Ferent Quantum Gravity, FQG

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330832633_Dark_Matter_is_not_'invisible'_is_not_'transparent'_Matter

Your items 1, 2, 5 and 6 all come from GR which has been comprehensively tested. You can easily search on that topic.

Items 3 and 4 are classical physics tested in many ways such as radar speed guns.

Item 7 is just about choice of names. The metric defines separations in 4-D "spacetime" so isn't the same as "3-D space" or "physical space". Coordinate space is a particular foliation, a set of coordinates applied to spacetime.

Item 8 is simply the definition of the words "black hole".

You've missed the only real assumption in modern cosmology which is that the large scale distribution of matter and energy is homogeneous and isotropic, commonly known as the "Cosmological Principle". Isotropy has been well tested but homogeneity is harder to measure. A radial variation of density is expected because the density varies with time and the farther away we look, the farther back in time we see too. However, so far things seem to work out that way too in the studies that have been done.

One major assumption concerning the formation of large scale structures in standard cosmology is that Weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) constitute the dark matter. No WIMP has been detected so far.

Sorry for late answer.

In my opinion, in order for the adequate cosmological model to be available, it is first of all necessary to approach the answer to the question of what space is and time, which can clarify the concept of gravity. You are right that: "Quite often, a change in the founding assumptions of prevailing Models will drastically change the interpretations of same physical observations. Occasionally, certain arbitrary unverified assumptions, incorporated into a Models of physical reality".

To answer the question about space, experimental data is needed that has not yet been delivered. Models are needed for such experiments. The circle is closed.

A fairly simple model of multidimensional spaces, consistent with the structure of matter, I managed to build in my work:

Magula A. S., M’achukov A. V. Geometry of multidimensional spaces. Rule of construction of three-dimensional projections of multidimensional spaces on them

Unfortunately, only in Russian

Popular about this on video:

https://rutube.ru/video/1635ecacbedb0533f6cb1782914c1633/

Dear Andrey,

The question about the role of un-verified founding assumptions in various Models of Reality, is not time-bound but eternal.

The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in General theory of Relativity implies the spacetime continuum to be a physical entity which can even be deformed and curved. Albert Einstein had asserted in a 'matter of fact' way, "the world in which we live is a four-dimensional space-time continuum."

Our dynamic universe is embedded in a 3D Euclidean space and its dynamic behavior or characteristic changes can be represented with an independent time coordinate. We need to distinguish between the mathematical abstract notion of coordinate space and the physical notion of space as the container of physical objects.

With a predefined notion of unit length, an essential feature of 3D coordinate space is the concept of one-to-one correspondence of points in space with the ordered triplet of numbers. The predefined notion of unit length or scale for different coordinate axes, constitutes the metric of space for quantifying the notion of distance and position measurements. At any given point P in space, it is not possible to physically measure the metric tensor components or metric coefficients.

The notion of physical space implies the spatial extension of the universe wherein all material particles and all fields are embedded or contained. The empty space between material points is in essence the physical space, or free space. It is important to note here that the coordinate space, along with its unit scale or metric, is our human creation intended to facilitate the quantification of relative positions of material particles. The existence of physical space does not depend in any way on the existence or nonexistence of coordinate systems and coordinate spaces. Of course, for the study and analysis of physical space and the material particles and fields embedded in it, we do need the structure of coordinate systems and coordinate spaces as a quantification tool.

The most significant point to be highlighted here is that whereas the metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the physical properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance are associated with physical space. The speed 'c' of propagation of electromagnetic disturbances is governed by the permittivity and permeability constants associated with the physical space or vacuum. These physical properties are not correlated with the metric tensor of the coordinate space and hence cannot represent the metric properties of the coordinate space.

Since our universe is inherently dynamic, there are a large number of physical processes in Nature which undergo cyclic changes. The notion of time is associated with relative measurement of such changes. Depending on the consistency of such cyclic changes and the convenience of their measurement, we may select any one of them as our reference scale for relative measurement of change or the reference scale for time. In general, the study of natural phenomena invariably involves the comparative study of various changes. For this comparative study, we need to use a reference scale, or more correctly a reference time scale, for relative measurement of change. Hence time, as a relative measure of change, is an important parameter in the study of an essentially dynamic physical Universe.

In my paper titled, "Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity", I have analytically proved that the 4D Spacetime of GR is not a physical entity and hence GR is not a theory of Gravitation. Specifically I have proved that the popular notion of 'curvature' of spacetime continuum, when applied to physical space, leads to incompatible deformation of space with voids and discontinuities which are physically impossible.

https://tinyurl.com/yaqqrajh

G S Sandhu

Dear All,

Since Black Holes are said to be predicted by Einstein's Relativity Theory, the recent detections of merger of pairs of Black Holes are being interpreted as validation of Relativity Theory.

I have just published my latest paper titled "Black Holes are a mathematical fantasy, not a physical reality" in 'Applied Physics Research' journal.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v11n4p16

In this paper I have analytically derived two important conclusions regarding existence of Black Holes (BH). Firstly, I have shown that none of the photons emitted from the surface of a gravitating body of any mass and any size can ever be prevented by gravity from escaping that body. That is, under no circumstances can a gravitating body (BH) capture the light or prevent its escape from that body. Secondly, I have shown that under no circumstances can the core of any massive star collapse under its own gravity. Current Core Collapse models erroneously assume all electrons, ions and nuclei to be non-interacting and wrongly use kinetic theory of gases to analyze stresses in a solid iron core. That is, I have conclusively proved that the current notion of Black Hole can neither be formed by any physical process, nor be invisible under any circumstances.