Strange

Please provide a mathematical proof or a reference to a credible source that confirms this.

Please learn to ask questions instead of making ignorant assertions: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IntrinsicCurvature.html http://mathpages.com/rr/s5-03/5-03.htm

Why do you think things have changed?

No. Why do you think that? In all cases the universe has four dimensions (three spatial, one time). No, they are completely generic. They describe that universe as a pseudo-Riemannian manifold, which can have any type of curvature.

I see that your idea is about factoring numbers. Please find the prime factors of 141,620,173 and show the steps involved.

There are many ways to understand nature: art, science, intuition, philosophy, etc. The thing that sets science apart is that it is "useful"; in other words it works and can be used to produce technology.

Yes, this formula is correct. It is called the Schwarzschild radius: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius m3 is metres cubed (i.e. volume) kg is kilograms (and kg-1 means 1/kg or "per kilogram") s is seconds, so s-2 means 1/s2 (or "per second squared")

Neither of those appear to say that the universe has a boundary.

Thanks. I realise now that I have hugely over-simplified because, for example, a tau does not decay into a muon that decays into an electron. There are many other (more likely) possibilities. But the general principle still applies.

Is there a general principle that if a less massive particle with the same properties exists, then the more massive particle "must" decay into the lighter equivalent (plus something to take away the excess energy)? So a muon decays into an electron, which conserves all properties except mass-energy, and so a pair of neutrino/antineutrino take away the excess kinetic energy. Does this happen simply because the electron exists as a less massive equivalent of the muon?

Another good response to this on this page: http://www.black-holes.org/explore/movies (Scroll down to the "Gravitational Waves From a Pair of Black Holes From Large Distance" video) "If you look carefully, you'll notice that gravitational waves are emitted in all directions, but that the waves are strongest in the "upward direction", which is normal to the orbital plane of the holes."

Because even in multiverse theories, the universe can still be finite but unbounded. (Or, as Mordred says, infinite.) The negativity isn't against the universe having an edge; after all, it is possible that a future scientific theory will suggest that is the case. The negativity is about wilfully ignorant people insisting that their half-formed opinions must be correct. Not in any model I am aware of. Perhaps you can provide a reference to support this?

That is only showing the changes to the event horizons. There is a lot more going on that is not shown there. For example: https://www.caltech.edu/news/physicists-discover-new-way-visualize-warped-space-and-time-1680 There is some more background on the simulations here: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/711/2/BlackHoles.pdf Note that simulating a single, stationary black hole took something like 24 hours on 52,000 processors. This is definitely non-trivial stuff. There is a whole website dedicated to these simulations and related research: http://www.black-holes.org/

To take an engineering analogy (a meta analogy) it is possible to describe electrical circuits by drawing an analogy between voltage and pressure, current and fluid flow, resistance as narrowing a pipe, capacitance as some sort of bucket, etc. But you can't do anything with those analogies.(Other than give the novice a vague and basically incorrect idea about how things work.) You can't even work out the energy used by a light bulb. And if you want to design an active low pass filter, then you are going to have to get to grips with Z transforms, etc.

I assume it is there just to make it clearer what happens to the event horizons as the black holes approach one another - by removing the orbital motion, it is easier to see how they distort and merge.

Yes we can. We might not know what the right answer is, but that doesn't stop us eliminating a lot of wrong answers.

According to our current best theories, we expect they would see pretty much the same as we see. A universe of 92 bilion yerars diameter with everythign moving away from everything else. I agree it is one possibility. Not necessarily. Consider the analogy of the surface of a sphere. It has a finite area but no edge. If you travel in s straight line you will get back to where you started (I don't think that is true for all topologies). Please stop trying to dismiss things you don't like (and don't understand) as "just theory". The only reason we have theory is because of the evidence. As your personal opinions are not based on evidence, you are in no position to make these demands of others.

There is no edge. No one knows. Possibly infinite. Possibly not. So ignorant. It is an analogy: the same thing can be true in 3 dimensions. Not by any definition I am aware of. I'll go for 2 or 4 (as they are the ones supported by our current best theories). Forthe benefit of those who know nothing about modern science, 4 is: finite but unbounded.

No, that is not the radius of the whole universe. It is as it very clearly states, the radius of the OBSERVABLE universe. I can't make any sense of your random equations. That, as ever, you don't have a clue.

It is patently wrong. The animation I posted recently is produced by someone working on LIGO. I have no reason not to believe it is not accurate. Also, the amount of curvature of space-time is related to the mass-energy at that point, not somewhere else. Here: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/get_file?pdfs/SPAW./1918/1918SPAW.......154E.pdf A bit of background here: http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/DE/GNT/events/pdf/steinicke05.pdf Does that help?

I find some of your statements (like your new "law") very hard to parse and so can't really comment on them. The simulations I provided show that the claim you originally made (that the curvature or gravity well was greatest at the barycenter) is wrong. But you seem to have moved on from there (I'm just not quite sure where to!) I think the reason you might have trouble find what you are looking for is because the barycentre is a concept from Newtonian dynamics and,as I think Mordred has already said, solving for two bodies orbiting each other in GR is non-trivial. Which is why it requires simulation on supercomputers. As such, I suspect it is not easy to derive the concept of a barycentre in GR. But, when you simulate the behaviour, you find the bodies do orbit their common centre of gravity (aka barycentre).

Curve is ok, because it is all about changes to the geometry of space-time. But tear doesn't make much sense.

That is about the probable angle of the orbital plane to our line of site, not the direction that gravitational waves are emitted. Wrong. The radiation is strongest in the direction perpendicular to the orbital plane (i.e. aligned with the angular momentum). And not zero in the orbital plane. http://www.aei.mpg.de/~schutz/download/lectures/AzoresCosmology/Schutz.AzoresLecture2.pdf Please keep your made-up "stuff" to the Speculations forum. Except it obviously is happening in the line of sight ... because we detected it. Duh.

I assume that in this sort of model, global simultaneous updates could explain entanglement while some emergent property would preserve causality. But that is just (yet) another challenge for the model to address. Cool!

I know there is a mathematics community online that does a sort of crowd-source approach to developing theorems and proofs. I think I read that one of their projects is to look at Mochizuki's proof. But that is is going (very) slowly. Sorry, that's all I remember ...