Mordred

Just the choice of counter model. Usually the counter model is more competitive. Ie LCDM vs MOND back when MOND was in stronger contention. Though I suppose Van's model may have been more supported at one time.

To understand that you would need to understand the term stellar aberration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration_(derivation_from_Lorentz_transformation) In this case he is discussing aberration of gravity. The first link gives the general idea though. essentailly the paper is comparing the Lorentz invariance of light to gravity being variant or invariant. If the graviton is truly massless, just as light is then gravity would be invariant. The emitters velocity would have no influence upon the propogation of gravity. (Velocity dependant cancellations). If however gravity is not invariant then conservation of momentum can cause changes in the speed of the graviton. Most papers discuss alternative competing theories for comparison. This is essentially what this paper is doing. The comparison is Lorentz invariant or not invariant. For gravity. The paper includes electromagnetic Metrics to help explain the variance and invariant theories. The conclusion the paper presents is gravity is invariant. Essentially stating that the speed of gravity will be the same to all observers regardless of the observer or emitter velocities. I found it kind of humorous that the paper mentions Van Flandern... well you decide lol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern

No he's saying there is some lag as defined by the speed of light. In this case the speed of gravity. The lag is what he's describing by retarded position

The time delay effects are already included in the [latex]T^{ij}[/latex] Formulas on page 8 That's the beauty of tensor usage in the Einstein field equations. You handle 4d coordinate change without specifically using a specific coordinate system

[latex]M_c =\frac{(m_1m_2)^{3/5}}{(m_1 + m_2)^{1/5}}[/latex] This is the formula for chirp mass. You can see both masses are included. The gravitational force is in the next three equations on that link you posted page 10. It already accounts for changes in orbit via two maxima and minimal values. "In practice what it means is that for each cycle made by the binary motion, the gravitational wave signal goes through two full cycles there are two maxima and two minima per orbit. For this reason, gravitational waves are called quadrupolar waves." See pages 6,7 and 8. Where you account for position of the two objects, they include the time components on page 8 The chirp formula relates to the number of waves which includes the polarization

No you obviously don't understand the Shapiro delay or the chirp. The Shapiro delay is essentially the time dilation due to travelling through a gravity well. Now in the Binary BH scenario NEITHER BH produces gravity waves. They are both symmetric rotating objects. The gravity waves emitted is due to the changes of the assymmetric spacetime changes encompassing BOTH BHs. So the Shapiro delay will be the same for all measurement points on the chirp signal. Not all objects emit gravity waves. Any symmetric rotating object of constant velocity will not produce waves.

Yes but that's not the chirp or not the rate the chirp occurs. See the equations page 10. http://www.physics.usu.edu/Wheeler/GenRel2013/Notes/GravitationalWaves.pdf The Shapiro delay will affect how long it takes us to see each signal equally.

No the Shapiro delay and the chirp are two different things. A Shapiro delay will affect all frequencies and polarizations of the chirp equally. The paper you posted uses the quadrupole spin 2 statistics but doesn't state differences in each polarization (correctly so). " The chirp indicates that as gravitational waves are emitted, they carry energy away from the binary. The gravitational binding energy decreases, and the orbital frequency increases." See below paper on the chirp calculations in the pocket handbook section The Shapiro delay would have the same influence upon each emitted wave. http://www.physics.usu.edu/Wheeler/GenRel2013/Notes/GravitationalWaves.pdf

The CoM is the sum of vector forces. It's the same thing. I've already given a simpler example. However if you want it worded in CoM terms each object will react to change when that object receives the information of a change. So the sum of forces (vectoral) will point to the retarded CoM position until the change in field strength reaches each object.

It's simple logic, the sum is the strength of the force of gravity by the signals you've received. This type of problem is common. Two body problem for example for orbits. Let's say you have a binary star system and one orbitting planet. The orbit is determined by the sum of gravity from both suns. The planet will react to changes with the appropriate delay for the gravitational force to arrive. For example if one star blew up, the planet will follow the path of the two star system until the loss of gravity reaches the planet then it will alter orbit.

I'm not sure why your having trouble. Both objects have sufficient time for their gravity to reach you so you can sum their values. The influence you feel is the position of where it was. We feel the effects of gravity from our sun 8 minutes ago, any change in potential would take 8 minutes to arrive. Same goes for object a and b. The gravitational changes will arrive from each object at different times. When you receive the change the value of the sum changes.

Here is a paper which using the Ligo test results places an upper bound on massive graviton theories. "which corresponds to a graviton mass [latex]m_g\le 1.2*10^{-22}eV/c^2[/latex] at 90% confidence The paper is the pdf on this site. https://dcc.ligo.org/P1500213/public

While the arxiv you posted is entertaining. It isn't conclusive, there are tons of studies that don't agree with the paper above. However even if plausible, the paper doesn't say anything about a rotation. You have to remember the jets idea for our universe is yours. A direction of flow doesn't mean a universe rotation, so your going to need to show this. This isn't something to leap frog over. The paper you have has some of the metric tools, so should assist in modelling your idea. No model escapes the necessary math step. The other factor you will need is "Why we don't see a temperature distribution that corresponds to jets?." In the CMB or in the spectronomy surveys. Even with the dipole of evil model conjectures, that dark flow remodelled to when the Planck 2013 papers were released. He specifies using the 2013 numbers. The temperature anisotropy he finds do not correspond to a temperature distribution from jets. The variation in temperature is less than 1/1000 of a Kelvin between hot and cold regions. Jets would be hotter from a centre radiating outward. This isn't the dynamic discussed in the articles you've posted. Nor does the metric in the dark flow data suggesting jets from a BH. So it's not the metrics you will need, if your serious about pursuing your model. Your going to need to understand the math and develop the metrics for jets, as well as a universe rotation.

The axis of evil is another pop media hyped subject. Dipole anisotropy shown in the first Planck dateset was largely calibration errors. The later papers fine tuned those errors in the later Planck date set. However even with that the original Planck data still found a homogeneous and isotropic in strong agreement. Here is the 2015 datasets. The calibration corrections are in the calibration link http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications

True but the math relations to a manifold are there. Cartesian to polar coordinate change of a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. You will need a modification to the LCDM metric to correlate rotation and a preferred direction. However if you understand the FLRW metric it has the flexibility Here is one I wrote on universe geometry http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Page two is the math details. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

Both articles I posted show this isn't the case. First off most datasets find an extremely strong agreement the the Universe does not have a preferred location or direction to expansion. You might want to look at the balloon analogy. I'm seeing that you may have the wrong understanding of what observational evidence shows. I suggest reading the following. Even if you don't agree with tbem, they will provide the tools ie equations. As they are training articles. http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano Then you should be able to find good material to help support your case.

Just a little advise, papers posted on Arxiv are peer reviewed. Ie professional. It's also a good place to gather datasets. Though not the only one, it provides a good example of decent articles to discuss.

You keep missing the key detail. The Milky way movement is NOTHING on a universal scale. 100 Mpc is miniscule compared to 23 Gpc. Baryonic matter accounts for less than three % the energy budget mass distribution. Comparing the movement of the Universe to the minor movement of the Milky way us like saying the population of New York is statistically the population of the entire Earth per capita. Just because the Milky way is moving toward some mass DOES NOT MEAN the entire universe does Basing your assertions on this false claim (misunderstanding by ignoring size scales) will get you no where

No what your proposing is not in the evidence. I've asked you to provide a peer review showing dark flow beyond a localized influence. You have yet to do so. As I've stated the dark flow evidence is less than 200 Mpc of the Milky way. No evidence of any CMB dataset shows peculiar velocities in the CMB data beyond that range. In point of detail the longest range paper I've studied range (200 Mpc ) was further constrained by CMB data to less than 100 Mpc. Here is a further constraint paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5090 thus far you haven't shown any evidence of a flow non localized. Instead you've been repeatedly posting the same links (all pop media I count wiki as pop media as it isn't written by professional cosmologists) What your doing is ignoring observational evidence countering your argument. The Planck data study was independent of dark flow theory, and chose to conduct a study to check. It isn't a theory into itself. It is merely a dataset study looking to see if the dark flow theory has validity. The Planck data found no universal flow.

No actually it doesn't. Constraints on the birth of the universe and origin of cosmic dark flow http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01214 here is a recent CMB data analysis. "No dark flow was identified for distances greater than about 100 h −1 Mpc" Which amounts to localized anisotropy

No actually the CMB evidence provides clear evidence there is no dark flow, or jets. Any directional flow would show up easily on the CMB data as a flow of hot to colder regions. There is zero evidence of such a flow.

You haven't shown any proof of that. Just because something might be drawing the Milky way behind the great attractor. (Of course there is something behind). Does not mean the ENTIRE universe of 28 Gpc is affected. That last link also specifies hidden galaxies not a universal flow. You also didn't answer my question on the temperature aspect Seems to me your reading the parts you want to read, but ignoring the counter arguments on several of the links you provided. (Better counter argument papers do exist)

I've followed the dark flow papers for several years I have come across any peer review ie Arxiv paper that shows a universal ie not local group. Feel free to provide one outside of 100 Mpc in distance. Not that it really matters our universe is 28.3 Gpc. In diameter. Show a flow on that scale. Not within a measly 100 to 200 Mpc You won't find it from CMB data, Either way a flow from an outjet from some never discovered made up universal blackhole would have other characteristics. Thermodynamic signatures for one. This would have a center oriented hot spot due to higher energy/density from the jets. Why don't we see this

If you read the full link on the first article it gives the located distance from us. Which is the value I provided earlier. The first link explains the history of the dark flow model. However it also provides counters arguments. A detail you may have missed is the model started before locating the source of mass. As well as finding out it was 1/10 its predicted mass.

There is no dark flow on a universal scale. I've already explained that is a local supercluster flow.