frame, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is the length of the rod”
The
method described at (

*b*) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
·
If
the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction
will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

·
If
the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then
light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the
recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different
Doppler shift.Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as
in (

*a*).
The same goes for his statement:
"space and time are not aspects of reality but at most, questionable
mathematical models in which we think." He has not precisely defined
reality. We have already sent you our definition of reality.

Relativity is an operational concept, but not an existential concept.
The equations apply to data and not to particles. When we approach a mountain
from a distance, its volume appears to increase. What this means is that the
visual perception of volume (scaling up of the angle of incoming radiation)
changes at a particular rate. But locally, there is no such impact on the
mountain. It exists as it was. The same principle applies to the perception of
objects with high velocities. The changing volume is perceived at different times
depending upon our relative velocity. If we move fast, it appears earlier. If
we move slowly, it appears later. Our differential perception is related to
changing angles of radiation and not the changing states of the object. It does
not apply to locality. Einstein has also admitted this. But the Standard model
treats these as absolute changes that not only change the perceptions, but
change the particle also! For all these reasons, SR, the concept of
length contraction and inertial mass are all wrong. The equation e=mc^2 that
was first postulated by Poincare mathematically is valid to the extent that if
mass varies, energy density also varies proportionately. They are not
interchangeable. You can try it with one gram of carbon. The equation fails.

Your concept of information flow
is valid and chirality is inherent in it. However, your statement “the information
flow is ordered in the direction from the object to the subject”, has to be
treated cautiously for two reasons. First, being uni-directional, it goes
against the concept of chirality. Second, the information flow is a two-way
affair. First the observer wants to “know” some aspect of the observable, for
which he directs the field generated by the concerned sense organs; (eyes for
color and form perception, ear for sound perception, etc.) or measuring
instruments, towards the object. If it interacts with the field generated by
the observable, the information is relayed back to the observer. When the various
information received from all sense organs are compiled in the brain, it is
compared with the stored memory, which leads to perception. Lot
of information is lost in the process, which brings in the uncertainty (not
chaos). Unfortunately, the multidisciplinary approach has been abandoned for
reductionism, which has increased the uncertainty considerably hindering
progress of science.

There is a general misconception
about dimensions. Scientists often confuse direction with dimension. Dimension
is the perception of differentiation of the "outer space" of an
object from its "inner space". This describes the "form" of
the object. Since "form" is perceived through electromagnetic
radiation where the electric field and the magnetic field move perpendicular to
each other, which is perpendicular to the direction of motion, we have three
mutually perpendicular dimensions. The extra-dimensions, which have remained
elusive for over a century, are a myth. One dimension implies length, two
dimension area and three dimensions volume. One dimension implies right-left,
two dimension include forward-backward in addition (clockwise and
counter-clockwise included) and three dimensions include up-down. Since time is
not "space – inner or outer", it cannot have “form” and hence cannot
be a dimension.

Though the positive and negative
charges show chiral symmetry, it cannot be clubbed with dimensions, as
dimension refers to fixed “forms”, whereas charge always tries to distribute
itself uniformly, which tends to bring uniformity – not symmetry. Symmetry
provides the chirality of objects and not forces. When you talk about mirror image, you are
referring to objects and not forces, as energy does not have chirality, but
equilibrium. The apparent chiral
symmetry of the positive and negative charges comes from their complimentary
nature: positive charges always remain at the center (nucleus) and accumulate;
whereas negative charges always stay outside the center and confine the
positive charges. To do so, the negative charge has to be slightly higher. This
has been proved in many recent findings. However, being directed towards the
nucleus, it is not experienced outside. If you look at a container, the
contained is the positive charge and the container itself is the negative
charge. The only difference from ordinary containers is that, it is always full
– the container changes according to the contained. They are always entangled
and conjugate. One cannot have any meaning without the other. This conjugation and
not chirality, brings in the duality and the symmetry. The reason for such
conjugation is different. Chirality is only one of the manifestations of that
conjugation, which plays the most fundamental and all pervasive role you
ascribe to chirality.

The CPT symmetry, though true, is
also much misunderstood. Parity is absolutely essential for balancing or
bringing in equilibrium, which is the outcome of the conservation laws. Time
evolution, and not time proper, is symmetric. But this symmetry is different
from other symmetries. It is not a mirror image, but it is more of an equation
– a mathematical model. Given a state of an object at a given time, we can
normally predict the past and future states, which come out to be true within
the constraints of uncertainty. We agree with your statement that “A
mathematical structure changes, whilst something else remains unchanged”. We
have already explained that all mathematical structures are al least one
dimension less than physical structures. Category theory tries to bridge this
gap. But mostly it overdoes it.

Regarding your: “4. To measure is to count”, we
generally agree with you and have discussed elaborately in our paper on
reality. Your statement: “Every kind of length unit can be derived from a time unit”,
may be misleading. To measure length, which is a space component, we move in
space, which takes time. However, we cannot derive space from time. Your
question: “whether length of time and distance are concepts suited to physics”
is valid, as these (being absolute background structures and intervals of
objects and events) are strictly not physical objects, but mental constructs of
alternative symbolism or mathematical modeling.

Your question: “whether physics
is formulated better and simpler by a theory about counted events”, is correct.
Because “knowledge” is the same as the result of measurement and measurement is
nothing but the conscious process of comparison between similars. We measure
length with unit length (measuring instrument), area with unit area, volume
with unit volume and density with unit density, etc. Thus, the result of
measurement is always counted numbers or scalar quantities. Unfortunately,
measurement has been associated with many weird concepts such as collapse
leading to complications. As we have told earlier, all unknown states are
combined together and named as superposition of states. Only the known state after
measurement at here-now gives us a value. This does not mean that collapse
brings the object into a fixed state, because by the time we know the result of
measurement, the object has further evolved in time bringing in uncertainty. This
has been misunderstood and often it is said that each information transfer from
one object to another changes both objects.

The concept of the “chronometric
convention” is a misleading interpretation of time evolution and the “geometric
convention” is an arbitrary arrangement based on easily intelligible and
repetitive characteristic. Thus, it is true that the length of a distance is
independent of the location. The real problem with measurement can be seen from
the following paradox.

Once a
famous scientist directed two of his students to precisely measure the
wave-length of sodium light. Both students returned with different results –
one resembling the normally accepted value and the other a different value.
Upon enquiry, the other student replied that he had also come up with the same
result as the accepted value, but since everything including the Earth and the
scale on it is moving, for precision measurement he applied length contraction
to the scale treating the star Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed
the result. The scientist told him to treat the scale and the object to be
measured as moving with the same velocity and recalculate the wave-length of
light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the
students returned to tell that the wave-length of sodium light is infinite. To
a surprised scientist, they explained that since the scale is moving with
light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number
of scales to measure the wave-length of sodium light!

You have equated chirality to “the
duality of all being”. This may be highly misleading. While chiral symmetry is
the mirror image, it may be different from complimentarity or duality. Space
and time are inseparable conjugates. But they are not chiral.

Regarding curvature of space, we
remind you of our definition of space. Newton
thought that the Earth, the tree with the apple and the intermediate space are
fixed. Gravity pulls the apple down over space. Einstein said, the Earth and
the tree with the apple are fixed, but the intermediate space “curved”, so that
the space between the apple and Earth are reduced with a complimentary
expansion of the space between the apple and the tree. He got the idea while
observing his teacher trying to solve the problem of the curvature of metal
sheets when heated. However, the analogy is totally misplaced. The metal sheets
curved when subjected to the external agency of heat. In the case of the apple,
what is the agency? Further, if the space curved, why did it pull down only the
apple and not everything near it? Thirdly, it increased the space between the
apple and the tree. This makes gravity a conjugate force of two equal but
oppositely directed forces. We agree with the third description. Since the
interaction involves three different agencies: the Earth, the apple and the
tree, we hold dual interaction in each position, making gravity a force with 3
complementary parts. With the initial force that started the interaction, we
treat gravity as a composite force of seven.

Equivalence is not a first principle of physics, as is often stated,
but merely an ad hoc metaphysical concept designed to induce the uninitiated to
imagine that gravity has magical non-local powers of infinite reach. We
have an ancient text, which discussed the equivalence principle and discarded
it as wrong description of facts. It is surprisingly similar to the Russell’s
paradox in Set Theory: If S is the set
of all sets which do not have themselves as a member, is S a member of itself?

Inside a spacecraft in deep space, objects behave like suspended
particles in a fluid or like the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Usually, they
are relatively stationary in the medium unless some other force acts upon them.
This is because of the relative distribution of mass inside the spacecraft and
its dimensional volume that determines the average density at each point inside
the spacecraft. Further the average density of the local medium of space is
factored into in this calculation. The light ray from outside can be related to
the space craft only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing
both the space emitting light and the spacecraft. If the passengers could
observe the scene outside the space-craft, they will notice this difference and
know that the space craft is moving. In that case, the reasons for the apparent
curvature will be known. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of
reference unrelated to the space craft, the ray emitted by it cannot be
considered inside the space craft. The emission of the ray will be restricted to
those emanating from within the spacecraft. In that case, the ray will move
straight inside the space craft. In either case, the description of Einstein is
faulty. Thus, both SR and GR including the principles of equivalence are wrong
descriptions of reality. Hence all mathematical derivatives built upon these
wrong descriptions are also wrong. We will explain all so-called

*experimental verifications*of the SR and GR by alternative mechanisms or other verifiable explanations.
We have already explained in our
earlier post that mathematical structures are at least one dimension less than
physical structures and that a point in mathematics is not the same as a point
in space. You are correct that there is no space to provide a background for
the point. But that is true for mathematical point. Physically we can always
describe any point in space. Whitehead’s definition of point is an oxymoron: if
it has no geometrical element in it, it cannot be a geometrical element. A
geometrical element must have geometrical characteristics. It is absurd to say
that an atom has no atomic characteristic. When you describe a non-zero
distance as number 1, you are referring to the scaling constant that is treated
as a unit. Obviously, the distance scale does not include direction. However,
if you take three points x, y and z, then direction automatically comes in. We
have done some work in this area and have published a book. You may get it free
of cost by sending your full postal address.

When you say: “If no point lies
between the other two, the three points form a triangle, whose sides all have
the length 1”, you describe the area between an equilateral triangle.
Otherwise, the three points indicate three unrelated points in three
dimensional physical space or two dimensional mathematical space on a paper. When
you impute direction to the sides, you imply the locus of one point or the
other, which is possible and proportional to an applied force. Your further
arguments have to be viewed in this light along with the source and magnitude
of the applied force.

Regarding neutrino and
antineutrino, the symmetry is clear: antineutrino comes in and absorbed while neutrinos
go out. The path reversal explains their chirality. Their so-called mass
difference is actually energy difference, which can be explained by the
temperature differential between the particles they interact with. These
particles are evident only at different energy levels.

We have already explained that dimension
describes the "form", which is perceived through electromagnetic
radiation where the electric field and the magnetic field move perpendicular to
each other, which is perpendicular to the direction of motion. Thus, we have
three mutually perpendicular dimensions.

Black holes are marked by their
signature release of x-ray radiation. Unlike gamma rays, x-rays are released
from the negatively charged part of the object. Thus, the abundance of x-rays
indicates abundance of negatively charged component. Since negative charge
flows from periphery towards the center, they are not visible outside the
periphery – hence black. Since it moves inwards, it is a hole. Thus, black hole!
GR has nothing to do with it.