captcass

Because it is. Einstein calls the elements X1,X2,X3,X4, but in developing his tensors they are X,Y,Z,T. He begins with any four X's to show it is universal truth. It doesn't matter what the 4 elements are. Then he develops things on from there. In relativity, the fundamental metric elements become X,Y,Z,T. I would think that is obvious. They are the elements of the quadratic...and he uses them in his spacetime element. And there you are again, "until I called you up on that...". WT*? Answer my questions, Mordred......

OK, I just have to reply to that. For the #### time, it is NOT a tensor. It is a metric. You keep calling it a tensor, but it is the metric tensors are derived from. You didn't "force" me to do anything. You got some ego, there, Mordred. Your perception is warped. You ask a question of someone and then say you "forced" them to admit something shameful. And you seem to apparently not know the difference between a metric and a tensor, or are you just mis-speaking?. Singularity, infinitely accelerating expansion! REALLY? So many interesting questions both of those concepts raise, which can't be answered, and are therefore ignored by mutual agreement as per the Copenhagen convention. What precedes a singularity if everything expands out at an infinitely accelerating expansion? A Big Crunch? Of what? Or is this just it in all of eternity? A 1 shot universe? What is "outside" the "tiny" singularity? Certainly not space.....that would be part of the universe... How can something perceptually infinite appear to be so small? From what perspective would that be? Outside the singularity? Or from inside, so you would see a boundary? Where it expanding into? Because it appears to be infinite it can just do that because infinite is infinite so you are really not adding anything? I am not wasting my time with you anymore as you seem to have a problem with not being nasty and just seem to be so locked into yourself and totally illogical, irrational, theories that you cannot be imaginative enough to even try to view it from different perspectives, i.e., you are BB Blind. NOT A TENSOR If you want me to respond to you anymore, answer the questions I asked above. Please include a graph or two to really make my day. PLEASE, ANYONE, answer a single one of those questions........ It seems only you and I are following this thread....... 2....... count them......1, 2........LOL

I did nothing of the sort. You just don't grasp the concept or what his metric represents. Anyway. I won't be responding to you anymore. I don't appreciate being accused of falsification. Good luck with your DE.... Be sure to let me know when it is peer reviewed and published....

LOL. OK...... Bang Away!

Again, there are no tensors, only metrics....... In the last section I originate spacetime with the IATIA state, though it is termed the universal cosmic consciousness to avoid "religious" implications. This is not something new. Einstein and Newton both had somewhat similar, panthietic views on this. That info is referenced in the paper. Spacetime is the result of that awareness of being "here", "now". This solves the problem of non-locality. As we are all just different points of view for that single cosmic awareness, all points of view must be harmonized regardless of the distance between them, and they can be because we are just diferent points of view for one overall awareness.

I am not forming tensors. Neither am I working within GR. I have no argument with GR where it works. So I m not misusing it. There is no coordinate choice needed as there are no tensors. It It represents a single, massless, point of view in a massless universe. No other coordinates to relate motion or velocity to..... I call this the IATIA point of view, "I Am That I Am" (And I Am Alone).

You are correct. As he develops his tensors describing gravity he does that. He never develops the tensors for the Fundamental Metric as he believes it probably an impossible metric in finite space, i.e., there is always gravity. I use it as a basis, though, like Einstein, I believe it is an impossible metric since spacetime is always energetic. I use it as the basis because it simply states how time evolves space forward in the fundamental way and direction, i.e., in the forward direction of time....

We must be talking about different papers. He lays out GR in the paper and begins with the Fundamental Metric. "Einstein, Albert, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Annalen der Physik 354 (7), 769-822" ( "The Foundation of the Generalized Theory of Relativity" - for you English speakers. It is the basis of the tensors describing a null gravitational field.

Sorry, you will find the Fundamental Metric in Einstein's 1915 paper. I thought you knew that.

Sorry, Mordred. I am not going to try to re-explain the paper here. I am sorry if you do not understand the metrics, etc., that others are seeing clearly....

Sorry you are having trouble picturing what I am saying. I can't help that. I suggest you read and then re-read the paper until you understand the concepts and points of view. If you then want to discuss them, that is fine with me. If not, I don't really care. But I'm not going to play the game you are playing arguing points of view. I have better things to do with my time. Others are seeing this very clearly. I expect most bangers to have a hard time with it. I am sorry for that, but that is just the way it is when we have been on the wrong path for so long. It is hard to change our perspective. It was hard for ME to change my perspective. People are also heavily invested in the mainstream theories in many different ways......lots of egos, jobs, careers and money involved, which makes it particularly difficult. However, my theory is logical and doesn't violate any known laws or principles. The mainstream theories you folks all cling to are based on totally illogical premises. And you can explain NONE OF IT. Do you really think the universe can be soooooo illogical.......??

It is not an acceleration through time. It is an acceleration in the rate of proper time. Quantum physics has superceeded Newtonian physics which describes how mass and gravity appear to relate, but never actually describes what gravity is. How do I quote specific lines from others here? I highlight a line and click quote but the whole post is copied, not just the line I want to quote...... There is no citation needed about Einstein giving up on his constant. It became impossible if Hubble's shift is a Doppler effect, which they all (and most still do) believed. Again, no one KNOWS anything, hence DM and DE, "Dark" meaning "I don't know".

Exactly, Einstein was a primitive by today's standards. He had to learn the "new math", calculus, to do his thing. If he didn't, someone else would have very quickly as the Lorentz transformations were well known and broadly accepted and just needed the math to describe them in apparent motion. It is amazing how primitive the math was before calculus and how ignorant of the true nature of the continuum they all were in Einstein's time! (and, from my point of view, now) The damn fools thought Hubble was seeing a Doppler shift instead of experiencing an acceleration in proper time! And they thought it was all contained within "a" galaxy! The problem is that no one can explain the rotation velocities without an "unknown" DM. In other words, they have no idea what is going on because they are trying to apply GR whre it does not apply. Occam's razor applies. Good night!

The differences in velocities as observed and rates of time based on mass are extremely small and there are no mass distribution stats that are that well defined. All the ones I saw were also contaminated by DM assumptions. (Note: ASSUMPTIONS!) If so, I would have used them. Also, it is not a disk, but spiral arms, making it more complex. No person could do the math, only a computer with a great programmer and specific data. As above, they were not accurate enough to use, though the graphs have similar shape with distance from the center. Sorry, I can't be certain still what the other graph was. Rotation velocities is the one, the other is......???? It's been awhile....most likely mass I'd say off the top of my head. I'll try to get it for you over the next few days when I get time...

"Physics" is only a general, usually "correct" for useful purposes, intrepretation of the evolution of spacetime events. You are trying to grasp the physical in a "space" that doesn't exist and the "physical", itself, does not exist; only evolving events. Everything since the misinterpretation of Hubble's observations is tainted, and most likely wrong if it is only a theory related to assumptions based on that misinterpretation. Einstein GAVE UP! Get it? EINSTEIN GAVE UP! It no longer made any sense to him. Logic disappeared from his logical universe.

There is as yet insufficient data to provide the rotation velocity verification. All the data I could find is corrupted by assumptions of DM. There are graphs that show similar patterns from the center of a galaxy, rotational velocity vs ..... but I didn't include them as I didn't think a similar pattern was enough to establish a direct correlation and, honestly, right now I don't remember which graph...mass?....Sorry, it's late.....

If an acceleration THROUGH space is necessary to feel gravity, it is reasonable to assume it takes an acceleration IN time to experience the passage of time. That acceleration in the proper (thanks, Mordred)) rate of time manifests the Hubble shift. If we did not experience that acceleration, time would not appear to pass....we would be dead.... Quantum physics says it is all based on the waveforms I mentioned above: the probablility of how events will evolve forward in the continuum. It has NOTHING to do with the physical aspect of physics. There is nothing "physical" about it. It is also NOT "spatial". It is an evolving energy field: evolving light..... that presents a spatial experience because time is added as a dimension which all axes of space evolve forward in. Again, you consist of evolving events within space over time. In which direction are you evolving?

The primary problem is that astrophysicists "see" a "space" that is really only perceptions evolving within the evolving spacetime (quantum) continuum; an energy field with no actual depth, only effects in time based upon a constant c and the EP. This is quantum physics. I tie the two together. Also, your "particles" do not exist unless observed, they are only waveform possibilities and probabilities without observation. They are all based on two primary complimentary spin events, the electron and up quark. this is something I hope to elucidate in the near future. I would also venture that the CMB is not the result of the scattering, but the evidence of time (and, therefore, energy and mass) fluctuations in the eternally evolving spacetime continuum. Your Kepler curve stuff is just wrong, as it is based on the incomplete understanding of GR, which is why you folks are all looking for DM/DE. There are other explanations for all your "foundation" points. You truly understand nothing, which is why you keep looking to explain it through DM/DE......You are only "hoping" you understand something you are not understanding because NO ONE has a clue...... As soon as you say, "DM/DE", you are telling me you have absolutely NO IDEA of what is going on and what we are seeing. You are just saying those things HAVE to exist because Einstein's incomplete GR equations predict it....... WHERE IS YOUR LOGIC AND PROOF other than that? I'll tell you. NOWHERE as there is no logic or proof other than your reliance on an incomplete understanding of the continuum based upon a flawed and incomplete GR. How do I selectively quote excerpts from a post? It keeps quoting the whole post..... As you sit in your chair reading this, you are evolving forward. In which direction or you evolving, X,Y, or Z? None of the above. You are evolving forward in the forward direction of time. Spatial events are evolving forward as a whole. SPACE, and the events therein, are BEING evolved forward by a force. The force of the passage of time. It is an energy field. The quantum field. The EP applies, though we can't "see" it that way because of what Einstein explains in GR. But what he describes is just what we are seeing from the inertial point of view. What is ACTUALLY happening is the point of view of the outside observer where the EP applies, something we can not actually visualaize due to GR. Actually, my paper explains galactic rotation rates simply through my quantum field, rate of time, point of view. In the intergalactic field outside the spherical dilation pits, it is all based on relative rates of time rather than the Lorentz transformations. By the way.....Hi, Mordred! I have remembered you fondly these past....years?...... A true gentlemen debating, (and enlightening), honestly.....

You are still looking for "Dark" energy and "Dark" matter which means you really have no idea of what is going on. You explain nothing. You worship at the alter of an incomplete GR that creates Big Crunches, Singularities and Big Bangs. Even Einstein knew it was incomplete. He was looking for the balancing constant. He abandoned it due to Hubble's shift and spent the rest of his career futilely looking for the unified field, which he would have had if he had just properly interpreted Hubble's observations, instead of accepting the acceleration explanation, which I have done. EVERYONE knows it is incomplete! You are just looking for impossible answers for totally illogical concepts in an obviously logical universe, like the singularity, Big Bang and eternally accelerating expansion of the universe. These are illogical, idiotic concepts. Again, I challenge everyone here to specifically, demonstrably, show how my theory violates any law or principle.

I would just add that I submitted the paper in late April of 2018, so it was not published without due consideration on July 29, 2019

Yes, but pre-journal versions were allowed previously and I considered this merely a revision of that paper for the purposes here. I am not beginning a new discussion. I have refined things, with help from some here, until I came up with the final version. Einstein's GR equations describe what we see from the point of view of the inertial frame in a spherical dilation gradient based upon the Lorentz transformations. It is not a full description of gravity. My paper shows what gravity actually is within the evolving spacetime (quantum) continuum. To quote Rudolph Schild of Harvard-Smithsonian, Editor-in-Chief of the journal, "Your manuscript is basically a re-think and re-write of the application of the Einstein theory to our cosmological Universe. In traditional discussions of the same material, the literature is based upon a clear distinction of the experience of the local observer and a hypothetical distant observer, with the two related to one another by Lorentz transformations. Your treatment is basically the theory from the view-point of just the distant observer (though with exceptions).", and, "*We have 2 event horizons" *This is profoundly correct." It is, however, not the point of view from the "distant" observer, but the hypothetical "outside" observer, outside the continuum. We cannot actually see this point of view because the Lorentz transformations would then just ive us the GR perspective. The reviewers disagree. A Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist and UCSD professor of Cosmology disagree. I ask anyone here to show how, in any aspect, it is specifically incorrect or how it violates any known laws or principles. It is merely looking at effects in time, instead of space.....

Over the past several years I posted inquiries in this forum a few times as I developed my theory. A few folks were considerate and helpful, in particular Mordred. Most were rude and derisive, so I stopped participating here. My final theory was published today as peer reviewed in the Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 26, #21, at: http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC26/General%20Relativity%20and%20Effects%20in%20Time%20as%20Causation%20JofC.pdf. I would now be interested in non-derisive discussion.......

Sorry, no, it doesn't help. He uses 10 to describe the spacetime geometry. 4 are redundant. That leaves 2. I need those 2. And, if anyone knows, why he discarded them. If no one can help with that I will have to try to go through the whole quadratic. I figure someone must know this, though have had no luck yet......I also have had vision problems that I finally got glasses for today, so I haven't been able to spend screen time to get going on this. If no one here can help, can you suggest an expert in the math of GR I might contact. Any help would be much appreciated.

Einstein's fundamental metric quadratic yields 16 equations. He discarded 4 as they are duplicates and he ends up using 10 after discarding 2 more. What were the 2 of the 12 equations he discarded and why did he discard them?

Thank You! That is what I have been saying. I didn't see that before I asked the question. The author does not show how he derives it from HUP, but I took him at his word, as odd as it also seemed to me..... OK. Now I think the thread is done....yes? Thanks for your time, folks.