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

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, captcass said:

No, I say, "DAY"!!!!!!

You know, from the BB perspective, you REALLY know your sh*t and can teach it very well. And, yes, you have a lot of patience in that, as Moth noted. I don't want to denigrate you on that and congratulate you on it as it is a lot to learn and understand. Of course you have no final answers, as they are just not there in the BB model, but the real trouble is that you can't seem to be able to see other points of view so as to reject them on THEIR flaws, not just because they aren't BB.....

If it ain't BB, you are on it like a nasty, vicious, pit bull, instead of trying to see the other perspective, whether you end up accepting it or not. For this reason you can never accept the correct alternative if it shows up, or even discuss other alternatives. "BB Blind".

I think this is why you get so aggressive and, well, .........(fill in word here)

Anyway...I don't want you to think I think you don't know your stuff. I just want you to understand that I, too, know that stuff and had to reject it as idiotic and had to move on to find what is in my peer reviewed, published, paper. This is why I get so PO'd when you ask me about when this or that is equal to this or that z, etc......It just shows you haven't read and considered my peer reviewed, published, paper. If you had, you would know z isn't even considered or discussed. It isn't necessary. It presents differently as an effect in time......

I already KNOW what you are trying to tell me. Been there, done that. I have told you this over and again in other threads. You can't seem to accept the fact that someone who thought and understands what you do can now just say it is junk and the perspective from the point of view of effects in time instead makes the whole universe (universal spacetime/quantum continuum) logical, simple and elegant.

So, I am not going to continue on with you unless you "address" (I know you can't "answer") the questions I asked about your BB theory, and are willing to continue discussing my peer reviewed, published, paper on its merits and concepts, not on why the BB is right instead.

I do not want to debate you on which is right....but will discuss aspects of MY peer reviewed, published, paper with anyone who can refrain from being nasty...

Quote

In June 2013, the journal launched a public invitation for theologians, theological ethicists and philosophers to contribute articles on "astro-theology"*.[10]

Quote

The term astro-theology is used in the context of 18th- to 19th-century scholarship aiming at the discovery of the original religion, particularly primitive monotheism. Unlike astrolatry, which usually implies polytheism, frowned upon as idolatrous by Christian authors since Eusebius, astrotheology is any "religious system founded upon the observation of the heavens",[1] and in particular, may be monotheistic. Gods, goddesses, and demons may also be considered personifications of astronomical phenomena such as lunar eclipses, planetary alignments, and apparent interactions of planetary bodies with stars.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrolatry

Looks like a nonsense journal to me with a credibility rating of zero.

Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Looks like a nonsense journal to me with a credibility rating of zero.

It is also listed in Beall's List of Predatory Journals.

Pay them and they will publish. Peer review probably involves showing it to the cat.

Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is also listed in Beall's List of Predatory Journals.

Pay them and they will publish. Peer review probably involves showing it to the cat.

Wasted his money. The sad thing is that it only took a cursory effort from me to find out. Another name for these is 'Vanity Journal'

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Wasted his money. The sad thing is that it only took a cursory effort from me to find out. Another name for these is 'Vanity Journal'

Yes, I was wondering how much it cost captcass to get published there.

Share on other sites
6 hours ago, captcass said:

Anyway...I don't want you to think I think you don't know your stuff. I just want you to understand that I, too, know that stuff and had to reject it as idiotic and had to move on to find what is in my peer reviewed, published, paper. This is why I get so PO'd when you ask me about when this or that is equal to this or that z, etc......It just shows you haven't read and considered my peer reviewed, published, paper. If you had, you would know z isn't even considered or discussed. It isn't necessary. It presents differently as an effect in time......

I already KNOW what you are trying to tell me. Been there, done that. I have told you this over and again in other threads. You can't seem to accept the fact that someone who thought and understands what you do can now just say it is junk and the perspective from the point of view of effects in time instead makes the whole universe (universal spacetime/quantum continuum) logical, simple and elegant.

So, I am not going to continue on with you unless you "address" (I know you can't "answer") the questions I asked about your BB theory, and are willing to continue discussing my peer reviewed, published, paper on its merits and concepts, not on why the BB is right instead.

I do not want to debate you on which is right....but will discuss aspects of MY peer reviewed, published, paper with anyone who can refrain from being nasty...

Wow, the crackpotism is smelling really nasty now. Bold and italic yelling again and again that the article is previewed is one of the telltale signs of a crackpot theory. (The kind of journal already says more than enough, as noticed by Stringjunky and Strange.)

If your article is worth something, soon enough astronomers and physicists will be standing at your doorstep. If not, think out a conspiracy theory, in which 'main stream science' is the evil-doer. So you can you protect your theory against the simple fact that it is wrong as wrong can be (not even wrong...?).

Share on other sites
8 hours ago, captcass said:

Well, Mordred, unfortunateley the moderator has now determined this is speculation, even though the paper is peer reviewed and published.

!

Moderator Note

That doesn't make it mainstream, and you still have not posted the material here, as far as I can tell, so you can't really point to anything to confirm it's mainstream science. The journal where you published it suggests it is not. hence, speculations.

Quote

I guess there is a "very slight" BB "THEORY" preference on this site. Even published papers that undergo peer review for over 14 months are considered to be just "speculation" here, and YOU, who might be published "one day", and who thinks he is "close" to the solution, demands MORE proof and accuses the author of completely unsubstantiated claims of falsifications due to your own ignorance.

!

Moderator Note

Speculations is where non-mainstream science goes. This is our version of peer review.

Quote

So, I didn't want to leave you unanswered. You so DESERVE so much more than that.

First of all, publicly accusing someone of "falsification" and "theft" of intellectual property can cost you a hefty sum. It is called "liable" when it is in print. Don't think for a moment I won't find your real identity and sue your butt off. It is time someone tied your nasty tongue, my friend. I am just the guy to do it.......done it before and know the ropes, ins and outs...... hey, Moderator, guess who else is liable! Yes, the site that suborns and publishes the liable!

!

Moderator Note

I think you mean libel. Someone telling you that you are wrong is not libel.

The only mention of the word "theft" I find is yours. Likewise "falsification." When I search those words in this thread I get your posts, and nothing else. Since you have made the accusation, you need to point out where these transgressions have occurred. You should have reported the posts. Idle accusations are not part of civil discourse.

Moth spoke of falsifying your ideas, which is a standard metric for science — trying to show if they can be disproven.

Quote

!

Moderator Note

The position of this site is that mainstream science is the default position. It is non-mainstream science that needs to be supported and defended n these discussions. There are plenty of places for you to go to find out what the mainstream science entails. That burden belongs to you.

Quote

This is where you get to list YOUR peer reviewed papers, Mordred.......?????? Got some or what? No, I guess not. Just another darn Troll who wants to be "someone" "someday" and who's path to glory is the denigration of everyone else who doesn't agree with him.....and his completely nonsensical mainstream theories.

Third, your last question to me, after just ignoring my questions to you, is ludicrous as it is based on your flawed BB viewpoint. Just junk science, my friend..... Yet you refuse to address what I have written that provides you your answer, saying I ONLY need to rely on YOU! What an ego! You can't even discuss what I have written (and is peer reviewed and published) as you simply, sadly, just can't picture the concepts others can plainly see....Again, you are BB Blind and just totally OBSESSED with getting everyone in this forum to agree with you...a very nasty little egotistical troll.

!

Moderator Note

See my earlier remark about civil discourse.

Edited by Orion1

Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Orion1 said:

And?

Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

And?

...It took them over 14 months of review before accepting it.

Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, captcass said:

...It took them over 14 months of review before accepting it.

But it is not passing muster under Mordred's scrutiny. He has lived and breathed this stuff for thirty years and counting, and he has a relevant PhD. I don't think anybody here that is a physicist doubts his competence in this area to review stuff at the level presented on these boards..

Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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....

Edited by captcass
spelling

Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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...

Edited by captcass

Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you really think about it I was pushing you to improve your article. You have very little in the way of formulas and calculations.

I know your familiar with the FRW metric. The FRW metric does not require DM nor DE to work.

The attempts you made with your basis for a fundamental metric lacked an extremely essential element.

The most important detail of all.

Seperation between two events.

Ie the ds^2 line element. If I cannot take your paper and perform the calculations at home to confirm your accuracy by comparing it to other datasets. Then what good does it do ?

You make numerous claims within the paper but don't show how your theory makes better predictions than LCDM. Galaxy rotation curves is one example. Within your paper you stated the calculations were too difficult. However a little personal research would have shown the formulas are essentially based on Virial theorem. With application of Kepler's laws and she'll theorem. (Essentially Newtonian physics)

You also deal with BH's but didn't show how your theory would adapt the Schwartzchild metric.

Nor did you show the adaptations to the Newtonian approximations under GR. You haven't presented a new formula to accomodate your theory to handle the three main types of redshift.

So ask yourself how do you think to change the minds of physicists that would want those details.

I am just one physicist among thousands and those lacks are a major reason that I find the article seriously lacking. It doesn't contain sufficient weight to make a good impression that you truly know your stuff.

PS at no point was I angry though it may have seen that way. (Sometimes one has to take the role of villain, so you can see what type of responses you may get from others).

I was hitting you with common challenges you will face with the claims within your paper. That's something you will need to master in how to address.

(The other is being able to do research to better support your article)

1 hour ago, captcass said:

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...

I agree I can be fustrating. Lol why did you think I warned you I can be a tough critic ? No apologies needed. We both took shots at each other. (Oft the nature of a heated debate lol)

Edited by Mordred

Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So ask yourself how do you think you change the minds of physicists that would want those details. ﻿

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.

Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Probably because I don't words. Words don't allow one to perform the calculations that cosmology is required to be able to perform.

Nor any physics in truth. They simply allow us to describe the relations the calculations show.

Edited by Mordred

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, captcass said:

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.......

Quote

What eternally promulgates spacetime?

Spacetime is created by the awareness of being “here”, space, and “now”, time. There is a primary awareness, a universal cosmic intelligence, that exists only because it is aware of time passing. No light, no senses, just self-awareness.

This is a horrible state of being. The worst thing we do to people is to put them in solitary confinement.

Fortunately, it can imagine light and alter its perception of rates of time to stretch the light to give its space depth and otherwise manipulate the light to create worlds that it can incarnate itself into, “losing” itself to escape its eternal loneliness and pass its eternity. All life forms are just different points of view, different perspectives for that single awareness. Hence, we are all one in it and we are all its children.

<...>

Because we are all one in it, it harmonizes our universes. This explains non-locality. Alice and Bob have harmonized experiences, regardless of the apparent distance between them, because they are one-and-the-same in the universal cosmic intelligence that is harmonizing their points of view.

The reason we all hate boredom and fear loneliness is because we are of and from that eternally alone cosmic consciousness. If you would know the attributes of that consciousness, know yourself.

Our science works because the evolving universal continuum is based upon a logical construction, and this enables us to manipulate the evolution of events in such a way as to make our lives fuller and richer in innumerable ways.

Everybody here may draw his/hers own conclusions.