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

[captcass]

Over the past several years I posted inquiries in this forum a few times as I developed my theory. A few folks were considerate and helpful, in particular Mordred. Most were rude and derisive, so I stopped participating here.

My final theory was published today as peer reviewed in the Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 26, #21, at: http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC26/General%20Relativity%20and%20Effects%20in%20Time%20as%20Causation%20JofC.pdf.

I would now be interested in non-derisive discussion.......

[Mordred]

 Well it still requires improvement. You have based a lot on this Einstein fundamental metric however your not following any of the rules for his tensors.  I noticed you also avoided my strongest argument of expansion evidence which follows thermodynamic relations and evidence that does not involve redshift. 

 Anyways regardless  of being published on that site, that doesn't mean it's necessarily correct. Surprising enough that isn't the purpose of a peer  review. Not even on sites such as arxiv. You can read their peer review disclosure to understand what I mean by that.

Needless to say there isn't sufficient work nor evidence within the paper to sway mainstream views on dark matter or resessive velocities in excess of c. It is well established that this is an apparent velocity not a true velocity.

One other side note different H values alter the age of the universe estimates. Did you calculate the age for 70 Km/s/Mpc or did you simply look up the age value because I don't believe 70 gives the age in your document.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Mordred

[Eise]

Mostly, I smell crackpotism from a rather big distance. Your article is no exception. Looking back at some discussions here on the forum I see that you miss even the most fundamental understanding of relativity. 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, captcass said:

Over the past several years I posted inquiries in this forum a few times as I developed my theory. 

!

Moderator Note

Which means that surely you recall rule 2.7, which says (in part) "members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links"

IOW the material needs to be posted here and discussion takes place here

 

[captcass]

On 7/30/2019 at 3:09 AM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Which means that surely you recall rule 2.7, which says (in part) "members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links"

IOW the material needs to be posted here and discussion takes place here

 

Yes, but pre-journal versions were allowed previously and I considered this merely a revision of that paper for the purposes here. I am not beginning a new discussion. I have refined things, with help from some here, until I came up with the final version.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 10:54 PM, Eise said:

Mostly, I smell crackpotism from a rather big distance. Your article is no exception. Looking back at some discussions here on the forum I see that you miss even the most fundamental understanding of relativity.  

Einstein's GR equations describe what we see from the point of view of the inertial frame in a spherical dilation gradient based upon the Lorentz transformations. It is not a full description of gravity. My paper shows what gravity actually is within the evolving spacetime (quantum) continuum. To quote Rudolph Schild of Harvard-Smithsonian, Editor-in-Chief of the journal,

"Your manuscript is basically a re-think and re-write of the application of the Einstein theory to our cosmological Universe. In traditional discussions of the same material, the literature is based upon a clear distinction of the experience of the local observer and a hypothetical distant observer, with the two related to one another by Lorentz transformations. Your treatment is basically the theory from the view-point of just the distant observer (though with exceptions).", and, "*We have 2 event horizons"  *This is profoundly correct."

It is, however, not the point of view from the "distant" observer, but the hypothetical "outside" observer, outside the continuum. We cannot actually see this point of view because the Lorentz transformations would then just ive us the GR perspective.

On 7/29/2019 at 10:53 PM, Mordred said:

 there isn't sufficient work nor evidence within the paper to sway mainstream views on dark matter or resessive velocities in excess of c.

 

 

The reviewers disagree. A Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist and UCSD professor of Cosmology disagree.  I ask anyone here to show how, in any aspect, it is specifically incorrect or how it violates any known laws or principles.

It is merely looking at effects in time, instead of space.....

Edited August 2, 2019 by captcass
addition

[Mordred]

The reviews may disagree however I disagree with the reviewers. Which is within my purview. I have after all studied diligently cosmology and high energy particle physics for over 30 years...and if you recall in your Hubble illusion thread I constantly pointed out factors and observational evidence beyond redshift data.

For example observational evidence of the 21 cm line for hydrogen when measuring stellar object composition

The process involved in nucleosynthesis with regards to the required temperature for dissociation of hydrogen atoms which coincide with the scale factor inverse temperature relations at z =1100 which correlates to roughly 3000 k.

Ie surface of last scattering of the CMB.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

I would just add that I submitted the paper in late April of 2018, so it was not published without due consideration on July 29, 2019

[Mordred]

That's fine but as I mentioned that doesn't mean the paper is correct. I could provide examples of numerous papers peer reviewed on arxiv that were later competed against with other pieces of evidence.

 In my opinion accounting for some of the issues would have made your paper more robust but be that as it may you didn't consider that in that paper.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

You are still looking for "Dark" energy and "Dark" matter which means you really have no idea of what is going on. You explain nothing. You worship at the alter of an incomplete GR that creates Big Crunches, Singularities and Big Bangs. Even Einstein knew it was incomplete. He was looking for the balancing constant. He abandoned it due to Hubble's shift and spent the rest of his career futilely looking for the unified field, which he would have had if he had just properly interpreted Hubble's observations, instead of accepting the acceleration explanation, which I have done. EVERYONE knows it is incomplete!

You are just looking for impossible answers for totally illogical concepts in an obviously logical universe, like the singularity, Big Bang and eternally accelerating expansion of the universe. These are illogical, idiotic concepts.

Again, I challenge everyone here to specifically, demonstrably, show how my theory violates any law or principle.

[Mordred]

I already have other pieces of observational evidence. Mainly thermodynamics in an expanding volume. This holds true even without DE or DM. You for one have never shown a solution to Kepler curve in galaxy rotations. Your paper has no analysis of galaxy rotation rates which is a major piece of evidence for DM.

 Kepler curve is unavoidable if the mass is centralized such as the visible baryonic matter of spiral galaxies. To avoid the Kepler curve one must employ the NFW profile of DM enveloping the galaxy in a uniform distribution.

I seriously hope your not foolish enough to think the simple examination of your paper is enough to overturn LCDM. There is literally thousands of professional cosmologists that have been involved in trying to counter DE and DM to no avail. Believe me their papers were far more detailed in their examination to gain far greater credence. Only to be overruled  by evidence and cross examination.

Here is the gist you posted your paper here to be examined. Well I examined it and found it lacking on detail to overturn LCDM and I am pointing out my reasons. So lump it I once told you I am a tough critic.

Now as its good policy here is how the 21 cm Hydrogen line correlates to temperature variations due to expansion beyond the Hubble horizon to the CMB. Further details can be found in any studies of the Lyman alpha forest studies on CMB data but it's not restricted to the CMB studies as this paper describes other redshift zones.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6012&ved=2ahUKEwjgnKyyquPjAhUEvZ4KHchCBMUQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0AJvJR_HUOrOlf87U-1CPv

Arxiv paper working on phone. I did warn you in your Hubble illusion thread of the significance of temperature studies in an expanding volume.

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

The primary problem is that astrophysicists "see" a "space" that is really only perceptions evolving within the evolving spacetime (quantum) continuum; an energy field with no actual depth, only effects in time based upon a constant c and the EP. This is quantum physics. I tie the two together.

Also, your "particles" do not exist unless observed, they are only waveform possibilities and probabilities without observation. They are all based on two primary complimentary spin events, the electron and up quark. this is something I hope to elucidate in the near future.

I would also venture that the CMB is not the result of the scattering, but the evidence of time (and, therefore, energy and mass) fluctuations in the eternally evolving spacetime continuum. 

Your Kepler curve stuff is just wrong, as it is based on the incomplete understanding of GR, which is why you folks are all looking for DM/DE.

There are other explanations for all your "foundation" points. You truly understand nothing, which is why you keep looking to explain it through DM/DE......You are only "hoping" you understand something you are not understanding because NO ONE has a clue......

As soon as you say, "DM/DE", you are telling me you have absolutely NO IDEA of what is going on and what we are seeing. You are just saying those things HAVE to exist because Einstein's incomplete GR equations predict it.......

WHERE  IS YOUR LOGIC AND PROOF other than that? I'll tell you. NOWHERE as there is no logic or proof other than your reliance on an incomplete understanding of the continuum based upon a flawed and incomplete GR.

How do I selectively quote excerpts from a post? It keeps quoting the whole post.....

As you sit in your chair reading this, you are evolving forward. In which direction or you evolving, X,Y, or Z? None of the above. You are evolving forward in the forward direction of time. Spatial events are evolving forward as a whole. SPACE, and the events therein, are BEING evolved forward by a force. The force of the passage of time.  

It is an energy field. The quantum field. The EP applies, though we can't "see" it that way because of what Einstein explains in GR. But what he describes is just what we are seeing from the inertial point of view. What is ACTUALLY happening is the point of view of the outside observer where the EP applies, something we can not actually visualaize due to GR.

Actually, my paper explains galactic rotation rates simply through my quantum field, rate of time, point of view. In the intergalactic field outside the spherical dilation pits, it is all based on relative rates of time rather than the Lorentz transformations.

By the way.....Hi, Mordred! I have remembered you fondly these past....years?......

A true gentlemen debating, (and enlightening), honestly.....

Edited August 2, 2019 by captcass
spelling

[Mordred]

You believe in what you wrote but unfortunately your examination simply isn't sufficient.

Tell you what present your graph showing a spiral galaxy rotation with the applicable formula. That is not contained in your article. Do an accounting of the mass distribution galaxies are also examined by spectrography.

The applicable formula is the mass luminosity relations in mainstream.

Then we will generate a Kepler curve with a baryonic mass  distribution

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

If an acceleration THROUGH space is necessary to feel gravity, it is reasonable to assume it takes an acceleration IN time to experience the passage of time. That acceleration in the proper (thanks, Mordred)) rate of time manifests the Hubble shift. If we did not experience that acceleration, time would not appear to pass....we would be dead....

Quantum physics says it is all based on the waveforms I mentioned above: the probablility of how events will evolve forward in the continuum. It has NOTHING to do with the physical aspect of physics. There is nothing "physical" about it. It is also NOT "spatial". It is an evolving energy field: evolving light..... that presents a spatial experience because time is added as a dimension which all axes of space evolve forward in.

Again, you consist of evolving events within space over time. In which direction are you evolving?

[Mordred]

you never did answer one earlier question what in the world are you doing with your fundamental metric you are not following any of the rules of a matrix, dyad or tensor. Even if they appear to be orthogonal tensors.

2 minutes ago, captcass said:

If an acceleration THROUGH space is necessary to feel gravity, it is reasonable to assume it takes an acceleration IN time to experience the passage of time. That acceleration in the proper (thanks, Mordred)) rate of time manifests the Hubble shift. If we did not experience that acceleration, time would not appear to pass....we would be dead....

Quantum physics says it is all based on the waveforms I mentioned above: the probablility of how events will evolve forward in the continuum. It has NOTHING to do with the physical aspect of physics. There is nothing "physical" about it. It is also NOT "spatial". It is an evolving energy field: evolving light..... that presents a spatial experience because time is added as a dimension which all axes of space evolve forward in.

Again, you consist of evolving events within space over time. In which direction are you evolving?

Galaxy rotation curves are based upon mass distributions. That is certainly a physical aspect.

Physical aspects is any measurable quantity under physics.

[captcass]

There is as yet insufficient data to provide the rotation velocity verification. All the data I could find is corrupted by assumptions of DM. There are graphs that show similar patterns from the center of a galaxy, rotational velocity vs ..... but I didn't include them as I didn't think a similar pattern was enough to establish a direct correlation and, honestly, right now I don't remember which graph...mass?....Sorry, it's late.....

 

[Mordred]

BS there is plenty of graphs available on Kepler curves with mass distributions. It was extremely examined for several decades. Start with Zwicky, it was his examination that first led to the missing mass problem.

If not pick up a copy of Elements of Astrophysics. All the relevant formulas are contained in that textbook.

[captcass]

"Physics" is only a general, usually "correct" for useful purposes, intrepretation of the evolution of spacetime events. You are trying to grasp the physical in a "space" that doesn't exist and the "physical", itself, does not exist; only evolving events.

Everything since the misinterpretation of Hubble's observations is tainted, and most likely wrong if it is only a theory related to assumptions based on that misinterpretation. Einstein GAVE UP! Get it? EINSTEIN GAVE UP! It no longer made any sense to him. Logic disappeared from his logical universe. 

[Mordred]

News flash science didn't stop with Einstein when he developed relativity he only knew about two particles of the atom.

The proton and electron. So arguing that simply because Einstein gave up something doesnt mean squat. They barely knew about other galaxies see the Great debate in 1912.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

21 minutes ago, Mordred said:

BS there is plenty of graphs available on Kepler curves with mass distributions. It was extremely examined for several decades. Start with Zwicky, it was his examination that first led to the missing mass problem.

If not pick up a copy of Elements of Astrophysics. All the relevant formulas are contained in that textbook.

The differences in velocities as observed and rates of time based on mass are extremely small and there are no mass distribution stats that are that well defined. All the ones I saw were also contaminated by DM assumptions. (Note: ASSUMPTIONS!) If so, I would have used them. Also, it is not a disk, but spiral arms, making it more complex. No person could do the math, only a computer with a great programmer and specific data. As above, they were not accurate enough to use, though the graphs have similar shape with distance from the center. Sorry, I can't be certain still what the other graph was. Rotation velocities is the one, the other is......???? It's been awhile....most likely mass I'd say off the top of my head.  I'll try to get it for you over the next few days when I get time...

[Mordred]

Really then how do you explain how they calculated Keplarian galaxy rotation curves in 1935 before the first computer was developed ?

[captcass]

Exactly, Einstein was a primitive by today's standards. He had to learn the "new math", calculus, to do his thing. If he didn't, someone else would have very quickly as the Lorentz transformations were well known and broadly accepted and just needed the math to describe them in apparent motion.

It is amazing how primitive the math was before calculus and how ignorant of the true nature of the continuum they all were in Einstein's time! (and, from my point of view, now) The damn fools thought Hubble was seeing a Doppler shift instead of experiencing an acceleration in proper time! And they thought it was all contained within "a" galaxy!

 

28 minutes ago, Mordred said:

News flash science didn't stop with Einstein when he developed relativity he only knew about two particles of the atom.

The proton and electron. So arguing that simply because Einstein gave up something doesnt mean squat. They barely knew about other galaxies see the Great debate in 1912.

The problem is that no one can explain the rotation velocities without an "unknown" DM. In other words, they have no idea what is going on because they are trying to apply GR whre it does not apply. Occam's razor applies. Good night!

[Mordred]

And yet you claimed to be able to account for rotation curves without having applicable data.

2 hours ago, captcass said:

 

Actually, my paper explains galactic rotation rates simply through my quantum field, rate of time, point of view. In the intergalactic field outside the spherical dilation

See this statement. Funny how you couldn't locate any data to prove the quoted claim...

 You still haven't answered my question on your fundamental metric. What kind of mathematical object is that your using as your not using any matrix, dyad or tensor rules in your paper.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, captcass said:

He had to learn the "new math", calculus, to do his thing

That is nonsense. He was a physicist and mathematician. (He did have to learn differential geometry, and worked with several friends and colleagues to do that. The fact he was able to master that difficult topic and use it so quickly is pretty remarkable.)

And calculus is not "new"; it has been around for over 300 years.

2 hours ago, captcass said:

Einstein GAVE UP! Get it? EINSTEIN GAVE UP!

Citation needed.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, captcass said:

Yes, but pre-journal versions were allowed previously and I considered this merely a revision of that paper for the purposes here. I am not beginning a new discussion. I have refined things, with help from some here, until I came up with the final version.

!

Moderator Note

Then I guess you don't recall the rule, because it has been our requirement that people post their material here rather than via links, for quite some time.

If this is a continuation of a previous discussion, then this should be happening in that same thread. (And if that thread was closed, then this shouldn't be taking place at all)

 

 

6 hours ago, captcass said:

The reviewers disagree. A Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist and UCSD professor of Cosmology disagree.  I ask anyone here to show how, in any aspect, it is specifically incorrect or how it violates any known laws or principles.

Mordred said "sway mainstream views", and Schild holds some views that are decidedly not mainstream, so this does not follow.

Whether or not you are correct requires experimental confirmation, and that requires being able to test the ideas experimentally such that they are confirmed in such a way that excludes GR. Do you have any evidence or proposed experiment that fits that description?

 

4 hours ago, captcass said:

If an acceleration THROUGH space is necessary to feel gravity, it is reasonable to assume it takes an acceleration IN time to experience the passage of time.

Since acceleration is the second derivative of the spatial coordinate with respect to time, it is by definition associated with space. How does one accelerate through time? What does that even mean? In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force. Time is not.

[captcass]

It is not an acceleration through time. It is an acceleration in the rate of proper time.

Quantum physics has superceeded Newtonian physics which describes how mass and gravity appear to relate, but never actually describes what gravity is.

How do I quote specific lines from others here? I highlight a line and click quote but the whole post is copied, not just the line I want to quote......

There is no citation needed about Einstein giving up on his constant. It became impossible if Hubble's shift is a Doppler effect, which they all (and most still do) believed.

Again, no one KNOWS anything, hence DM and DE, "Dark" meaning "I don't know".