That guy with the black hole musings got me thinking of a paper that's I wrote which is currently under peer-review. I'd like to share it with you. Any suggestions are welcome, since I doubt it'll pass peer-review. Please be nice if you're going to be critical.

To me it sounds like science because it has a testable assumption. Attached is the PDF file.

Interesting thought exercise.

I think you would need to flesh out assumption gamma quite a lot more. One of the classic fundamental assumptions is the universal uniformity of physical laws.

Since the deviation from flat hasn't really been a part of the model, that would mean that the vast emptiness of interstellar distances that represent nearly all of the observable Universe would operate under apparently different rules because they are empty and nearly flat ... but because they are dark the alternative rules are not observable.

It has been years, but I've read a bit about the topic. Measurements at a visible distance through red shift and similar tend to suggest that at least within the measurable universe the physical laws are invariant. When it comes to visible features, what we see in a lab matches what we see in the solar system, which matches what we see in our galaxy, which matches what we see in distant galaxies and what we see in stellar lenses. The inaccuracies are within measurement error. We don't discover distant galaxies with fundamentally different levels of gravity where orbits no longer fit the classical rules. We don't discover stellar lenses where gravity is somehow different in a region, providing a different lens property than what we expect. ... Except...

... Except those are for things that we can see. Those are in non-flat areas. The flat areas we cannot see so they could operate differently.

Introducing a scaling factor based on matter or spacetime in dark/flat areas may work out or not, I don't know that much about the physics involved. But the thought that it could happen is interesting.

Thanks for the feedback.

Yeah, I was hoping to upgrade the paper (including assumption gamma) to use the Kerr-Newman metric, but I haven't found time to do so.

See https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Kerr–Newman_metric#Mathematical_Surfaces

The outer event horizon is given as \(r_+= GM/c^2 + \sqrt{ ( GM/c^2 ) ^2 - a^2 - e^2}\), where \(a = J/(Mc)\) and \(e = q \sqrt{k_e G}/c^2\). Here \(J\) is angular momentum, \(q\) is electric charge, and \( k_e\) is Coulomb's constant.

The energy equation should be \(E_{max} = E_p r_+/r\), where \(E_p\) is the Planck energy. This equation turns into to \(E_{max} = E_p R_s/r\) as angular momentum and electric charge drop to zero, where \(R_s = 2GM/c^2\) is the Schwarzschild event horizon radius. Could it be that simple?

Opinions welcome, especially if you think that maybe the static limit should be part of the solution.

How to latex?

Use \( and \[ to latex. For instance:

\(2 \times 3\)

Thanks!

dear god is the server slow these days; could this be looked into, it's getting really bad

(Or maybe the site could use more money for a bigger server. Maybe buy yourself a subscription as a Christmas gift to yourself and others?)

dear god is the server slow these days; could this be looked into, it's getting really bad

Yup, it takes a lot of server processing power to run LaTeX.

(Or maybe the site could use more money for a bigger server. Maybe buy yourself a subscription as a Christmas gift to yourself and others?)

Where is the purchase subscription option?

Where is the purchase subscription option?

Yup, it takes a lot of server processing power to run LaTeX.

I seriously don't have a credit card or Paypal. Is there an address where I can send a money order drawn from the Royal Bank of Canada?

I cannot donate enough to cover the cost of all the help that I've been given. I'll try though.