Mordred

Ah ok I was thinking ringdown in regard to chirp frequency. Though that would be more a ring up lol

No drop this "when the event horizons touches." Gravity waves occur when there is changes in acceleration of the two Blackholes. The event horizons do not need to touch to emit gravity waves. Strain occurs in every wave. Ringdown is the number of waves and frequency of the collection of waves. It is a different formula than the strain formulas.

No we're telling you that you can't draw accurate conclusions from pop media articles

I didn't claim all blackholes have accretion disks Carrock. However any positive energy/density region still has mass. You don't have to read the entire reference just look at equation 43. Or section 3 of that reference. Why do you think the stress energy tensor includes [latex]\rho[/latex] Which is energy or mass density. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

Gravity doesn't get out of the event horizon. The gravitational mass information is stored at the event horizon. Kind of a difficult concept to grasp Without the math here is a simple explanation. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/937/how-does-gravity-escape-a-black-hole Essentially the gravitational field resides at the event horizon.

Speed of light and speed of gravity are both invariant. The speed of the singularity won't change either the speed of light or gravity.

Have you ever looked at the Einstein field equations? Your basing your arguments on pop media articles. You will always get the wrong impressions from these sources. For example we can never see inflation. No matter how far back we look. The mean free path of light prior to the CMB is too short. So we will never need to worry about redshift for this period. Not until we can measure the Cosmic neutrino background.

You don't simplify a math formula with no math. That's just a handwave The evolution of matter and radiation over time is detailed in this equation. [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] One can calculate the rate of expansion per Mpc via this equation at any function of redshift. [latex]\Omega[/latex] is a dimensionless density parameter This isn't the acceleration equations itself but you can calculate the rate of expansion in any point in the past compared to the rate of expansion today with this formula. The acceleration equation is given as [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] This leads to [latex]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3c^2}-\frac{kc^2p}{R_c^2a^2}[/latex] a is the scale factor, p is pressure, G is the gravitational constant. [latex]\rho[/latex] is the energy or mass density. K is the curvature constant. c is the speed of light. This equation is 100% GR compatible

Oh I see your still ignoring the acceleration equations. This correlates the rate of expansion with energy density and pressure. So again your lack of understanding is getting in the way

Regardless though nothing can ever exit the event horizons of either BH. There is no spacetime path for mass to escape the event horizons in a BH merger. Even if those EH's are warped. The mass radiated via gravity waves must originate from Outside the event horizons.

I'm asking what your referring to as ringdown. Strain and chirp frequency ringdown are two different aspects. Strain occurs every cycle but the chirp frequency determines the number of cycles and frequency rate of those cycles.

You just have to look at the reference to see that there is a ton of mass in the accretion disk and ergoshere regions. How do you think accretion jets form? Not all mass gets absorbed by the BH For example equation 43 specifies mass density using [latex]\rho[/latex] What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that Nothing escapes the event horizon. This includes mass, gravity waves can only be emitted from Outside the event horizons.

Specifically 10^-43 seconds forward.

Reduced Compton wavelength The difference being [latex] 2\pi[/latex]

If your looking at ringdown as in chirp frequency your looking at the wrong formula. Page 10 http://www.physics.usu.edu/Wheeler/GenRel2013/Notes/GravitationalWaves.pdf The formulas you posted are specifically the two polarizations. Whose strength depends on observer placement. Neither determine chirp

I have issues whenever anyone says he solves a problem that perplexed every expert in any field. Without being to show any understanding of the math behind the model. Call me wrong but I'm not a professional cosmologist. However I studied the math enough to gain a bachelors degree My stock and trade is electronic plant automation. Yet I have 4 degrees in different fields my masters is in electronics. Cosmology and particle physics is a hobby not a living for me Though I studied enough material over 30 years in Cosmology that I helped proof read 4 different dissertations of professional cosmologists. I still have a copy of their dissertations. You claimed that you can't get the data for your conjecture. The data is readily available via arxiv. Thousands of professional scientists have tried countering the cosmological constant. You want a hint, model the cosmological constant as a scalar field to gather its equation of state. Google(equations of state Cosmology) Let's put it this way, if someone says he can perform brain surgery, but doesn't know human anatomy. Would you let him operate on you ?

Again I still have no idea why you have a problem with a negative number compared to a baseline value. If my direction is to the right, a negative direction compared to the original (right). Is mathematically correct.

A higher density means a higher temperature You contract matter enough due to gravity to compensate for the cosmological constant. Every planet would reach nuclear fusion You have no idea how many times in 30 years I've heard this matter contraction idea. In 30 years I've never seen the idea work with proper mathematics. Or understanding of thermodynamic principles. Even from professional PH.D cosmologists

I decided I'm right, and thousands of professional experts are wrong. However I can't show I'm right because I can't do the math or even prove I understand the current model. How typical Do you honestly believe scientists can't measure matter contraction? It does cause temperature variation

That's a typical crackpot expression. Sorry to say.

No blackhole model supports a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. A blackhole by its very influence causes a preferred location and direction. You really need to understand what kind of dynamics can result in a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. Think of pressure surrounding three galaxies. Surrounding all three galaxies on ever direction the pressure is identical. As there is no difference in pressure, no galaxy gains no momentum. None of the galaxies gain inertia. The only influence that can change is the volume or distance between the galaxies. Take any three or more measurement points. The angles do not change only the distance. If you have a preferred direction the angles change

Believe me I truly wish the Cosmological constant wasn't as constant as measurements show. My thermodynamic model would work then..... However both thermodynamic and observational evidence counters a varying cosmological constant I've studied roughly 30+ different universe/blackhole models most died when WMAP published its data. None are seriously considered today. This includes Poplowskiis "spin and Torsion model"

Yes but if I recall your trying to compensate cosmological redshift with gravitational redshift. However the distribution of matter isn't compatible. I posted the geodesic equations earlier this thread, to show that not just wavelength is influenced but also light paths are influenced. The currently known distribution of matter and radiation allows the worldlines and light paths to be parallel. Your conjecture runs the risk of imbalancing the flat geometry. Current cosmological redshift works with and in tandem with this distribution. Simply by increase in distance of the light path over time. The thing is gravity is an attractive influence it never repels Not that you've suggested such. We've also confirmed expansion by parralax measurements. Which has absolutely nothing to do with redshift. Even without redshift the cosmological constant is needed. This is the part your ignoring. The other part is the rate of expansion with the cosmological constant also matches the rate of temperature change. Again you've chosen to ignore that aspect. It's not blind faith in LCDM I state these details. Its 30 years of personal study in Cosmology. (I started studying cosmology before LCDM became the concordance model)

I've always hated the term "fabric of spacetime". Space is simply volume. Time is in spacetime is a coordinate. Which is relative. Gravity cannot affect an empty volume, it must influence particles or objects. Now GR uses geometry, manifolds etc, which amounts to the distribution of influence upon the standard model particles. There is no fabric like substance or unique particles involved. Mass can only influence other particles not an empty volume.

Well that's what your missing. Behind the event horizon there is ZERO path for mass to escape. A BH can only lose mass via Hawking radiation. The mass radiated from a merger does NOT originate from behind the event horizon of either BH. As there is no spacetine path for mass to escape. The mass loss is the spacetime regions Outside the event horizons. Here is a good lengthy article on BH's outside the event horizon. There is a tremendous amount of energy in the ergosphere and accretion disk. These regions can get far hotter than the center of any star. 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