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

[Mordred]

We can only indirectly measure the aftereffects. The dark ages when photon mean path was less than [latex] 10^{32} [/latex] of a metre Hubble cannot see into the dark ages. No telescope today can. There is hope for the cosmic neutrino background or gravity wave astronomy. But you will never see inflation via EM signals.

Science has a rule all models that are feasible are viable until shown false or incorrect.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

39 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Hubble cannot see into the dark ages

Because time appears to stop......at ~13.9⁺ Gly, where Ho gives us an apparent recessional velocity of c, where time would appear to stop.

Edited August 9, 2019 by captcass

[Mordred]

What is scary is I started to examine the equations on the board.

4 minutes ago, captcass said:

Because time appears to stop......at ~13.9^{+ Gly}

dark ages is after that  

[captcass]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

dark ages is after that  

 

6 minutes ago, captcass said:

Because time appears to stop......at ~13.9⁺ Gly, where Ho gives us an apparent recessional velocity of c, where time would appear to stop.

Do you ever sleep, or take a walk?

Edited August 9, 2019 by captcass

[Mordred]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

See chronology of the universe it's after inflation 

It's early evening for me and even at work I can still post during my work breaks.

I'm currently reviewing a dissertation paper for the university in my area. Helping the instructor in Quantum geometrodynamics.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Mordred

[captcass]

16 minutes ago, Mordred said:

See chronology of the universe it's after inflation

You really think I haven't seen that?Are you going to get Degrasse in on this? He was the one, literally, who told me to go back to school so I could prove my theory when I asked him about it. So I studied QM and tensor calculus...

What was before the "beginning"? Sorry, the question and premise make absolutely no sense to me.

Sorry. Bed time for me. Seems I can't get you to see.......

At least not today.....

Edited August 9, 2019 by captcass

[Mordred]

When you stick to actual theory instead of your own I will. Night

[captcass]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

actual theory

Oh, sorry, I didn't know there were "actual" theories and "non-actual" theories. Who determines which is which?

21 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It's early evening for me

So Hawaii...? No wonder you outlast me. Just another darned westerner who wants to get the last word in.

23 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Helping the instructor in Quantum geometrodynamics.

I have no doubts about what you know. I don't even know where you are in that as it has nothing to do with what I am saying. That is what follows after there are dynamics due to effects in time.

 

[Mordred]

Well an actual theory involves the required mathematics that provides testability. Word play isn't a theory.

 It doesn't matter if the theory is correct to count as a theory but it must contain the relevant formulas. Thus far this thread you haven't provided  any. So you have at best a hypothesis not a model or theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

In physics testability requires math to make predictions for testing. Ie a formula 

[captcass]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well an actual theory involves the required mathematics that provides testability.

My Hubble shift derivation is testable. Simple math ....

The effects of the addition of the acceleration to Einstein's time elements is testable.

Once accurate enough, non-DM, mass concentrations are available, the rotation velocities will also be testable, which DM is not, nor ever will be as long as it is DARK and just formulas.

Night.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by captcass

[Mordred]

Oh and where is that math your article didn't contain the derivatives.

Your not tensors don't follow any rules simply describing a galaxy in x,y,z,t coordinates and dropping the y coordinate for some hypothetical flat galaxy doesn't make sense.

[captcass]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

doesn't make sense

to you, in your model.....

[Mordred]

Prove me wrong then show how you get the galaxy rotation curves from that.

How thick is the Centre of the Milky way that it doesn't have a y coordinate? 

Let's for brevity that the Milky way is a symmetric spiral galaxy. (It isn't it's axisymmetric but you don't want to see the formula for that without DM)

For symmetric

[latex]v_{circ}=\sqrt{\frac{GM (R)}{R}}[/latex] Where M (R) is the enclosed mass.

Above is no bulge no dark matter.

Gee wiz did I need GR for this ?

So tell me how did you use your basis of fundamental  metric NOT tensors for this ?????

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Mordred

[swansont]

15 hours ago, captcass said:

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

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

GR is GR

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

15 hours 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.

Citation needed. 

CERN hasn't found anything new is not the proper critique, since they've already found everything that's in the standard model. The Higgs was the last piece that was missing. The SM works pretty well, in fact, as far as it goes. We know it's incomplete, and that's the shortcoming of the SM. But AFAIK there is no push to drop the SM. Rather, there is investigation into what is there beyond the standard model.

 

15 hours ago, captcass said:

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.

Again, citation needed.

 

15 hours ago, captcass said:

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

"Particles" don't exist — when using other theories. They do exist when using a particle theory. 

 

7 hours ago, captcass said:

My Hubble shift derivation is testable. Simple math ....

Have you posted it here?

[captcass]

8 hours ago, Mordred said:

How thick is the Centre of the Milky way that it doesn't have a y coordinate

Sorry, I don't eliminate the coordinate. I just got up, so I will have to get back to this later.....

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Have you posted it here?

I think I actually did in an earlier thread. But it is in the paper for all to read. I can cut and paste it here if someone wants.

Like I said I just woke up.....

As an aside, I have been made privy to the final referee report and acceptance letter of the next paper being published in the journal.

I am copying this line here due to the earlier comments about the so-called "predatory" nature of the journal. In the letter, Schild notes,

"I am also aware that financial conditions in Peru are difficult, and Journal of Cosmology will waive payment of all fees for manuscript processing and page charges in this case."

 

 

[Mordred]

Then you might consider explaining your application better with your not tensor. 

Should we be concerned about your report ? Considering sites far more common also question the site such a wiki itself ?

We simply asked questions about their process that in and of itself isn't predatory.

 

Can you back up your claim of doing a galaxy rotation curve or not ? That question has nothing to do with that site.

[captcass]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

e simply asked questions about their process that in and of itself isn't predatory.

You seem to misunderstand so much of what I say.  Someone made a remark about "pay to publish". I am providing evidence to the contrary.

I have no problem with people questioning and am NOT saying that is predatory.

 

[Mordred]

That's fine and no one has questioned that aspect since you replied. So what is the issue ?

[captcass]

5 minutes ago, captcass said:

Someone made a remark about "pay to publish". I am providing evidence to the contrary.

That's all

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, captcass said:

That's all

WOW, 9 nine pages, for that???

Let me guess: 

"pay to publish" = I'm right...

"get to publish" = I'm happy...

"Get paid to publish" = WTF, who said I'm happy...

[captcass]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"pay to publish" = I'm right...

"get to publish" = I'm happy...

"Get paid to publish" = WTF, who said I'm happy...

See? I guess that is the issue.......

He even seems to be saying my "that's all" means I'm done discussing this.

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?"

 

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by captcass

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, captcass said:

See? I guess that is the issue...

Indeed it is: 

Did I get paid...

Did you get paid...

Did we get paid...

Why do I care...

[captcass]

I repeat:

I am copying this line here due to the earlier comments about the so-called "predatory" nature of the journal. In the letter, Schild notes,

"I am also aware that financial conditions in Peru are difficult, and Journal of Cosmology will waive payment of all fees for manuscript processing and page charges in this case."

[swansont]

3 hours ago, captcass said:

 I think I actually did in an earlier thread. But it is in the paper for all to read. I can cut and paste it here if someone wants.

This was requested of you way back on page 1 of the thread. Post the material here.

Quote

Like I said I just woke up.....

As an aside, I have been made privy to the final referee report and acceptance letter of the next paper being published in the journal.

I am copying this line here due to the earlier comments about the so-called "predatory" nature of the journal. In the letter, Schild notes,

"I am also aware that financial conditions in Peru are difficult, and Journal of Cosmology will waive payment of all fees for manuscript processing and page charges in this case."

According to your earlier post, there are no such charges. Just a reviewer fee. How much are the usual manuscript processing fees and page charges?

Why do they think you are in Peru? Your website says you’re in California.

[captcass]

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

How much are the usual manuscript processing fees and page charges?

$32 reviewer's fee, $125 posting fee.

 

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why do they think you are in Peru? Your website says you’re in California

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

I was not charged the posting fee.

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

This was requested of you way back on page 1 of the thread

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

This indicates that the forward evolution of time includes a universal constant of acceleration.

Because we are always being accelerated forward in the rate of time, and therefore apparently space, events in the past must appear to accelerate away from us in the opposite direction.

Please also note that the solution works for a difference in the rates of time of exactly 1 s/s. Does any other theory you know of account for a 1 s/s difference in the rates of time between us and 13.9 Gly?

This also creates the impression we are at the center of the universe and leading it in its evolution. Older, slower, frames fade from view at the horizon, as we evolve forward towards the slower time of the black hole (MECO) at the center of the Milky Way: an eternally evolving continuum.