captcass

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

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Eise said:

Everybody here may draw his/hers own conclusions.

Yup.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mordred said:

They simply allow us to describe the relations the calculations show. 

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well different perspectives on interpretation of the mathematics has its uses. I prefer that to straight metaphysics that most times never want any math lol.

The Schodingrr equation has its uses but the Klein Gordon upgrades it to incorporate Lorentz invariance. This is a primary equation in QFT  so you can relax it's already taken care of.

Share this post


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

so you can relax it's already taken care of.

GREAT! I was really worried about that! :)

Now I can finally retire!

19 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I prefer that to straight metaphysics that most times never want any math lol

:) 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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

 

Share this post


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

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....

The Lorentz transform is from SR, not GR.

What is "the EP"? How do we know that "in reality" it applies?

Share this post


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

The Lorentz transform is from SR, not GR.

What is "the EP"? How do we know that "in reality" it applies?

The Lorentz transforms go back to Lorentz and are used in both SR and GR.

The "EP" is the Equivalence Principle, as per SR.....

Share this post


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

The Lorentz transforms go back to Lorentz and are used in both SR and GR.

The Einstein field equations in GR do not use the Lorentz transform (although, they will reduce to that in some limited cases).

"The Einstein field equations (EFE; also known as Einstein's equations) comprise the set of 10 equations in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity that describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by mass and energy.[1] First published by Einstein in 1915 as a tensor equation,[2] the EFE relate local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress–energy tensor).[3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

Quote

The "EP" is the Equivalence Principle, as per SR.....

The only equivalence principle I am familiar with is the one related to general relativity.:

"In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2019 at 4:58 PM, captcass said:

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

How many rounds of revisions did you go through?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strange said:

the equivalence principle is the

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...

2 hours ago, Strange said:

The Einstein field equations in GR do not use the Lorentz transform

The describe what we see due to them...I see GR as SR in motion.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.....

 

 

Edited by captcass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hrrm under GR the above doesn't follow. You and I reside in coordinate time the only proper time (invariant time=same for all observers) is along the worldline.

This is different than the older SR definition where proper time was the observer at rest. Convention now follows the GR definition. 

Also acceleration induces rapidity under rapidity you change world lines. Lorentz transforms apply constant velocity. An acceleration causes a rotational translation. (Rapidity). This is the key to solving the twin paradox.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mordred said:

is along the worldline

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.

14 hours ago, Mordred said:

acceleration causes a rotational translation

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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

According to your theory Not GR.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


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

According to your theory Not GR

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. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GR does work for galaxies it's simply not needed when you have virial theorem.

Simply because you refuse to accept DM and DE is your issue that has nothing to do with GR.

 You can't describe galaxy rotation except by declaring you can but can't supply the formula to do so. We already went through that. I told you the name of the most successful equation that does an excellent job but you refuse to acknowledge it as it includes DM.

The NFW profile. Until you can produce a formula that does a better job your claims based on your metaphysical arguments is meaningless in  terms of predicting rotation rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2019 at 4:58 PM, captcass said:

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

How many changes did you have to make stemming from reviewer comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

How many changes

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.

Share this post


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

I also made some final revisions on my own to clarify certain points.

I'm sorry, did I miss something???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

did I miss something???

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....

Share this post


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

MECOs, which Schild's team showed them to be in 2006

A single, disputed, observation does not count as "showed them to be".

Share this post


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

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.  

So they proposed a change to align with the finding of the editor-in-chief of the journal. Is that right?

Share this post


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

they proposed a change

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......

 

Edited by captcass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything wrong with asking questions about a peer review process of a site ? I consider that information useful. I can certainly see practicality in awareness of a sites policy and procedures.

Share this post


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

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.

If you didn't know what a MECO was, how can you say that a prediction of yours had been confirmed? You said all you did was change the name. Not any detailed comparison of your model with the observation.

 

2 hours ago, captcass said:

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......

How is this a character attack? Not really sure how a journal's reputation counts as "character"

Share this post


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