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

[swansont]

4 hours ago, captcass said:

Reminds me of Eddie Murphy in the movie "Rush Hour", where he asks the guy "Can you understand the words coming out of my mouth?"

Chris Tucker?

[captcass]

Continuing from above, we find that:2.3349*10^-4 s/s/Mpc = 7.1592*10^-11 s/s/ly = 2.2686*10^-18 s/s acceleration within our inertial frames.

Sorry, I didn't copy this line, so here it is....

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Chris Tucker?

I stand corrected.....

[swansont]

 

1 hour ago, captcass said:

Again, why does no one seem to understand my words? The author of the paper that was reviewed and accepted lives in Peru.

It was not clear that you were talking about someone else.

1 hour ago, captcass said:

I was not charged the posting fee.

But it’s a typical charge.

 

[captcass]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

But it’s a typical charge.

Yes. It is listed on the site. It is THE charge.

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, captcass said:

 

Assuming a Hubble constant of 70 km/s/Mpc, we find the apparent recessional velocity reaches c at 4282.7494 Mpc = 13.968062372 Gly.

For a 1s/s dRt at this distance the rate of change is:
1/13968062372 = 7.1592*10^-11 s/s/ly = 2.3349516024*10^-4 s/s/Mpc.

So for each Mpc the dRt = 2.3349516024*10^-4 s/s and:
c*(1 + dRt) = (299792.458) km/s * ((1+(2.3349516024*10^-4)) s = 299862.458 km and:
299862.458 - 299792.458 = 70 km/s/Mpc = the Hubble constant

.

So your formulas cannot handle any redshift beyond Hubble horizon. You set the boundary at the Hubble horizon ignoring any expansion term even though you do not require DE to have expansion thus ignoring all thermodynamic temperature variations which matches the ideal gas laws and instead have the equivalent to a steady state universe which you give an age value to. Your first equation is based on the distance light travels multiplied the age of the universe. No expansion term.

In essence your stating redshift is an illusion of false data. Yet you aren't showing how you can account up to redshift 1100... 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So your formulas cannot handle any redshift beyond Hubble horizon

There is no need to. It is an event horizon. Time appears to stop and everything beyond that is beyond the limit of relativity.

Head towards it and it recedes and older frames come into view...

24 minutes ago, Mordred said:

In essence your stating redshift is an illusion of false data

No I am saying red shift has been misinterpreted.....

If we are on page 10 and you haven't realized this yet, we have a problem.

Just like above where you finally admit their are no null fields, after you poo-pooed it early on.

Sooooo

I feel I am going around in circles here...

Is anyone interested in me continuing here? If not, I think I'll move on.....

[Mordred]

The circles is due to you not making sense. The redshift value that has been measured at the various telescopes has a detection range up to z=1100 

How does your equations account for that when the Hubble horizon is roughly redshift 5 ?

You have to account for why the telescopes measure those far higher redshifts the non linear portion of the redshift curve. Simply stating there is no need to because it competes with your model is not sufficient.

Of course Heading toward any horizon and it will recede. The Hubble horizon isn't the only horizon. There is also the particle horizon and the cosmological horizon.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

18 minutes ago, Mordred said:

How does your equations account for that

What do you see when time appears to stop? A moment frozen in time. There is no further activity of any kind.

We also would see this if an object appears to recede at c. Time appears to stop.

What is beyond that is beyond our limit of relativity, i.e., it no longer affects us in any way, it is spacelike.

The event horizon itself is lightlike.

Inside that is timelike.

Please stop trying to apply your model to this. I am not using your model so it is making no sense to you that way. You have to think within my model.

 

[Mordred]

Do you honestly believe that last word play means anything any idiot can declare what he believes.

Show the math on his you account for redshift 1100. Which observational data has measured.

I know all about how light ones function. Go ahead use your Lorentz transforms of course your going to obviously state it's c at the Hubble horizon but that still doesn't account for the higher redshift data.

It's fairly typical that you arbitrarily ignore other observational data when it counters your pet theory. It's a very common tactic but one that doesn't work. 

Good example is the number of times you state my model and please stop mentioning the current theories. As it's not your model. A good example was your response to the metalicity data at different redshift in terms of the element percentages present at those redshifts. Aka that Lyman alpha Forest paper I posted earlier.

In laymen terms the types of stars don't match.

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

40 minutes ago, Mordred said:

you account for redshift 1100. Which observational data has measured.

What data? Gn z-11 is the farthest observed galaxy with a z of 11 and an apparent recessional velocity of .98c. It is at 13.8 Gly. If I am correct and it is a dilation effect, then the universe is static and all the other computations describing what is happening that are based on expansion are just wrong.

We'll see what we see when they get the new scope up.....I am expecting not the relativisticly minuscule points one would see at c, but objects frozen in time.

It is not possible to see anything past the cosmological horizon and no object with a z higher than 11 has been detected.

[Mordred]

Uh huh and what Z is Hubble horizon ?

[captcass]

55 minutes ago, Mordred said:

the types of stars don't match

As observed and considered with no dilation considered. Again, if I am correct, anything computed that took expansion into effect will be flawed.

I admit, as I have in other threads, that it is also possible there was a creation event, but that would require a null field to precede it. If so, then the field would have been energized everywhere at once, so there is no need of Guth's inflation.

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Uh huh and what Z is Hubble horizon ?

Sorry, I don't see your point?

[Mordred]

My point is the Hubble horizon would have a lower redshift than z= 11.1 if you had an object there to measure it.

[captcass]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

My point is the Hubble horizon would have a lower redshift than z= 11.1

lol. The "Hubble horizon" is based upon an age of the universe. Light would travel so far in so long.

If Ho is 70, the actual cosmological horizon is at ~13.9⁺ Gly, which I expect to see when they get the new scope up.....

I'd say that will be a good test of my theory. We won't see the "wall", we will see galaxies frozen in time instead.

[Mordred]

If you ignore expansion altogether that's  been my point you refuse to accept expansion on any terms. Even though expansion doesn't require DE.

The thermodynamic data you chose to ignore. The changes in metalicity you ignore the Lyman alpha forest you ignore. The CMB data you ignore. You ignore baryogenesis you ignore anything that relates  to expansion.

With expansion the Hubble sphere  is roughly z= 2.1 well below z=11.1

The types of stars at z=2.1 is different than 11.1 but you will ignore that too.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

you refuse to accept expansion on any terms

Pulleeezzze, Mordred. I thought that was clear right from the git go. NO expansion! Instead, an eternally evolving spacetime (quantum) continuum in which observers perceive themselves to be evolving between 2 event horizons where time appears to stop. It was this cocnept of the 2 event horizons that really excited Schild when he first read the paper. He called it, "profoundly correct".

And I think you will find THAT model to be uniquely mine.

Edited August 9, 2019 by captcass

[Mordred]

Correct according to you no expansion according to mainstream physics and observational data define tell expansion that data is far far more than just redshift. 

[captcass]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

according to mainstream physics

Yeah, well, "mainstream" is out of kilter since misinterpreting the shift. I know you don't agree, but, well, I have others that do....

I wish you could visuallize it. It is truly elegant.....

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, captcass said:

Yeah, well, "mainstream" is out of kilter since misinterpreting the shift. I know you don't agree, but, well, I have others that do....

I wish you could visuallize it. It is truly elegant.....

Or perhaps you are simply fooling yourself? You know, every Mother, believes her baby to be the cutest.

And of course most theories accepted by mainstream, all at one time were simply hypothetical and speculative....It took weight of observational and experimental evidence to prompt mainstream into accepting such models.

[moth]

22 minutes ago, captcass said:

 I thought that was clear right from the git go. NO expansion! Instead, an eternally evolving spacetime (quantum) continuum in which observers perceive themselves to be evolving between 2 event horizons where time appears to stop.

Sounds like you've come to a conclusion and are trying to find evidence to defend it while ignoring any data that contradicts it. That's not science.

17 minutes ago, captcass said:

Yeah, well, "mainstream" is out of kilter since misinterpreting the shift.

Maybe try painting. 

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by moth
brain fart removed

[captcass]

9 minutes ago, moth said:

are trying to find evidence

I was trying to find evidence for ANYTHING other that a ridiculous singularity and an infinitely accelerating expansion.

Took me a looonnnnggg time, but I found it.

[Mordred]

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

You have already set your mind in stone.

I can literally swamp you with thousands of studies that show your wrong but you will ignore it all. So it's pointless. Oops quoted the wrong post.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Mordred

[moth]

But you seem to be unable to express it in a way that can be evaluated like the standard model.

There is no way to compare the results of your ideas with observation.

 

[Mordred]

9 minutes ago, captcass said:

I was trying to find evidence for ANYTHING other that a ridiculous singularity and an infinitely accelerating expansion.

Took me a looonnnnggg time, but I found it.

You found evidence on your own imagination. Not in anything mainstream. Your evidence is your own not on observational data.

Ignoring other data that counters your idea is bad science 

Edited August 10, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Not in anything mainstream

Again, certainly not. Not when it is based on such idiotic premises....

How you logical folk can find anything logical in the premises is beyond me.

4 minutes ago, moth said:

There is no way to compare the results of your ideas with observation.

I am describing EXACTLY what i am looking at. You just can't see it, too.

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Your evidence is your own not on observational data.

Ditto above. I am describing EXACTLY what I am looking at.

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

your own imagination

Fortunately, I found reviewers who also have imagination...

I would also like to just note that the paper by the Peruvian I mentioned above was published today. It is "Antimatter Black Holes". I just mention this to show that they do publish papers that conflict with Schild's MECO. And they do it with generosity.

Flat Earth used to be "mainstream".