Is This Correct About Gravity, The Hubble Shift, Galactic Rotation Velocities and the Origins of Spacetime?

[Mordred]

You explicitly identified those objects as being Einstein's fundamental metric. Einstein's fundamental metric is a tensor.

What you have is not. So the falsehood is in your court. So go ahead try to blame me for misunderstanding when in truth I recognize the false representation in your article.

From your article itself 

As  above,  Einstein's  tensor  only  contains spacetime  elements,  i.e., x,y,z  and  t,

Wrong. That is directly from your article try again you even reference them as being Einstein's basis for tensors within the article....

So not a tensor by your own admission on this site but in the article you claim they are...

Edited August 3, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

Ahhh, now I see the problem....

Einstein's Fundamental METRIC is not a Fundamental TENSOR.

Metrics form the quadratic (tridratic, bidratic, monodratic, etc.,) equation that produces the tensors. They "set the stage", so-to-speak.

And, once again, I really don't know why you are always in a self-aggrandizing attack mode. Are you a Democrat politician? Is this a competition? Are we "good" vs "evil".

ANSWER A SINGLE QUESTION I ASKED YOU!

And please include a graph....

I get the feeling you are a lonely troll. You are ALWAYS there. If I start checking topics and threads, I bet you are everywhere.

Sorry if you have nothing else to do. Seriously.....I hate seeing suffering. I hate loneliness, like we ALL do. Wonder WHY?  But your hostility is uncalled for. Unless you see me as a threat (yes, I have brought Freud into the discussion). I bet the moderator deducts another point. 

 

 

 

 

[Mordred]

See my edit above you directly referred them as a tensor within the article and as the basis of Einstein's tensor. 

(We cross posted as I had to download to find the sections in your article)

Graph to galaxy rotation curve ? Without DM. Shouldn't you already have one to match your claim of being to account for those curves ?

Edited August 3, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

No. I say it is the BASIS of tensors......Metrics are the bases Tensors are derived from, and not just simply. As you mentioned earlier, over summing was a a major achievement of Einstein....

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!

 

[Mordred]

Answer which question I asked you specifically to define it last post.

The quoted section from your article stated otherwise.

Directly from your article

Quote

As  above,  Einstein's  tensor  only  contains spacetime  elements,  i.e., x,y,z  and  t,  and is the  actual  description

Would you like the page and line number as well?

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

Answer a single question I posted and get off the attack mode....

This is so exciting, all 2 of us are following this!

[Mordred]

More than two of us. Are you going to address your direct reference to tensors in the section of your article of not ?

You would be amazed how many posters simply read but don't post.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

The journal gets 50,000+ page views a month...

[Mordred]

So ? Does that factor somehow into our debate ?

Let's try this.

What is the basis of a metric tensor. By mathematical definition its

[latex]g=\vec {V}\cdot V [/latex] Where does a coordinate contain those components ?

Edited August 3, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

No. Just saying the two of us alone is greatly diminished by that. How many page reads do you figure our conversation here will get this month? And how  many readers will give a sh*t about what we are saying?

Answer my above questions. Just 1..... The fact that you won't means you know NOTHING. You only hope to know..

What do you mean, "more than 2 of us"? There are only 2 "following", others are just drop-ins....

Or are people just sitting on the page that keep refreshing it? Are we really that fascinating?

Come back and talk to me when you understand the difference between a metric and a tensor....

Geeze, I don't know why I always assume you folks know more than you do....wishful thinking, perhaps?

[Mordred]

A forum always has other readers than participants. The same applies on the Journal site. This is why I have been stressing accuracy. Especially on articles  that have been through peer review.

Imagine a student reading your article trying to learn  the metric tensor 

[latex]g_{\mu\nu}[/latex] and you are declaring an incorrect usage ? As well as an incorrect basis ?

Ask yourself this what the definition of a tensor ? 

Now think about that poor student...

[captcass]

Think about the fact the paper was peer reviewed for over a year before being accepted. Sorry, I'm tired of your ..... st*ff....

If you don't answer my questions above, I will no longer respond to you...as you cannot defend your point of view. Just a troll.....

A very droll, troll, to boot!

[moth]

58 minutes ago, captcass said:

 

Metrics form the quadratic (tridratic, bidratic, monodratic, etc.,) equation that produces the tensors. They "set the stage", so-to-speak.

 

 

 

What is a tridratic equation?

[Mordred]

Sure your welcome to your opinion same as I am. You wish to label me a troll yet I spent a considerable amount of time teaching you how to properly model build. 

 Then you go and forget all the lessons  I tried to teach you. Not once did I believe in a Hubble illusion, that didn't stop me from trying to teach you proper technique.

A good theorist accepts any challenge to his model. He then takes the criticism and strengthens his model by addressing those issues. That builds strength on a model.

No model starts out having all the answers, no model that survives stays in its original form. All models adapt accordingly to challenges presented.

3 minutes ago, moth said:

What is a tridratic equation?

No idea never heard that term myself so attributed it to a typo.

[moth]

You have the patience of a saint, Mordred

[Mordred]

  Lol think a forum is bad  try being married. Lol that aside I never come to forums to learn. I come to help teach. I mastered self research two decades ago. 

  Three decades or more studying physics with a personal collection of over 500 textbooks drives my wife batty. One learns to realize how intensive the research really is and how interconnected different theories really are.

 Particularly when you focus on mathematical methodologies...

 To be honest after studying CKM for Higgs involvement. I'm running out of ideas what to research next.

[captcass]

One heck of an ego, Mordred. Please provide the links to your peer reviewed, published papers on any of this.

Moth, no he doesn't. He is BB Blind. Well, I guess he has some patience, but, really, I think he is just a lonely troll. Sorry, I "misspelled": a "triadic" would be a metric based on only 3 elements, i.e., X, Y, Z or X, Z, T, as I reduce the Fundamental Metric to in the plane of the disk of a spiral galaxy. It was just meant as a euphemism.

Sorry, you seriously lack imagination, Mordred.

Think about the fact that your ILk is teaching the young the universe is illogical, instead of logical, but you can't exactly tell them why, but you have a theory, a logical theory, that explains the illogical and makes them, well, just nothing, really, but no one has yet been able to explain and prove it.... They are only a fluke in a meaningless universe. How friggin' sad is that message of hopelessness? Of course, I think most trolls sadly feel that way.

ANSWER A SINGLE QUESTION!

Hey, MOTH! Don't you think he should answer my simple questions? Who made Him the sole inquisitor? He believes in completely illogical theories he can't answer a single question about!

C'mon, Moth, open your eyes and ask him to answer just 1!

Or YOU do it! Answer just 1.......

[nevim]

Thank you for your ongoing lessons Mordred. 

[Mordred]

I asked you to repeat that question.

Are you asking for a non DM Kepler curve graph? 

Yes or no

1 minute ago, nevim said:

Thank you for your ongoing lessons Mordred. 

Glad to help

[captcass]

I asked you several questions earlier:

"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? What is "outside" the boundary?

Where is 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?"

You have not answered 1.

And what peer reviewed papers have you authored that have been published?

Show me the graph, Mordred......

[Mordred]

Ah well there is several questions being asked.

Let's start with singularity. First off there is two types commonly known the singularity of a BH and the singularity of the BB.

 Both describe a point where the mathematics breaks down. Both can be addressed by compactification of a group.

Any infinite quantity contains finite quantities. Restricting a group or dimension to its finite portions is this process. So in the case of the BB one can restrict the infinite quantities by using Planck's temperature which is the theoretical upper bounds UV limit.

 Ever use a graph ? If you have a curve approaching a coordinate ie x=1 then you can have an infinite number of divisions without meeting x=1. Another common example take 1 meter and continuously divide each portion by half. 

 Your dealing with a consequence of number sets.

Let's ask a question. How many coordinates exist in a 1 meter cubic square ?

The universe is defined as everything that exists there is no outside. Next question

Let's assume LQCM is correct a collapsed universe can bounce into an expanding universe.

A universe doesn't need to expand into anything. You only need to decrease mass density to get expansion. That is the whole process of thermodynamics in terms of expansion.

 

Didn't we already cover these questions before ? I'm positive you used these as previous arguments in your lengthy Hubble illusion thread.

Quite frankly every question you posted is common on forums.. hint hint.  

[moth]

17 minutes ago, captcass said:

I asked you several questions earlier:

"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? What is "outside" the boundary?

Where is 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?"

You have not answered 1.

These questions seem to be un-answerable because we can only know what is inside the universe after it exists.

The only other question i see is what could falsify the ideas in your paper and that is your responsibility.

 

[Mordred]

What is the range of set

[latex] \mathbb{R}[/latex] how can one compactify this set ?

1 minute ago, moth said:

These questions seem to be un-answerable because we can only know what is inside the universe after it exists.

The only other question i see is what could falsify the ideas in your paper and that is your responsibility.

 

Well they do represent a lack of understanding in cosmology. As well as mathematics.

 They are all related to causes of disbelief in modern cosmology.

[captcass]

LOL. Sorry. BHs are MECOs, the center of which is empty space. It is merely a Limit of Relativity, where time appears to stop, just as it does at the cosmological horizon. Your other answers are non-sensical. I.e., they make no real sense. They are the talking points of the BB'ers and just make no sense. Just plain old BS. Totally illogical in a logical universe.

Please provide real, logical answers to the questions I posed, not some completely irrational and unproven BS.

[moth]

3 minutes ago, captcass said:

Please provide real, logical answers to the questions I posed, not some completely irrational and unproven BS.

Are you saying your paper answers those questions?