GaryAnthony
This post is entered in 5 parts because it is long, segmenting makes it easier to reply and easier to read.
………………………..Critique and Fate of the Universe (continued, part 2)..……………………
Many workers have verified that General Relativity regards black holes as logical or mathematical singularities, which means that they are point masses having infinite density and infinitely deep gravitational wells or an asymptotic (to both the abscissa and ordinate) gravitational potential profile. As such, their overall geometry must be consistent with their nature as singularities, or else the term "singularity" has no meaning.
Their gravitational potential profile must be represented by a hyperbola. A Newtonian entity, however, must have a potential well that is represented parabolically, i.e. it must actually pass through the origin and extend outward so that gravity declines to as near zero as one may like as r approaches a very large value, as it does at and beyond the periphery of spiral galaxies.
A hyperbolic potential must extend symmetrically, it is just the very nature of hyperbolas. Then, the decline in potential varies as 1/r, not 1/r^2 as a Newtonian object would. I am echoing GR by saying that black holes do not exist in space, they define the space that they are in.
Milgrom and MOND say that galaxies must behave in a non-Newtonian way. I agree. That I agree is the gist of my post. Does anyone have a fundamental problem with MOND?
I just give a more parsimonous spin to the whole idea of MOND. In the bargain, I kill Dark Energy and Dark Matter as well as Milgrom's demand for a reform of Newtonian Dynamics.
As far as my citations or references are concerned, see http :// www lonetree-pictures net.
Perlmutter and Riess say that all previous research is a crock because theirs is the only good data that anyone has ever got. This is not supposed to be a joke.
Subsequent researchers just echo them because everyone must use the L/CDM model based on the FLRW metric and the Friedmann equations (editors insist). They all use the model to predict the model. This is not mere retrodiction, it is circular reasoning yielding the curvature of the smallest draftsman's compass.
Alternative models have been developed, however, and the most faithful of these to general relativity do not support Dark Energy or Dark Matter. See my references.
Of course MOND has been criticised. This is one of my main points, for God's sake! MOND is unnecessary but I like to use the term "MOND effect" when referring to Milgrom's point concerning an additional very small residual gravitational acceleration constant that goes far beyond the peripheries of galaxies. Milgrom is a careful worker. There is something here. If it is not a revision to Newton's Law of Gravity, then it is the hyperbolic black hole gravitational potential effect.
This effect, when extended beyond galaxies to the global, not local, universe, Dark Energy and Dark Matter disappear. The above segment goes to the whole question of the exclusive use of a single model of the universe that depends on the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric. The consensus interpretation of the Lambda/cold-dark-matter model must clearly be flawed if it leads to the conclusion that the scientific method must be scrapped in order to save the model. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are ad hoc "add-ons" that are trying to find theoretical justification.
Dark Energy, in particular, is being called a supernatural or "unfalsifiable" hypothesis because no experiment can possibly directly challenge it, just like the existence of God hypothesis. Heretofore, all hypotheses must have adhered to the scientific method (the SM). Now, in order to admit Dark Energy, cosmologists insist that SM must be tinkered with and an unfalsifiable hypothesis allowed for the first time in history. If we do this, the Pope can re-ascend to the Throne.
All of the indirect "overwhelming evidence" for expansion rate acceleration and Dark Energy can be just as well applied to the concept that our inventory of matter and energy in our local universe is inadequate and that the mass of the global universe is at least 22.2 times as large as has been supposed (100%/4.5% = 22.2). The total mass of the universe has been and still is open to question. The Matter/Energy that we can inventory accounts for only 4.5% of the total needed to "flatten" the anisotropy pattern that is seen in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB).
This proposed revision in the "total mass" and the General Relativity (GR) concept of the black hole hyperbolic field will save not only SM, but the Friedmann Equations and the FLRW metric themselves too!
The "inflaton particle" from which the universe may have sprung was the mother of all black-holes (MOAB). As such, it must have possessed an hyperbolic gravitational field that existed timelessly according to Alan Guth's quantum principles. During the instant of inception of the differentiated universe that we can now detect, this hyperbolic field must have begun to degenerate. Space with time came into existence during this instant. The implication here of the prior existence of a sort of meta-universe is not explicitly acknowledged in any of the scenarios we read, but it is nonetheless an unstated assumption.
This space-time bubble's surface traveled up the MOAB's hyperbolic field gradient at a velocity hundreds or thousands of times the speed of light. This is Alan Guth's "Inflation". Matter/Light could keep pace with the inflation of space-time only as long as its temperature was several exponential decades of degrees Kelvin. As soon as Matter/Light began to condense and the fundamental forces began to differentiate, the inflation era ended. The collapse of the infinite density hyperbolic field began.
The hyperbolic field has been collapsing by means of a time-dependent process ever since. It is this ongoing transition from a hyperbolic black hole gravitational field to a parabolic Newtonian gravitational field underlying the global universe that is being mistaken for acceleration and Dark Energy.
This is not speculation. This is not my personal idea. This is but one example of a different logical meaning of Alan Guth's inflation theory and General Relativity consistent with to Schwartzchild and many others. When guided by correct meta logic, mathematical physicists will be able to validate this or some other theoretical interpretation of GR, the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric. Then, with the demise of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, the scientific method will be saved.
As far as dark matter is concerned, I report only what Milgrom says he discovered after carefully considering data from many many spiral galaxies. I am saying only that he ignores the fact that nearly all spiral galaxies, and most other types, have supermassive black holes embedded in them.
This makes a huge difference. Black holes and the whole mass of the galactic disk will behave like a non-Newtonian entity having a gravitational potential that falls off as 1/r, not as 1/r^2. Comparing a graph of this hyperbolic versus a Newtonian parabolic potential one sees that there is a virtually constant difference at large r. This is the source of Milgrom's residual centripetal acceleration constant that he says he sees in most of the galaxies he studied.
I am not arguing with Milgrom's findings. Far from it. I say he is probably right. But, he needs to consider the implications of the existence of relativistic supermassive black holes.
This comment is just that, a comment on the cosmological meaning of relativity in regard to black holes in galaxies.
Milgrom proposes a new model for gravity. He calls it modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). But, MOND will require a rewrite of general relativity, one of the most validated theories in all science (only quantum mechanics is better verified). My comment leaves GR intact. It is simple, direct and jibes with the facts while being more parsimonious than MOND.
One does not observe the rotation of galaxies directly against the background of other galaxies. They rotate too slowly. One observes red-shifts from stars in different regions of each galaxy. Plotting rotational velocities got this way versus distance from the center of a galaxy, one should see a monotonic drop in velocity to near zero as one approaches large r. Instead, velocity reaches a constant nonzero plateau. This contradicts Newton's Law of Gravity.
Milgrom wants to add his tiny, residual acceleration constant to Newton's Law. All I am saying is that it would be better to take into account the non-Newtonian hyperbolic black hole gravitational potential that simply must exist in almost all spiral galaxies and also in other types of galaxies that may harbor black holes. Galaxies that do not happen to show the MOND effect probably do not have supermassive black holes, or else their black holes have formed so recently that there has not been enough time for the effect to propagate all the way to and beyond the periphery.
See Part 5 for the implications to the fate of the universe.
Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt. - Lev Landau
