Hi Jeff:
Thanks for reading and commenting on my paper. The following are responses to your questions:
Your Question 1: "..... I don't understand how this would cause the kinetic energy of remaining mass clumps to increase. I note that in Einstein's dentition of GR, all energy (even kinetic) curves spacetime, so the local curvature should not be affected by the transformation to TE."
Answer: To understand this concept, imagine a photon being emitted from a stationary atom. Before emission, the photon rest mass is M0=E/C2. Soon after its emission from rest, it accelerates to attain a speed close to the speed of light via converting or losing its mass. Since, there is no external force accelerating the photon to the speed of light, its gain in kinetic energy comes from the conversion of its rest mass to KE. GR lacks or is deficient in this physics, hence it suffers from the singularity at r=0 and is unable to predict the dark energy required for the observed accelerated expansion. GR needs a fudge factor - nonzero Cosmological Constant to mock this missing physics and this fudging was the Einstein's Biggest Blunder. GNMUE model in my paper provides this missing physics from GR and QM. Integrating the missing physics resolves their singularities and paradoxes.
Your Question 2: "...As the mass is being converted, why would the accelerating expansion increase?"
Answer: I clarify and explain this in my paper (see Figure 3):
"It is important to point out that GNM based RUE provides a relativistic expansion model of the universe, while the LHM represents an empirical fit to the observed Hubble expansion data from the near field galaxies. When compared to the recent far-field Supernova data, LHM leads to the apparent conclusion that the universe expansion is accelerating. However, such a conclusion is merely an artifact of the over-extrapolation (V>C) of the linear expansion assumed by the LHM in the distant universe. It is shown later in the paper that the observed non-linear expansion from the far-field data is naturally predicted by the RUE vindicating the fact that the universe expansion in the far field is relativistic and not linear as predicted by LHM."
Your Question 3: "...can you state how you view your Fig.2 in relation to the cosmological principle and to the scarcity of baryonic matter? Doesn't equation (5) depict mass as a point?"
Answer: I am attaching a complete derivation of equation (5) as a pdf file below. It assumes that mass is spherically distributed over the entire universe. The scarcity of baryonic matter is evidenced by its conversion to the equivalent KE which is misinterpreted as Dark Energy because of its unknown source in the standard cosmology. Dark matter is another such mis-concept prevalent in modern cosmology that is shown to be the artifact of the missing physics.
Finally thanks for picking up and realizing the deeper theme of my paper to present to the forum not just a philosophy or list of what is wrong but actually offer a real physical/mathematical solution to what is missing and paralyzing physics and cosmology today. I hope there are more scientists on this forum that could think universally and see outside of their current boxes of GR, QM, or prevailing incomplete theories.
As I show in my paper, many of the current standard cosmology assumptions and mis-concepts (big-bang, cosmic time, inflation, nucleo-synthesis, dark matter, dark, energy, particles/strings, anti-matter, multiverses, multi-dimensions etc.) aren't even needed when the missing physics is properly considered. It is tragic that the physics/cosmology community and world are wasting so much of their talent, time, and money pursuing only unneeded assumptions or non-physical mathematical concepts (particles/strings) that are not real but only superficial artifacts of the missing fundamental physics. I would welcome your and others' ideas as to how to raise awareness of the science community to the missing physics rather than beating the dead horse of standard cosmology.
What is ironic and generally lacking in the forum papers is the presentation of a complete approach wherein instead of merely identifying the wrong assumptions, the right assumptions are presented and proven against universal observations to show their correctness. Without such a wholesome approach, this exercise is no more than firing shots in empty air.
Best Regards,
Avtar SinghAttachment #1: 1_Gravitation_Potential_Derivation__Excerpts_from_my_book.pdf