Hello, /sci/, no dark matter guy here again. I think the bl

>>8284264
You get comprehensively BTFO every time you make one of these threads. A regular person would have reevaluate what they knew, or what they thought they knew, and perhaps gone away. But not you, it's almost impressive.

There aren't many people that think black holes are the source of dark matter.

In order for there to be no dark matter, our field equations would need to be revised. Please post your argument in these terms. If you don't explain how, your explanation is worthless.

>>8284393

Our black hole model is wrong, world lines do not cross over event horizons.
Spacetime below the event horizon is inverted. The singularities of the event horizon and at the origin emerge because the black hole is built upon a spherical metric which becomes inverted and an inverted sphere is a pseudosphere which has a singularity at its equator and one at its origin.
The negative, inverted spacetime of the black hole can entangle a distant black hole, forming an Einstein-Rosen bridges.
The E-R bridges form galactic strings which curve spacetime in our positively curved universe resulting in the so called "Dark Matter" phenomenon.

>>8284264
>>>/x/

There is no argument here. You say the black hole model is wrong but do not present this model. Fuck off until you have a real argument.

>>8284992
The first sentence is factually incorrect, because this is only true in certain coordinate systems and not others. Therefore it's not physical.

The rest is just gibberish.

>>8285009

The method to cross event horizons is flawed and results in null geodesics that are not the true null geodesics of the metric. The video explains why.

>>8285009
>only true in certain coordinate systems and not others.

This statement is used to treat the speed of light, and hence null geodesics as arbitrary to the metric, which they are not.

>>8285023
>The method to cross event horizons is flawed and results in null geodesics that are not the true null geodesics of the metric.
Of which metric? This statement doesn't make sense. You appear to just be doubling down on the fundamental fallacy that certain metrics are privileged, which is anathema to general relativity.

>>8285027
>This statement is used to treat the speed of light, and hence null geodesics as arbitrary to the metric, which they are not.
In general relativity, the speed of light IS dependent on the metric. So there are two possibilities: Either you don't understand general relativity, or you are acknowledging that your hypothesis contradicts the fundamental theory of modern physics. Which one is it? Either way, there is no point in continuing the discussion.

>>8285055
>In general relativity, the speed of light IS dependent on the metric.

Exactly. However transformations which alter the speed of light are used to penetrate the event horizon.

I suggest that the law of general covariance is lacking in a crucial provision:

Rather than "Arbitrary coordinate transformaitons have no effect on the form of the physics."

I suggest that the law of general covariance be stated "Provided that null geodesics are conserved in accordance with the principle of equivalence arbitrary coordinate transformations will have no effect on the form of the physics."

The altered geodesics which do not converge at the event horizon are not conserved in accordance with the principle of equivalence. This is done by treating the speed of light arbitrarily contradicting the very statement I quoted from you. Altering the speed of light in the metric and thus the null geodesics.

>>8284264
>no dark matter
>I think the black hole model is wrong

How exactly is this related?

>>8285072
>Exactly. However transformations which alter the speed of light are used to penetrate the event horizon.
How does that respond to what you quoted? The speed of light is only constant locally in any given metric. A gravity well like a black hole changes the speed of light. There is no requirement that null geodesics are conserved, whatever you think that means, because that would violate general covariance. You are essentially using circular logic by justifying this violation by calling general covariance something which it fundamentally is not. Coordinates are not physical, they are just tools we use to describe the physical. You are attempting to place the tool before the physics. There is no argument here, because you've admitted to the fundamental flaw in your own argument, you just pretend the flaw is some kind of "correction" and not a flaw.

>>8284992
Everyone knows the world lines end at event horizons.

It's one of the first things Steven hawkings talks about in a brief history of time.

The rest of your argument does not follow from this. If er bridges did arise naturally, they could only warp space as much as the mass of the two holes allow.
The er bridge solutions to gr don't introduce phantom mass.

>>8285815
>Steven hawkings

>>8284264
As >>8284269
said, you get disproven and blown out of the water every time you make this thread. And you make it very frequently, and present the exact same shitty, flawed arguments. Get out of here.

>>8285730

Null geodesics describe the speed of light. That is not just a coordinate it is a physical description of the spacetime. The current theory alters these geodesics, alters the speed of light and then plays CYA with the law of general covariance when it has altered the physical properties of space in the metric.

>>8285918
All those steven hawkings..
they're in my gutters, they're in my hair
can't get away from them, i swear

>>8286073
>Null geodesics describe the speed of light. That is not just a coordinate it is a physical description of the spacetime.
They are entirely dependent on coordinates. Therefore they are not physical. I've already explained this to you. Your fixation on null geodesics is arbitrary.

>The current theory alters these geodesics, alters the speed of light
Geodesics and speed of light are derived from the metric, so they aren't altering them, they are creating them. The fact that you place the cart before the horse like this shows you lack basic understanding of general relativity.

Again, you've admitted to contradicting general covariance, so there is nothing to discuss. You proved yourself wrong. If you don't understand general covariance then you should start from square one and learn general relativity. There is no justifiable reason to claim that geodesics are fundamentally physical when they are clearly derived.

>>8288089
>They are entirely dependent on coordinates. Therefore they are not physical.

This is the problem. I can prove it too. Demonstrate light cones in acceleration which behave as null geodesics as described in the Eddington-Finkelstein.

If you can't that means that the E-F violates equivalence.