Grochola

So just an update Prof. Jeremy Mould, Editor-in-Chiefs at Astrophysics and Space Science just reviewed the manuscript, he said that while he doesn't recommend the paper for publication in ApSS, I should talk to people at Mel Uni, and that the suggestion I had in the manuscript .... "FiSS predicts galaxy collision approach speeds must show a correlation to the projected area each galaxy sees of each other, hence spiral galaxies that approach edge first should, have a slower approach speed than flat side first approach... by Eq 1, whereas in the lambda CDM model, a spherical dark halo wouldn't show such a correlation... This would be easy to do right, and it would completely falsify the hypothesis." if I did that work it would be "more likely to get a hearing from reviewers and editors" he also said "and remember, you can always send your paper to arxiv.org where there is no peer review." which tell me he didn't find any great blunder on my part that disqualifies it imminently, I'm hopeful to get a meeting at mel uni...

So wait, let's distinguish between two spacetime fluctuations, 1) If I wave my fist around, I'm sending infinitesimally small time varing spacetime fluctuation to my coffee mug 2) Two black holes in a merger give off radiative gravitational energy via a time-varying quadrupole moment You don't believe in either?

and ... "if you saw evidence of this, that the velocities of galaxy pairs were strangely correlated to the projected area orientation that each galaxies sees of each other and not just correlated to the amount of matter (dark and baryonic) in the galaxy... would that change your mind and give you pause about FiSS? " I'm seriously considering putting US$10K up, for anyone that can falsify FiSS based on the above lastly, so just so we know where we stand, in your option, 1) FiSS is not possible, and/or 2) the hypothesized proposed forces in Table 1, produced by the interaction of baryonic matter with high spacetime curvatures on the scale 10e-18m, wouldn't work that way... is this your position?

Guys let's just step back a bit from the details for a little while, cos I fear were getting lost in the details and what's possible... in answer... No I have not considered this, I'm not sure GR can be applied to the proposed scales 10e-18m... but I'd love to hear your option on this.... so Mordred... I probably miss spoke, I'm not at all sure this is within GR. We know for sure GR is a macroscopic approximation, albeit an amazingly successful one, but ultimately there has to be something deeper.... I'm trying to follow you but, I'm having a hard time, you say... You're not going to like my answer but ... I'm going to leave that to you guys So lets just step back a bit first... look at the proposed forces summarized in Table 1, and Eqn 1, 6 and 7... and let me ask you the following questions: 1) Do these forces describe Hoag's object? 2) Do these forces describe spiral arms? 3) Do they describe and explain the Linear Tully Fisher relationship 4) What do you make of the astounding ability for this model to fit issues in cosmology today? putting ASIDE the details of how FiSS might have formed or it's form... lastly, there is one very simple prediction the hypothesis makes, in section 6.30 FiSS predicts galaxy collision approach speeds must show a correlation to the projected area each galaxy sees of each other, hence spiral galaxies that approach edge first should, have a slower approach speed than flat side first approach... by Eq 1, whereas in the lambda CDM model, a spherical dark halo wouldn't show such a correlation (correct me if I'm wrong) This would be easy to do, and it would completely falsify the hypothesis if you saw evidence of this, that the velocities of galaxy pairs were strangely correlated to the projected area orientation that each galaxies sees of each other and not just correlated to the amount of matter in the galaxy... would that change your mind and give you pause about FiSS?

got out of academia 10 year ago, came up with FiSS this year

“Space-time tells matter how to move; matter tells space-time how to curve” John Wheeler move subatomic matter and spacetime curvature changes, it doesn't get much simpler, I'm only suggesting spacetime has finer higher curvatures i.e. structure, this is still with GR prescription, what's not within GR is, the interaction of such high curvatures when they hit baryonic matter, that's within a non-flat curvature quantum mechanical prescription, and quite frankly all the forces I suggest are rank guesses, I can't prove them or derive them, I dare say no one will for some time, even if FiSS effects are observed and proven true, because we simply don't know how quantum sub-atomic particles work in highly curved spacetime. BWT yet more evidence, of this crazy S-FiSS shade casting effect, I'm seeing it everywhere https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.8178.pdf they found satellite galaxies orbiting a main galaxy are orbiting in an unexplained correlated planar arrangement around these galaxies, whereas the standard dark matter model Lambad-CDM does not or only very weakly predicts this, see Fig 1 of their work. Whereas in FiSS this is predicted because opposing satellite galaxies orbiting around a main galaxy core would cast a gravitational potential well extending to the opposing satellite.

Thanks Mordred, no it's not an eather based hypothesis, it's still spacetime curvature in the standard GR sense, it's just that I'm suggesting there are finer curvatures embedded, structure is used in the scientific sense, i.e. "there is structure in this signal" if you had a mass and moved it around, and a detector, would spaectime curvature not change, if course it would, a time varing change (I'm not talking about gravitational waves that carry with them gravitational radiation energy) However what you say here ... That I'll have to look into... There is one very simple prediction the hypothesis makes, in section 6.30 Galaxy collision approach speeds must show a correlation to the projected area each galaxy sees of each other, hence spiral galaxies that approach edge first should, have a slower approach speed than flat side first approach... by Eq 1, whereas in the lambda CDM model, a spherical dark halo wouldn't show such a correlation... This would be easy to do right, and it would completely falsify the hypothesis

Hey:) not sure I understand but think more in terms of an unless sea of an unimaginable number of superimposed fluctuations from distant objects, from all manner of sub atomic particles... normally any such fluctuations would average out right, and spacetime would be perfectly smooth, but what about as they travel half way across the universe, the superimposed peaks that are confirmed to the same space in the same direction, need only phase shift 10e-18m and they have billions of years to do so, and vola you've got fine structure in your curvature. Then when it hits normal matter is re-blooms the gravitational potential, and you've got what appears like dark matter and yes, before you pick up on my statement, I know from GR time is froze for such fluctuations... but maybe there is some mechanism that allows the peak to move 10e-18m

So after getting out of academia I must miss it... just after Christmas, this new year I was thinking about issues in cosmology and all this Dark Matter and Dark Energy theories, and had this crazy idea that's within Einstein's GR- maybe, but more so, it's within a non-flat curvature quantum theory, which we don't have so all this is speculation, but i thought perhaps tiny fluctuations in spacetime curvature (from moving masses in sub-atomic particles from distant parts of the universe), travelling in the same direction, in the same region of space, over billions of years, would interact and form very sharp curvatures in spacetime - on the scales 10e-18m to 10e-15m. The idea is that this would disrupt gravitation over the very long range. From this I think one can postulate 4 force effects, 3 gravitational and 1 radiation pressure. Two of the gravitational effects are a type of re-blooming of the gravitational potential, in fact the whole idea is really a type of localized gravitational potential by-pass and re-blooming effect, but not necessarily a quantized version gravity, still continuous just localized spacetime packets. I called it Fine Structured Spacetime (FiSS) because well - it would make matter FiZZ The thing is, at least to me, this idea seems to have an astounding potential to fix problems in cosmology. Every major problem I looked at, FiSS seemed introduced a force or effect that at least moved the problem in the right direction: it seems to explain Dark Matter, explain Dark Energy, rotation curves of galaxies, predicts a linear Tully Fisher relationship (although the math on this is a bit shaky, haven't done math now in 10 years as I'm out of the academic field), it's consistent with the bullet cluster, explains stability of spiral arms, barred galaxy structures, star formation in trailing gases for "Jellyfish Galaxies," weird ring galaxies like Hoag's object, partly resolves the "vacuum catastrophe" problem, possibly resolves the Hubble constant and the "Crisis in Cosmology," explains the "Cuspy-Core" problem, predicts the nature of voids, maybe explains "The Great Attractor" and "Dark Flow"... and it just goes on.. and on. I've probably just spent 3 weeks in cognitive bias looking for evidence for it, but I'm seeing it everywhere now... clearly I've lost all impartiality - I'm too invested in the idea, and that's when you need to step back and let others take a look and form their own option and give you some feedback. I wrote it up as manuscript and submitted to a few journals, a couple of weeks back, hoping to get a peer reviewer to look at it, but due to its early speculative nature, it was not accepted. Also sent the unpublished manuscript to a number of researchers in the field for some feedback, but they get bombarded with claims of solutions for Dark Matter, so I still haven't heard back from them. So I've decided to let it go, and just post the unpublished, un-peer reviewed manuscript on a few Physics and Astronomy forums, you can find the idea here: https://www.ecoonline.com.au/content/FiSS.pdf I'd love to get some feedback on it... anyone here that is intimately familiar with what's possible within a non-flat curvature quantum theory? Kind Regards Dr Gregory Grochola PS: yes I see there are lots of untrained people posting "theories", I'm well aware of the Scientific Method, you can check my track record as a scholar below, 20 of those papers I wrote myself over a period of 10 years... https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=aKhLFkwAAAAJ&hl=en FiSS.pdf