Mordred

Along with the last post. A lot of the infalling material is also converted to energy. There is a lengthy paper though technical that may be of interest. http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself.

well I can see this thread isn't going far... by the way nothing I mentioned has anything to do with string theory. Secondly I can accurately state gravity has spin 2 statistics. Gravity wave detection confirmation via the quadrapole characteristics confirm spin 2. Thirdly I agree with Ophiolite, take some basic physics. Your posts show a very poor understanding. This is what I asked you to do with your equation. Derive the geodesic equation from your equation. Here is how it is done (standard gravitational force) In the presence of matter or when matter is not too distant physical distances between two points change. For example an approximately static distribution of matter in region D. Can be replaced by tve equivalent mass [latex]M=\int_Dd^3x\rho(\overrightarrow{x})[/latex] concentrated at a point [latex]\overrightarrow{x}_0=M^{-1}\int_Dd^3x\overrightarrow{x}\rho(\overrightarrow{x})[/latex] Which we can choose to be at the origin [latex]\overrightarrow{x}=\overrightarrow{0}[/latex] Sources outside region D the following Newton potential at [latex]\overrightarrow{x}[/latex] [latex]\phi_N(\overrightarrow{x})=-G_N\frac{M}{r}[/latex] Where [latex] G_n=6.673*10^{-11}m^3/KG s^2[/latex] and [latex]r\equiv||\overrightarrow{x}||[/latex] According to Einsteins theory the physical distance of objects in the gravitational field of this mass distribution is described by the line element. [latex]ds^2=c^2(1+\frac{2\phi_N}{c^2})-\frac{dr^2}{1+2\phi_N/c^2}-r^2d\Omega^2[/latex] Where [latex]d\Omega^2=d\theta^2+sin^2(\theta)d\varphi^2[/latex] denotes the volume element of a 2d sphere [latex]\theta\in(0,\pi)[/latex] and [latex]\varphi\in(0,\pi)[/latex] are the two angles fully covering the sphere. The general relativistic form is. [latex]ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}(x)dx^\mu x^\nu[/latex] By comparing the last two equations we can find the static mass distribution in spherical coordinates. [latex](r,\theta\varphi)[/latex] [latex]G_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}1+2\phi_N/c^2&0&0&0\\0&-(1+2\phi_N/c^2)^{-1}&0&0\\0&0&-r^2&0\\0&0&0&-r^2sin^2(\theta)\end{pmatrix}[/latex] Now that we have defined our static multi particle field. Our next step is to define the geodesic to include the principle of equivalence. Followed by General Covariance. Ok so now the Principle of Equivalence. You can google that term for more detail but in the same format as above [latex]m_i=m_g...m_i\frac{d^2\overrightarrow{x}}{dt^2}=m_g\overrightarrow{g}[/latex] [latex]\overrightarrow{g}-\bigtriangledown\phi_N[/latex] Denotes the gravitational field above. Now General Covariance. Which use the ds^2 line elements above and the Einstein tensor it follows that the line element above is invariant under general coordinate transformation(diffeomorphism) [latex]x\mu\rightarrow\tilde{x}^\mu(x)[/latex] Provided ds^2 is invariant [latex]ds^2=d\tilde{s}^2[/latex] an infinitesimal coordinate transformation [latex]d\tilde{x}^\mu=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu}{\partial x^\alpha}dx^\alpha[/latex] With the line element invariance [latex]\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{x})=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu \partial\tilde{x}^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta} g_{\alpha\beta}x[/latex] The inverse of the metric tensor transforms as [latex]\tilde{g}^{\mu\nu}(\tilde{x})=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu \partial\tilde{x}^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta} g^{\alpha\beta}x[/latex] In GR one introduces the notion of covariant vectors [latex]A_\mu[/latex] and contravariant [latex]A^\mu[/latex] which is related as [latex]A_\mu=G_{\mu\nu} A^\nu[/latex] conversely the inverse is [latex]A^\mu=G^{\mu\nu} A_\nu[/latex] the metric tensor can be defined as [latex]g^{\mu\rho}g_{\rho\nu}=\delta^\mu_\mu[/latex] where [latex]\delta^\mu_nu[/latex]=diag(1,1,1,1) which denotes the Kronecker delta. Finally we can start to look at geodesics. Let us consider a free falling observer. O who erects a special coordinate system such that particles move along trajectories [latex]\xi^\mu=\xi^\mu (t)=(\xi^0,x^i)[/latex] Specified by a non accelerated motion. Described as [latex]\frac{d^2\xi^\mu}{ds^2}[/latex] Where the line element ds=cdt such that [latex]ds^2=c^2dt^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}d\xi^\mu d\xi^\nu[/latex] Now assunme that the motion of O changes in such a way that it can be described by a coordinate transformation. [latex]d\xi^\mu=\frac{\partial\xi^\mu}{\partial x^\alpha}dx^\alpha, x^\mu=(ct,x^0)[/latex] This and the previous non accelerated equation imply that the observer O, will percieve an accelerated motion of particles governed by the Geodesic equation. [latex]\frac{d^2x^\mu}{ds^2}+\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}(x)\frac{dx^\alpha}{ds}\frac{dx^\beta}{ds}=0[/latex] Where the new line element is given by [latex]ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu[/latex] and [latex] g_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial\xi^\alpha}{\partial\xi x^\mu}\frac{\partial\xi^\beta}{\partial x^\nu}\eta_{\alpha\beta}[/latex] and [latex]\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial\eta^\nu}\frac{\partial^2\xi^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta}[/latex] Denote the metric tensor and the affine Levi-Civita connection respectively. I want you to take your equation and get this geodesic equation. [latex]\frac{d^2x^\mu}{ds^2}+\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}(x)\frac{dx^\alpha}{ds}\frac{dx^\beta}{ds}=0[/latex] The above shows how to get the geodesic equation from [latex]f=G\frac {Mm}{r^2}[/latex] though it isn't obvious from the way its represented above. See Newton potential. It might even help if you understood how the formula [latex]e=mc^2[/latex] is derived. This site has not too bad an example. http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/03/q-why-does-emc2/ This is what is required. YOU MUST SHOW HOW you derived [latex]Gt\propto \frac{mc^2}{e}[/latex] this is like saying Gt=1 which is garbage as Strange already pointed out.

I would add how your theory can lead up to the well tested predictions of the standard models ie explains those tests better. What are the comparisions from your model to standard

Well start with the math, properly define your model. Words are meaningless in physics. Your OP post is near incomprehensible in terms of a model structure. Not trying to be rude, however the formula you presented is meaningless unless you can define it properly. You need far greater detail to convince the scientific community they are wrong. For example you posted the formula then show a spacetime 2d manifold image without any correlation math to show how your formula works under freefall If you seriously want your formula to gain weight, you will need to show your geodesic equations for the following. -spacetime geodesic -null geodesic also how to determine worldlines under your formula

This is nothing, especially point 3. We don't physics on personal assumptions without showing the math. Ok well lets pick this apart. Spin statistics. 1) All three forces have spin 1 statistics, gravity matches spin 2. Explain how we get spin 2 from 3 or seperately from one spin 1 fields. 2) calculate the coupling constant of all 4. 3) use the three forces you mentioned and explain the coupling constant for gravity.

We know neutrinos don't exceed c, though CERN through their calibration error confused the population on that subject.

Then show the math. Without that you have no theory. Only a postulation. Not even a model. present your mathematical proof Don't resort to the pop media literature, I've seen most of them. You have no idea how often I've seen these come up on similar arguments lol. I also suggest you study what is meant by information exchange in physics. While your at it study the difference between the folliwing terms under SR. peculiar velocity apparent velocity proper velocity

There is several proofs showing group and phase velocity not transferring information at greater than c. You really need to understand the math properly to get a proper grasp on it. These superluminal group/phase velocities have been detected and around for quite some time. Plenty of professional scientists have seen these tests/papers. Yet they agree no superluminal information exchange is violated and that there is proof that SR isn't violated in regards to group velocity/phase velocity. However like I stated the detail is not easily explained outside the math.

read the full paper and look at the math itself pertaining to group velocity index. There is a big difference between group velocity index, phase velocity and speed of light c. Phase velocity can be superluminal. This doesn't violate SR once you understand what is meant by group velocity and phase velocity. Start here on the section detailing Cherenkov radiation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

no, not once you read the actual paper not the pop media coverage. Course it would if help if you understand the paper you posted. Or note. "light pulse propagation is not at odds with causality or special relativity" Which is in the last paper meaning not faster than c

Newtonian dynamics allowed us to realize dark matter is there. To be honest with you, I am not surprised nor even have trouble relating to a particle that is difficult to detect. If anything we have an excellent example with neutrinos, here we have an example of a particle that being weakly interactive can pass through a thousand light years of solid lead often without interaction. Dark matter may or may not have any relations to the neutrino family, however it can exhibit many of the difficult to detect similarities. As far as your model is concerned, the blackhole approach simply cannot match the rotation curves properly. Take it from someone who has a comprehensive understanding on how the Navarro-Frenk-White profile works. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro%E2%80%93Frenk%E2%80%93White_profile As far as particle physics side of DM, this material may be too heavy but it showsva viable possibility to DM in the form of sterile neutrinos. These models do not depend on the SO (10) Minimal supersymmetric model, there is variations under SO (10) minimal standard model. The key to the DM presented has to do with the Higg's metastability and the Pati-Salam sub groups under SO (10). Alot of the SO (10) serious work, when the Higgs was discovered in 2012, the Higg's metastability is still a serious research underway. DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954

Doesn't the senses itself correlate to different size of brain regions to support it? For instance an animal with a strong sense of smell will have a larger "processing" region. How much of the human brain deals strictly to problem solving? You will probably find its only a small percentage of the actual volume. Less than 5 percent if memory serves correctly. For example a crow can solve problems that would stump a cow. Ok so how much better is Earlier mans sense of smell? How does this affect brain size % to handle a greater sense of smell? Have either of you considered this?

This I agree with, one just needs to be aware of this detail. Too often I've seen ppl chase the garden path due to not being aware of the above.

start with mass is "resistance to inertial change" Keep that firm in your mind... GR becomes far easier to understand if you remember your classical physics lessons. Also remember massless particles "no resistance to inertia" still have the space interval to cross.

I'm actually not interested in the debate itself. I'm more interested in your methodology which needs improving. this being one example by methodology I mean "how you present your arguments and ideas" How you handle counter arguments.

You might want to throw away the bullet like visualization of a particle. Unfortunately schools still teach the Bullet like visuals as the subject gets too complex for Elementary and secondary academic levels without it. Particles are "excitations of a field" they have bullet point-like characteristics but no discernable volume. Due to the particle wave duality they also have a wavefunction.

I disagree mere appearance is insufficient evidence. Skulls even in Modern day mankind has numerous visual differences. Do we call them seperate species? This isn't my subject but reading over the thread I have yet to see actual evidence presented. I see a lot of "common sense" based arguments which really isn't science. If there is one thing science has proved. It is common sense can easily fool you. People have been comnenting on your other arguments. I have yet to see a decent scientific response to those questions.

lol I don't know about Einstein but I never needed it. Even when I first started learning GR.

I lost track after the initial post lol

I honestly can't think how one could even theoretically "artifically" create a universe.

Ah I see where your going with that. Your right some "hypothetical" global uniform change would not have any measurable change that would be possible to determine. Not with any methodology I can think of. Any reference point would be equally affected. There would be no reference point that isn't affected equally for comparison.

Take it from one who understands LCDM in all its dynamics. I spent over 20 years using the FLRW metric. Even after all this time its flexibility still amazes me. I am also a long time poster on numerous forums including many that no longer exist. So I have seen far too many people go down the path your planning on taking. Here is the problem, redshift alone won't help develop a new model. Many think that will be enough. We currently have two still active threads in Speculations trying to do this very thing. However it is merely a minor stepping stone. As Ophiolite mentioned your far better off studying how the FLRW metric works and why it works so well first before trying to reinvent it. However if you do plan to ignore this, then you should be aware the cosmological redshift formula you see often posted on websites is only valid in "standard form" for near distances. Once you get past Hubble horizon that formula requires corrections that are not easily derived. I have posted the corrections before on this forum (on one of those active threads I mentioned). The corrections require an extensive knowledge of GR and the Einstein field equations. Very few people realize that thermodynamic equations of state affect cosmological redshift. This is a subject of advanced level of study so not often mentioned in textbooks.

the idea has been presented on many fronts. Its the basis of chatic eternal inflation.

You couldn't have a universal change at the same instant without violating the speed of information limit c.

2.3 the angles between dots is preserved. Which is only possible in the isotropic case.