My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

[normal]

I like normal's hat.

Thanks, I like it too

[mistermack]

pErvin, I can't believe the crap that you are coming out with.

You've completely missed the point. I posted about reaching the speed of light, as an illustration of the impossibility of it actually happening.
i.e. the impossibility that a rock could sit on the Moon for a few billion years, being constantly accelerated in the normal fashion.
I'm not claiming that that could happen, I'm claiming the opposite. It would take infinite energy to accelerate something to the speed of light anyway, so I thought that it would be obvious, even to you, that it couldn't happen.
If you sit and look at the rock on the Moon, even for just one billion years, then even you would conclude that it's not accelerating.
In the scenario I'm suggesting, it CAN'T be accelerating linearly, even if it's being pushed by what's under it at a constant force. That's because the flow of space past it would have to be steady, not increasing, because the mass of the Moon is steady, not increasing.
So you can't have an accelerating rock, that isn't going any faster.

My proposal gives a way in which the rock CAN be accelerating, relative to the space that it's in. By the space being funnelled past it, and being forced to accelerate all of the way.

As far as inertial frames being privileged goes, you didn't think it through. General Relativity doesn't cater for moving or accelerating space at all.
This is not two solid objects accelerating relative to each other. The claim is that it's one solid object, the rock, accelerating relative to the space that it's in because of the force exerted by the Moon.

[Hermit]

I like normal's hat.

Thanks, I like it too

Love it. Currently looking for a beany like that, but animated.

[pErvinalia]

pErvin, I can't believe the crap that you are coming out with.

Settle petal.

I'll address your points after a session of Broadchurch.

[pErvinalia]

pErvin, I can't believe the crap that you are coming out with.

You've completely missed the point. I posted about reaching the speed of light, as an illustration of the impossibility of it actually happening.
i.e. the impossibility that a rock could sit on the Moon for a few billion years, being constantly accelerated in the normal fashion.
I'm not claiming that that could happen, I'm claiming the opposite. It would take infinite energy to accelerate something to the speed of light anyway, so I thought that it would be obvious, even to you, that it couldn't happen.

It's established fact, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You didn't need to invent a weird arse "theory" to make that point.

If you sit and look at the rock on the Moon, even for just one billion years, then even you would conclude that it's not accelerating.
In the scenario I'm suggesting, it CAN'T be accelerating linearly, even if it's being pushed by what's under it at a constant force. That's because the flow of space past it would have to be steady, not increasing, because the mass of the Moon is steady, not increasing.
So you can't have an accelerating rock, that isn't going any faster.

It's not accelerating. It's subject to two equal and opposite forces. Hence no acceleration.

My proposal gives a way in which the rock CAN be accelerating, relative to the space that it's in. By the space being funnelled past it, and being forced to accelerate all of the way.

As far as inertial frames being privileged goes, you didn't think it through.

No I'm afraid you didn't think it through. As I said, the accelerating frame of reference is PRIVILEGED, unlike the case for intertial frames. So the bit I highlighted in your response above is nonsensical. It can't be accelerating relative to a frame that is accelerating. It's not accelerating at all.

This is not two solid objects accelerating relative to each other. The claim is that it's one solid object, the rock, accelerating relative to the space that it's in because of the force exerted by the Moon.

You are still not understanding the concept of relativity and how it applies to inertial frames vs accelerating frames.

[pErvinalia]

What I would like to establish, but can't, is whether the acceleration of the flow would be inversely proportional to the change in radius of a sphere squared.

If you picture a sphere of water, around a draining pipe in the ocean, then obviously, the water nearest the pipe moves fastest, and as you go outwards, it's slower and slower. So the water would be accelerating inwards.
Does the acceleration follow the inverse square law?
I think it would, as the change in volume of the sphere is related to the cube of the radius, so you're dividing radius cubed by the radius, giving r2.
But I'm shit at maths, so that's a guess.

This is another point where you are getting confused. You are mistakenly equating increase in velocity (i.e. acceleration) with increase in acceleration. Your example above can be modeled with a steady rate of acceleration. There's no need to invoke an increasing rate of acceleration.

[mistermack]

It's not accelerating. It's subject to two equal and opposite forces. Hence no acceleration.

You really do need to learn at least some basics of GR, otherwise your attempts to comment are just a waste of time.

[pErvinalia]

Man, you are the one proposing a whackjob theory. It's a bit rich you telling someone to learn some physics. Address my critiques, or be dismissed as the flake you are in every other sphere.

[mistermack]

To be dismissed by someone who doesn't even start to get GR is not a problem.

I did ask for this to be dismissed, don't forget.

But I was looking to have it dismissed by someone who understands the subject, and for the right scientific reasons. You don't qualify on any score, so dismiss all you like. It's of no interest to me.

[Forty Two]

you're speculating

Hallaluja !! The penny has finally dropped. Did you think I'd had this published ?

I'm not sure why the limit of your speculation is drawn at where does the new space from?

The idea is "if so and so, then so and so". I'm not claiming to be a scientist, but they do a lot of that sort of thing.

While we're at it, nobody knows, and nobody in the field of physics thinks, that matter sucks space to begin with.

Not so. This has been passed by peer review, and been published about black holes in the American Journal of Physics. http://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.2830526

It doesn't mean it's accepted theory, but it does mean that the maths has been done, and matches the proposition.

That papers doesn't say that matter sucks space. I think that's a fault line in your theory.

[pErvinalia]

To be dismissed by someone who doesn't even start to get GR is not a problem.

I did ask for this to be dismissed, don't forget.

But I was looking to have it dismissed by someone who understands the subject, and for the right scientific reasons. You don't qualify on any score, so dismiss all you like. It's of no interest to me.

Guy with whackjob theory can't answer critiques. In other news, water is wet...

[mistermack]

That papers doesn't say that matter sucks space. I think that's a fault line in your theory.

No, they wouldn't use that terminology. But what they are modelling is space flowing into the black hole like a river. It is called the river model. That's basically what I was putting forward too.

[Forty Two]

Well, if matter sucks in space, then there would be a tendency for matter to come together.

There is. It's called gravity. However, gravity is incredibly weak at particle level, so it wouldn't cause matter to collapse except under extreme gravity.

If matter sucks in space, then there would be a tendency, apart from gravity, for matter to come together, because the space between matter would be disappearing as it sucked into matter.

Also, you need to account for where the space goes.

I mentioned that in the OP.

On what basis do you aver that it is "going" anywhere?

And, the expanding space is part of the problem with your theory. How can you explain an expanding space, when matter sucks in space? We should at least be in a universe where the rate of expansion is slowing, if not contracting.

Why? If the process has been happening since the Universe started, then you would just need more space being made, than being absorbed.
Maybe antimatter emits it?

Does it? Where is the antimatter, what does it emit, and at what rate?

If your theory is to make sense, then it must account for these things.

[Forty Two]

That papers doesn't say that matter sucks space. I think that's a fault line in your theory.

No, they wouldn't use that terminology. But what they are modelling is space flowing into the black hole like a river. It is called the river model. That's basically what I was putting forward too.

Well, then your model doesn't include matter sucking in space, which is different than you described. Things flowing into black holes is not just a different way of putting it. It's a different concept altogether. So, to correct your theory, you are eliminating the bit about matter sucking in space.

[Brian Peacock]