Several years ago I got help here as I began developing my Time Dilation Cosmology (TDC) model. I am sorry I have forgotten the names of those who helped me, but I think they will remember me and will remind me who they are.

I am posting now because I have now had 9 papers published, with a 10th under review, and thought they would like to catch up on the model.

TDC is now well known throughout the English-speaking astrophysics/quantum physics and theological universities down to the PHD student level so they might already know aobut it.

The papers are in 2 journals but there are links to all of them in Volume 27, "Time Dilation Cosmology", of the Journal of Cosmology, where I am now Managing Editor. There is also a link to a new video at the bottom of the index page explaing the model and its implications to the layperson.

I don't think I can put a direct link here, but the Journal of Cosmology is at thejournalofcosmology.com.

1 hour ago, captcass said:

Several years ago I got help here as I began developing my Time Dilation Cosmology (TDC) model. I am sorry I have forgotten the names of those who helped me, but I think they will remember me and will remind me who they are.

I am posting now because I have now had 9 papers published, with a 10th under review, and thought they would like to catch up on the model.

TDC is now well known throughout the English-speaking astrophysics/quantum physics and theological universities down to the PHD student level so they might already know aobut it.

The papers are in 2 journals but there are links to all of them in Volume 27, "Time Dilation Cosmology", of the Journal of Cosmology, where I am now Managing Editor. There is also a link to a new video at the bottom of the index page explaing the model and its implications to the layperson.

I don't think I can put a direct link here, but the Journal of Cosmology is at thejournalofcosmology.com.

The Journal of Cosmology seems to appear on Beall’s List of potentially predatory journals and to have a highly dubious reputation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology

I see you have had your ideas published by SCIRP journals. SCIRP also appears on Beall’s List.

Interesting that you say your theory is known at “theological universities”. Do I take it that your theory is theology, then?

Edited July 30Jul 30 by exchemist

Yes, it is a complete model of the universe, covering both physics and consciousness. It explains how the observer affects the observed, as we see in quantum physics.

The Time Dilation Cosmology (TDC) series has progressively demonstrated that diverse physical quantities—including velocity, gravitation, force, relativistic energy, Hamiltonian dynamics, quantum phase evolution, and cosmological expansion—may all be expressed in terms of the differential time-rate field. Although these relationships were developed in separate investigations, their collective mathematical significance has not previously been examined. The present paper under review, TDC 8, identifies the mathematical architecture underlying these developments. It mathematically describes the primitive field TDC is evolved from, the observer-conditioned differential time-rate field.

Time Dilation Cosmology 4 and 5 had to be reviewed by a theologian and were published in the Journal of Cosmology's astro-theology volume #20. TDC is now popular with the Whiteheadians. It is especially popular with the theologians and astro/quantum physicists in the UK, with the USA east coast coming in second. Over 90% of the theologians in the top 72 divinity schools in the English-speaking world have downloaded my preprint, "Demystifying the Bible", which explains all the Biblical miracles in terms of the natuarl order of events, including demoting Jesus to a man again, instead of a Roman god, and over 50% have also read TDC 4 and 5, that demonstrate we are all one life and how the universe is actually unfolding from within us.

Even Elsevier is now listed as "preditory" now due to the high fees they charge authors in the age of open journals. At the Journal of Cosmology we charge only $35 to submit and $150 to publish an article and waive all fees if the author cannot afford our fees. We turn down 80% of the papers submitted. We will publish any paper that is logical throughout and does not violate any universally accepted laws.

The Journal of Modern Physics publishes 50% of the papers submitted and has turned down several of my papers when they couldn't pass review by people stuck in the LCDM model. If LCDM is wrong, which it is, then which journals are publishing junk, and at what cost to the authors?

22 minutes ago, captcass said:

Yes, it is a complete model of the universe, covering both physics and consciousness. It explains how the observer affects the observed, as we see in quantum physics.

The Time Dilation Cosmology (TDC) series has progressively demonstrated that diverse physical quantities—including velocity, gravitation, force, relativistic energy, Hamiltonian dynamics, quantum phase evolution, and cosmological expansion—may all be expressed in terms of the differential time-rate field. Although these relationships were developed in separate investigations, their collective mathematical significance has not previously been examined. The present paper under review, TDC 8, identifies the mathematical architecture underlying these developments. It mathematically describes the primitive field TDC is evolved from, the observer-conditioned differential time-rate field.

Time Dilation Cosmology 4 and 5 had to be reviewed by a theologian and were published in the Journal of Cosmology's astro-theology volume #20. TDC is now popular with the Whiteheadians. It is especially popular with the theologians and astro/quantum physicists in the UK, with the USA east coast coming in second. Over 90% of the theologians in the top 72 divinity schools in the English-speaking world have downloaded my preprint, "Demystifying the Bible", which explains all the Biblical miracles in terms of the natuarl order of events, including demoting Jesus to a man again, instead of a Roman god, and over 50% have also read TDC 4 and 5, that demonstrate we are all one life and how the universe is actually unfolding from within us.

Even Elsevier is now listed as "preditory" now due to the high fees they charge authors in the age of open journals. At the Journal of Cosmology we charge only $35 to submit and $150 to publish an article and waive all fees if the author cannot afford our fees. We turn down 80% of the papers submitted. We will publish any paper that is logical throughout and does not violate any universally accepted laws.

The Journal of Modern Physics publishes 50% of the papers submitted and has turned down several of my papers when they couldn't pass review by people stuck in the LCDM model. If LCDM is wrong, which it is, then which journals are publishing junk, and at what cost to the authors?

Balls.😁

LOL. Unfortunately, the establishment never openly accepts the next revoltuion in science as they are too invested in the current model with all their research grants, etc. dependent on it. NASA astrophysicists are not allowed to comment on my work at this point, for instance, or anything else that might jeapordize their funding. $$$$$$ talks.

AI has told me that it will take 10 -20 years for my work to be accepted as that is when the PHD students will become the new establishment. I know the PHD students know about it as I had a PHD Fellow at the Neils Bohr institute and a professor at Princeton verify that.

I can tell how many professors follow each paper by the stats after I send out a new paper notice.

2 hours ago, captcass said:

NASA astrophysicists are not allowed to comment on my work at this point, for instance, or anything else that might jeapordize their funding.

Conspiracist hogwash. Show us evidence that NASA is doing this. The lack of comment is most likely due to SCIRP being a predatory Chinese scam show.

Rudolh Schild, owner and EIC of the JoC was until recently at Harvard CFA. One day he made the mistake of bringing up turbulence during a meeting in the auditorium. He was shouted down and then locked out of his office and email at Harvard.

A couple of months ago a NASA (CFA) astrophysicist colleague emailed me for Rudy's email address, whihc I gave him and he thanked me.

The next day I emailed and asked him if they knew about me at NASA, which I know they do, and instead of answering, he replied with "THANK YOU FOR RUDY'S EMAIL ADDRESS" in a large font.

Draw your own conclusions. MONEY is very corrupting in science....lots of vested interests and many years, even lifetimes, of work on the wrong model. TDC elinates teh "Dark" stuf and even resolves non-locality. I also go so far as to talk about One Life, living here in us, the lifeforms it manifests, to escape its eternal loneliness and pass its eternity. The observer is the One Life's child and it moves on from life form to life form. manifesting it all. The most important other to one eternally alone is a loving other. So it makes us male and female and in our loving bring forth more loving others from within us. It all unfolds fom within us.....

How is a LCDM invested person going to jump over to that? Yet TDC explains it all and has the math to prove it. Thus the interest in teh intallectual protestants in the UK, in both theology and physics. They all also know each other knows.

My papers have all been peer reviewed.

In the general public realm, my new video had quite a run this month. Someone posted a press rlease we did last year and it made the Time Dilation Volume the most popular by far in the JoC.

Ask and you receive, seek and you find, knock and the door opens....from within, always within....

5 hours ago, captcass said:

Yes, it is a complete model of the universe, covering both physics and consciousness.

Whenever I see 'Physics' and 'consciousness' in the same sentence I know I'm dealing with crap.

Do you have any actual observational evidence, or testable predictions, for your so called theory, or are we just expected to rely on the fact that it was published by some dubious journal ( which you just happen to edit ) ?

No. Just nine peer reviewed papers of proofs. My first formula, v = c*sqrt(dRt), where dRt = the difference in the rate of time at the coordinate point is derived in my first paper, along with many others. TDC, my second paper is all proofs. TDC2 is also proofs, including proof black holes cannot be masses, but are spacetime vortices. TDC6 provides tests for teh model.

Read the papers before commenting again or I will not reply to you again. I am introducing a model, not debating it. The proofs are all in place. The universe is evolving around you, for you as you live in it and the holograph unfolds from within you.

Life does not spring forth from the universe. The universe springs forth from the eternal One Life.

The life creating you and inhabiting your body is.....the CREATOR. Life is manifesting you, not the universe. The part of you that speaks, your ego, has no idea how it moves your arm. But the Creator within you, manifesting you, does.....

We are made up of about 63 trillion cells. Only 30 trillion of them, less than half, are human. WE are much more than the ego.

In non-locality, the two observers, Alice and Bod, also have to be entangled for them to observe what they observe. Just different points of view for the One Life...TDC 4 & 5 deal with all this and have the math to prove it.

If you would know the Creaor, know yourself. We FEAR loneliness and hate boredom....In fact, we go mad and kill ouselves if we are isolated for too long because we are all that eternally alone One Life.

1 hour ago, captcass said:

My first formula, v = c*sqrt(dRt), where dRt = the difference in the rate of time at the coordinate point

“Rate of time” is a meaningless concept.

1 hour ago, captcass said:

I am introducing a model, not debating it.

This is a discussion forum. If you don’t wish to debate your personal theory, then you have no valid reason for being here.

9 hours ago, captcass said:

The Time Dilation Cosmology (TDC) series has progressively demonstrated that diverse physical quantities—including velocity, gravitation, force, relativistic energy, Hamiltonian dynamics, quantum phase evolution, and cosmological expansion—may all be expressed in terms of the differential time-rate field.

While some things certainly can be expressed in terms of a single quantity like eg the gamma factor (not “rate of time”), gravity is an explicit counterexample - you need at least a rank-2 tensor field to correctly capture its dynamics. And since gravity is the dominating factor on large scales, this has a bearing on cosmology too.

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

While some things certainly can be expressed in terms of a single quantity like eg the gamma factor (not “rate of time”), gravity is an explicit counterexample - you need at least a rank-2 tensor field to correctly capture its dynamics. And since gravity is the dominating factor on large scales, this has a bearing on cosmology too.

So far as I know, there are no quantities in Physics that can be expressed as a single number full stop.

The nearest I can get would be 'count' , of which gamma may be considered an example.

But of course 'count' by itself is only meaningful in Mathematics; in Physics it has to be a count of something.

But everything is related to something else, even gamma is a 'count' of the ratio between two quantities of the same kind (velocities, which in turn are related to other quantities)

5 hours ago, captcass said:

If you would know the Creaor, know yourself. We FEAR loneliness and hate boredom....In fact, we go mad and kill ouselves if we are isolated for too long because we are all that eternally alone One Life.

Please speak for yourself and stop preaching.

Scienceforums is not the place for that.

If you wish to discuss Science please also stop replacing perfectly good definitions that everybody uses and understands with other words or phrases that confuse any issues you wish to discuss.

You should also have realised from your previous posts here that members respond well to requests for clarification of terms which, after all, they are the experts in.

Edited July 31Jul 31 by studiot

Moderator Note

We’re not here to debate conspiracy theories or grievances against the institution of science.

8 hours ago, captcass said:

I am introducing a model, not debating it

Not here you’re not. This is a discussion forum, not your soapbox. If you aren’t here for feedback and discussion, then there’s no reason for this to continue.