captcass

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"pay to publish" = I'm right...

"get to publish" = I'm happy...

"Get paid to publish" = WTF, who said I'm happy...

See? I guess that is the issue.......

He even seems to be saying my "that's all" means I'm done discussing this.

Reminds me of Eddie Murphy in the movie "Rush Hour", where he asks the guy "Can you understand the words coming out of my mouth?"

5 minutes ago, captcass said:

Someone made a remark about "pay to publish". I am providing evidence to the contrary.

That's all

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

e simply asked questions about their process that in and of itself isn't predatory.

You seem to misunderstand so much of what I say.  Someone made a remark about "pay to publish". I am providing evidence to the contrary.

I have no problem with people questioning and am NOT saying that is predatory.

8 hours ago, Mordred said:

How thick is the Centre of the Milky way that it doesn't have a y coordinate

Sorry, I don't eliminate the coordinate. I just got up, so I will have to get back to this later.....

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Have you posted it here?

I think I actually did in an earlier thread. But it is in the paper for all to read. I can cut and paste it here if someone wants.

Like I said I just woke up.....

As an aside, I have been made privy to the final referee report and acceptance letter of the next paper being published in the journal.

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."

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

doesn't make sense

to you, in your model.....

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well an actual theory involves the required mathematics that provides testability.

My Hubble shift derivation is testable. Simple math ....

The effects of the addition of the acceleration to Einstein's time elements is testable.

Once accurate enough, non-DM, mass concentrations are available, the rotation velocities will also be testable, which DM is not, nor ever will be as long as it is DARK and just formulas.

Night.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

actual theory

Oh, sorry, I didn't know there were "actual" theories and "non-actual" theories. Who determines which is which?

21 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It's early evening for me

So Hawaii...? No wonder you outlast me. Just another darned westerner who wants to get the last word in.

23 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Helping the instructor in Quantum geometrodynamics.

I have no doubts about what you know. I don't even know where you are in that as it has nothing to do with what I am saying. That is what follows after there are dynamics due to effects in time.

16 minutes ago, Mordred said:

See chronology of the universe it's after inflation

You really think I haven't seen that?Are you going to get Degrasse in on this? He was the one, literally, who told me to go back to school so I could prove my theory when I asked him about it. So I studied QM and tensor calculus...

What was before the "beginning"? Sorry, the question and premise make absolutely no sense to me.

Sorry. Bed time for me. Seems I can't get you to see.......

At least not today.....

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

dark ages is after that  

6 minutes ago, captcass said:

Because time appears to stop......at ~13.9⁺ Gly, where Ho gives us an apparent recessional velocity of c, where time would appear to stop.

Do you ever sleep, or take a walk?

39 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Hubble cannot see into the dark ages

Because time appears to stop......at ~13.9⁺ Gly, where Ho gives us an apparent recessional velocity of c, where time would appear to stop.

19 minutes ago, Mordred said:

strongest model 

Exactly, model...

19 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Arxiv has a publication Inflationarus Encyclopedia

LOL!

Of COURSE they do! No one KNOWS!

Mordred, you are so good at the maths, much more than I can ever hope to be now at my age, where I just don't want to spend the time becoming as proficient as you, I'd like to see you do some within my model, if you can imagine how, which I will wager you can.

23 minutes ago, Mordred said:

the LCDM model.

is wrong. It is only a model, a theory, and it is just wrong...Just another attempt to make DE work. "I don't know, but this might be why..."

23 minutes ago, Mordred said:

but never reach it

An eternally evolving continuum....

We never get the carrot.....

We are evolving between two event horizons...

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Infinities do occur  in nature

The universal continuum appears as infinite if the event horizons shift when approached.

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

cosmological horizon was always measured in proper time

I agree, but that time is accelerated in rate.

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Let me know when you can no longer divide a portion by half....

OMG! I an't beleive you are pulling this out! When does the arrow hit the target, when does the chair hit the wall.....

They hit when the electron events repel each other!

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Cosmology never stated that spacetime cannot fluctuate

You miss my point. you said it could fluctuate and I agreed....?????

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

there is no time dilation in the cosmological distance measures

In YOUR model

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You don't get kicked out on a point system

WHEW! Figured I ws getting close! If I am fighting a juggernaut, I will probably incur a lot of those!

Time for dinner....

........MOM, I said, I'M coming!

I'm really only 12, don't tell the others.......

35 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Fluctuations always occur. 

And that is back to Heisenberg. But fluctuations should not have catastrophic extremes like singularities and infinitely acclerating expansions. They are fluctuations, not illogical beginnings and endings.

My model can fluctuate. The Cosmological Horizon is determined by the acceleration in the rate of proper (in the invariant sense) time. The higher the acceleration, the closer the horizon.

Which is also what we see in GR, except it is the spatial aspect instead of the time aspect. At c it would go flat.

Mine is just the point of view from the time aspect. As it is "spacetime", there has to be one...

"Ahhhh, 'tis all just relative, you know?"

How many -points before I am kicked out of the forum, please?

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You disagree with DE

I do. Mine is not Dark energy. I explain its origin and show how it is translated from potential to kinetic to thermal...Nothing Dark about it....

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Am event is defined by a frame of reference  under GR

Yes, because we are then focusing on an event in the quantum field, and I guess you know where we go from there....collapsing probabilities, etc....

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Energy isn't a thing.

I agreed with that, but it is what every "thing" is manifested by. Spacetime is perceptually infinite, which means it is filled with an infinite "potential" gravitational energy. That potential is everywhere throughout the spatial aspect. It is not a thing, but it fills the spatial aspect.

Time evolving space forward is itself "energetic" as it results in motion in the forward direction of time. As I noted earlier, if I am correct this will allow us to create gravity drives if we can create a focused dilation gradient. In that case we will be using the evolution of time as energy.

You keep seeing "separate" events rather than events that are part of a whole. It is an evolving whole. It has no separate parts. I mean, it does in such a way we can manipulate it, etc., but it is a single spatial field. 

If GR is based in spacetime coordinates, how can spacetime not be the energetic quantum continuum?

30 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The correct term is Einstein vacuum. Which is a GR solution devoid of all particles including virtual. QM however states it isnt a possible state due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle. See zero point energy. 

An Einstein vacuum would be zero K. Zero point energy however states zero K is impossible to obtain.

EXACTLY what I said earlier.  Einstein said he didn't believe such a metric as his Fundamental Metric (with GR coordintes) could exist: i.e., spacetime is always energetic in a finite space.

So,........

What I see here is that we have a space(time) continuum filled with energy: visible light, invisible light, mass (if you will) and potential.

The spatial aspect, and all it "contains" is evolving forward in the forward direction of time, which has no depth in space.

And in my paper I also say it is due to the Heisenberg.

I begin with time evolving space forward in the vacuum, but that state doesn't exist in finite space.

Then I add dilation......

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

space without light in quantum localities

So a null gravitational field is then possible? A place with no energy?

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Energy isn't a substance either.

But it is what all things are made from....can't define it as a thing, but all things are made of it

Is all of space filled with starlight. Or are there actually dark areas?

The continuum, by definition, is continuous, hence continuum.

Space is filled with the energy of the CMB and the radiation from all the stars.

There are no null zones. There can be no holes.....

There can be no "separate" particles...

It is a continuum.....

So, is it continuous? What else does in "include"?

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

There is space between particles if that's what you mean 

So the quantum continuum is not continuous?

Does the quantum continuum have holes in it, empty spaces?

How thick is the evolving quantum continuum?

How "thick" is spacetime, since space does not exist by itself.....but is one aspect of spacetime?