Mordred

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

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