Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About captcass

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Cosmology, Relativity

Recent Profile Visitors

2437 profile views
  1. captcass


    I am not going to begin a new debate here, but I just want to note that 2 days ago the Journal of Cosmology began a new volume, the first in 3 years, based on my model, as discussed here in other threads: Vol. #27, "Time Dilation Cosmology in the Evolving SpaceTime/Quantum Continuum: General Relativity & the Hubble Shift".
  2. Not to restart the conversation, but just thought I'd share the thought I just had.... Cosmologically, the oldest events we see, are the youngest events we see. I see that as elegant....
  3. Maybe when the new scope goes up we can continue this.... Thank you all for the discussion and debate....
  4. OK. That's all for now for me. I didn't say anything about that... No idea what you are talking about. Later, folks, when I can hopefully move this along. Like you said, Mordred, it has gotten boring....
  5. Except it doesn't work on large scales, hence DM and DE. Let's just give it a break for awhile... Did Einstein's solution for Mercury's orbit prove space evolves forward?
  6. Sorry, Mordred. This is why I was going to stop the conversation for now, but figured I'd give it a last shot. I'm frustrated, too, so lets give it a break. I hope you can come to see the quantum continuum and evoltuion of events. You are stuck in GR and I am talking about where GR doesn't work. You want to MAKE GR work, when I know you can't. Let's give it a break for now... You are talking about what we should expect to see as per an incomplete GR. I am talking about what we actually see.
  7. You keep on like GR is the absolute end all. It works sometimes and not others due to differences in perspectives. You can't visualize the other perspective, yet. This is why you need DM and DE. I am not really talking about effects in GR. I am talking about the bigger picture where GR isn't working.
  8. GR has been incomplete. I see the movement of the local cluster as the forward evolution of the local cluster. You do not..... All motion is an evolution over time. Even if you view it as separate particles....Thing is, we know it isn't particles, just evolving waveform possibilities. Motion is forward evolution. I don't think you can argue with that. I am saying the Earth doesn't just appear to revolve around the sun, it appears to evolve around the sun from a different perspective... The quantum continuum perspective.... These 2 perspectives are the same in a spherical dilation pit, which is why GR works there. And not some other wheres....
  9. I'm sorry, I have to disagree. Each frame of reference has a worldline. I have one. The Earth has one, the solar system has one, the local group has one, the Virgo cluster has one. Just because we describe it from the "inertial frame's" point of view, is no reason we can't apply that to a cluster of events evolving forward together, i.e. a common point of view. The "system" becomes the inertial frame because all events in the system evolve forward together.....
  10. Sorry, I was adding to my last when yours came in.... As we look at larger frames we see a progression. We begin with a stationary sun and relatively large differences in velocities for the planets. Then we give the sun motion rel to the CMB and we see a smaller relative diff for the planets. Then we look at the local group, which has nearly twice the velocity and the differences between the planets gets even smaller Then we get to the Virgo cluster moving towards the Great Attracter and the differences between the planets become insignificant. I am saying the Worldline of the universe as a whole has invariant time. On the scale of the universe as a whole, there is no perceptible difference in the velocities of the planets.
  11. You can't. It is a hypothetical. And if the continuum doesn't exist I guess we can forget about QM. As we look at larger and larger views, we see the view from within the solar system, then the view outside the solar system relative to the CMB. From Forbes: "Our Sun's peculiar motion (relative to the CMB) of 368 km/s, and our local group's, of 627 km/s, matches up perfectly with how we understand that all galaxies move through space. Thanks to the effect of the dipole repeller, we now, for the first time, understand how that motion happens for us on every cosmic scale." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/16/how-does-earth-move-through-space-now-we-know-on-every-scale/#114f3a76861f
  12. To the hypothetical observer outside the continuum, the continuum (and events therein) evolves forward at the invariant rate. To make a comparison like I did, there has to be a common point of reference, i.e., motion relative to what point. In this case I chose the CMB as it is a common frame of reference.
  13. Exactly. And the sun is moving within it, relative to it, as is the local group, etc. As are the planets. It makes a convenient common point of reference for determining relative motions. Yes, and there is a Doppler shift in different directions due to our motion.
  14. As the sun moves forward relative to the CMB, the planets follow helical paths around the sun's axis of movement. So, relative to the CMB, they are traveling those helical distances, not just completing circular orbits. This gives them a higher apparent velocity, relative to the CMB, but it diminishes the differences between relative velocities. All movement is relative and subject to perspective and point of reference. There are no "true" velocities.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.