Mordred

Sorry you feel that way. Quite frankly you've gotten some excellent advice should you choose to take it. With the inaccurate descriptions within your post and your articles. I'm honestly not sure why you expected instant acceptance of your papers. Looks how long it took to straighten out the term spacetime flowing for example. You really shouldn't take criticisms of your model as a personal attack. Quite frankly you have received advise from several members who all have varying physics degrees. All the way up to and including Ph.D. Its up to you to choose to listen or ignore. One aspect of your model is whether or not its compatible with current GR. Quite frankly from what you described and what I read from your papers I honestly don't believe it is. Stating that it is without performing the math is an assumption. Which is why I posted the materials I did. You also cannot blame people for correcting your terminology usage. They are 100% correct in doing so Take for example.... " The effect this flow of space towards the black hole would have on objects embedded in that space (such as other stars/planets) would be for them to flow with the space towards the black hole too. This would appear to an observer on those stars/planets as being a greater acceleration towards the black hole. Also as the flow rate of the space-time energy field towards the black hole would be fairly constant with distance away from the black hole. So this extra effect (that appears to be acceleration)" This is from your paper, this paper has a grand total of 1 formula. Which doesnt show observer effects on measurements. So lets look at your supposed peer reviewed reference papers. Lets see here, well this statement is definetely wrong. "The speed of lights apparent constancy then results from the time dilation that accompanies lights change in speed. The quantity c =g f is the speed of light in the F field, and c remains constant, where fc g is the General relativistic time dilation factor. To an outside observer (in a weaker F field) observing the reference frame, both the rate of time and the speed of light of the observed frame are slower." The speed of light is invariant. Under Lorentz transformation the factors that change is length contraction and time dilation. Thats just one example I can easily pick your papers apart. However statements such as this makes me question the peer review. Lorentz transformation. First two postulates. 1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical 2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames. Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction. Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1. A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above in space time ds between two events is [latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex] Invoking speed of light postulate 2. [latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex] Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex] Time dilation dt=proper time ds=line element since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant. an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt. [latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex] so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation [latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex] So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] [latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex] [latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex]

I would think trying to describe something without change (time) and without space (volume). Can only be described as non existance

Length contraction

I'm not sure why you would expect us to readily accept the validity of your personal papers. I question any paper presented to me. There was a recent reply that has some excellent detail on the four acceleration. This is something you should consider for your papers. After your goal should be improving all your papers. This is a good example of attention to details that you should look into. If I were to pick up a paper that included these details I would look at that paper with greater care. The reason being is that it would show a solid understanding of the current standard model and metrics. A good model proposal should always include the standard metrics that the alternative metrics are compared to. When I see papers that don't include the standard model details. My first first and foremost consideration is that the Author developed the paper to suit his level of understanding. Unfortunately that usually means there is a lack of understanding in the standard model. The next consideration is the nature of the equations used. If I see nothing greater than the rudimentary equations of a metric or of several metrics. My next concern is how indepth did you look into those equations. Did you study the mathematical proof that underly the equations? A good paper will detail how those equations are originally derived. The next factor is testability. You should detail viable means of proving and disproving any model. In other words model testing I'm fairly confident that the resident experts, moderators and well versed forum members feel the same way when reviewing a speculative model Oh forgot to add. I would also expect a good list of reference papers not including your own

Grats on the new job. Sounds pretty cool.

Elfomatat. I'm going to quote your post in another discussion in Speculations. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96004-galaxy-rotation-rates-explained-without-dark-matter/page-7#entry929330

Ajb pretty much covered all main points on your last post. My recommendation study that Schwartzchild metric section and look closely at the geodesic equations. Those are the equations that detail how matter free falls. Thats how you can properly describe infalling matter and radiation.

Well [latex] G_{\mu\nu}[/latex] is dynamic in terms of curvature. Not of a flow. BY itself with [latex]T_{\mu\nu}=0[/latex]. [latex]G_{\mu\nu}[/latex] approximates [latex]\eta_{\mu\nu}[/latex] which your SR Minkowkii metric. [latex]G_{\mu\nu}[/latex] with the ricci tensor and ricci scalar define the curvature metric. [latex]T_{\mu\nu}[/latex] is where your 4 momentum and 4 vector is detailed. Now if you want say a gravitational wave or a perturbation you can add another tensor [latex]H_{\mu\nu}[/latex] The gravitational wave equations detail this. However gravitational waves dont have the water wave dynamics. The transverse wave is quadrupole. Visualize a rubber ball and compress x plus and minus coordinates while expanding the two y coordinates. Now as for a good explaination of the Schwartzchild metric compared to Newtonian physics this article has an excellent section. Page 342. Of part 2. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2 The last article has excellent details on field modelling both relativistic and non. There is even coverage on coupling a scalar field to gravity. To properly model falling particles into a gravity well. You need to work out the geodesic equations. The spacetime geodesic for massive particles the null geodesic for the time time massless particles.

You have no idea how happy that would make me.😀😁😂😃😆 I have absolutely no problem with a particle field falling into a BH. Even if it is a quasi particle field. Now that being said. We need to define the characteristics of this field. 1) is its interactions identical to gravity?;if not define which interactions it has 2) are these quasi particles massless? Or have rest mass. 3) As Swansort asked why only BHs and not every form of mass.? 4) Considering all particle fields are also falling into a BH if you field is doing the same. What causes a distinquished vector than any other infalling fields? If not then what vector property of your quasi particles causes an influence on other particle fields infalling rates. We wont worry about spin statistics for the moment

The difference is in GR the mass density infalls into the BH. Not the the spacetime coordinates them self. Yet the descriptives you give has the coordinates infalling along with the mass content. You still dont see the difference. Hence the last equation I posted which models the coordinates with or without curvature for a homogenous and isotropic fluid. However like I figured you didnt look at the equations I posted to understand what Ive been getting at. Just like ignore the temperature contributions of radiation or quantum fields. If you doubt what Ive been stating its covered in the Elements of astrophysics text I linked earlier. This includes different variations of various field equations. Look at Schwartzchild metric. It is a static solution to GR. The term STATIC means the metric is static. (Spacetime) The rotating Kerr metric involves frame dragging but that does not include infalling spacetime.

Good point. Lol I still still find it amazing how ether supporters ignore thermodynamics. I have yet to see any apply it. Just like the OP they ignore any counter equations. Particularly shown by the OP by ignoring the temperature contributions due to adding additional degrees of freedom to the spin 2 statistics of gravity. the gravity wave detections would never have shown the same results if subjected to ether dragging. Yet ether theorists continue to ignore such data. The incredible part is the foolish assumptions that a few rudimentary formulas is going to overturn the extremely well tested GR. Alrighty then [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}[d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2][/latex] [latex]S\kappa,r= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}[/latex] a is the scale factor which correlates expansion [latex]Proper distance =\frac{\stackrel{.}{a}(t)}{a}[/latex] [latex]H(t)=\frac{\stackrel{.}{a}(t)}{a(t)}[/latex] So go ahead apply your spacetime flow to these equations. Or if you prefer the Schwartzchild or Kerr metric. Naturally you'll probably handwave that away as well. Next thing you will tell me that you have an ether that doesnt affect gravitational redshift. After all you ignore temperature and pressurevrelationships including luminosity relations that wavelengths has influence upon. Must be nice to have an undetectable ether that affects nothing. Of course if your spacetime geometry is flowing you dont need an ether. You can just let your black holes gobble up your coordinates. Try it assign a vector value to every 4d coordinate. Essentailly a vector field. Now have your spacetime coordinates and vectors flow into the BH. Are you starting to get the point on just how foolish the term "Spacetime flow" is?

I already read that paper you havent proven anything. The paper and the spacetime flowing terminology is garbage. There is far more experiments with far greater accuracy that prove ether theiries wrong. Lack of stellar aberation for one.

I'm glad to see you looking at the NFW profile. This article will help as it covers hydrodynamic relations as well as the NFW profile. Its fairly lengthy but worth studying. Much of the metrics your will need. Elements of astrophysics. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~kaiser/lectures/elements.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwifwf-LoM_NAhWvpYMKHRVuC1AQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNF3DxLuvc9AsMNMLuxf9ZU-TlaQXw&sig2=oKUeKrGT5jajiD1OhHJsMg You will note its first chapters deals with Relativity.

Sure I didn't cover modelling of a scalar field for which is w=-1. This is the field that commonly measures temperature or virtual particle production fields examples inflaton, curvaton. Or as a scalar field the Higgs field. [latex]w=-1=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\theta}^2-V(\theta)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\theta}^2+V(\theta)}[/latex] All fields can produce virtual particles. They do so with guage boson production. You haven't shown the equations of state for your model. Probably because you haven't properly identified it. The descriptions you provided don't make sense because you haven't described how it interacts with known interactions. The descriptions of an inherent energy of spacetime itself is completely wrong. If you want to use gravitational field then fine and dandy. But a spacetime field is 100% unacceptable. The reason being is there is no ether. Nor any virtual particles generated by particle to particle interactions. The reason being is spacetime isn't part of the model of particles of ANY type.... Spacetime is just the geometry.

Your last model is without dark matter. Sorry should have specified that. However even if your changing distribution flow of radiation or adding a field with a flow. Your still going to affect temperature and pressure relationships. For example Higgs field is a homogeneous and isotropic fluid. With spin of zero it is modelled as a scalar field. Gravity has its spin characteristics as well. Spin 2. We know this now due to detecting gravity waves. This spin causes a specific wave pattern. That being quadrupole. Which is uncharged. Photons have spin 1. I mention this because this as well as the number of degrees of freedom of every particle along with their kinetic energy affects temperature. So if you add a flow that is part of the standard modelling. Your going to cause temperature and pressure influences. Particularly at the CMB. Here chapter 3 and 4. Pay attention to the fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstien statistics. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde Bose_Eintein statistics is [latex]n_i(\varepsilon_i) = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}[/latex] for fermions you use the fermi-dirac statistics [latex]\bar{n}_i = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon _i-\mu) / k T} 1}[/latex] with these two equations we can calculate the number density of all the SM particles. From the blackbody temperature. This influences the equations of state. Here is a brief work through. This is for an adiabatic and isothermal fluid [latex]dU=dW=dQ[/latex] U is internal energy W =work. As we dont need heat transfer Q we write this as [latex]DW=Fdr=pdV[/latex] Which leads to [latex]dU=-pdV.[/latex]. Which is the first law of thermodynamics for an ideal gas. [latex]U=\rho V[/latex] [latex]\dot{U}=\dot{\rho}V+{\rho}\dot{V}=-p\dot{V}[/latex] [latex]V\propto r^3[/latex] [latex]\frac{\dot{V}}{V}=3\frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex] Which leads to [latex]\dot{\rho}=-3(\rho+p)\frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex] We will use the last formula for both radiation and matter. Assuming density of matter [latex]\rho=\frac{M}{\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3}[/latex] [latex]\rho=\frac{dp}{dr}\dot{r}=-3\rho \frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex] Using the above equation the pressure due to matter gives an Eos of Pressure=0. Which makes sense as matter doesn't exert a lot of kinetic energy/momentum. For radiation we will need some further formulas. Visualize a wavelength as a vibration on a string. [latex]L=\frac{N\lambda}{2}[/latex] As we're dealing with relativistic particles [latex]c=f\lambda=f\frac{2L}{N}[/latex] substitute [latex]f=\frac{n}{2L}c[/latex] into Plancks formula [latex]U=\hbar w=hf[/latex] [latex]U=\frac{Nhc}{2}\frac{1}{L}\propto V^{-\frac{1}{3}}[/latex] Using [latex]dU=-pdV[/latex] using [latex]p=-\frac{dU}{dV}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{U}{V}[/latex] As well as [latex]\rho=\frac{U}{V}[/latex] leads to [latex]p=1/3\rho[/latex] for ultra relativistic radiation. Those are examples of how the first law of thermodynamics fit within the equations of state. There is more intensive formulas involved. In particular the Bose-Einstein statistics and Fermi-Dirac statistics. Now you described your energy flow in any details. However as your talking energy or rather some form of radiation the section on radiation applies. The thing is your radiation has specific directions. This flow can affect via those equations of state above the temperature distribution which will correspond to the luminosity to temperature relations. In other words we should easily be able to detect a bulk flow of radiation regardless type via its temperature contribution. This is precisely where baryon accoustics studies does at the CMB.

No actually I dont misunderstand you. The problem is your not looking at the relations I mentioned. YOUR changing the stress momentum tensor relations. Those changes have other affects that you are ignoring

Lol

I lost track of which vector my wife is going a long time ago

Radiation has a different equation of state influence upon pressure than matter does. This includes dark matter. Matter having extremely low kinetic energy exerts negligible pressure. W=0. Radiation w=1/3. You are essentially adding radiation with a pressure influence in a specific direction rather than a homogenous and isotropic distribution. In a galaxy the distribution naturally isn't homogeneous and isotropic however we still can't ignore its equation of state. The equations of state also involves the stress tensor. The other problem is that radiation has not only pressure influence it also has temperature influence. Photons for example being bosonic with two degrees of freedom, influence and add to the blackbody temperature. You can calculate the photon density using the Bose-Einstien statistics. For fermionic you can use the Fermi-Dirac distribution. How radiation interacts with other matter is dynamically different than how matter interacts with other matter. You have proposed to replace matter with w=0 with radiation w=1/3 in a completely different distribution and characteristics that are detectable without once applying those changes into any of the perfect fluid equations that are used in the EFE or FLRW metric. If you follow through with applying your changes into those metrics you would discover that those changes would have a huge impact upon the curvature. As well as the pressure and corresponding temperature relations Gamma rays are high energy photons. Not energy unto itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray

Lol its like stating black holes absorb coordinates. A field is a topography of coordinates. If I have a vector field I can apply vector conditions at those coordinates. In the case of GR its used to map the four momentum. This is one method of mapping a gravitational field. For temperature and virtual particle production we typically use a scalar field. However your spin foams map action rather than force.

The other problem is you obviously don't understand the thermodynamic aspects involved in GR. In particular behind this equation. [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] If you did you wouldnt be making the erroneous statements you have been. Particularly not statements like blackholes gobbling up spacetime. Which isnt a substance. It isnt even energy... Its the blooming geometry.

First off energy is a property it doesn't exist on its own. The NFW profile is the profile to predict galaxy rotation curves. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro%E2%80%93Frenk%E2%80%93White_profile It isnt Keplarian due to how it handles mass distribution. The formula also follows the shell theorem. As it deals with the enclosed mass. This is something your formulas do not do. If you really took a good look at your formulas. You would recognize they have the same inherent Keplarian linearity. Despite your added terms.

Expansion isnt flowing outward but it is expanding. That expansion has no preferred direction. Meaning the expansion is isotropic. Black holes mass has already been included in galaxy rotation curves. What your proposing adds an undetected dynamic to GR which is incredibly well tested. Fine and dandy but dont think the few equations you've posted will be sufficient. I would recommend applying the Kerr metric for your frame dragging. If I was in your shoes and I wanted seriously advance my model. I would look closely at the comments were making and take a good look. There have several suggestions for improvement. Not including holes to fill. Did you look at the NFW profile?

Hocus pocus alla kazam

Great on the first link. What does that link state is the composition of the neutron.? I certainly dont see an electron on the composition list. Now add up the charges of the quarks that make up the neutrons composition