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

[captcass]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

align with the finding of the editor-in-chief of the journal

In my universe, along my worldline, synchronicities like this occur all the time. You don't see it, but when we take a step, the next step appears. It happens whether you are aware of it or not. It is just how your universe is being evolved along your worldline.

Come to think of it, when you actually take a step, the next step appears...

I own a museum and sometimes engage people on this. I emailed my children last night about one such:

"Had a mother and 2 daughters come in yesterday. She bought quite a lot and we got talking and I told them of spacetime, the origins, etc.

Even the 11 year-old was enthralled. I’d guess her sister was about 14, and she, too, was “hearing” me.

There was also a man who I thought was with them, but he was by himself, and he was enthralled.

 

I told them my quantum tales about the little girl and the reds, the guy (with the red and purple) and the red marble.

 

They were deeply moved.

 

When the family left, the guy told me I had answered what he came here looking for. He was on a spiritual quest. He said what I told him about us being just different points of view for the one it was exactly what he got from the book that sort of set him off on his quest, getting into entangled particles, etc....The book was something souls or souls something.....I’ve heard of it before but haven’t read it. He was REALLY moved.....

 

Then today when I got back from lunch the mom and girls were waiting for me on the front deck. They wanted to tell me that the younger one had did what I said and asked, and then looked for, red, and she found a nice ruby red. She also remembered to thank....

 

So I was deeply moved!

In one telling I got 3 asking and answered one seeking......

 

So I told the little girl she now had her own “quantum tale”......

 

What moved me the most was that I could tell them about the science and they all understood it, even the kids, and they all believed it because I have the quantum tales to tell. "....

 

I am pretty sure I told one or two of the mentioned quantum tales in another thread......

 

I didn't originally submit to the Journal of Cosmology. In April of last year I submitted to another journal....sorry, senior moment......

Darn. Anyway, an editor there forwarded it the Executive Editor at the JofC who then contacted me.

 

If you want to start a bakery, learn to bake and the next step will appear. You will meet the people you need to meet to help you on your way.

 

My museum has a marble collection. I certainly couldn't identify them, all, but then THE "Marble Guy" came in.

I also have teeth, which only real experts can identify, and a guy whose career is the dentition of west coast critters came in.

I needed to identify some old pottery shards and an archeologist who had researched them came in....

 

Sorry if none of you see that. It doesn't matter, really. The one is, after all, losing itself here. But if you know it, then you can ask for, and get, your red piece of glass.....as the continuum evolves forward.....

 

 

 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, captcass said:

What moved me the most was that I could tell them about the science and they all understood it, even the kids, and they all believed it because I have the quantum tales to tell. "....

So , a load of people are going around with Bad Science they picked up. Oh well. 

[captcass]

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you didn't know what a MECO was, how can you say that a prediction of yours had been confirmed?

I predicted that a black hole was empty space, and that is what Schild found.

26 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Is there anything wrong with asking questions about a peer review process of a site ?

I think the question could have been asked better.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

So load of people going around with Bad Science they picked up

Actually, yes. Been on the wrong path since everyone misinterpreted Hubble's shift.

That is why we have so many DARK things, yes?

 

[beecee]

On 8/3/2019 at 12:40 PM, captcass said:

You are simply not hearing me. Other Bangers can see I have a point of view that cannot be demonstrably faulted, something you have yet to even try to do, which is why I was published by Bangers. You want to attack ME. You say there are insuffisencies that do not satisfy you yet, and accuse me of despicable intent and behavior, when, after over a year of review, the journal accepted it. Perhaps you just need some time, too.

Get nice or get lost. It is I enlightening YOU!

 

I certainly do not want to butt in on the excellent review that Mordred has done [and of course I am not qualified to do so] but the facts are that we have many alternatives of gravity that have all been published, and most will simply fade into oblivion and eventually lost in cyber space. The issue in my mind that says a lot about your attitude, is that usual silly claim that many half arsed alternative theorists like putting....that mainstream is too recalcitrant in its approach to other hypotheticals for the many fabricated reasons you have given.  The real facts are that most mainstream theories were all at one time outside looking in, and needed to "run the gauntlet" so to speak, to gain acceptance, based of course on the supporting evidence. The other point is that GR is being tested everyday and has passed those tests with flying colours, and many  many young  physicists would early love to actually invalidate GR and get a Nobel. 

Them are the facts.

[captcass]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

GR is being tested everyday and has passed those tests with flying colours

Sorry, BeeCee. It doesn't work for galaxies without DM, which means it doesn't work for galaxies....It works perfectly well in other applications..and it doesn't need DM there.

No one here has yet pointed out a demonstrable, repeat, demonstrable, flaw in my model.

And yes, I do expect a gauntlet. It is extremely difficult to get people to change course and it is a juggernaut.....over 100 years of misdirection....

[beecee]

30 minutes ago, captcass said:

Sorry, BeeCee. It doesn't work for galaxies without DM, which means it doesn't work for galaxies....It works perfectly well in other applications..and it doesn't need DM there.

GR works perfectly well with DM and DE as far as I am aware. It also predicted BHs which was a small part of the apparent missing matter. Plus of course Einstein's CC could be DE. The evidence for both at this time is substantial.

Quote

 

No one here has yet pointed out a demonstrable, repeat, demonstrable, flaw in my model.

 

Mordred appears to have done an excellent job in actual fact.

Quote

And yes, I do expect a gauntlet. It is extremely difficult to get people to change course and it is a juggernaut.....over 100 years of misdirection....

And that is just as it should be. Again there are many alternative hypotheticals with regards to gravity....vector gravity is another, whose initiators hold just as much faith in as yours, and also continually claim that no one has ever found a flaw in their preferred model.

 

[captcass]

35 minutes ago, beecee said:

perfectly well with DM and DE

With, "I don't know"......

GR does not equal (GR + DM) or (GR + DE)

GR is GR

[Strange]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

Sorry, BeeCee. It doesn't work for galaxies without DM

It does. There are galaxies without DM (for a variety of reasons) and they behave as expected. Those galaxies with DM also behave as expected.

4 minutes ago, captcass said:

GR does not equal (GR + DM) or (GR + DE)

That doesn't make much sense. 

But, GR works perfectly well with the addition of extra matter (the fact we can't see that matter is hardly relevant). GR works well with a positive value for lambda (it has had a variety of values over the years, it may change again in future).

Also, understanding the rotation curves of galaxies don't require GR. Newtonian gravity will do.

[captcass]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

There are galaxies without DM (for a variety of reasons)

Sorry. Now it not even a constant. They are simply adding formulas to make their conception of GR work if the galaxy is out of tilt, so to speak.....

As I child we called that a fudge factor.

If you can't see it or measure it and cannot say what it is, what is it? DARK.

Dark Chocolate Fudge....

 

[Mordred]

For starters GR doesn't dictate any SM particle. GRs only purpose is to correlate the mass terms to a 4D geometry. It doesn't matter what the particle is as long as you can correlate its energy and mass term it will work with it.

The fact we have DM has nothing to do with GR. That's a particle physics issue. DE has a unique enough characteristics that it only made sense to include it seperately to the field equations.

Also for the third time now galaxy rotation curves does not directly apply GR. 

Newtonian laws are sufficient for galaxy rotation curves. The Virial theorem is essentially Newtonian and Kepler laws with shell theorem.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

For starters GR doesn't dictate any SM particle.

First, great toon, Strange...

Second, the SM doesn't work and is falling out of favor since CERN hasn't found anything new in so long.

Even the "Higgs" isn't really the Higgs. They expected either/or 15 or 35 and got 26. The particle they found fit neither theory.

The SM is a "particle" theory and we know particles do not exist. "Events" exist.

We now have two models in apparent conflict: Astrophysical movement thru space and quantum evolution in a field.

If the apparent astrophysical evolution (movement thru space) is actually just how the evolution of events within the field presents itself.........?

 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, captcass said:

Second, the SM doesn't work and is falling out of favor since CERN hasn't found anything new in so long.

That is the exact opposite of the situation. The "problem" is that CERN has not found anything new or unexpected; all it has done is repeatedly confirm the standard model. Boring, but there you go.

 

[Mordred]

Actually some of the things CERN finds simply isn't news worthy.

How newsworthy is diquarks.? 

[beecee]

29 minutes ago, captcass said:

As I child we called that a fudge factor.

If you can't see it or measure it and cannot say what it is, what is it? DARK.

Well gee whiz, someone of your apparent caliber, I thought would have known that. We have plenty of evidence for both DM and DE, but as yet we simply do not know exactly what they are. I understand one sees the need to argue and support their very own alternative hypothetical, and as I have already informed you, there are literally thousands of scientific papers based on nothing more then hypotheticals, just as we have many many papers on alternative models of gravity, some will never see the light of day, others are bound to fade into obscurity. 

 

[Mordred]

13 minutes ago, captcass said:

First, great toon, Strange...

Second, the SM doesn't work and is falling out of favor since CERN hasn't found anything new in so long.

Even the "Higgs" isn't really the Higgs. They expected either/or 15 or 35 and got 26. The particle they found fit neither theory.

Where did you get this idea from because it's completely wrong. None of those values is the correct mass of the Higgs.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Mordred

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is the exact opposite of the situation. The "problem" is that CERN has not found anything new or unexpected; all it has done is repeatedly confirm the standard model. Boring, but there you go.

 

Just as GR is continually confirmed every day.

15 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Actually some of the things CERN finds simply isn't news worthy.

How newsworthy is diquarks.? 

I could ask what are diquarks, but I'll google instead.  Otherwise we'll be entering the off topic domain!

[Mordred]

Google pentaquarks while your at it. Point being the SM model discovers new particles all the time they just aren't newsworthy. They are usually previously predicted.

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Google pentaquarks while your at it. Point being the SM model discovers new particles all the time they just aren't newsworthy. They are usually previously predicted.

Agreed, its a shame people get so blase about science and scientific endeavours so much and so quickly. Reminds me of the Moon landings...Apollo 11 big big news!!!! Apollo 12...yeah, so here we go again. It took a near disaster in Apollo 13 to revive interest!

[Mordred]

If you ever look through particle data group you will literally finds 100's of particles. So many they they separate then into two groups. Physical and Resonant. The latter being in italic. The physical being the SM particle group. The reason for the separation is rather technical in their reasoning but correlate to the 18 parameters for the SM model on terms of symmetry group relations.

(Resonant particles are extremely short lived)

Edited August 8, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

How "thick" is space?

[Mordred]

Space is just volume it may be filled with the SM particles but space even under GR still refers to a volume.

Spacetime is any metric system that has time as a coordinate dimension along with the three  spatial dimensions.

The mean average energy density is [latex]7*10^{-10} joules/metre^3 [/latex] roughly 5 protons worth of mass per cubic metre.

For the record you don't require DE to have an expanding universe. DE only accounts for the acceleration  term of the scale factor. The Hubble parameter is decelerating.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

How "thick" is spacetime, since space does not exist by itself.....but is one aspect of spacetime?

[Mordred]

The question doesn't make any sense spacetime isn't a fabric. You know the radius of the observable universe. You also know the universe can be finite or infinite.

Thickness doesn't apply. 

[captcass]

How thick is the evolving quantum continuum?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

How "thick" is space?

 

2 minutes ago, captcass said:

How thick is the evolving quantum continuum?

That makes about as much sense as asking how dense is a BH!