captcass

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

Recommended Posts

Well have fun with those reviewers. It matters not to me if you choose to stay blind to other data. What you believe won't affect me. 

 I never ignore valid data, I have worked on dozens of personal models. When I find data that counters them I trash the model attempt.

 However I believe in the proper scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Mordred said:

However I believe in the proper scientific method

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.

Edited by captcass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, captcass said:

Then how can you accept DARK anything? And the idiotic premises?

Simple; Place holders for what exactly we are not sure of or ignorant of.

Quote

Why did no one even try to answer my questions about the singularity you all believe in?

The majority of cosmologists today reject the singularity as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and density, rather just the acceptance of a singularity as defined by where our theories break down or are not applicable.

Quote

Because there are no answers....

Obviously wrong...we have some answers, and no answers as yet to other scenarios like DE and DM, with regards to the true nature of.

Quote

I thought everyone knew GR was incomplete, because then things would be logical again...

??? Who ever said GR was complete? It is a theory that reigns supreme within its known zones of applicability, and being a classical theory, is non applicable at the quantum/Planck level.

Quote

I completed it looking at the time, not the space.

Not as far as I can see. But I'll check the scientific outlets in the morning, and review whether your claims have been accepted or not again.

Quote

You see objects falling through empty space. I see objects evolving down time dilation gradients.

You are looking at the PHYSICS that result from that evolution.

No, we are looking at one hypothetical interpretation, among many many interpretations and models, and that will in time be lost in cyber space, never to be heard of again.

Plus of course if all that you claim was valid, you would not just be pushing it here: You would be out making a name for yourself and preparing for possible Nobel prize nominations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Your word salad Captcass isn't completing anything.

How many times have I asked you to show a galaxy rotation curve ?

Complete you couldn't do it how is that possibly complete ???

How many times have I asked you to  show how you apply your NOT tensors ?

Complete ??? I don't think so...

Then when I address you on expansion and you account for observational data. Your response is "please no expansion".

How is that complete when you cannot account for measured data.???

You haven't shown a single solution to any of your claims. You have a total of what three miniscule first order formulas that suddenly solves DM DE and the singularity problems ?

I don't think so

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, beecee said:

you would not just be pushing it here

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......

 

 

Edited by captcass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well you have fun because honestly I have seen some very foolish papers get peer reviewed before. The most amusing one was using a nuclear bomb on an EH to peek inside.

 Peer review doesn't mean right.

If you think that just because you got peer reviewed your article will make a difference all on its lonesome. Without substantially more work guess again.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Peer review doesn't mean right.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, captcass said:

Well, let's see....I got it published.....how long did that take me?.

Yep, along with many other alternative hypotheticals that all will simply fade into oblivion. 

Quote

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.

You had the last word??? :D So this is simply a game to you? 

Quote

 

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.

 

Yep, you have done OK, but what was your objective? Overthrowing GR? Sorry, many try, and many fail, thus far.

Quote

 

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....

 

All the best. When I wake up in the morning and find you have overthrown GR, I'll give you my own Nobel! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Overthrowing GR?

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) < ∞.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Yep, you have done OK

Thanks

1 hour ago, beecee said:

but what was your objective?

?????

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.:)

Edited by captcass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, captcass said:

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.

All potential theoretical models will be challenged. That's part and parcel of the scientific method.

Quote

 

Sorry, I am an idiot who must answer.

I never said that, I said I completed it.

 

If you did what you claim [completed it] it would be accepted by mainstream. Unless of course you are one of the hundreds of claims by "would be's if they could be's" that mainstream scientists are just simply too stagnated and recalcitrant in their thinking.            I don't accept that and simply apply the scientific method in that all potential theories must run the gauntlet, to gain acceptance as an incumbent model.

Quote

instead see the ever-tightening spiraling evolution, or the universe as a whole, which we see spiraling off in all directions in the galaxies.

Not sure about that description. I see the ever increasing expansion rate over large scales, with spidery web like structures forming under gravitational attraction, increasing the voids in between the spider web like structures.Related image

 

Quote

Sorry, sounds like a trick question to me. :)

Not really, but it appears you have answered it in your claim you are trying to complete GR.

 

Quote

 

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...

 

Albert also spent the greater part of his life looking for a "unified field theory" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, beecee said:

Albert also spent the greater part of his life looking for a "unified field theory" 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all directions as per a homogeneous and isotropic fashion. The voids between the filaments are increasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of what significance is helical length?

Velocity is a vector, and you’re making up new rules for adding the components.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, swansont said:

Of what significance is helical length?

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.

Edited by captcass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, captcass said:

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.

The motion of the solar system is common  to all of the planets. It basically drops out when calculating relative velocities. IOW, if you used your formula to calculate the Doppler shift of a signal with another planet or a probe, you wouldn’t get anything but static.

You have also not explained why you would add these distances in quadrature, as if you had a right triangle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swansont said:

motion of the solar system is common  to all of the planets

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CMB today surrounds us. You can't point in a direction and say that way.

The temperature is now 2.73 k. We hear the CMB in radio  static. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The CMB today surrounds us.

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.

 

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

We hear the CMB in radio  static.

Yes, and there is a Doppler shift in different directions due to our motion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It makes no sense to state relative to the CMB then does it. What location would you choose if it's all encompassing? 

Use the fundamental observer of the mean average density of the universe in our time now. ( though be careful not to restrict to out local group) there is recent research that we may be in an underdense region.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What location would you choose if it's all encompassing? 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you be outside something that doesn't exist. I do believe I mentioned there is no continuum. Choosing a fundamental observer is fine but don't treat it as a priveliged observer. All frames are inertial. You really haven't figured it out yet. The only invariant for time is along the worldline. Anything else is a variant coordinate time . It doesn't matter where in the universe you set the observer or emitter. That location will not have the same time rate to any other observer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

How can you be outside something that doesn't exist

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The dipole anisotropy was the result of Planck 2012 not calibrating properly to our motion. Yes it can be used as a confirmation basis but you still need to realize that your not measuring invariant time. 

Even the the fundamental observer of the FRW metric is a coordinate time. 

Still doesn't change the point Swansong made either. Dobbler shifts only occur between emitter and observer. 

The Earth is moving, a cops Doppler radar gun doesn't see that when measuring a cars speed.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

your not measuring invariant time. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.