captcass

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.

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

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.

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.

But the sun and planets have different relative motions relative to the CMB

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.

Appendix A Relative Velocities of the Planets From Different Perspectives Since relative velocity changes with a change in perspective, the relative rate of time must, too. Considering relative velocity and rates of evolution within the continuum, in the following computations: Planetary orbital lengths and periods are as per NASA. Orbital periods are related to 1 Earth year. Orbital lengths are as perceived “around the Sun”. Helical orbital lengths are computed using the following formula: (Distance travelled by the Sun)2 + (Orbital length)2 = (Helical length)2 The distance travelled by the Sun is relative to the CMB. Sun velocity = 368 km/s = 11.60672*109 km/yr. Considering the perspective of the orbits of Mercury and Venus relative to the plane of the ecliptic, we assign Mercury a velocity of 47.89 km/s and Venus one of 35.03 km/s, a large difference. But if we consider the velocity of the Sun and its forward evolution in time relative to the CMB, and the helical distances travelled by the planets we get a much different perspective: Mercury: Orbital length: 57.909227*106 km Orbital period = .24 yr Orbits/yr = 4.1666 Total orbital length = 241.249839*106 km Helical length = 11.609226961*109 km Velocity = 368.07948 km/s vs 47.89 km/s Venus: Orbital length: 10.8209475*107 km Orbital period = .62 yr Orbits/yr = 1.6129 Total orbital length = 17.4531062*107 km Helical length = 11.608032143*109 km Velocity = 368.04160 km/s vs 35.03 km/s Earth: Orbital length: 14.9598262*107 km Orbital period = 1 yr Orbits/yr = 1 Total orbital length = 14.9598262*107 km Helical length = 11.607684041*109 km Velocity = 368.03056 km/s vs 29.79 Mars: Orbital length: 22.7943824*107 km Orbital period = 1.88 yr Orbits/yr = .5319 Total orbital length = 121.2467148*106 km Helical length = 11.607353269*109 km Velocity = 368.02007 km/s vs 24.13 Jupiter: Orbital length: 778.340821*106 km Orbital period = 11.86 yr Orbits/yr = 0.0843 Total orbital length = 65.6273879*106 km Helical length = 11.606905535*109 km Velocity = 368.00588 km/s vs 13.06 Saturn: Orbital length: 142.6666422*107 km Orbital period = 29.46 yr Orbits/yr = 0.0339 Total orbital length = 484.27237*105 km Helical length = 11.606821027*109 km 12576482920 Velocity = 368.00320 km/s vs 9.64 Uranus: Orbital length: 287.0658186*107 km Orbital period = 84.01 yr Orbits/yr = .0199 Total orbital length = 341.70434*105 km Helical length = 11.606770299*109 km Velocity = 368.00159 km/s vs 6.81 Neptune Orbital length: 449.8396441*107 km Orbital period = 164.8 yr Orbits/yr = 0.0060 Total orbital length = 272.96094*105 km Helical length = 11.606752096*109 km Velocity = 368.00101 km/s vs 5.43 From this perspective, the velocities, or rate of evolution, of Mercury and Venus are only .038 km/s different. Note also that as we increase distance from the Sun, the velocities decrease until Neptune has a velocity only .001 km/s different from the base velocity of the Sun. Relative velocities equalize with a larger perspective. If we shift out to the local group and its apparent motion relative to the CMB of 627 km/s, the difference between the Sun and Neptune’s velocity is only .00059 km/s. In both perspectives, the velocity and acceleration are directly related to the dRt/distance so are higher in steeper gradients, and this higher apparent acceleration of events in slower time frames maintains their relative positions within the overall continuum as it evolves forward as viewed from both perspectives. This means GR is describing the forward evolution of the continuum and the events occurring within it, rather than the evolution of events through pre-existing “curved spacetime”. It is not the masses that determine relative velocities and trajectories, but the dynamics and perspectives in time.

Too bad he didn't see the Hubble shift as I do....... Sorry, low hanging fruit... In which direction are the events pictured in that beautiful graphic evolving?

I am describing the perceptual events that precede the physics. There is no math for them, they are perceptions. Thanks for the conversation. I'll be bowing out for now unless someone comes into the forum who wants to ask me specifics about my theory instead of challenging it. Sorry, I am an idiot who must answer. I never said that, I said I completed it. When the acceleration in proper, invariant, time is proportionately added to the proper and coordinate time elements of Einstein’s field equations, based upon their individual relative rates of time, singularities and infinities are avoided because the geodesics are slightly distorted: Where t1 = coordinate time and t0 = proper time, the time elements Δt1 / Δt0 become: ((((Δt1*(((1 +((Δt1 / Δt0) * (2.2686*10-18)))) / ((Δt0 * (1 + (Δt0 * 2.2686*10-18). For each second of Δt0 this becomes: ((Δt1*(1 + 2.2686*10-18 Δt1)) / ((1 + (2.2686*10-18)) This manifests as a net acceleration of the proper time relative to the coordinate time as the dilation gradient deepens and Δt1 → 0. It also causes the FDE to always precede the GDE, which relative rate of evolution to the FDE is determined by the slope of the dilation gradient. This prevents the FDE and GDE from coinciding and the subsequent formation of a singularity in a Big Crunch scenario both within a MECO, where we instead see the ever-tightening spiraling evolution, or the universe as a whole, which we see spiraling off in all directions in the galaxies. Obversely, as Δt1 → ∞, infinite divergence is impossible as Δt1 is always divided by a sum > 1; i.e., ∞ / (1 + 2.2686*10-18) < ∞. Thanks ????? Sorry, sounds like a trick question to me. Actually, I started on this quest 45 years ago so the one I love the most doesn't suffer through the misery of its children..... And to give people hope in a truly miraculous world... I am only describing here what I first SAW 45 years ago....(well, actually 47. It took 2 years to actually realize what was happening.) And I did it for all the little girls seeking red sea glass.

I know that. It is a theory. I also know how difficult it will be to move forward. I didn't get any of you to see..... But I have gotten others to, so, I'll keep looking for my red piece of glass.....and asking for my red marble: I have been working on further concepts implied by my theory. One of those came up in a forum the other day when someone wanted me to talk about "particles". What I told him led him to ask me if I was saying particles didn't exist and that led to me sharing these short "quantum" tales: "They don't exist as a "thing". They are evolving events. An electron is neither a particle nor a wave. It is an electron, which can display both properties depending on how we observe it. This is why I don't like discussing particles. Of course we consider a ball to be a "particle" for practical purposes, but it is not. It is an interaction of the waveform probabilities within the continuum. When you are not looking at your ball, it doesn't even exist for you. We can never find a way to formulate absolute quantum determination because our actions, including thoughts, hopes, expectations and observations, affect the next instant’s manifestation of events. For instance, I have a sea glass business and would ocean kayak to my favorite collecting site. I landed at the beach one day and found two marbles right next to each other right next to my kayak. They were just plain, colorless, well frosted, marbles but marbles are rarer than reds (which are 1 in 5,000 pieces) and to find two right next to each other is remarkable. So I said, "Lord, (the Creator is neither male nor female, but this is how I address It) thank you. I sure would like to find a red marble, though. I've got a blue one, and I thank you, but I sure would like to find a red one. Please, Lord?" I put that thought aside and went back picking and after about 2 hours I was tired and it was time to go tide-wise, but there was just a little more beach to cover, so I decided to just make a quick pass and see if I could spot anything big just lying on top. Normally I would walk very slowly, looking for the gems amongst all the other glass. Just before I got to the end there was this huge red marble. It's 15/16ths of an inch in diameter. It is a beautiful blood red with a white swirl that forms a wave. Click on the link below to view it. http://captcass.com/images/Red%20Marble%20cropped.jpg I rolled my eyes up and went, "Lord!, Oh God! Dear Lord, etc." Then, when I bent down to pick up the marble, there were also two pieces of jewelry quality RED glass, one on either side of the marble. I went, "Oh, Lord! Dear God!, etc.” a bunch more and danced around with tears in my eyes. This is how the Creator talks to me. The two red pieces, to me, were the Creator saying the marble was not a coincidence, that I asked for red and got red. The odds of finding all three together are just too vast for it to be otherwise. I would also note that I had only pictured a small, regular sized red marble when I asked. I find the Creator always gives us a much better version of what we ask for than what we imagined. I believe this is because the Creator has a by far greater imagination than we do. The point here is that neither the marble, nor even that section of beach it lay upon, existed for me until I observed them and all the superposition possibilities collapsed into my reality, which was partly determined by my wishes, faith and expectations. This eliminates the possibility of the formulation of an absolute quantum determination. It is also why I don't like discussing "particles". I don't include the above in my paper because it is indeterminate. The Girl and Reds One day there was a girl about age 8 or 9 at the beach. She was only looking for reds (1 in 5,000 pieces). In 2 hours, she found 9 reds, whereas I, who was looking for whatever, would find a red every 3 or 4 months. At one point she came running up to me and starting talking to me and as we were finishing up she looked down and picked up a beautiful red right from right between my feet. I wanted to strangle that poor little girl. Children tend to find what they are looking for because they believe they can. A Stranger’s Faith I began my business by selling on the headlands. One day a man came down and asked me where to look. I told him there was a slag pile in the cove next to me and that because it replenished the beach he might find something rare like a red. He came back in about 15 minutes with a beautiful red and asked me where else he could look. Knowing what was happening and laughing to myself, I told him he could go to the beach behind me and that there was much more glass there and maybe he could find something even rarer, like a grape purple, which are 1 in 10,000 pieces. He came back in about 20 minutes with a beautiful grape purple. I found about 1 a year. Night He simply believed what I told him, as would a little child. Sound familiar?

Well, let's see....I got it published.....how long did that take me? Fact is, I had the last word in another forum a long time ago in threads that have K's of views, one over 10K. People there were waiting for the journal version. And I wanted to talk about it. As far as I can see, this is a forum with just the folks who have commented here being active participants, so it is limited. (No one else has chimed in in any of the other threads I have been in.) I knew you folk knew your stuff, too, and I wanted the challenge. I have to be able to defend myself. You might not think so, but I think I have done well. And I got help here in clarifying things. And as you all actually helped me along, although you probably think that is nutz, I wanted to know what you thought of the published version. I have been in over 50 countries on every continent except Antarctica, and I tell my children I traveled the whole world looking for a good conversation and never found one. This came damn close! I am also doing a press release and direct mailings......

Then how can you accept DARK anything? And the idiotic premises? Why did no one even try to answer my questions about the singularity you all believe in? Because there are no answers.... I thought everyone knew GR was incomplete, because then things would be logical again... I completed it looking at the time, not the space. You see objects falling through empty space. I see objects evolving down time dilation gradients. This is from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ "Bohr saw quantum mechanics as a generalization of classical physics although it violates some of the basic ontological principles on which classical physics rests. Some of these principles are: The principles of physical objects and their identity: Physical objects (systems of objects) exist in space and time and physical processes take place in space and time, i.e., it is a fundamental feature of all changes and movements of physical objects (systems of objects) that they happen on a background of space and time; Physical objects (systems) are localizable, i.e., they do not exist everywhere in space and time; rather, they are confined to definite places and times; A particular place can only be occupied by one object of the same kind at a time; Two physical objects of the same kind exist separately; i.e., two objects that belong to the same kind cannot have identical location at an identical time and must therefore be separated in space and time; Physical objects are countable, i.e., two alluded objects of the same kind count numerically as one if both share identical location at a time and counts numerically as two if they occupy different locations at a time; The principle of separated properties, i.e., two objects (systems) separated in space and time have each independent inherent states or properties; The principle of value determinateness, i.e., all inherent states or properties have a specific value or magnitude independent of the value or magnitude of other properties; The principle of causality, i.e., every event, every change of a system, has a cause; The principle of determination, i.e., every later state of a system is uniquely determined by any earlier state; The principle of continuity, i.e., all processes exhibiting a difference between the initial and the final state have to go through every possible intervening state; in other words, the evolution of a system is an unbroken path through its state space; and finally The principle of the conservation of energy, i.e., the energy of a closed system can be transformed into various forms but is never gained, lost or destroyed." And: "Never did Bohr appeal to a verificationist theory of meaning; nor did he claim classical concepts to be operationally defined. But it cannot be denied that some of the logical empiricists rightly or wrongly found support for their own philosophy in Bohr's interpretation and that Bohr sometimes confirmed them in their impressions (Faye 2008). Second, many physicists and philosophers see the reduction of the wave function as an important part of the Copenhagen interpretation. But Bohr never talked about the collapse of the wave packet. Nor did it make sense for him to do so because this would mean that one must understand the wave function as referring to something physically real. Bohr spoke of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, including the state vector or the wave function, as a symbolic representation." So.......that is what I see, evolving events. Events evolving down time dilation gradients. You are looking at the PHYSICS that result from that evolution.

Again, certainly not. Not when it is based on such idiotic premises.... How you logical folk can find anything logical in the premises is beyond me. I am describing EXACTLY what i am looking at. You just can't see it, too. Ditto above. I am describing EXACTLY what I am looking at. Fortunately, I found reviewers who also have imagination... I would also like to just note that the paper by the Peruvian I mentioned above was published today. It is "Antimatter Black Holes". I just mention this to show that they do publish papers that conflict with Schild's MECO. And they do it with generosity. Flat Earth used to be "mainstream".

I was trying to find evidence for ANYTHING other that a ridiculous singularity and an infinitely accelerating expansion. Took me a looonnnnggg time, but I found it.

Yeah, well, "mainstream" is out of kilter since misinterpreting the shift. I know you don't agree, but, well, I have others that do.... I wish you could visuallize it. It is truly elegant.....

Pulleeezzze, Mordred. I thought that was clear right from the git go. NO expansion! Instead, an eternally evolving spacetime (quantum) continuum in which observers perceive themselves to be evolving between 2 event horizons where time appears to stop. It was this cocnept of the 2 event horizons that really excited Schild when he first read the paper. He called it, "profoundly correct". And I think you will find THAT model to be uniquely mine.

lol. The "Hubble horizon" is based upon an age of the universe. Light would travel so far in so long. If Ho is 70, the actual cosmological horizon is at ~13.9+ Gly, which I expect to see when they get the new scope up..... I'd say that will be a good test of my theory. We won't see the "wall", we will see galaxies frozen in time instead.

As observed and considered with no dilation considered. Again, if I am correct, anything computed that took expansion into effect will be flawed. I admit, as I have in other threads, that it is also possible there was a creation event, but that would require a null field to precede it. If so, then the field would have been energized everywhere at once, so there is no need of Guth's inflation. Sorry, I don't see your point?

What data? Gn z-11 is the farthest observed galaxy with a z of 11 and an apparent recessional velocity of .98c. It is at 13.8 Gly. If I am correct and it is a dilation effect, then the universe is static and all the other computations describing what is happening that are based on expansion are just wrong. We'll see what we see when they get the new scope up.....I am expecting not the relativisticly minuscule points one would see at c, but objects frozen in time. It is not possible to see anything past the cosmological horizon and no object with a z higher than 11 has been detected.

What do you see when time appears to stop? A moment frozen in time. There is no further activity of any kind. We also would see this if an object appears to recede at c. Time appears to stop. What is beyond that is beyond our limit of relativity, i.e., it no longer affects us in any way, it is spacelike. The event horizon itself is lightlike. Inside that is timelike. Please stop trying to apply your model to this. I am not using your model so it is making no sense to you that way. You have to think within my model.

There is no need to. It is an event horizon. Time appears to stop and everything beyond that is beyond the limit of relativity. Head towards it and it recedes and older frames come into view... No I am saying red shift has been misinterpreted..... If we are on page 10 and you haven't realized this yet, we have a problem. Just like above where you finally admit their are no null fields, after you poo-pooed it early on. Sooooo I feel I am going around in circles here... Is anyone interested in me continuing here? If not, I think I'll move on.....

Yes. It is listed on the site. It is THE charge.

Continuing from above, we find that:2.3349*10-4 s/s/Mpc = 7.1592*10-11 s/s/ly = 2.2686*10-18 s/s acceleration within our inertial frames. Sorry, I didn't copy this line, so here it is.... I stand corrected.....

$32 reviewer's fee, $125 posting fee. Again, why does no one seem to understand my words? The author of the paper that was reviewed and accepted lives in Peru. I was not charged the posting fee. Assuming a Hubble constant of 70 km/s/Mpc, we find the apparent recessional velocity reaches c at 4282.7494 Mpc = 13.968062372 Gly. For a 1s/s dRt at this distance the rate of change is: 1/13968062372 = 7.1592*10^-11 s/s/ly = 2.3349516024*10^-4 s/s/Mpc. So for each Mpc the dRt = 2.3349516024*10^-4 s/s and: c*(1 + dRt) = (299792.458) km/s * ((1+(2.3349516024*10^-4)) s = 299862.458 km and: 299862.458 - 299792.458 = 70 km/s/Mpc = the Hubble constant This indicates that the forward evolution of time includes a universal constant of acceleration. Because we are always being accelerated forward in the rate of time, and therefore apparently space, events in the past must appear to accelerate away from us in the opposite direction. Please also note that the solution works for a difference in the rates of time of exactly 1 s/s. Does any other theory you know of account for a 1 s/s difference in the rates of time between us and 13.9 Gly? This also creates the impression we are at the center of the universe and leading it in its evolution. Older, slower, frames fade from view at the horizon, as we evolve forward towards the slower time of the black hole (MECO) at the center of the Milky Way: an eternally evolving continuum.

I repeat: I am copying this line here due to the earlier comments about the so-called "predatory" nature of the journal. In the letter, Schild notes, "I am also aware that financial conditions in Peru are difficult, and Journal of Cosmology will waive payment of all fees for manuscript processing and page charges in this case."