Mordred

Invalidated by Planck measurements. The universe is close to flat but universe geometry refers to the geodesic paths not the actual 3d shape. Two parallel beams will neither converge or diverge in a perfect flat geometry they will converge for positive curvature or diverge in negative curvature. CMB measurements allows us to test the curvature term

More often than not they forget to mention Observable universe.

The Lorentz transforms of SR are easy enough to do at home

Nope it's only the centre of our observation. There is no centre of the universe.

Keep in mind everytime we measure stellar objects and have to account for redshift we are testing relativity. Every time we accelerate a proton at an LHC we test relativity. In essence it's being tested 1000's of times everyday.

No there is two time descriptives involved in relativity proper time and coordinate time. One must apply each correctly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time In essence redshift applies in this case as we're dealing with signals along the light path.

The Klien Gordon equations are Lorentz invariant so does employ the four momentum.

No as stated v=c is not a reference frame. End of discussion this is well established under GR. It is a singularity condition where the math no longer accurately describes the physics. A photon is a field excitation with a Compton wavelength you cannot have a wavelength without time.

Proper time follows the worldline of the light signal. It is the reference clock along the worldline path. Both the emitter and observer is at coordinate time.

First off the Lorentz transforms are under constant velocity not acceleration though one can use instantaneous velocity at each coordinate to adjust for constant acceleration. Secondly redshift from distant stars comply with relativistic effects.

The error is as I described v=c is not a valid reference frame and nothing one can state will change that. Obviously time must pass for massless particles as those particles can and do change location. They can change in wavelength Ie redshift and they can decay to other particles. So obviously time must be passing for massless particles. To state otherwise is wrong

v=c is not a valid reference frame as you have seperation distance [math]ds^2=0 [/math] however a less than c reference frame can measure the interval between emitter and receiver and determine that massless particles propogate at c. So to state that time doesn't occur for massless particles is nonsense or that the massless particle can exist at every location in the universe based on the seperation distance is obviously nonsense. Hence v=c is not a valid reference frame.

At the quantum level all particles are field excitations. These excitations do not require a medium nor eather to propogate.

All particles can be described via wavefunctions the Schrodinger equations can be time dependent and time independent so time symmetry relations would certainly be involved. CPT involves time symmetry.

Yes there is time symmetry involved in most wavefunctions including the harmonic oscillator.

Looks good thus far the reference 7 page 11 equation 47 has the covariant derivative of the graviton propogator, as your employing the same tensors you should be be good.

cdot is the latex for the dot. I will have to take at that link later.

Here is a simple intro to for and cross product. https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-dot-product.html On that page is the link to cross product.

Far better. The Maxwell well equations for the E and B fields. Electro is former, magnetism for latter. Have the 90 degree polarization shift in the GIF on that link. Learn the Maxwell equations first. In order to do that you will need to study the vector properties of gradient, divergences and curl. Those you will need to understand polarizations of the EM field. Pay particular under math of when the dot product or cross product of two field vectors apply. I recommend Griffiths "Introductory to Electrodynamics" if you can get a hold of it. Symbolism is as follows use two vectors (actual letters don't matter) pay attention to the Operator ) [math] A\cdot B [/math] now if you deal with the inner product of two vectors you return a scalar. (Yes I know I am going too far but I want to give you direction of study) you also have outer products of two vectors. [math] A×B [/math] for cross product. One is linear the latter is perpendicular. (Hint ) Now one thing to take the above further. The Cosmological constant has no polarizations. However one can treat gravity vs the Cosmological constant under dipole treatments without repulsive charge. If one treats the two under vector direction. So you wouldn't use Colombia force laws under that examination. You would apply pressure via the equations of state. [math] w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/math] under GR pressure is vector direction in the i direction. Ie [math]T_{ijk}[/math] T for arbitrary tensor. (See Euler angles) fir subscript. Now to give an example of why I mentioned all the above. Lets look at a common Cosmology application. Lets describe spacetime under the Minkowskii limit. The Minkowskii tensor is an orthogonal group that follows the following vector relations between [math]\mu\cdot\nu=\nu\cdot\mu[/math] this relation tells us that the inner dot (linear hint) product of the vectors [math]\mu [/math] and [math]\nu [/math] are symmetric and hermitean/orthogonal. With the EM fields you will not find the above to be the same case. (You will be dealing with the cross product ) which is antisymmetric. PS you will find the above relevant to the differences between two 90 degree phase shifted fields and fields that are not phase shifted in terms of the attempts you are making in a charged application of Lambda vs gravity. Ie one situation is symmetric while the other is not. ie [math]E×B[/math] vs [math]\Lambda\cdot g[/math] g for gravitational potential at an arbitrary coordinate.

I've been trying to get a hold of the programmer to find out if they have an up to date link. I just discovered it was broken 2 days ago.Jorrie still hasn't responded to my email.

Well it never ceases to amaze me how many posters that rail against mainstream physics go through such effort to make themselves look like idiots.

3.23 at Z=1090

No object in the the entire universe moves greater than c. No physicist ever claimed that recessive velocity is a true velocity. It an apparent velocity based upon seperation distance not a true velocity. What part of that do you refuse to understand ?

Who said anything about returning to the 80's. What part of the value that Holicow found has been used before didn't you understand ? Do you have a comprehension problem ? Or is your fingers so far into your ears you refuse to listen concerning Hubble's law ?

Yeah we had to rely more on hand calculations. The resolution of the COBE dataset to the WMAP dataset was a significant difference. Back then we weren't even sure on what the curvature term was. Lol the Higgs field was still speculative back then. Lol I lost track of how many shapes of the universe was theorized back then. To put it into perspective there was close to 1000 different viable inflationary models. Quintessence and MOND was still a big deal. Just a side note my first learning experience in programming was on a VIC 20. However don't confuse computers available to the general public with computers available to Profesional research facilities. For example no one in the general public has access to numerous supercomputers available today.