Mordred

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

You do realize you need a mathematical model to be able to make predictions. After all how can you predict the proper distance to a galaxy today without mathematics? This is the real reason math is needed for a model to work. It must be able to predict the effects of an influence and match measurements. If a model can't do that it's worthless.

Robbity you are missing a key element of spacetime. Any positive energy/density region contains mass in the particles that surround a Schwartzchild region. When the mass of a BH is provided they usually just refer to the mass that defines the Schwartzchild radius. This does not include the spacetime regions prior to the event horizon such as the accretion disk, or the photon sphere. If you look at a BH merger you can see an Einstein ring surrounding BOTH BH's. An Einstein ring is a special type of lensing due to the mass of the spacetime region itself. (That mass resides OUTSIDE the EH. https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/ligo20160211v3 The only difference between spacetime and a solid is the density. Spacetime has mass just like any solid object it's just far more spread out. For example a void far removed from any gravitational structure has an average mass of 10-29 grams/m^3. As you approach a gravitational body the average mass will steadily increased depending on the energy/density change as a function of radius and the changes in the stress/energy tensor.

Its clear your just imagining impossible scenarios without understanding the distribution of the cosmological constant. In every region of space it has an average energy density of 10-29 grams/metre. It cannot be undetected blackholes. You would not get a homogeneous and isotropic expansion.

Not all the mass is inside the Schwartzchild radius. Any spacetime region of higher gravitational potential has mass.

No it's the term that describes the energy/momentum of particles. It's not a time component. It covers how particles behave within the field. Actually I think I may have gotten that equation mixed up. There is no coordinate on t. The stress tensor requires tensor coordinates. T in this formula is time not the stress tensor. My apologies. (Yeah the wiki page uses the Greek symbol for the stress tensor)

T is the stress energy/momentum tensor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

It's not blinded by faith. Show the math not a verbatim. Physics is about mathematics. Any new model or theory requires the math to make testable predictions. I supplied you the tools to learn the math. Don't expect us to do your math for you. Everyone that gets their personal theory countered invariably argue that were blinded by Faith. It's a foolish argument. Don't blame others for not doing the needed work to present your idea or model properly

Point well taken lol. And an excellent example

Yeah its rather an unheard of principle I truly thank you for the info. Lie algebra being part of my studies this particular set of relations is incredibly handy. In a more diligent level it can apply to most field theories. A good example is the Lorentz SO(1.3) group Lol I think we might be getting beyond the OP's understanding

Yeah I understand. Thanks for the detailed terminology on the the principle. Makes sense to me though most will miss the details. I can see hundreds of applications involving torsors Though I have studied lie algebra in some detail. Just never connected this particular dot lol There is a G torsor are there any other torsor groups? Edit there is also an R torsor group Edit Edit lol never mind the last question there are numerous torsor groups. This link provided a good explanation along with your article. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/torsors.html

Nice your finally posting latex. Well done now post your understanding of those equations. PS +1

Ah I gotcha, the article you wrote provided some good clarity. Well written. Follows what I've been stating this thread but in far greater mathematical detail This particular line is an excellent example. "A good example of the use of a torsor is the potential difference in electromagnetism. When you measure a voltage, you in fact measure the difference of some voltage relative to some other fixed voltage. In practice one takes the ground to be zero, but this is a choice" I just never heard the term before in regards to bundles and lie algebra groups.

I agree, just never heard the term atm I'm looking at the The term for a homogeneous space G and the stabilizer subgroup. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsor_(algebraic_geometry) quite detailed it will take a bit lol

Grr I know I never heard the the term torsor before. Thanks for that lol. No worries I can find the needed material myself lol. Ps surprised I hadn't seen the term in my lie algebra studies lol most likely missed it though lol

Kerr metric is appropriate for a rotating body. Although there are artifacts of metrics in any metric. So far I'm impressed by the amount of diligence you've shown. Recognizing your still working on the model I've chosen not to interfere. For the equations of state inside a star the best reference I can think of is "physics of the interstellar medium" It is a textbook, it is extremely detailed in details such as temperature absorbtion of different elements etc Not my area of expertise. On this forum probably the best member I can think of is Sensei. He is far more adept at nuclear processes than I My suggestion is post a seperate thread on internal star processes. Sometimes in order to find the details on a forum a new thread on specific aspects will get the attention of the right people. (Key note I may not agree with your idea, but I refuse to interfere with your diligent study)

Your arguing a fallacy based on a fallacy argument. Do you even understand the relation between 0+-5 and 0-5 is? When you add a negative it's the same as subtracting that number. When you multiply a negative number your multiplying the amount of subtraction. This is Mathematics not philosophy. Of course I will argue pure Mathematics in regards to science. Science is the language of mathematical relations. You ask me to use your false Mathematics? To explain relations from condition A to condition B. Not going to happen.

Your welcome, I hope the materials I provided you will study. The textbooks I mentioned would be better, but I can't buy them for you lol. Trust me I was once in your position. Those three books fixed a lot of my misunderstandings.

No your doubling the scale to the left hand side of zero. Your not doubling the temperature. Your doubling the units BELOW ZERO. Get your math right. When you multiply -5 * 2 your stating it is twice as COLD. Not hot.

If your trying to double the temperature why would you use incorrect Mathematics?

Your not alone in the majority of posters. Very few ppl truly understand LCDM. Those same people don't understand the math. A smart person shouldn't try to fix something they don't understand. They just make themselves look foolish. Instead it's better to ask specific questions as to why a model works the way it does. The three textbooks that describes Cosmology with a low math level required is. The First three minutes by Weinberg. introductory to Cosmology by Barbera Ryden And Introductory to Cosmology by Matt Roose. Any of these three books is an excellent start that will put you ahead of 75% of the posters on this forum.

Well the only way to fully understand why the professionals show and understand differently is to study the history and math involved. Without the math I can't explain these things in proper detail. It's incredibly limiting. There is no particle that has the right characteristics for dark matter. The closest is sterile neutrinos. However even then that's debatable. There is no thermodynamic process that keeps the cosmological constant constant. (Other than possibly Higgs inflation). QMs quantum fluctuations had too much energy. Would you even recognize SO(10) GUT. Grand unification theory, or what the terms coupling constants mean? So how can I describe the differences between SO(5) nucleosynthesis from SO(10) nucleosynthesis? Let alone baryogeneses and leptogenesis. Terms like vaccuum expectation value would be meaningless to you. Part of the reason I supplied the links I did.

I think you have a misunderstanding of LCDM. The Full LCDM is a huge collection of theories. It doesn't involve just the EFE, or the FLRW metric. It also involved whatever particle physics GUT theory is being used. As well as thermodynamics. The thing is the BB model aka LCDM evolves in complexity and accuracy as new data is discovered. It's a model that continously evolves as research becomes available. Prior to WMAP and Planck prior to the Cosmological constant and dark energy the Freidmann equations had a different form. The equations you see today are the extended FLRW metric. This is why the model is so robust. It encompasses the body of our understanding of physics in its entirety. Yes we can describe how the Universe evolves by 6 parameters but those 6 paraneters involve dozens of related formulas and principles. Quite frankly in the 1980s LCDM was first being formulated. Alternatives were Quintessence, Wdm, CDM, LHDM LWDM, MOND, etc. Variations were due to Is dark matter, hot(relativistic),warm or cold. Do we include the Cosmological constant or not? Is there a geometry other than positive, negative curvature of flat? The numerous Blackhole universe related models such as Poplowskii spin and Torsion. Are we in a deSitter or anti desitter universe? The list goes on. Even inflation has well over 70+ viable models. Nowadays you still have numerous variations such as Ads/cft, and LQC. Ads/cft (antidesitter/conformal field theory). LQC loop quantum gravity. A lot of papers on F® gravity etc. Alternatives still abound.

Yes -5 * 2 is identical to -5 +-5. What of it. When you multiply a number you essentially adding that number by its multiple number of times. Why would you expect the number to increase? Sounds to me like your using the sliding scale wrong. Take your abacus or sliding scale Count -5 units then count -5 units again. Answer -10 units. Better yet use a sliding ruler as such ....-10,-9,-8,-7,-6,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10... Add -5 slide left. Add +5 slide right. Done. Zero can be wherever you set it. If for example I have a system in one state ie an average temperature, pressure or energy level I set zero to the average. Then shift the slide rule according to the deviation from that average. Same works with coordinates. You have coordinates outside an object. So you set zero as the center of the coordinates then describe the objects dimensions on either side of its center. -x,x,-y,y-z,z. This works particularly well with a circle. Mathematically you can describe a circle by its radius. Makes having the coordinate 0,0,0 at the center extremely convenient. Ever wonder why relativity is based upon coordinate change in particular Polar coordinates? (Sphere) All interactions are described in a coordinate system. This is why differential geometry is a required field in physics.

he isn't arguing a varying. Gravitational constant. Another poster is doing that on another thread lol. Also there have been and is still ongoing studies on varying gravitational constant. As well as the fine structure constant. At least in the other thread the OP is learning the math and trying to properly model such. CMB was discovered in 1964. However the first measurements of the elements didn't come till later. Via the Cobe satellite in 1989. Prior to that we could only hear the static via radio waves. As far as I know Hoyle wasn't involved. Ralph Alpherin, George Gamow and Robert Herman. First predicted Cmb nucleosynthesis in 1948. Tired light was the other possible explanation for Redshift at this time. Later proven to be false Hoyle later worked on an alternative to BB, using quasi steady state model. Which boils down to numerous regions expanding at different rates to explain the CMB. Mathematically it works but never gained popularity. He died never agreeing with BB itself but recognized that there is expansion.