Jump to content

captcass

Senior Members
  • Posts

    387
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by captcass

  1. First, great toon, Strange... Second, the SM doesn't work and is falling out of favor since CERN hasn't found anything new in so long. Even the "Higgs" isn't really the Higgs. They expected either/or 15 or 35 and got 26. The particle they found fit neither theory. The SM is a "particle" theory and we know particles do not exist. "Events" exist. We now have two models in apparent conflict: Astrophysical movement thru space and quantum evolution in a field. If the apparent astrophysical evolution (movement thru space) is actually just how the evolution of events within the field presents itself.........?
  2. Sorry. Now it not even a constant. They are simply adding formulas to make their conception of GR work if the galaxy is out of tilt, so to speak..... As I child we called that a fudge factor. If you can't see it or measure it and cannot say what it is, what is it? DARK. Dark Chocolate Fudge....
  3. Sorry, BeeCee. It doesn't work for galaxies without DM, which means it doesn't work for galaxies....It works perfectly well in other applications..and it doesn't need DM there. No one here has yet pointed out a demonstrable, repeat, demonstrable, flaw in my model. And yes, I do expect a gauntlet. It is extremely difficult to get people to change course and it is a juggernaut.....over 100 years of misdirection....
  4. I predicted that a black hole was empty space, and that is what Schild found. I think the question could have been asked better. Actually, yes. Been on the wrong path since everyone misinterpreted Hubble's shift. That is why we have so many DARK things, yes?
  5. In my universe, along my worldline, synchronicities like this occur all the time. You don't see it, but when we take a step, the next step appears. It happens whether you are aware of it or not. It is just how your universe is being evolved along your worldline. Come to think of it, when you actually take a step, the next step appears... I own a museum and sometimes engage people on this. I emailed my children last night about one such: "Had a mother and 2 daughters come in yesterday. She bought quite a lot and we got talking and I told them of spacetime, the origins, etc. Even the 11 year-old was enthralled. I’d guess her sister was about 14, and she, too, was “hearing” me. There was also a man who I thought was with them, but he was by himself, and he was enthralled. I told them my quantum tales about the little girl and the reds, the guy (with the red and purple) and the red marble. They were deeply moved. When the family left, the guy told me I had answered what he came here looking for. He was on a spiritual quest. He said what I told him about us being just different points of view for the one it was exactly what he got from the book that sort of set him off on his quest, getting into entangled particles, etc....The book was something souls or souls something.....I’ve heard of it before but haven’t read it. He was REALLY moved..... Then today when I got back from lunch the mom and girls were waiting for me on the front deck. They wanted to tell me that the younger one had did what I said and asked, and then looked for, red, and she found a nice ruby red. She also remembered to thank.... So I was deeply moved! In one telling I got 3 asking and answered one seeking...... So I told the little girl she now had her own “quantum tale”...... What moved me the most was that I could tell them about the science and they all understood it, even the kids, and they all believed it because I have the quantum tales to tell. ".... I am pretty sure I told one or two of the mentioned quantum tales in another thread...... I didn't originally submit to the Journal of Cosmology. In April of last year I submitted to another journal....sorry, senior moment...... Darn. Anyway, an editor there forwarded it the Executive Editor at the JofC who then contacted me. If you want to start a bakery, learn to bake and the next step will appear. You will meet the people you need to meet to help you on your way. My museum has a marble collection. I certainly couldn't identify them, all, but then THE "Marble Guy" came in. I also have teeth, which only real experts can identify, and a guy whose career is the dentition of west coast critters came in. I needed to identify some old pottery shards and an archeologist who had researched them came in.... Sorry if none of you see that. It doesn't matter, really. The one is, after all, losing itself here. But if you know it, then you can ask for, and get, your red piece of glass.....as the continuum evolves forward.....
  6. One of the things they immediately liked was that I predicted black holes were empty space, which is what the center of a MECO is. I had no prior knowledge of the MECOs. I was VERY happy to hear an observation had confirmed my prediction and would have changed that anyway once I knew about them. Frankly, your constant sniping and negativism is a bummer, so I will not be replying to insinuating comments like this any more.. I thought is site was about science, not disparaging character attacks and snide innuendos......
  7. I don't think so. I am saying that when I did the "religious" edits they wanted, I also did some of my own minor clarification edits in other sections....
  8. They wanted two. The first was obvious as they wanted me to replace black holes with MECOs, which Schild's team showed them to be in 2006. The second was to remove what some would consider "religious" terms like "faith" from my origins section. I also made some final revisions on my own to clarify certain points.
  9. Well, not as you understand GR. If you cannot explain why (Please, no DM) it does not work for galaxies, then I'd say YOUR GR perception is the mistaken one.
  10. Each observer is the center of their own worldline that develops/evolves as the continuum evolves forward in situ in the inertial frame. And each observer experiences the invariant rate in their inertial frame as per SR. because we are now shifting the frames through the continuum. We have relative motion and GR. But all the evolutions are occurring within the evolving spacetime continuum. It is not possible to travel along a worldline's path back through space because there is so space there. Likewise, the worldline does not evolve forward through space, as there is no space there, either. The apparent areas of space are also part of the evolving continuum. The apparent space is also evolving forward in the forward direction of time. The continuum presents as 3 spatial dimensions, but it is only an evolving energy field because the dimension in time has no depth, and everything is evolving forward with time. Everything we are seeing is evolutions within the continuum, not movements "through" space. GR is describing how that evolution manifests to us in a spherical dilation pit. But not evolutions "through" space. It is still evolutions within the continuum that present as spiral evolutions in the spatial dimensions.
  11. We are always seeing the evolving continuum. It doesn't matter how far away the fame appears to be. In the inertial frame, in situ, we "see" our "selves" evolving forward in time, in just the forward direction of time, within ourselves.... the evolving continuum, the evolution of events in the spacetime energy field. When I watch my TV, I am also seeing that evolving energy field but it just looks farther away. The events comprising each frame, the inertial and coordinate, are evolving forward together within the continuum (energy field). As events evolve forward, there is no depth to them (actually I think there is a possible perceptual depth that all events occur within, manifested by the acceleration in proper time. All known particle events can fit within it.... But that is still speculation on my part. I have computed it, but I haven't had time to really consider it yet.) There is no "depth" "in space" "behind" the evolving event, or "ahead" of it. The events comprising my TV are evolving forward together with "my" events within the continuum. When we look out into space, that doesn't change. We are always seeing the evolving continuum, which has no real, but perhaps a perceptual, depth...... We are always just seeing the evolving continuum...no matter how far the apparent distance..... only an evolving energy field.....
  12. Looks like I need another revision here....I misspoke. I meant to refer to the postulates. We know we each see equal meters and seconds the same as experienced in our inertial frames. But we cannot see each other's that way. Thank you for the correction... The describe what we see due to them...I see GR as SR in motion.....
  13. The Lorentz transforms go back to Lorentz and are used in both SR and GR. The "EP" is the Equivalence Principle, as per SR.....
  14. Consider this: The math of GR is the Lorentz transformed universe we must accept as our reality even though we know that, in reality, the EP applies....
  15. GREAT! I was really worried about that! Now I can finally retire! Thing is, it is all actually a form of "meta" physics, but we need the math to describe it and control it (within our scientifically limited boundaries), and can actually do that because it is all a logical construction....built, primarily I would say, on math....
  16. Exactly. And I am not tying to change any of that. That is why I have very little math. I am showing an alternate perspective of what is manifesting the events the math describes. For instance, by deriving the Hubble constant as an acceleration in proper time (you got me to differentiate times back when, thank you) rather than an acceleration through a pre-existing space. And by viewing galactic rotation velocities as evolutions in the quantum, (spacetime), continuum dependent on relative rates of time rather than velocities through a pre-existing space. The recurrent term is "pre-existing space". Such a thing does not exist. Sure looks like it with all the distance and directions, but it just an evolving energy field, the spacetime continuum, evolving forward in situ in the forward direction of time. It is the evolution of the continuum manifesting the events making up you as you sit there and read this. If I am right about gravity being an evolution through the continuum, that will allow us to have gravity drives if we can learn to manifest dilation gradients. This would be an evolution of events through the continuum due to the evolution of time, rather than forcing a mass of events to shift through it as we do now. This would explain the silent, seemingly physically impossible, way our "visitors" maneuver. I don't want to side track this by going there, just let it be said I had a dramatic experience in '66 (it made "Newsday") and would point to the recently declassified video released by the Pentagon and the revision of their guidelines regarding reporting. LOL. I understand your frustration with something like this.......lots of non-numbers.... But this should open a lot of new directions in math. I think the biggest is adding the time elements to Schrödinger's equation. Though I might could do it over time, I am 69 and don't want to spend the time......I know my math, but nothing anywhere what you know and it would be laborious for me.
  17. First, thank you for accepting my apology. I have an old horse's ass costume I bought for Halloween and every now and then it seems I just have to drag it out and try it on. My kids will vouch for that. Unfortuneatley, we are still at cross visions. You are talking about the two event coordinates in GR and I am not. I am talking about a single point of view. A third point of view - the outside observer. Not a third coordinate. The view from outside the continuum, if we could visualize it without the Lorentz transformations. What YOU want from me is not a part of the model. You are talking about the view from inertial frames of reference relative to distant coordinate points (GR); the Relativity we are forced to live with in our inertial frames as our reality due to c, etc.....I am not...... It is also primarily perspectives in time, not space, which follow the perspectives in time. It is a shift in view from perspectives of acceleration in, through or with space, to relative accelerations (rates) of time. Decades ago I read something that said GR described "the curvature of the evolution of events in the forward direction of time". Trying to visualize that preoccupied my thoughts for literally decades. Of course I can't find that quote anymore..... About 5 years ago I finally saw that densities were "evolving", not "falling", down dilation gradients and so here we are now..... So, Mordred, I know the uphill battle is formidable. Folks like you have their whole lives invested in the BB. Just how the heck am I going to get you to say, "Aw, hell!"? As I said, there are a lot of vested interests here: like 98% of the mainstream cosmological and astrophysical folks...... But, you see, I am an optimist. I have faith. SORRY! I know that word is Taboo! That was one of the edits the journal wanted, to avoid "religious" overtones. But, you see, I persevered and am now peer reviewed and published in a cosmology journal (which some of you believe is predatory) for a simple reviewer's fee of $32. (And a hell of a lot of stress for 14 months. ) To do that I had to win over scientists like you. So, just because you still cannot see the different point of view, and are stuck in GR and the 2 coordinates, I know others do, and can, and so.......I will plod on, having faith and hoping for the best. This is a prime example of why I know my "Origins" section is correct....... My life is an endless stream of such (quantum) tales...the universe evolving around us, for us. Consider, everything you perceive from your inertial frame has already happened. It has preceded YOUR evolution. YOU are the last bit evolving forward, the bottom of the dilation pit, keeping up with the rest. So it ALL evolves forward for you, before you, so your world continues to make sense to you. Sooo, once again I cannot answer you Mordred, as you are not seeing my model clearly yet.
  18. Soooo, thanks Mordred. The intent is good, the knowledge is great, but the models are different. I sincerely appreciate your earlier help.... and.....sorry about any cheap shots I took....YOU can be a VERY frustrating person. I could NEVER be like that! Really, Mordred. I feel like I hurt your feelings and I HATE doing that to anyone. I know I get too hot sometimes... Please accept my apology?
  19. I don't doubt his knowledge. I said, I know he is knows his stuff and has great patience when trying to teach. I do admire him. He helped me a couple of times early on. Trouble is, my model is not the one he has been working on, that all of you have been working on, for so long. Therefore what he is trying to do with me is pointless and merely frustrating to the both of us. I understand your model. I just think it is wrong due to incorrect assumptions made about Hubble's shift. At the journal, even though the editors are BB'ers, they took the time to seriously consider the model, and after 3 revisions, 2 they wanted and 1 I just did to clarify points, it was acceptable to them as not violating any known laws or principles. Schild and Gibson are actually both very enthusiastic about it, even though they are BB'ers, because there is a bona fide model there. I would like to discuss my model, if anyone would care to. If not, then just consider it a heads up....
×
×
  • 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.