# Thread: "MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction"

1. There is a proof of the singular nature of black holes, but it is being ignored. This proof was mentioned in an old paper by Michael Rowan Robinson. It can be found in ArXiv sometime after 1998. I ran across it by accident and I do not remember the title or year of publicatiion. I e-mailed him to ask if he could remember the paper where he made the comment.

In his comment, he said that it has been suggested that black holes, precisely and only because they are relativistic singularities, must posess an hyperbolic gravitational field. A singularity, as a single point mass with infinite density, must have a gravitational field that also tends to infinity as one approaches the center. The 2D profile of such a field, therefore, can be represented by an hyperbola. Normally, when an object exists in spacetime, it presents with an overall parabolic field profile according to Newton's Law of Gravity. Such a field will fall off as 1/r2. But, a hyperbolic gravitational field will fall off much much more slowly, as 1/r. But, I use the term 1/r* where r* is the dimensioned numerical value of the unit vector associated with r. If the unit vector of r is r1 the dimensioned numerical value of r1 is Num(
r1) = s and r* = sr. So, hyperbolic F =GmM/r*..

In 1983 Mordehai Milgrom announced that he had discovered a new twist in Newton's Law of gravity. He studied a statistically significant number of spiral and other types of galaxies that had redshift measurements made of the rotational velocity distribution of their component stars. When he plotted velocity of these stars versus distance from the center, velocity did not fall to near zero as it should have at large r. Newton's Law was wrong!

Of course it was. Milgrom's galaxies had supermassive black holes embedded within them. The central black hole and even also the associated matter in the disk induced a hyperbolic gravitational field in spacetime even very far from the center, that is, as r tended to infinity. A hyperbolic field will tend to zero only very slowly at large r compared to a parabolic field. In fact, there is a near constant difference between a parabolic Newtonian field and a hyperbolic field generated by the same mass, as r tends to infinity. This near constant difference accounts for Milgrom's very small residual centripetal acceleration constant that he used to mathematically summarize his findings as an addition to Newton's Law. Hence, he called his model "modified Newtonian dynamics" or MOND.

He did not respect the implications of supermassive relativistic black holes in the nuclei of his galaxies. In 1983, most scientists hardly even knew of them. So, Dark Matter was proposed to account for the MOND effect. But, Dark Matter is unnecessary. No enormous clouds of hypothetical "weakly interacting massive particles" or WIMPs are needed to account for the MOND effect. But, neither is a fundamental modification of Newton's Law of Gravity. This has huge implications to the so-called Lambda/Cold Dark Matter model of the universe that is based on the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric (the so-called "Standard Model").

Science is missing an opportunity here. The existence of the MOND effect proves the nature of supermassive black holes as true singularities. One can mathematically prove that relativistic singularities must exist by means of the treatment of general relativity given by Schwartzchild. But, here is observational (experimental) proof that is as rock-hard and undeniable as such proof ever gets. It is more important to find more ways to validate an all-encompassing theory like general relativity than it is to find ways to validate one particular favored model of the universe by inventing Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) to fix the gaping holes. This is the true meaning of the MOND effect. See
http://lonetree-pictures.net for more.

2.

3. A point mass having the size of many hundreds or even thousands or millions of suns will have a very different gravitational field from the normal star, planet or galaxy because its mass is not distributed in 3D space - it exists as a 1D singularity. Singularities do not possess the usual parabolic gravitational field that is assumed by Newtonian Dynamics. Such a Black-Hole field must have a shape that is infinitely deep as the origin or center of mass is approached since a Black-Hole has infinite density with all its mass compressed into a single point. An infinitely deep gravitational potential has the profile of a hyperbola, not Isaac Newton's parabola.

The gravitational attraction around a Black Hole must fall off with distance from the center as 1/r, r being the distance. Newtonian Dynamics assumes that the field is parabolic, falling off as 1/r^2. The fact of this difference is huge.

So, when the centripetal acceleration of stars in the periphery of spiral galaxies is computed, it does not agree with ordinary Newtonian Dynamics because the centers of most spiral galaxies contain super-massive Black-Holes. The mass of the galactic disk may actually contribute to the effective mass of the Black-Hole in the nucleus, making the 1/r relationship even more pervasive.

The acceleration difference between the 1/r versus the 1/r^2 relations, at large r, is virtually a constant, just as Mordehai Milgrom observed in 1983. The MOND effect is real.

Such a Black-Hole gravity field must have a shape that is infinitely deep as the origin or center of mass is approached, since a Black-Hole has infinite density with all its mass compressed into a single point. The accompanying infinitely deep gravitational potential has the profile of a hyperbola, not Isaac Newton's parabola.

But, the inference of "Dark Matter" is unnecessary to explain the MOND effect. There is no Dark Matter. No WIMPs or "weakly interacting massive particles" will ever be found in any particle accelerator now or in the future. The theories of subnuclear physics do not have to be rewritten to accomodate an odd new particle. General Relativity does not have to be revised. Newtonian Dynamics survives with only the ADDITION of a footnote. When a Black-Hole is involved, Newton's Law of Gravity must include a term in 1/r as well as, perhaps (as in galaxies) one in 1/r2. That is all.

4. 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/r2. 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 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. My comment 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.

Yes, Perlmutter and Riess both depended on the same Lambda Cold Dark Matter model of the universe that uses the Friedmann equations as a basis. So, they really didn't have to coordinate their results. But, they did. And, they used the model to predict the model, the ultimate retrodiction. The same thing is done when cosmologists use the model to interpret gravitational lensing effects, the SZ effect and other observations that they say give credibility to dark energy and dark matter. I do not say there is any attempt at fraud here. In fact, I say that they all are clearly acting as honest scientists. But, the scientists who reported positive cold fusion results were all honest too. They did not realize that there were inherent flaws in the neutron detection devices that they employed to observe "fusion" in deuterium oxide electrolysis cells using palladium electrodes. Honest scientists fall for pseudoscience too. But, fudge is fudge and no-one is immune to wishfull thinking. Perlmutter and Riess wished for a more exciting result and they got it.

5. Are you talking to yourself?

You are forgetting that the mass of a hypothetical Black Hole in the center of each galaxy is small compared to the mass of the entire galaxy. It is very different to e.g. the solar system, where 99% of the entire mass is in the Sun. Not so in galaxies. Here it is more the other way around. So, the shape of any gravitational field of a central gravitataing object does not contribute much to the gravitational field of the entire galaxy. Have you calculated the combined gravitational field, where the mass is a function of the radius? That would be very interesting. Try merging a 1/r field with a central BH mass of 4x10^6 solar masses superimposed with a 1/r^2 field, where M rises with r^2 (not fully true, because the density decreases with r, too) and M_total is 10^11 solar masses.

Remember that there are many examples, where MOND triumphs over Dark Matter, i.e. the low surface brightness galaxies. To my knowledge, there is no known example of LSBs having a confirmed central Black Hole.

6. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Are you talking to yourself?

You are forgetting that the mass of a hypothetical Black Hole in the center of each galaxy is small compared to the mass of the entire galaxy. It is very different to e.g. the solar system, where 99% of the entire mass is in the Sun. Not so in galaxies. Here it is more the other way around. So, the shape of any gravitational field of a central gravitataing object does not contribute much to the gravitational field of the entire galaxy. Have you calculated the combined gravitational field, where the mass is a function of the radius? That would be very interesting. Try merging a 1/r field with a central BH mass of 4x10^6 solar masses superimposed with a 1/r^2 field, where M rises with r^2 (not fully true, because the density decreases with r, too) and M_total is 10^11 solar masses.

Remember that there are many examples, where MOND triumphs over Dark Matter, i.e. the low surface brightness galaxies. To my knowledge, there is no known example of LSBs having a confirmed central Black Hole.
The gravitational fields of any supermassive black hole and its associated galactic disk are perfectly and precisely co-axial. This means that the gravitational fields will be indistinguishable from a distance, say, at and beyond the periphery of the disk. The fields merge into one, especially at the coaxial center. The fields must reinforce each other. So, the effective mass of a supermassive black hole at the center will not be just a few hundred to a few million suns, it will be a few tens of billion suns. So, when computing the gravitational acceleration at the periphery, one must assume at least M = 1011 solar masses. The major difference, therefore, is the assumption of the field being proportional to a hyperbolic 1/r term or to a Newtonian 1/r2 term.

Mordehai Milgrom is a pro. He is a careful worker. And, he is right. But, his demand for a revision of Newton's Law is not Kosher. And, Dark Matter dies. Dark Energy is dead too. Because when the hyperbolic field concept is applied to the global universe and it is postulated that this field must have existed PRIOR to the BB and must now be collapsing or transitioning to a Newtonian field, any and all evidence for dark energy is explained away. Dark Energy and Dark Matter were once rightly called hypotheses. They have now achieved the status of DOGMA.

I would have thought that the care that I gave to composing these posts would red-flag to the reader that I have a brain larger than a poppy seed. My above point concerning 1/r versus 1/r2 is virtually self evident. Ad hominem comments are inappropriate for this forum.

7. This comment is more faithful to the Law of Parsimony than all of the pious drivel that professional cosmologists are usually served. The hyperbolic field could be said to "incarnate" quintessence. But, as an explanation for Dark Energy and Dark Matter, its parsimonious aspects go even deeper. So, DE/DM are not so simple as being merely results of the real release of potential energy stored in the Pre-BigBang hyperbolic field. More subtle, almost mystical, relativistic considerations must apply. This makes the whole idea of the hyperbolic field much more attractive. There is real mystery here. Strange or weird science runs rampant. Professional cosmologists: there is real grant money here.

General Relativity will be seen to accommodate the hyperbolic field concept at least as easily as it does the Newtonian field. The field tensors will actually be simpler. When the global universe is considered, one must ask of "quintessence": WHY? No reason is given for why the quintessence field should suddenly increase its output and pour out more energy than it did unless one tacks on some sort of complicated half-life property that is just another ad hoc invention.

Let us pile up "to this point" clever band aids until we approximate a splint. Then, let us pile on splints until we get a crutch. Then, we shall pile crutches together until we get a regular immobile fortress. And the fortress will stand on sand. How's this for mixing metaphor?

The hyperbolic field collapse must be at least as momentous as the original collapse of matter and energy that formed all into a black hole or a super black hole (a universe). No matter that we begin to refer here to a "meta-universe" or metaverse. What happened before the Big Bang is said to be unknowable. I say NUTS!.

The hyperbolic field must have existed BEFORE the BB. This establishes a brand new timeline. This is a timeline of a purely logical as well as a real metaverse that simply must have existed and almost surely still exists. This has incredibly huge implications to cosmology, astrophysics and Quantum Theory. Archibald Wheeler's and Hugh Everett's interpretations of Quantum Theory must suddenly be taken seriously. If there is one, there must be many more "parallel universes" by The Law of Parsimony. If there is a limited number, some squirrely new invention must be produced that limits them.

So, now we have a whole new family of posts to worry about. UGH!

8. [QUOTE=Gary Anthony Kent;283098]
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
I would have thought that the care that I gave to composing these posts would red-flag to the reader that I have a brain larger than a poppy seed. My above point concerning 1/r versus 1/r2 is virtually self evident. Ad hominem comments are inappropriate for this forum.
But the lack of the explanation of a single galaxy rotation using measurements gained from observations is a red-flag that there is no real evidence for this theory.

9. I really think that there is a kind of comprehensional dyslexia epidemic among certain readers. They are so wedded to the dogma of Dark Energy that they cannot understand plain English. Milgrom's is my evidence. Your hassle is with Milgrom, not me. So, take on a real professional astrophysicist, why don't you?

10. If you can predict the rotation curve of even a single galaxy with your theory, then do it. If not, then don't waste our time. It's quite easy to separate the useless physics cranks from those who can be taken even remotely seriously. Those who can be taken somewhat seriously can deal with at least a few measurements. So far you have shown absolutely nothing but misunderstandings of the relevant physics and the relevant data.

11. I am getting tired of saying this: Mordehai Milgrom has analyzed data for a statistically robust number of such galaxies in just the way that you suggest. I shall not re-invent his work. I only reference him. He found the "MOND effect" which I refer to this way because I disagree with his call for revision of Newtonian Dynamics. He has discovered "the hyperbolic field effect". Sometimes I refer to this as simply MOND, but I do not mean to endorse his call for a "modified Newtonian dynamics".

"Having wed Dark Energy is like living with a whore." - G A Kent

12. Originally Posted by PhysBang
If you can predict the rotation curve of even a single galaxy with your theory, then do it. If not, then don't waste our time. It's quite easy to separate the useless physics cranks from those who can be taken even remotely seriously. Those who can be taken somewhat seriously can deal with at least a few measurements. So far you have shown absolutely nothing but misunderstandings of the relevant physics and the relevant data.
This is the 2nd time that you have been reported for an inappropriate personal attack. There may have been more such reports from other forum respondents. Careful!

13. Originally Posted by PhysBang
If you can predict the rotation curve of even a single galaxy with your theory, then do it. If not, then don't waste our time. It's quite easy to separate the useless physics cranks from those who can be taken even remotely seriously. Those who can be taken somewhat seriously can deal with at least a few measurements. So far you have shown absolutely nothing but misunderstandings of the relevant physics and the relevant data.
There is a whole industry consisting of galaxy rotation weathermen. Their predictions are about as reliable as weather reports. I shall not indulge.

14. Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
The gravitational fields of any supermassive black hole and its associated galactic disk are perfectly and precisely co-axial. .
Not true. The black hole orbits the barycenter of the galaxy, just as every star does.

15. Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
The gravitational fields of any supermassive black hole and its associated galactic disk are perfectly and precisely co-axial. This means that the gravitational fields will be indistinguishable from a distance, say, at and beyond the periphery of the disk. The fields merge into one, especially at the coaxial center. The fields must reinforce each other. So, the effective mass of a supermassive black hole at the center will not be just a few hundred to a few million suns, it will be a few tens of billion suns.
Show it! Show us the math. What you are saying here is wrong and disproved by the analysis of Keplerian motions of stars around the centre of the Milky Way. These motions were the very measurements that determined the mass of the central BH. If your claim were true, the analysis would have indicated the mass you are claiming. The orbits of objects in galaxies are determined by the mass that is encircled by these orbits.

You cannot first say that a BH produces a gravitational field that is proportial to 1/r and the rest produces something that goes like 1/r^2 and then claim that the global field goes like 1/r anyway. It is either the one or the other. How would a million solar mass BH with a 1/r field surrounded by matter that produces a 10 billion solar mass 1/r^2 field merge into a 10 billion solar mass 1/r field?

And even if this were all true, you have yet to demonstrate that this is the cause for the flat rotational curves or, if you will, the cause for the new MOND a0 constant. Remember that for a gravitational field you need the mass or mass distribution and the shape of the potential.

What you are proposing is yet another version of the Dark Matter mass conspiracy that would now turn into a BH mass/disk mass conspiracy. Both masses would have to be very finely tuned in order to produce flat rotation curves. This phenomenon would require that all galaxies have the same BH/disk mass ratio in order to be universal. How should this be possible?

In addition, a BH is spherical if not singular, i.e. the resulting gravitational field is radially symmetric. The gravitational field of a galactic disk is different, because the mass is distributed across a large disk, i.e. the resulting field is not radially symmetric, rather cylindrically or toroidally symmetric.

Come up with some simple math, and you might have point.

16. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
The gravitational fields of any supermassive black hole and its associated galactic disk are perfectly and precisely co-axial. This means that the gravitational fields will be indistinguishable from a distance, say, at and beyond the periphery of the disk. The fields merge into one, especially at the coaxial center. The fields must reinforce each other. So, the effective mass of a supermassive black hole at the center will not be just a few hundred to a few million suns, it will be a few tens of billion suns.
Show it! Show us the math. What you are saying here is wrong and disproved by the analysis of Keplerian motions of stars around the centre of the Milky Way. These motions were the very measurements that determined the mass of the central BH. If your claim were true, the analysis would have indicated the mass you are claiming. The orbits of objects in galaxies are determined by the mass that is encircled by these orbits.

You cannot first say that a BH produces a gravitational field that is proportial to 1/r and the rest produces something that goes like 1/r^2 and then claim that the global field goes like 1/r anyway. It is either the one or the other. How would a million solar mass BH with a 1/r field surrounded by matter that produces a 10 billion solar mass 1/r^2 field merge into a 10 billion solar mass 1/r field?

And even if this were all true, you have yet to demonstrate that this is the cause for the flat rotational curves or, if you will, the cause for the new MOND a0 constant. Remember that for a gravitational field you need the mass or mass distribution and the shape of the potential.

What you are proposing is yet another version of the Dark Matter mass conspiracy that would now turn into a BH mass/disk mass conspiracy. Both masses would have to be very finely tuned in order to produce flat rotation curves. This phenomenon would require that all galaxies have the same BH/disk mass ratio in order to be universal. How should this be possible?

In addition, a BH is spherical if not singular, i.e. the resulting gravitational field is radially symmetric. The gravitational field of a galactic disk is different, because the mass is distributed across a large disk, i.e. the resulting field is not radially symmetric, rather cylindrically or toroidally symmetric.

Come up with some simple math, and you might have point.
I said that the gravity fields of the two entities overlap and superpose only at or beyond the periphery of a galaxy AND at the exact asymptotic center of the Supermassive Black Hole (SBH). I insist that the SBH simply must be situated at the exact center of the nucleus of a galaxy. The nucleus itself could be off-center, I suppose, in some cases. But, not for long – tidal forces and other losses will soon cause the centers to again coincide.

If the SBH that is said to exist in the nucleus of most spiral galaxies is not precisely at the barycenter of the symmetric structure, with its gravitational field exactly co-axial with the field of the whole galaxy, then it must be “off center” or “eccentric”. In this discussion, we are talking about only two entities, the supermassive black hole and the whole rest of the galaxy. So, if it is in an eccentric position, as it orbits the barycenter existing at the time, then the SBH must be producing regular shock waves of gravitational energy – gravity waves. Since they do exist by general relativity, these gravity waves (especially at smaller distances) should be of an intense kind that would be readily detectible by the several laser interference gravity wave detectors (LIGOs) that have already been built here on Earth.

Not one single gravity wave has ever been detected yet, even though these instruments have been in operation for years. And, if gravity waves are being emitted, the “system” is losing energy at a prodigious rate. The separate centers of mass will be in-falling toward a common barycenter until the centers become indistinguishable and exactly co-incident with the barycenter. They will again become co-axially superposed.

I am not going to be sidetracked into mathematical discussions that most readers will never understand and that will turn them right off. I could go into group theory and discuss the ways that point groups (not space groups) could be used to categorize galaxies. Much can be said about the physical properties of objects conforming to a point group irreducible representation (IR). Flat rotation curves are the natural outcome of the hyperbolic black-hole/galactic field. Using 1/r instead of 1/r^2 in Newton's Law, one sees that the decline in gravitational acceleration levels off to a virtually constant plateau at the periphery and just beyond. Milgrom's observations are good. He is a pro. He is a careful worker. His data deserve more respect. But, his call for a modification of Newtonian dynamics is not Kosher.

Consider this, however. The IR of a galaxy and its resident SBH will be directly related and very similar, if not identical. One’s IR matrix will be the same or a subset of the other – I forget which sense would apply. This means their major properties will overlap too, given their relative spatial configurations.

What properties do they have that could overlap? SBHs have no other properties but their total entropy, total mass, spin and gravitational field. How many spiral galaxy nucleus SBHs have retrograde spin? The event horizon is undetectable directly. So too, is the entropy state.

The gravity is measurable though, because INSIDE a galaxy, > very far within the perimeter of its total mass < one may artificially consider the SBH and an orbiting star as “the system” and analyze it by Newton’s and Kepler's Laws (NL & KL) or by the hyperbolic black hole (HBH) field postulate. (But, at small radius, HBH and NL/KL will be indistinguishable.) Larger radius will require consideration of the whole rest of the galaxy. See the whiteboard presentation of my mathematical analysis at http://www.lonetree-pictures.net under the MOND sub-site heading.

Here is some of the math that you demand, but it is meant to be accompanied by a more complete and exhaustive PowerPoint lecture (in preparation) – you know – like the ancient old professor with his brand new laser pointer that he hasn’t figured out yet. I am indeed preparing for the lecture circuit. These posts may help.

I love your replies because they make me clarify issues before I make a fool of myself in front of an audience. I am temporarily retiring my old persona due to nasty email and much spam that seems to be generated from here. I will try to eventually figure out how to short circuit this.

17. Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
Originally Posted by PhysBang
If you can predict the rotation curve of even a single galaxy with your theory, then do it. If not, then don't waste our time. It's quite easy to separate the useless physics cranks from those who can be taken even remotely seriously. Those who can be taken somewhat seriously can deal with at least a few measurements. So far you have shown absolutely nothing but misunderstandings of the relevant physics and the relevant data.
This is the 2nd time that you have been reported for an inappropriate personal attack. There may have been more such reports from other forum respondents. Careful!
If the moderators and administration of this board want to side with falsehoods about scientific papers backed up with absolutely no evidence, neither on the content of individual papers nor the available observations, then so be it.

18. By the way, I am back with my old persona. I was getting nasty e-mail and spam from the misuse of my personal info given in my profile. So I "retired" G.A.K. and registered another persona that I named simply "Kent", with goofy profile info. I also had crippling problems logging-in using G.A.K. So, I had no choice. But, now that these problems are solved - except to respond to Kent's posts that I already made - I will retire him until some other snafu flattens me. Be assured, neither Kent nor G.A.K. are sock-puppets designed to subvert the forum. I will never use them simultaneously or alternately to bust ethics rules.

19. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
Originally Posted by PhysBang
If you can predict the rotation curve of even a single galaxy with your theory, then do it. If not, then don't waste our time. It's quite easy to separate the useless physics cranks from those who can be taken even remotely seriously. Those who can be taken somewhat seriously can deal with at least a few measurements. So far you have shown absolutely nothing but misunderstandings of the relevant physics and the relevant data.
This is the 2nd time that you have been reported for an inappropriate personal attack. There may have been more such reports from other forum respondents. Careful!
If the moderators and administration of this board want to side with falsehoods about scientific papers backed up with absolutely no evidence, neither on the content of individual papers nor the available observations, then so be it.
It is hard to prove that something is NOT true. Still, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me. This is the last time I shall respond to PhysBang.

20. Still, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
Actually it's not. You sir are introducing the odd idea here and at least thus far have produced pages of rhetoric, but presented very little to show support - nearly no equations, observational comparisons, graphs, or peer-reviewed papers. In short, you haven't made your case.
--
And don't take moderator comments, reminders and other actions that encourage people to attack ideas rather than people as support for their ideas. We're just trying to maintain civil discourse. If someone really is a "physics crank," than they'll find most of their materials eventually in pseudo-science; if, after a few warnings, they persist to push their ideas in our main forums without anymore proof they'll be looking for another forum.

21. Originally Posted by Kent
I said that the gravity fields of the two entities overlap and superpose only at or beyond the periphery of a galaxy AND at the exact asymptotic center of the Supermassive Black Hole (SBH). I insist that the SBH simply must be situated at the exact center of the nucleus of a galaxy. The nucleus itself could be off-center, I suppose, in some cases. But, not for long – tidal forces and other losses will soon cause the centers to again coincide.

Look, I admire the works of Moti Milgrom and Jakob Bekenstein. And I would not be surprised, if they are correct. But this has nothing to do with your speculations or the ones you claim to be quoting.

1) Show that the BH is in the exact centre of the Milky Way or any galaxy.
2) Show that such systems relax like you suggest. Like in the solar system, bodies revolve around a barycentre as soon as there is more than one object present. A totally symmetric configuration is highly unlikely and was never observed in galaxies. Your view is also irrelevant, because the currently observed galaxies with flat rotation curves are not like that.
3) Show that the fields superimpose as you suggest. Insisting does not help in a scientific discussion.

Originally Posted by Kent
If the SBH that is said to exist in the nucleus of most spiral galaxies is not precisely at the barycenter of the symmetric structure, with its gravitational field exactly co-axial with the field of the whole galaxy, then it must be “off center” or “eccentric”. In this discussion, we are talking about only two entities, the supermassive black hole and the whole rest of the galaxy. So, if it is in an eccentric position, as it orbits the barycenter existing at the time, then the SBH must be producing regular shock waves of gravitational energy – gravity waves. Since they do exist by general relativity, these gravity waves (especially at smaller distances) should be of an intense kind that would be readily detectible by the several laser interference gravity wave detectors (LIGOs) that have already been built here on Earth.

References? Evidence? Is the sensitivity good enough? Nevertheless, this is irrelevant to the central claim you are making.

Originally Posted by Kent
I am not going to be sidetracked into mathematical discussions that most readers will never understand and that will turn them right off.
See the whiteboard presentation of my mathematical analysis at http://www.lonetree-pictures.net under the MOND sub-site heading.
Ah, now I understand. This is it:
MOND 03 - downsized for email .jpg

So, what you are saying is that the combined gravitational field would be:

with: for large r

This cannot be correct, because the dimensional analysis shows that GM/r is inconsistent with a force measured in the derived SI unit "Newton". You cannot add GM/r^2 to something that is GM/r. The units just don't match. Therefore, GM/r is not a force but a gravitational potential. But anyway ...

Then:

For large r:

This is interesting, but does not explain the universality of the a0 parameter. For this to work, all central BHs must have comparable masses. This is impossible. Leaving this strange result aside, the previous criticism still remains. In simple words: the right hand side of this relation is NOT a velocity.

22. Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
It is hard to prove that something is NOT true. Still, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me. This is the last time I shall respond to PhysBang.
No shit. What classic crank behavior: 1. claim to be representing the true science 2. make outright false claims about the content of scientific papers 3. when called on this behavior, claim to be being attacked 4. claim that those asking questions are being improper and then refuse to answer these questions because of this

23. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
Still, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
Actually it's not. You sir are introducing the odd idea here and at least thus far have produced pages of rhetoric, but presented very little to show support - nearly no equations, observational comparisons, graphs, or peer-reviewed papers. In short, you haven't made your case.
--
And don't take moderator comments, reminders and other actions that encourage people to attack ideas rather than people as support for their ideas. We're just trying to maintain civil discourse. If someone really is a "physics crank," than they'll find most of their materials eventually in pseudo-science; if, after a few warnings, they persist to push their ideas in our main forums without anymore proof they'll be looking for another forum.
See http:/www.lonetree-pictures.net/mond for a whiteboard mathematical discussion of the MOND effect. I won't attempt to repeat work that has already been done. I have no grants. I don't work for free. References are given in the main article under /Critique_of_the_Universe. I don't see the value of regurgitating them here when they are but a few clicks away.

WAIT! It is not I who accused moderators of supporting the unsupportable - it was that other "crackpot". But, if I were a moderator, I would let crackpots be because they are absolutely hilarious - Jay Leno could not do better. He should do a JayWalking skit on cosmology and astronomy. Sometimes his dumbfounded stare is priceless. "Let It Be!" Unless they get downright obscenely abusive, of course. People have a choice to continue to read or not to read any given post. "To read or NOT to read" THAT is their question.

The exact point that I am trying to make as forcefully as possible is that the hyperbolic black-hole galactic gravitational field is not an "odd" idea. I insist that it is mainstream. I quote Milgrom only as counterpoint! This is what Karl Schwartzchild et al. are all about. I merely wish to point out that there are neglected implications of Schwartzchild's and others' work.

You force me to compile another bibliography. But, I will not re-invent the wheel.

24. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by Kent
I said that the gravity fields of the two entities overlap and superpose only at or beyond the periphery of a galaxy AND at the exact asymptotic center of the Supermassive Black Hole (SBH). I insist that the SBH simply must be situated at the exact center of the nucleus of a galaxy. The nucleus itself could be off-center, I suppose, in some cases. But, not for long – tidal forces and other losses will soon cause the centers to again coincide.

Look, I admire the works of Moti Milgrom and Jakob Bekenstein. And I would not be surprised, if they are correct. But this has nothing to do with your speculations or the ones you claim to be quoting.

1) Show that the BH is in the exact centre of the Milky Way or any galaxy.
2) Show that such systems relax like you suggest. Like in the solar system, bodies revolve around a barycentre as soon as there is more than one object present. A totally symmetric configuration is highly unlikely and was never observed in galaxies. Your view is also irrelevant, because the currently observed galaxies with flat rotation curves are not like that.
3) Show that the fields superimpose as you suggest. Insisting does not help in a scientific discussion.

Originally Posted by Kent
If the SBH that is said to exist in the nucleus of most spiral galaxies is not precisely at the barycenter of the symmetric structure, with its gravitational field exactly co-axial with the field of the whole galaxy, then it must be “off center” or “eccentric”. In this discussion, we are talking about only two entities, the supermassive black hole and the whole rest of the galaxy. So, if it is in an eccentric position, as it orbits the barycenter existing at the time, then the SBH must be producing regular shock waves of gravitational energy – gravity waves. Since they do exist by general relativity, these gravity waves (especially at smaller distances) should be of an intense kind that would be readily detectible by the several laser interference gravity wave detectors (LIGOs) that have already been built here on Earth.

References? Evidence? Is the sensitivity good enough? Nevertheless, this is irrelevant to the central claim you are making.

Originally Posted by Kent
I am not going to be sidetracked into mathematical discussions that most readers will never understand and that will turn them right off.
See the whiteboard presentation of my mathematical analysis at http://www.lonetree-pictures.net under the MOND sub-site heading.
Ah, now I understand. This is it:
MOND 03 - downsized for email .jpg

So, what you are saying is that the combined gravitational field would be:

with: for large r

This cannot be correct, because the dimensional analysis shows that GM/r is inconsistent with a force measured in the derived SI unit "Newton". You cannot add GM/r^2 to something that is GM/r. The units just don't match. Therefore, GM/r is not a force but a gravitational potential. But anyway ...

Then:

For large r:

This is interesting, but does not explain the universality of the a0 parameter. For this to work, all central BHs must have comparable masses. This is impossible. Leaving this strange result aside, the previous criticism still remains. In simple words: the right hand side of this relation is NOT a velocity.
I address that dimensional mismatch further on in the text. I gave several suggestions, among them to simply POSTULATE that the "r" divisor be multiplied by "1", but not by constant "1" but by the absolute value of the unit vector of "r" which will have the unit of r. The math works then and it works just fine. This would constitute one of the only direct acknowledgments of the "singular" nature of a black hole.

The universality of a0 as a constant and not a mere parameter is why Milgrom wants to modify Newtonian Dynamics in the first place. He says it is simpler to just change Newton and allow this assumption as a postulate, then let's see where we can go from there. The hyperbolic black-hole galactic field is where we can go.

But, the universality of a0 has an obvious source. Milgrom speaks mainly of the orbital parameters of stars at or beyond the periphery of spiral galaxies. The periphery is a self-selecting boundary, a statistical characteristic of the whole spiral galaxy phenomenon. "Go beyond the Rim, young Master Jedi!" The periphery or Rim defines where a0 begins to become important and beyond the Rim it becomes dominant. Stars beyond the Rim may well be in the process of being ejected from the galaxy, as has been seen in supercomputer simulations. So, they must be subject to very small forces like that rooted in a0 and even from outside the galaxy.

My whiteboard scribbles have to be immediately updated to make this caveat explicit concerning the dimensional insurance of a multiplicative factor of Abs[unit vector r]. Here, my "absolute value" operator does not remove units. I use vectors like parameters or constants because it is a way of introducing the unit vector and this whole mess is going to become a bunch of vector equations anyway.

Please be more specific in your criticism of the math in my whiteboard graphic. What else is wrong? I will fix it. If I need to prepare another new whiteboard, then so be it. Want to collaborate? In the meantime I have repaired the whiteboard presentation at The Universe: HBH MOND - The Hyperbolic Black-Hole Field

25. I have prepared a One-Sheet for my lecture
on the Fate of the Universe

Many scientists have verified the fact that the theory of General Relativity does indeed regard black holes as both physical realities and valid logical or mathematical subjects: which means that they are real "point masses" (within Heisenberg limits) having infinite density and infinitely deep gravitational wells. This also means they have a graphical mathematical "asymptotic" limiting boundary (to both the abscissa and ordinate) gravitational potential profile. As such, their overall physical geometry must be consistent with their nature as singularities, or else the term "singularity" has no meaning. Their actual gravitational potential profile must be represented by a hyperbola. This is HUGE! Just how huge is the subject of my lecture.

This lecture is a Power-Point presentation. It is meant for the general audience of persons desiring an edifying talk on scientific subject.

I include many slides with beautiful graphics and photographs of a kind appropriate for a talk on astronomy. Stars, galaxies, planets, telescopes, people of science and their institutions, etc. Non-technical, it can be understood by any high school graduate.

I am a PhD level lecturer (graduated with a very advanced M.S. in physical science from I.I.T. in 1985) with a website http://www.lonetree-pictures.net, several popular blogs, respected participant in several scientific forums and a writer/editor for Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Gary Kent

Preview:

Albert Einstein easily derived a relativistic differential equation that was guaranteed to reproduce Newton's Law when it was integrated with certain simplifying assumptions. He could have written a differential equation that reproduced MOND, but he didn't. He just didn't. He had no reason to do so because the various MOND observations had not yet been made.
See the whiteboard presentation at The Universe: HBH MOND - The Hyperbolic Black-Hole Field

But, considering the very definition of a black-hole, it must be accompanied by a very characteristic and very different gravitational field. Because it is a singularity, a single point-object with infinite density, it must possess a gravitational field that is determined by its single point, its singular property. Its gravitational field graphical potential plot must therefore approach an asymptote (boundary line having a limiting value) at radius = 0 and, by symmetry, it must approach another (perpendicular) asymptote at radius = infinity. This is consistent with the definition of a hyperbolic field, not one that follows Newton's inverse square law, which is parabolic in nature. A hyperbola follows an inverse law, 1/r while a parabola follows an inverse square law, 1/r2.

If black-holes possess hyperbolic gravitational fields, then there is no mystery in MOND. Look at this image of a whiteboard derivation of the hyperbolic black-hole (HBH) gravitational acceleration and velocity profile near a galaxy containing a supermassive black-hole at its center. On the whiteboard, I also have written a synopsis of the MOND development:

26. Was it really necessary to post this in 3 threads, spammer?

27. Yes. As a convenience for my readers.

28. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Was it really necessary to post this in 3 threads, spammer?
Yes. As a convenience for my readers - all 875 of them so far, not including responses from myself.

29. In boards I've moderated, that would get you a vacation of considerable length.

30. Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
I am a PhD level lecturer (graduated with a very advanced M.S. in physical science from I.I.T. in 1985) with a website http://www.lonetree-pictures.net, several popular blogs, respected participant in several scientific forums and a writer/editor for Wikipedia.
Damn. I have to use this in my classes when I lecture on arguments from authority and credentialism in science and in popular media. Given the basic mathematical errors and the failure to engage with observational evidence, the veracity of these credentials is wholly irrelevant to the claims being presented. The vague claim of credentials is a good example of how people use credentials in one field to try to gain authority in another in which they are not competent. The reference to wikipedia is just icing on the cake.

31. Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
I am a PhD level lecturer (graduated with a very advanced M.S. in physical science from I.I.T. in 1985) with a website ...
Is there a standard template or style guide used by these sort of websites? I see you have gone for the garish colors, random fonts, far too much content per page and total lack of structure so favored by conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientists. It might have been cutting edge in the early '90s but now...

32. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
I am a PhD level lecturer (graduated with a very advanced M.S. in physical science from I.I.T. in 1985) with a website ...
Is there a standard template or style guide used by these sort of websites? I see you have gone for the garish colors, random fonts, far too much content per page and total lack of structure so favored by conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientists. It might have been cutting edge in the early '90s but now...
Well, I can only afford one website, so any material I may have must go to it. I agree that I should have chosen a better palette. And, I never bothered to keep track of my font usage. This can be easily fixed however. It would help if I break the long pages down into fractions no more than half the size, maybe less. But, it is too late for the palette. I would have to start over. This is possible because I have found a new website provider with much cheaper rates so I can afford to hack out another one while the old one remains available. And, I will not use templates from FrontPage 2003. Or, if I do, I will try to be more shrewd in their use.

One should be careful in the use of personal profiles to judge people. Profiles prove nothing.

*****

Correction:

Remember, I have corrected the following items related to MOND in my main posts.

For the hyperbolic field all equations are related to F = GMm/rr1, NOT = GMm/r

The constant r1 is the unit vector associated with vector r and scalar r. This makes any dimensional analysis work out nicely. The math is consistent now and works perfectly. Next, I plan to plug in some numbers and to reproduce the MOND constant, a0. Use of the unit vector is justified because I could use all vector variables. But a and F are just as well represented by scalars. I could just use a scalar constant I might call s = |r1| = 1m in the SI system. But why quibble? I like to use the unit vector to emphasize that the point-mass singularity of a black-hole is gravitationally different. Claiming that black-holes are not gravitationally different is an appeal to authority, is it not? You say that a black-hole must behave just like a planet or a star only because experts that you could name say so.

I am saying only that IF one postulates that black-holes are different, it leads to interesting consequences. I did not invent the hyperbolic 1/r black-hole gravitational field idea. Michael Rowan Robinson reported a comment that he heard at a colloquium. So, I cannot claim priority. But, I can try to see to it that this comment is not forgotten.

*****

I do not do this work for a living and I do not teach it. I am sorry to bother you with my incompetence (if it were not for same, I would not have to offer the above correction). But, though I am more than a mere amateur, I am not a certified card carrying expert. Still amateurs have done much to advance astronomy, if not cosmology. I am preparing a lecture and responses here on this forum will help me refine my stuff so that it will be taken seriously. Constructive comments are appreciated.

33. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
I am a PhD level lecturer (graduated with a very advanced M.S. in physical science from I.I.T. in 1985) with a website http://www.lonetree-pictures.net, several popular blogs, respected participant in several scientific forums and a writer/editor for Wikipedia.
Damn. I have to use this in my classes when I lecture on arguments from authority and credentialism in science and in popular media. Given the basic mathematical errors and the failure to engage with observational evidence, the veracity of these credentials is wholly irrelevant to the claims being presented. The vague claim of credentials is a good example of how people use credentials in one field to try to gain authority in another in which they are not competent. The reference to wikipedia is just icing on the cake.
This forum is not for card carrying experts only. I do not do this for a living. I am new at it too. You quote authority too when you claim properties attributed by others to black-holes. If we must abide strictly by credentials in this hidebound society, then we are lost. Inbred thinking will kill us. Literally.

See the correction I made in the response above to Strange and right here. The math is getting better. It is salvageable. It will be refined. But not fast enough, apparently. This forum is meant to facilitate such refinements, is it not? Who posts totally perfected stuff? If it was perfected already, it should not appear here, I tell you.

There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia, you snob. Wikipedia has all the references needed to bolster citations to it. It is a true encyclopedia. It deserves more respect!

Correction:

Remember, I have corrected the following items related to MOND.

For the hyperbolic field all equations are related to F = GMm/rr1, NOT = GMm/r

The constant r1 is the unit vector associated with vector r and scalar r. This makes any dimensional analysis work out nicely.
The whole equation could be written as a vector expression. So, it is no big deal to quote the unit vector of r. I could just as well
have used the original singularity = 1 , but it would have to have units. So, r1 = 1m , a constant, in the SI system.

Using the unit vector of r this way is explicit acknowledgement of the singular nature of a Black-Hole. Black holes are so different that they should have such an acknowledgement, NO?

34. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
In boards I've moderated, that would get you a vacation of considerable length.
Why do you not now moderate any forums? You did use the past tense, after all.

If you do now moderate forums, which? Just curious.

Moderators here are not full of themselves with delusions of grandeur. They are tolerant and reasonable and they know that many participants are inexperienced and often quite young. This is a forum that encourages expression, it is not full of hard-nosed scientific journal editors whose job is to cull the herd and weed the garden. These editors play hard-ball in the garden, crushing many deserving blossoms and they step in cow-pies as they scamper through the pasture.

Mixing metaphor is allowed under quantum rules, if it is done correctly.

35. Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
This forum is not for card carrying experts only. I do not do this for a living. I am new at it too. You quote authority too when you claim properties attributed by others to black-holes. If we must abide strictly by credentials in this hidebound society, then we are lost. Inbred thinking will kill us. Literally.
The point that I will make to the class is not that you aren't an expert, it's that you are not an expert but you are desperately trying to seem like an expert. It would be one thing if you could simply present your case on its merits, but you refuse to do this. Actual scientists whether professional or amatuer, when writing about the motion of particular well-documented entities, show how their theory matches up to the documentation. You do not do this, you offer excuses and attempts at making yourself seem like an authority. That is worthy of contempt.
There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia, you snob. Wikipedia has all the references needed to bolster citations to it. It is a true encyclopedia. It deserves more respect!
If the references are there, use the references. Do not use a citation the contents of which could change at any moment to essentially anything.

36. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
This forum is not for card carrying experts only. I do not do this for a living. I am new at it too. You quote authority too when you claim properties attributed by others to black-holes. If we must abide strictly by credentials in this hidebound society, then we are lost. Inbred thinking will kill us. Literally.
The point that I will make to the class is not that you aren't an expert, it's that you are not an expert but you are desperately trying to seem like an expert. It would be one thing if you could simply present your case on its merits, but you refuse to do this. Actual scientists whether professional or amatuer, when writing about the motion of particular well-documented entities, show how their theory matches up to the documentation. You do not do this, you offer excuses and attempts at making yourself seem like an authority. That is worthy of contempt.
There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia, you snob. Wikipedia has all the references needed to bolster citations to it. It is a true encyclopedia. It deserves more respect!
If the references are there, use the references. Do not use a citation the contents of which could change at any moment to essentially anything.
You are not a scientific journal editor (for this forum). It is YOU who are pretending to be someone you are not.

This is a work in progress. Why can you not acknowledge this?

I am glad you are not a moderator. This forum would have only stuff that you approve - meaning it would be almost empty. If you don't like this one, join other forums and stick to the others that you curse by your very presence.

I am so happy that I am not in any of your classes and never was. My cousin dropped out of the U. of I. at Chicago Circle because he could not get along with his astronomy professors. He was already an astronomer at age 19 and even led an expedition as a junior in H.S. to observe the total eclipse of the sun when it could be seen from Bar Harbor, Maine. His efforts allowed his team to observe the eclipse when most others who were there abandoned their chosen site (due to overcast) in the hills and went down to the coast. They should have stayed put. My cousin, Allan Fries, accomplished his purpose, was very proud, and could not stand condescension such as yours. He had nothing but contempt for the stuffed shirts who pretended to do science while dissing their students at every chance they got. I imagine you are even more condescending toward your students, at times. Do you do any real science or are just a bag of hot air? I would transfer out of your classes ASAP because your disdain amounts to 100% pure arrogance. You "lack insight" too, as psychologists say. You do not see yourself as others may see you. You cannot perceive yourself accurately because, if you did, it would be so painful that you could not stand it. And, when someone feels this way about himself, there is only one way out.

Now, I shall shut up. I shall not answer you for at least 10 days. I am suspending myself from YOU until 20dc11.

37. Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
Originally Posted by PhysBang
Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
This forum is not for card carrying experts only. I do not do this for a living. I am new at it too. You quote authority too when you claim properties attributed by others to black-holes. If we must abide strictly by credentials in this hidebound society, then we are lost. Inbred thinking will kill us. Literally.
The point that I will make to the class is not that you aren't an expert, it's that you are not an expert but you are desperately trying to seem like an expert. It would be one thing if you could simply present your case on its merits, but you refuse to do this. Actual scientists whether professional or amatuer, when writing about the motion of particular well-documented entities, show how their theory matches up to the documentation. You do not do this, you offer excuses and attempts at making yourself seem like an authority. That is worthy of contempt.
There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia, you snob. Wikipedia has all the references needed to bolster citations to it. It is a true encyclopedia. It deserves more respect!
If the references are there, use the references. Do not use a citation the contents of which could change at any moment to essentially anything.
You are not a scientific journal editor (for this forum). It is YOU who are pretending to be someone you are not.

This is a work in progress. Why can you not acknowledge this?

I am glad you are not a moderator. This forum would have only stuff that you approve - meaning it would be almost empty. If you don't like this one, join other forums and stick to the others that you curse by your very presence.

I am so happy that I am not in any of your classes and never was. My cousin dropped out of the U. of I. at Chicago Circle because he could not get along with his astronomy professors. He was already an astronomer at age 19 and even led an expedition as a junior in H.S. to observe the total eclipse of the sun when it could be seen from Bar Harbor, Maine. His efforts allowed his team to observe the eclipse when most others who were there abandoned their chosen site (due to overcast) in the hills and went down to the coast. They should have stayed put. My cousin, Allan Fries, accomplished his purpose, was very proud, and could not stand condescension such as yours. He had nothing but contempt for the stuffed shirts who pretended to do science while dissing their students at every chance they got. I imagine you are even more condescending toward your students, at times. Do you do any real science or are just a bag of hot air? I would transfer out of your classes ASAP because your disdain amounts to 100% pure arrogance. You "lack insight" too, as psychologists say. You do not see yourself as others may see you. You cannot perceive yourself accurately because, if you did, it would be so painful that you could not stand it. And, when someone feels this way about himself, there is only one way out.

Now, I shall shut up. I shall not answer you for at least 10 days. I am suspending myself from YOU until 20dc11.

Well, one good thing about this discussion is that it may be more interesting, especially to people who like soap operas and enjoy a good argument.

38. Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
Well, one good thing about this discussion is that it may be more interesting, especially to people who like soap operas and enjoy a good argument.
Argument, no that's down the hall, 3rd door on the left. This is a science forum.

39. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent
Well, one good thing about this discussion is that it may be more interesting, especially to people who like soap operas and enjoy a good argument.
Argument, no that's down the hall, 3rd door on the left. This is a science forum.

We have no shortage of Big Heads and Stuffed Shirts! I am suspending myself from you too. No more replies from me until at least 24dc11.

40. If your stuff is so good, why don't you get it published in a respected journal, instead of just posting in on Teh Interwebz?

41. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
If your stuff is so good, why don't you get it published in a respected journal, instead of just posting in on Teh Interwebz?

See "What Imbues the Higgs Boson with Mass?" for more. This forum is a good place for an author to get feedback prior to submission of a manuscript for demolition by editors and referees.

42. Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Science is missing an opportunity here. The existence of the MOND effect proves the nature of supermassive black holes as true singularities. One can mathematically prove that relativistic singularities must exist by means of the treatment of general relativity given by Schwartzchild. But, here is observational (experimental) proof that is as rock-hard and undeniable as such proof ever gets. It is more important to find more ways to validate an all-encompassing theory like general relativity than it is to find ways to validate one particular favored model of the universe by inventing Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) to fix the gaping holes. This is the true meaning of the MOND effect.
Admit the hyperbolic black hole galactic gravitational field (HBHF) as a postulate

I have shown that it is expedient and practical to admit the hyperbolic black hole galactic gravitational field (HBHF) as a postulate – that is, as a mere tentative logical premise. There are several ways in which it could be confirmed as a contender for a place in the cosmological pantheon of physical “law”. If it could be seen as a real cosmic rule, every single one of the phenomena that are now ascribed to “Dark Matter” can be more parsimoniously charged to the HBHF. This is also because, by extension, the HBHF can be used to characterize the hyper-excited “inflaton particle” in the false vacuum of the ultra-high energy “inflaton field” that is supposed to have sprung into existence as a probabilistic quantum fluctuation. It offers a new way to forge another link between quantum dynamics and relativity theory.

When enough such links are made, we shall obtain a quantum theory of relativity without having to tolerate the putative overbearing “grand unified theories” or “theories of everything” like superstring theory or quantum loop gravity. These seem to offer no advantage other than the grandeur of hyper-complexity and the safe haven of unfalsifiability. In other words, the HBHF might allow theorists to “get real”. So, it is practical and expedient to admit the HBHF as just such a postulate.

The HBHF, if it can be allowed, would further reinforce Inflation Theory by providing a mechanism for the transition of the excited inflaton HBHF particle/field to a “ground state” inverse square gravitational field. It implies how potential energy in the inflaton field might have powered inflation and how it may now be powering “reinflation”, the accelerating Hubble expansion of the universe in the current epoch. It would seem to require endorsement of the “Many Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics/dynamics because the HBHF must have pre-existed inflation in a sort of “metatime” in a “multiverse”. But, this is implied by Alan Guth’s inflation hypothesis anyway. And then, if the universe was once a quantum entity, then it still is – with profound implications and more opportunities to forge links with GR.

Incidentally, the HBHF can certainly be admitted according to common interpretations of some theorems of general relativity if spacetime, in the moments before inflation, was indeed regarded as “flat”. That is, the HBHF can certainly be allowed by GR if the HBHF inflaton field is restricted to two dimensions. This gives a new twist to inflation. It may mean that inflation involved “unpacking” our spatially 3-D universe from a more compactified 2-D version.

And then, the deep interior of black holes at their singularities (as physical realities) might be viewed as recompactifications of spacetime – reconvolutions to a strictly 2-D format wherein the HBHF can persist with no contradiction to conventional interpretations of GR. Then, in our multiverse, the galactic 2-D HBHF sibling set might define orbital planes for each and every entity in its purview.

That this galactic field must be defined as a disk shaped oblate spheroid means that its tidal influence on the central super-massive Black Hole (SMBH) must be concentrated in the plane of the galaxy. The mass of the disk may be thousands of times the mass of the SMBH so, its (mutual) effects on the SMBH are very substantial. Thus, Einstein’s theory of the relativistic non-symmetric gravitational field must be used to characterize it and that of the SMBH. Nobody has ever done this. And Birkhoff’s Theorem or its congeners simply do not exactly apply to any real BHs.

Simple geometry is used to define radiant flux and other quantities that are posited to emanate from a point source. An imaginary sphere is constructed around the source. An infinitesimally small area is defined on the surface of this sphere. Then the flux, quantity of lines of force or light lines, through this fractional area must be proportional to 1/r2 because the total area of a sphere is proportional to 1/r2 and the spherical enclosure envelopes all the flux. Using this definition to prove that gravity must be an inverse square (1/r2) phenomenon uses circular reasoning because it assumes as a premise that which is to be proven.

What if the source, even though it is a point, is assumed to be enclosed by an infinitesimally small space that is a very oblate spheroid by virtue of its extremely rapid rotation? What if this is the ultimate source, in fact. Then, what if this flux emission pattern is also very strongly oblately spheroidal? In addition, what if this flux was influenced by relativistic “frame dragging” and “thirring”? Also, what if the gravitational tidal influence of a galactic disk would also influence this spheroid to be even more oblate? The gravitational field of the disk must be perfectly coaxial and concurrent with the field of the SMBH. Its field must perfectly superpose. Then, the combined field must be treated in order to determine if there could be a hyperbolic field component. But, this combined field is even more “non-symmetric” and even more difficult to handle with GR, except by Einstein’s non-symmetric field theory, which has never been done. So, it is really impossible to prove by appeal to any theory or principle whatever whether the hyperbolic gravitational field is impossible. But, it is possible to appeal to strong geometric principles to argue that, indeed, it is possible.

See more details at www.NeoCosmology.blogspot.com .