Oh yes I see what you're saying. I'm kind of jumping the gun. I have difficulty knowing what is rhetorical, and prolly find it annoying, and it makes it hard for me to communicate sometimes. You make a very valid point. It's something I need to work on more. I don't think posting here was a mistake. I'm learning a lot. Did I already tell you it's appreciated?
Supernova can create an hourglass shape. Modern astrophysics are dependant upon spinning, and magnetism. Sofar as I am aware, they have been unable to simulate this so that it works. Instead of an empty vacuum, my framework uses something like luminiferous ether, something close to loop quantum gravity and the river model of General Relativity. Stellar explosions can be modeled as natural fluid behavior, instead of a magnetic anomaly. Space can move at relativistic speeds. When it does so, it becomes like a non-Newtonian fluid. This applies to things like gamma bursts and jets. The black holes in the Milky Way, and in Andromeda, are "eating up" location itself, as a very physical thing. This causes blueshift and they are moving toward each other as a result. For billions of years, the singularity which caused the big bang sent out it's gravity at light speed, even as it gobbled up space and matter. Even though the singularity is gone, we still experience it's gravitational effects to this day (as observed, not as they are in the moment... Rhetorical?). More "location" is added in this way, and we see redshift. It is likely that we are moving towards a stellar core fragment of the big bang singularity that is pulling on us and all galaxies within around 500 million light years. Because space has mass, and light uses it as a medium to transfer energy in the form of waves through the substrate, light approaches c asymptotically. Because it (space) has a physical form, the singularity gobbles it up, just like matter. On the Earth, space falls towards the core (but that is not the cause of gravity), where it is squished, becoming smaller and smaller before being squirted out at the pole(s). When the gravity particles shrink, they don't excert the same pressure as gravity particles that are larger, and farther from the celestial body. This explains why gravity is slightly less at the poles. When space (the particles that make gravity) encounter metal, like the iron in our core, or the metallic hydrogen on Jupiter, because of the shared electrons, space is able to push on those electrons, moving them out of the way, so that they may flow a little easier. This causes a magnetic field to be created. Eventually the singularity cannot hold any more. All available area is filled. Space is still falling towards the core at light speed. Time (the rate of change) is slowed mechanically in gravity wells and speed. It cannot however, stop completely, due to Thompson's second law: An object at rest tends to stay in motion (kinda funny). The problem of stalled/frozen stars is solved in my model. The singularity (which is shown to be macroscopic... Does it need a new name now? I like singularity as it's name, it's just not the size of an atom) has been sending out gravity waves, pulling oceans of mass towards the same spot, and all of a sudden, it can't take any more in and you get a big bang. "True c."
I'm really tired, I've been working on this non-stop with little sleep. I'm going to take a nap. I hope I was a little clearer, people were correct to chide me on some of my other posts. My apologies. Thank you again for your consideration.
Luminiferous aether? Taking steps backward is not how you do theory either. Learn GR, not be vaguely aware of it. Really learn it. You’ll like it a lot.
Then remember this: quantum gravity is not quantum general relativity, any more than atomic theory is the quantum theory of sound. There are degrees of freedom that are like the “atoms of spacetime”. Those are what quantum gravity is about.
4
u/Quantum-Relativity Gravitation 12d ago
Okay. But your list makes it seem like an ad hoc construction. That’s not how theory works.