Geometry As A Unifying Idea

[ralfcis]

Just like my re-write of relativity. I hear ya.

[Dubbelosix]

Since i am aware of both, and that you have mentioned it, in hindsight, this could be right. 

 

 

 

I think you may be confusing Verlindes emergent gravity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity  with Suskinds Holographic principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle Whilst the two are related they definitely are not the same beast. 

[Vmedvil2]

Dubbel you should try applying your math to objects in the universe like you did with the Black Hole equations, it made them very useful rather than just a general equation maybe you should make more specialized ones, they would be easier to prove. I have been guilty of the same thing though so I cannot say much making general forms is just a better methodology to explain many things with one equation.

[Moronium]

''I don't follow cosmology any more, because if you ask ten of the top physicists what big bang was or whether anything happened before it, you'll get a different answer each time.''

 

 

He's smart.  Now he can do something productive, eh?  Like eat BBQ chicken, guzzle beer, and chase women.

[Dubbelosix]

We all make mistakes, especially when looking at complicated theories.

 

Hossenfelder is an interesting character and has written quite a few papers on gravity, including emergent gravity. Here are a couple of links for amusement where she discusses various gravity theories including Eric Verlindes and her own she stumbled on whilst looking at Verlindes work http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/03/modified-gravity-and-radial.html 

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/02/when-gravity-breaks-down.html 

 

EDIT Hossenfelders version of gravity based on Verlindes entropic gravity is a hell of a lot shorter and easier to read.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.01415.pdf

 

lol... I had an unfortunate fall-out with her a while back, I won't bad-mouth her however, she is a smart girl. I know though she doesn't get a lot of it right. 

 

And yeah, we do all make mistakes. :)

[Dubbelosix]

Dubbel you should try applying your math to objects in the universe like you did with the Black Hole equations, it made them very useful rather than just a general equation maybe you should make more specialized ones, they would be easier to prove. I have been guilty of the same thing though so I cannot say much making general forms is just a better methodology to explain many things with one equation.

 

I would only do such a thing, if I had a very strong intuitive notion how to carry it on... it so happens I have one such case, which involves black holes and rotation curves which could be implemented into torsion - which was my earliest and still most prominent guess that would create a viscosity effect which varies very little throughout the galactic disk. 

 

 

But such a theory to be written, requires a lot of work, and would not be something that could be given in maybe half a year. 

[Dubbelosix]

Oh to hell with it, she can try and sue me if she wants. 

 

 

I asked her an honest question that would have required very little to explain, I forget the question but she replied along the lines

 

''Why should I help you when you are not paying me.''

 

I got angry with her, I don't think I said anything in return, but she disconnected communication. This was my first impression of her.

 

Then this month, she has filed a lawsuit against Motl for 10,000 dollars. 

 

 

This was the icing on the cake, I realized she is a publicity hound, out for money in the most greedy and venal way, 

[Dubbelosix]

In my model, dark matter does not exist. Rotation curves will be present where a galaxy once did, or still does harbour a supermassive black hole. Smaller galaxies and even some of the oldest have been free of dark matter effects, which strengthened for me, this issue. 

 

Dark matter is a model I have never liked and found it superfluous. Rotation curves and supermassive black hole cores have been demonstrated with a mathematical relationship. I did all this investigating a while back while considering that the heaviest black holes in the universe appear to be polarizing spacetime in the direction of motion. I draw attention that supermassive black always spin in the same direction of the galaxy and I ask, ''this is not a coincidence, but could be linked to how galaxies owe their angular momentum properties to these supermassive objects.''

 

This would be the model I would seek for in unifying my idea's on torsion and rotating dynamics with gravity.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

As you will see, my model differs from MOND. 

[Dubbelosix]

No, we have identified quite a lot of spiral galaxies that have had their supermassive black holes ejected from the disk. It's clear from about 4bill years into the evolution of the universe, there was no dark matter effects. In my theory, this is probably a mixture of a few things - one particular example is these large black holes not being supermassive enough to exhibit enough polarization of spacetime creating rotation curve phenomenon.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

I cannot follow the first link, I am not aware of any supermassive black hole that spins in an opposite direction to the motion of the galaxy.

[Dubbelosix]

As for how to test it, I argue the evidence is already supporting my conclusions, the real issue is getting the attention of cosmologists so more correspondence can be done, cross-referencing the claims with their own research.

 

That would take a milestone.

[Dubbelosix]

I am finding material on the internet, but I do not see this rotation in reference to the supermassive black hole at its center, if there is even one.

 

I still hold by what I said, there are no galaxies that will naturally in a different way to the chirality of the galaxy.

[Dubbelosix]

Sorry, that should have been

 

''there are no galaxies that will spin naturally in a different way to the chirality of the galaxy.''

 

As for the possibility of them being responsible for rotation curves, I have pretty much convinced myself of it. I will at some point draw up conclusions, with evidence which supported this, including a study of some galaxies which indicated that the gravitational binding energy of the supermassive black hole generally tends to hold spiral galaxies together, or internal centrifugal forces will pull them apart, as can be observed in a number of cases.

[Dubbelosix]

This will cut it, people just need to start thinking properly. It was bad enough that physicists felt like they had to create an entirely new field to explain a local dynamic effect of galaxies. It doesn't come to explain, for instance, why dark matter spontaneously appears when it was relatively old, 4 billion old to be more or less precise. The only thing at that time, that could possibly explain it in my mind is the effects of the supermassive black hole. Think how surprised I was to learn that a typical spiral galaxy like our own, harbors a black hole with an equivalent gravitational binding energy. Holography doesn't do anything, it only repeats statements that Einstein's gravity already speak about. The truth is, people out there are expecting either something new to gravity, or explaining dark matter through an unseen application -- though this approach is not entirely unseen, I later came to find out independent work supporting this hypothesis in a strong way, concerning a mathematical relationship between the rotation curves and the size of the black hole bulge.

[Dubbelosix]

Edit> People in Ivory Towers don't change their minds, unless the tower is made of cards and you can pull a major support from under them, causing the tower to become unstable. Dark Matter is a major support to the tower, and could be the weakest card to take out.

 

There was a time I would have agreed with this, now I think dark matter is the weakest card. The foundation which holds the hypothetical tower together is overshadowed by the situation that there was no dark matter effects up till when the universe was about 4 billion years old.

 

Since dark matter cannot answer this, it doesn't appear self-consistent.

[Dubbelosix]

So let's be serious about this, a model that has an ability to explain dark matter in the late epoch is not good enough, it also has to explain why there were also no dark matter effects for quite a while, until a universe gets to be 4 billion years old. I don't know of any model which can explain this better, than explaining it in local dynamic terms of gravitational binding.