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

[Mordred]

The worldline only exists between emitter and observer. If either one undergoes an acceleration the worldline changes. There is no worldline of the universe.

That's another point your article makes no sense. Every location has a different potential. Your application of some arbitrary fundamental time reference is simply wrong.

Edited August 11, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

There is no worldline of the universe.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. Each frame of reference has a worldline. I have one. The Earth has one, the solar system has one, the local group has one, the Virgo cluster has one. Just because we describe it from the "inertial frame's" point of view, is no reason we can't apply that to a cluster of events evolving forward together, i.e. a common point of view. The "system" becomes the inertial frame because all events in the system evolve forward together.....

[Mordred]

You can disagree all you want every GR textbook will tell you different.

Acceleration causes a rotation translation of the metric. The process is termed rapidity which follows a hyperbolic rotation of ratio  [latex]c^4/g^2 [/latex]

Edited August 11, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

28 minutes ago, Mordred said:

every GR textbook will tell you differen

GR has been incomplete.

I see the movement of the local cluster as the forward evolution of the local cluster. You do not.....

All motion is an evolution over time. Even if you view it as separate particles....Thing is, we know it isn't particles, just evolving waveform possibilities.

Motion is forward evolution. I don't think you can argue with that.

I am saying the Earth doesn't just appear to revolve around the sun, it appears to evolve around the sun from a different perspective...

The quantum continuum perspective....

These 2 perspectives are the same in a spherical dilation pit, which is why GR works there.

And not some other wheres....

Edited August 11, 2019 by captcass

[Mordred]

So you keep claiming like a broken record. Yet your arguments has little to do with GR. Just your misunderstandings of GR.

 

[captcass]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yet your arguments has little to do with GR

You keep on like GR is the absolute end all. It works sometimes and not others due to differences in perspectives.

You can't visualize the other perspective, yet. This is why you need DM and DE.

I am not really talking about effects in GR. I am talking about the bigger picture where GR isn't working.

[Mordred]

I don't need DM and DE for GR. When are you going to get that ? GR is one of the most accurate theories going. Your model hasn't got that track record.  You have this habit. You deny any physics that argues against pet model. Your continous denials of other evidence etc etc has gotten boring.

Edited August 11, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

35 minutes ago, Mordred said:

has gotten boring.

Sorry, Mordred. This is why I was going to stop the conversation for now, but figured I'd give it a last shot.

I'm frustrated, too, so lets give it a break.

I hope you can come to see the quantum continuum and evoltuion of events. You are stuck in GR and I am talking about where GR doesn't work. You want to MAKE GR work, when I know you can't.

Let's give it a break for now...

You are talking about what we should expect to see as per an incomplete GR. I am talking about what we actually see.

Edited August 11, 2019 by captcass

[Mordred]

35 years of studying and applying GR. GR has a track record that has survived a century of experts trying to overturn it or prove it wrong. None has succeeded. It's so trusted now every modern physics theory employs it. QFT, String theory etc etc. 

 So I have good reason to trust it. 

[captcass]

Except it doesn't work on large scales, hence DM and DE.

Let's just give it a break for awhile...

Did Einstein's solution for Mercury's orbit prove space evolves forward?

Edited August 11, 2019 by captcass

[Mordred]

It's not the purpose of GR to predict particles. I told you that before. DM is particle physics and likely it's also DE. Different theories when are you going to get it right ?

There isn't a single equation in GR that predicts any particles.

That is Not it's function....

Edited August 11, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

There isn't a single equation in GR that predicts any particles.

OK. That's all for now for me. I didn't say anything about that...

No idea what you are talking about. Later, folks, when I can hopefully move this along.

Like you said, Mordred, it has gotten boring....

Edited August 11, 2019 by captcass

[Mordred]

23 minutes ago, captcass said:

Except it doesn't work on large scales, hence DM and DE.

Enough said.

[captcass]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Enough said.

Maybe when the new scope goes up we can continue this....

Thank you all for the discussion and debate....

 

[captcass]

Not to restart the conversation, but just thought I'd share the thought I just had....

Cosmologically, the oldest events we see, are the youngest events we see. I see that as elegant....

 

[Ghideon]

36 minutes ago, captcass said:

Cosmologically, the oldest events we see, are the youngest events we see. I see that as elegant....

Neat!
Just as a photo; the oldest photo of a person shows the events when that person was youngest.

[Phi for All]

On 8/10/2019 at 9:36 PM, captcass said:

Maybe when the new scope goes up we can continue this....

Thank you all for the discussion and debate....

!

Moderator Note

Thread closed.