Mordred

Its philosophy at best. Physics requires the mathematics to be of any use ie it must make testable predictions of how a will affect b. If a model cannot meet that criteria then it isn't a working model. You may believe to have solved quantum reality but can you test its accuracy ?

Well for starters physics doesn't try to define reality. It models measurable interactions. We leave defining reality to metaphysics. Myself unless a paper is at least 75 percent mathematical its not a useful paper in physics but thats just me. Quite frankly the paper above is far too metaphysical for my interest.

Evil son of King Arthur... chose it over 15 years ago bern using it since.

+1 for highlighting the term correlation... @ interested I want you to think about the folliwing. The definition of a field [latex]\mathcal{f}_{x}=x_n[/latex] where f is some function and the subscript n denotes a coordinate basis ie [latex] (x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)=(ct,x,y,z)[/latex] A field is any collection of values or functions assigned under a geometric basis. It is an arbitrary abstract device. Keep that in mind when reading the Hobbs paper... Next I would look up the definition of correlation function under statistical mechanics to better understand Bell's experiments...

Your welcome going to offset some of those neg rep points as you asked some good questions.

Your welcome. +1 for a good question

Wrap your head around the detail the light from front and back of said galaxy must reach us first. Then realize said light is still emitting to us from the past. We see the past events only. If two stars at time now were to simultaneously explode then you would see the 10,000 years difference one event would be seen 10,000 years before the next event. However stars whose light hss already reached us from front and back we wouldn't see the time difference (10,000) years barely affects redshift the time difference exists but we cannot readily discern it (that time period is miniscule on cosmological scale.)

As you quoted the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocities. So the more distance ftom us the greater the velocity of said object key word "appear to be". Recessive velocity isnt a true velocity but a consequence of seperation distance. It is an apparent velocity. The density of galaxes are visually greater in the past so the further you look the greater the density (and temperature increases. A little trick here Hubbles constant varies in time, it is only roughly 70 km/Mpc/sec throughout the universe at time now. In the past however this value is greater . However this does not change Hubbles law [latex]V_{Recessive}=H_O d [/latex] the distance to redshift relations directly associated with Hubbles law is only accurate to the Hubble Horizon. Past Hubbles horizon further redshift corrections must be made.

The light from the front and back of distant galaxies have already reached us before mankind made the very first telescope. That light is continously transmitted but its frequency has changed due to expansion. When you view one of these galaxies we see its entirety despite the distance difference in light years across. This is only possible after the initial light has reached us in the past prior to our observation. The light in the entirety of our observable universe has also already reached us in the past. Otherwise we would not be able to see it today. Our entire universe is part of the same shared causality past. Newer stars however may take some time to see in those distant galaxies. As you mentioned we are seeing into the past so its highly likely to see new stars being born in those galaxies. (Which we do)

You obviously are not aware that observing redshift is not the only piece of evidence of expansion of the universe. The entire thermodynamics history including BB nucleosynthesis which formed the CMB itself is also very strong pieces of evidence. Its always amazing just how many posters ignore these pieces. Typically everyone that has trouble with understanding relativity and assume they can prove it wrong with looking strictly at redshift. If you don't disagree with the math then it may be a good idea to make sure you properly understand it before making all the incorrect statements you have the past 8 pages. None of the math agrees with any statement you have made thus far.

This statement makes no sense

Your theory differs from what the math describes so how can it already exist?

Your theory means nothing when it has nothing including math to back it up. The universe is expanding except in gravitationally bound regions. This is simple physics the strength of gravity or the electromagnetic force locally overpowers Lambda. The expansion only occurs in regions such as the voids between large scale structure formation.

well described +1

Do yourself a favor, run through the age of the universe calculations rather than simply making incorrect and unsupported statements such as the above. If you do you will find that every observer will come across the same BB singularity conditions. All lightcones will cross at an identical point at a single planck length regardless of which observer you use. Every lightcone.... from every observer....This is the shared causality past that defines the current observable universe. PS they all involve Hubbles parameter. (though you also need to account for mass/radiation and Lambda evolution for greater accuracy as Hubbles parameter evolves.

Its not a preferred frame its a chosen frame by convention. Big difference, professional cosmologist know how to account for relativity. Its part of the curriculum in the first semester.

Might help if you look up the difference between coordinate time and proper time under relativity. There is an age all observers can agree upon, Cosmology uses a fundamental observer which is an observer in the global background conditions (in essence). However all past lightcones will lead to the same BB singularity conditions of the BB at 10^43 sec.

Potentially on deck sealer with gold oak tint. Only wish I owned a lathe but one can modify a drill...

lol not that complicated just cut the handle base out of the 1×6 with a bandsaw hole at each end. One for shaft, the other for crank handle. Glue two layers same base shape to hide end cuts. Also allows a higher radius edge rounding. This also provides greater gluing surface. End cap other side two layer circle cut with smaller circle ( 1" dowelling) other layer caps the end cuts. P.S. currently enjoying that fire in background lol.

1×6 cedar cut into the handle with two glued hole for the 1 inch Dowling rod. One for the main shaft the other the crank handle. Then wife wants to hang a planted pot on rod. Routered (rounded) corners on crank bases. Haven't decided on protective coat but looking at tinted (Gold oak, )outdoor all in one tinted clear coat.

progress report on Well just need to finish the handle then prep for staining and outdoor protection.

Your welcome it was a qood question to ask

I don't see any reason to change my previous replies yet. Keep trying yes expansion is involved in gravitational redshift. This will occur regardless of the presence of ion clouds or not. What of it ? As stated here. Mean free path has nothing to do with redshift

Definetely further evidence for DM but also stronger support its involvement in superstructure formation. correct Yes we have however the significants is the scale of this overdensity. I am currently reading reference 1 here is the arxiv. Lots of detail here. Side note [latex]M_{200c}[/latex] if I recall correctly is 200 times critical density. https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.07404

Well even in Classical cosmology the question becomes. Will the conditions at each coordinate be the same on the return path. So for example on the FRW metric this could apply to how much did the universe expand from forward path to return path. Example What if the light path is several Mpc in length with an expansion rate of 70 km/Mpc/sec ? Ie Late integrated Sache Wolfe effect would vary from forward to reverse direction. In essence spacetime itself is never static. The Schwartzchild metric and Newton approximation under GR is just that a good approximation. There is still always variations that occur from one time slice to the next.