Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic illusion?

[Strange]

Again, until you can show in suitable mathematical detail that your idea produces the observed rotation curves in galaxies AND galaxy clusters then there is no point writing any more tl;dr screeds.

Note that matching the observed effects of "dark matter" in both galaxies and galaxy clusters has been one of the main problems for attempts to explain dark matter as modified gravity.

[captcass]

This is why so many are looking for the "new math" that will do this. First, however, we need a theoretical framework to start us in the correct direction, which is what I am trying to establish. I am still considering if GR's equations can be used. If so, it would be by applying the same time-time element, Einstein's G₄₄, to all of the stellar systems, adjusting each system's element for its relative mass and the complex interactions between the whole cloud of systems. Sorry, even a two or three body solution to Einstein's field equations is extremely complex. There are very few actual examples of solutions using them at all.

So - to be clear, I cannot carry this forward mathematically. It will take a supercomputer and data bases I have no access to. I am trying to establish a new theoretical approach that will allow us to see things anew. We need to switch from looking at events "in space" to events "in time". When we look at it from the time perspective we don't end up with all the unanswered questions. We have no dark matter or energy. All we have is simple relativity.

 

 

Off to work...

[Strange]

59 minutes ago, captcass said:

When we look at it from the time perspective we don't end up with all the unanswered questions. We have no dark matter or energy.

Until you have a model that matches observation, you have no basis for that claim.

[captcass]

I believe my model does match observations. I believe it is a viable theory that can be tested as I suggested as regards dark matter. I made some inquires to see if that data is available, but have had no replies.

The Hubble shift is self evident. Acceleration "through" space requires an acceleration in time to maintain C. All events are constantly accelerated in spacetime. All older frames are therefore slower in time. This slows the frequency, creating the red shift.

We see the same effects as at the event horizon of a black hole, where the difference in the rate of time approaches 1 s/s, hence, we can expect it to be a 1 s/s difference at ~14Gly.

This is the limit of perception where we shift from time-like to space-like.

Understanding the dark matter aspect requires a new view of what GR describes in spherical systems, as postulated in this theory.

Back to work.

[Mordred]

Belief means nothing, I'm not going to bother rehashing the previous issues I mentioned which you still never looked at the thermodynamic aspects.

Nor have you tried defining the path integrals of photons under your idea via Feyman path integrals.

It never ceases to amaze me how often people change one or two basic formulas and figure they can rewrite physics, and never check how those changes affect other theories and formulas.

They always assume they are automatically right...

 

Of course you can always post your updated Vixra, we already covered most of the mistakes you made previously, which you later agreed was in error.

However you never did post a link to your corrected vixra paper.

Well here is a challenge for you.

From your model mathematically prove the Null geodesic equation. (I've already provided this under GR)

Your turn under your model.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Mordred

[captcass]

Hello Mordred. I was hoping you were listening.

This is not the previous paper at all. You guys showed me how screwed up I was. That is why I trashed it and went back to school. I needed to be able to read Einstein in the original. There is no math in this paper. It is strictly based on relativity and a clarification of what GR describes re the evolution of the continuum. You guys were absolutely right and my last attempt remains a total embarrassment to me.

This paper is strictly theoretical. I am trying to clarify how we are not perceiving what GR actually describes re processes in time. Einstein set out to describe what we see in the solar system, the effects of the processes, but never saw the processes working through his "energy components" (his quotes). Instead he saw the gravitational field and objects moving through space instead of the evolving continuum.. He defined the effects of gravity in a spherical gravity well, but not gravity itself. This is why GR does not work on the galactic scale. We all know GR is incomplete. I am trying to explain why.

So....is it allowable to post the whole paper here? Unlike my previous monster it is only about 15 pages long at this font size. It is not just the Hubble shift subject matter, though, as I guess you can tell from the above.

Is just a link acceptable?

 

[Strange]

34 minutes ago, captcass said:

There is no math in this paper.

This paper is strictly theoretical.

Those two sentences are mutually contradictory.

It cannot be a theory with no mathematics. How do you test your idea for correctness without calculating the predicted results? No one is going to accept it just because you "believe" it is correct.

37 minutes ago, captcass said:

So....is it allowable to post the whole paper here?

It may be allowable but it is a waste of time.

[Mordred]

53 minutes ago, captcass said:

Hello Mordred. I was hoping you were listening.

This is not the previous paper at all. You guys showed me how screwed up I was. That is why I trashed it and went back to school. I needed to be able to read Einstein in the original. There is no math in this paper. It is strictly based on relativity and a clarification of what GR describes re the evolution of the continuum. You guys were absolutely right and my last attempt remains a total embarrassment to me.

This paper is strictly theoretical. I am trying to clarify how we are not perceiving what GR actually describes re processes in time. Einstein set out to describe what we see in the solar system, the effects of the processes, but never saw the processes working through his "energy components" (his quotes). Instead he saw the gravitational field and objects moving through space instead of the evolving continuum.. He defined the effects of gravity in a spherical gravity well, but not gravity itself. This is why GR does not work on the galactic scale. We all know GR is incomplete. I am trying to explain why.

So....is it allowable to post the whole paper here? Unlike my previous monster it is only about 15 pages long at this font size. It is not just the Hubble shift subject matter, though, as I guess you can tell from the above.

Is just a link acceptable?

 

 

Well at least we are no longer dealing with the previous mess. I would be interested in reading what you have come up with though obviously the math is of essential importance. For something 15 pages long a pdf link will be fine.

We can at least examine the paper for accuracy. 

By the way I'm going to reward you +1 on rep for simply showing that you learned how messed up the previous attempt was.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Mordred

[captcass]

Sorry Strange, I disagree. Theoretical points of view do not require math. It is certainly possible to debate whether GR describes motion through space or motion within the continuum, and the nature of the continuum itself.  But I do provide a test for the dark matter aspect. I just have not been able to find the appropriate data. It might not even exist yet, but I think it does. What it requires is the rotational velocities of two bodies of different mass at the same radius from the center of the galaxy.

As I noted earlier, no human could possibly do the math for the dark energy effect without a supercomputer and a huge database.

Are off site links allowed here?

Thanks. OK, here is the PDF link http://vixra.org/abs/1708.0142

As you will note in the paper Mordred, I disagree that photons have a null geodesic, which is why they "lens" around large masses. The paper explains why.

Tks

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, captcass said:

But I do provide a test for the dark matter aspect. I just have not been able to find the appropriate data. It might not even exist yet, but I think it does. What it requires is the rotational velocities of two bodies of different mass at the same radius from the center of the galaxy.

The rotational speed is independent of the mass of the orbiting bodies. For example, rotation curves are measured for stars (of various sizes) and gas. 

You should be able to find the data you need here: http://astroweb.case.edu/SPARC/

 

[Mordred]

Thanks I'll read it in detail. Once I'm not distracted.

[captcass]

Thanks, Strange. Rotational velocities are not completely independent of mass as mass is indicative of the degree of time dilation within the body's gradient. If the Earth was in Mercury's orbit, it would have to have a much higher velocity to maintain that orbit.

I will check out the link.

[Mordred]

OK I've read over your paper. I recall stating before that before you publish a paper you should at least get someone knowledgeable on the topic to proof read it first for accuracy.

Well be that as it may the most obvious mistake right off the top is that there is no [latex]g_{44}[/latex] component.

that is not how a tensor is assigned....the first row and column is the zero'th order...

secondly I really have to question your courses... or at least what you took from those courses.

1) did they teach you 1 forms?

2) did they teach you what a tensor is ? ie in terms of vector, scalar products?

3) did they teach you the difference between a one form and a coordinate basis ?

4) did they teach you that the metric tensor given as a set of coordinantes does not by themselves define distance? the distance information is contained within the metric?

ie in 2d with cartesian coordinates x,y a parametized curve [latex]x\eta,y(\eta)[/latex] begins at eta_1 and ends at eta_2

[latex]s=\int ds=\sqrt{dx^2+dy^2}=\int^{\eta_2}_{\eta_1}\sqrt{\acute{x}^2+\acute{y}^2d\eta}[/latex]

where [latex] \acute{x}=dx/d\eta, \acute{y}=dy/d\eta[/latex] where [latex] ds=\sqrt{dx^2+dy^2}[/latex]

the line element having the dimension of distance, so if your coordinates are dimensionless you need to include a scale factor a?

so if the seperation of neighboring coordinate lines ie x=1 and x=2 (say a= 1metre ) then we have [latex]ds^2=a^2(dx^2+dy^2)[/latex]

that is the function of our scale factor in cosmology.  To give us the differences in our distance scales from one reference frames geometry to the other...

so take to points on an x y graph.

label the two end points eta_1 and eta_2. Draw some random line *not straight* between those two end points. Then at any two random points on that line draw a line on the x axis, then one on the y axis to form a triangle.

label the x axis dx the y axis line dy the curved line forming the hypotenuse is the ds^s line which you are trying to preserve to an approximate straight line  (geodesic)

 

 

a bit crude but it gives the gist of the above. Your scale factor is no different from using a typical draftsmans ruler.

Oops replace dz with ds in the above lol

Edited September 21, 2017 by Mordred

[captcass]

Hey Strange, the link info doesn't help except that if this is as good as it gets then the info isn't there yet. The uncertainties alone are too big and if I am reading the table correctly the mass of individual stellar systems isn't compared or considered. The effect I am looking for would be subtle and I just see no way to check for it yet. 

[Mordred]

Cool a cross post at a convenient time lol. I needed a seperation break lol.

just in case your on before I finish still working on this post on the tensor forms of [atex]g_{\mu\nu}[/latex] gonna have a smoke break first

this is going to take a bit so keep in mind there will be edits as I go

ok so in your paper you stated the time time component is [latex]g_{4,4}[/latex] how is that even possible

Metric tensor

In general relativity, the metric tensor below may loosely be thought of as a generalization of the gravitational potential familiar from Newtonian gravitation. The metric captures all the geometric and causal structure of spacetime, being used to define notions such as distance, volume, curvature, angle, future and past.

 

[latex]dx^2=(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+(dx^3)^2[/latex]

 

[latex]G_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}g_{0,0}&g_{0,1}&g_{0,2}&g_{0,3}\\g_{1,0}&g_{1,1}&g_{1,2}&g_{1,3}\\g_{2,0}&g_{2,1}&g_{2,2}&g_{2,3}\\g_{3,0}&g_{3,1}&g_{3,2}&g_{3,3}\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

Which corresponds to

[latex]\frac{dx^\alpha}{dy^{\mu}}=\frac{dx^\beta}{dy^{\nu}}=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{dx^0}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^0}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^1}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^2}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^3}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

The simplest transform is the Minkowskii metric, Euclidean space or flat space. This is denoted by [latex]\eta[[/latex]

Flat space [latex]\mathbb{R}^4 [/latex] with Coordinates (t,x,y,z) or alternatively (ct,x,y,z) flat space is done in Cartesian coordinates.

 

In this metric space time is defined as

 

[latex] ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}[/latex]

 

[latex]\eta=\begin{pmatrix}-c^2&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

 

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Mordred

[captcass]

Hey Mordred - I'm sorry, you came out scrambled. Can you try it again?

I understand one forms and the tensors. I am quoting Einstein himself in the time-time element being g₄₄. The quote is referenced by paragraph in his 1915 paper.

The time elements are his "energy components". The difference in the rates of time affect lengths of meters (and curvature of trajectory) and rates of acceleration. The tensor provides the resultant.

Instead of just being Einstein's resultant geodesics, I am suggesting that there are two directions of evolution in time; the first is the straight line of Einstein's fundamental metric and the other, relativistic one, is orthogonal to that in spherical systems. Einstein's equations are describing the resultant of the interactions of those two directions of evolution of the continuum. Velocity relates directly to acceleration in time within the continuum. I.e., Mercury is being accelerated faster in time than the Earth and therefore shows a higher velocity through space. If it was not accelerated in time (and space), it would slip from view, which we know to be true. It would also fall back in time as it is in a slower rate of time than the Earth. If it was over-accelerated in time it would fly out of its apparent orbit and away.

I am calling the relativistic lateral flow a force as it is what evolves and accelerates each frame and all events down the gradient. This does not happen in our inertial frame direction where we always experience a 1 s/s rate of time and a meter that maintains C.  We would perceive ourselves to be motionless in the fundamental metric but would still be aware of time passing.

[Mordred]

see last post forget g_44 the tensor itself doesn't have g_44 tensors were still being developed in  Einsteins time

3 hours ago, captcass said:

Hey Mordred - I'm sorry, you came out scrambled. Can you try it again?

I understand one forms and the tensors. I am quoting Einstein himself in the time-time element being g₄₄. The quote is referenced by paragraph in his 1915 paper.

The time elements are his "energy components". The difference in the rates of time affect lengths of meters (and curvature of trajectory) and rates of acceleration. The tensor provides the resultant.

Instead of just being Einstein's resultant geodesics, I am suggesting that there are two directions of evolution in time; the first is the straight line of Einstein's fundamental metric and the other, relativistic one, is orthogonal to that in spherical systems. Einstein's equations are describing the resultant of the interactions of those two directions of evolution of the continuum. Velocity relates directly to acceleration in time within the continuum. I.e., Mercury is being accelerated faster in time than the Earth and therefore shows a higher velocity through space. If it was not accelerated in time (and space), it would slip from view, which we know to be true. It would also fall back in time as it is in a slower rate of time than the Earth. If it was over-accelerated in time it would fly out of its apparent orbit and away.

I am calling the relativistic lateral flow a force as it is what evolves and accelerates each frame and all events down the gradient. This does not happen in our inertial frame direction where we always experience a 1 s/s rate of time and a meter that maintains C.  We would perceive ourselves to be motionless in the fundamental metric but would still be aware of time passing.

the time element is not the elements of energy though energy does relate. Time is simply a rate of change of events, in that you have several types of time. (why just look at the units of measure itself lol) time has no energy units

proper time

conformal time

coordinante time

keep these seperate from one another and distinquish them as they change from SR to GR.

Quite frankly I have no idea how you got the impression that time is energy components, I suggest you quote the section of the paper you got this impression from

is this the paper your referring to? Notice the differences in coordinates from modern to the four vector components in this paper? today we use x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3 not X^4 also the order is reversed modern coordinates is ct.x,y,z this paper has x,y,z,t.

http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_GRelativity_1916.pdf

 

ok have you ever worked with the principle of least action? as you are mixing tensors. I beleive your referring now to the Reimann-Christoffel tensor and not the metric tensor.

You have to keep one tensor separate from another it gets incredibly confusing when your not properly identifying the tensors under the correct names

see equation 45 of the last link

In general differential geometry terms, the Christoffel Symbols are the connection coefficients of the Levi-Cevita connection. This relates directly with parallel transport of two vectors. A curvature will result in a loss of parallel transport, (parallel transport is only possible in exact Euclid geometries).

I believe this is where your getting confused.  You mixed the tensors up with a fundamental tensor to a mixed tensor.  Gotta be careful of that........

I would also examine the fundamental differences between the principle of equivalence to the principle of general covariance which the Levi-Cevita relates to. (tidal forces is a common search for this as well).

Unfortanetely many physicists associate the Christoffel with the gravitational field itself which isn't inaccurate but doesn't give the required details of the principle of least action on parallel transports. ( it is too often considered a preliminary lesson prior to reading their papers lol) so they rarely detail all the pertinants

Action involves two key aspects. Potential energy and kinetic energy. ( that is your energy components not time). time is still just a rate of change of events nothing more.......see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_as_Hamiltonian_flows

Now I assume you already know the difference between coordinate time and proper time ( assuming you passed your relativity course) ?

[latex]\Delta \tau =\int \sqrt{1- \frac{1}{c^2} \left ( \left (\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^2+ \left(\frac{dy}{dt}\right)^2+ \left (\frac{dz}{dt}\right)^2\right )}dt[/latex]

or in simpler notation

[latex]\Delta t=\gamma\Delta\tau[/latex]

quite frankly reading your paper and the way it is written really doesn't describe relativity correctly. Your not using any of the proper terminilogy, your mixing up tensors, your even misconstruing statements that read what you think they read.

In all honesty reading your paper really made me question whether or not you even understood relativity. You simply didn't have correct and accurate descriptives throughout your entire paper. Had I been a reader that has never been involved in this thread I would have placed it in the trashcan for the amount of inaccuracies involved. That is an honest opinion.  I could go through it if you like paragraph by paragraph but I beleive you understand where I am coming from.

More technical detail that is accurate when describing relativity and how it works in the standard definitions is a priority to fix your paper.

 

And yes all this relates directly to null geodesics via parallel transport aka your christoffel symbols. For example if there is no curvature and your absolutely Euclidean then there is only 1 time component. The laws of vector addition under Galilean relativity applies in this case.

However we both know this isn't true under relativity with curvature terms and time treated as a vector and coordinate. However it should be noted coordinate time isn't restricted to just relativity. It is also used in other fields described by differential geometry. Yes I am 100% ignoring the section on your religious beliefs as its not important to the paper itself and is irrelevant to the discussion.

I just hope this isn't the cause of your dispute to an expanding universe... quite frankly nothing in the bible stated this universe always existed....yes I read it end to end several times. I find the arguments against science based on religion tedious at best. Quite frankly I find those types of arguments actually push me away from Christianity.  Which is annoying as I am a devout Christian, my wife is a prime example. She refuses to accept any physics simply based on religion.

Needless to say were exact opposites when it comes to any science oriented topics.

by the way acceleration is described as rapidity...(rotation) not a boost so keep that in mind when looking at tensors under symmetry rules involving your inner products. ie [latex]\mu\bullet\nu=\nu\bullet\mu[/latex] is only true for constant velocity not accelerations which require you to perform a rapidity on your tensor

one can view the Lorentz transforms under rapidity by rotating the time and spatial components into one another via latex](t,x,y,z)=x^o,x^1,x^2,x^3[/latex] umder sign convention -,+,+,+

[latex]\acute{x}^0=-x^1sinh\phi+x^0 cosh\phi[/latex]

[latex]\acute{x}^1=x^1cosh\phi-x^0 sinh\phi[/latex]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Mordred

[captcass]

Thank you, Mordred, this is why I was hoping you were listening. You certainly know your stuff! This is going to take me a bit to digest and co-relate, though I understand where you are coming from. I need to get back into his 1915 paper so as to explain my references in response. I appreciate the work and input.

I have no doubts about the spiritual aspects. I learned to wash my hands in acid harmlessly under a Muslim Haj in Djakarta in 1972. My life is filled with miracles, including materializations. I live in the quantum continuum others do not see. I can guarantee that it is all an illusion and manifested for us, that each of us is the center of our own universe. The science, my friend, is part of the illusion.  I am not a Christian. I follow Jesus. (and Krishna, Buddha, etc.)

Only personal experience reveals and proves those truths, though quantum physics should be a big clue to any seeker of truth.

My primary goal is to discredit the Big Bang and accelerating expansion, etc., as that is contrary to the notion of the eternal Creator, which I know exists. Again, only personal experience proves this to anyone.

The dark matter aspect is just a curiosity, but I can see the cause of the rotational velocities clearly, though am apparently not expressing myself clearly enough in that regard. 

Sooooo....I will reply fully when I have time to do some cross referencing.

For the moment, however, I would note that in § 15 of his 1915 paper, he calls the time dilation elements his “energy components” (his quotation marks), while considering the Hamiltonian function,

Thanks again for the time and input.

 

[captcass]

At work, so just a note:

Instead of asking "what" we are, ask "who" we are. Who are you? You are a be-ing that is ultimately, totally, painfully, alone. You fear both loneliness and boredom and hope for an eternal life with loving others. Loneliness is so painful for you that you use it as the ultimate non-violent punishment of others. Loneliness drives people to insanity. It kills a bee or a termite. The most important thing to you is others, especially loving others with whom you create more loving others........

You are me.....

If you would know the creator, know yourself......

From this point of view, considering quantum physics, how is the illusion that lets us escape our "singular" self state manifested? The physical science is part of the illusion. How is the illusion containing the physical science manifested? I say it is through the manipulation of time. Time dilation allows us to create depth in space and manipulate the light. The science then develops within the illusion being manifested. It is "entertainment" that allows us to further manipulate the light for our further entertainment.....

But I am not ducking replying to your post. I just need to have uninterrupted time to do it.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, captcass said:

Only personal experience reveals and proves those truths, though quantum physics should be a big clue to any seeker of truth.

Scientific theories are not after any "truth" or "reality" : They simply describe with various degrees of accuracy, what we see and model accordingly. If in the process they hit upon this "truth" all well and good.

Quote

My primary goal is to discredit the Big Bang and accelerating expansion, etc., as that is contrary to the notion of the eternal Creator, which I know exists. Again, only personal experience proves this to anyone.

 So, you do have an agenda then? And you are on a mission? Is this prompted by the scientific evidence which shows that any creator is actually superfluous, at least up to t+10-43 seconds? The Hubble flow has been shown to exist, and after all was first indicated by a Belgian priest. Also I'm not sure if anyone else has noted it as yet, but you claim your paper is published with vixra? Although only a lay person, what I have learnt from my time on science forums, is that this is far from being a reputable publisher.

You want to discredit the BB? OK, tell me what this all pervasive 2.73 K temperature we see is from. Cosmology paints an awe inspiring picture, of how the universe/spacetime, stars, planets etc, came to be, based on empirical observations. That stands on reasonably solid ground, and will certainly take more then any publishing in vixra, or claims on a science forum to discredit...in my lay persons opinion of course! 

[Strange]

6 hours ago, captcass said:

My primary goal is to discredit the Big Bang and accelerating expansion, etc., as that is contrary to the notion of the eternal Creator

So I don't get this. I have heard others call the Big Bang model some sort of left-wing atheist conspiracy. But that doesn't make sense.

Although the theory says nothing about creation, it can easily be interpreted to imply a creation event. So why isn't this loved by those who believe in a creator? Can you explain this?

(Also, this is a profoundly unscientific or even anti-scientific attitude. But we have another thread on that, so I'll say no more.)

[captcass]

OK, Mordred;

Patience please. You know how dense I can be. 

Here is Einstein’s paper I am quoting:

http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_GRelativity_1916.pdf

In § 21 he says:

“The remarkable thing in the result is that in the first-approximation of motion of the material point only the component g₄₄ of the fundamental tensor appears.”

Also:

“….the special theory of relativity as a special case of the general theory is characterized by the g_uv having the constant values (4)”, i.e. the fundamental metric, in which there are 3 space and 1 time elements X, Y, Z, T. (His X₁ X₂ X₃ X₄).

From the fundamental metric the various derivatives of the relative changes in each element, including the relative changes in time passed based upon C in those frames generate the tensors. It is the time elements that always combine to evolve events down a time dilation gradient, “field” if you like, which is why Einstein calls them his “energy components” in § 15.

Am I correct in saying that the fundamental metric can be utilized as the basis of a tensor representing a null gravitational field? Altering an element alters direction and/or velocity of movement creating curvature. In developing the tensors, momentum and relative rates of time along each axis of motion must be considered. I am using Einstein’s notation from his 1915 paper so the first row/column is 1,1 not 0,0 and the bottom right becomes 4,4. I am also using the convention -1,-1,-1,+1, though that doesn’t matter as it is only concepts I am discussing.

 In the fundamental metric, when u=4=v, g_uv = g₄₄ and g₄₄ is then the time-time element.

I am saying that the fundamental metric represents the “I Am That I Am” state. A “forward” evolution of time of 1 s/s. In a dilation gradient, “gravity field”, there is also a “forward” evolution down gradient. GR defines the resultant in a spherical system. When the mass is flat, as in spiral galaxies, events are not evolved forward sequentially in a deepening pit. In a deepening pit, forward evolution is apparently accelerated the deeper in the pit the body is.

In a flattened galaxy, all bodies are being evolved forward at the same level of the flat field so they have the same velocity. They all share the same rate of time and, therefore, evolution and, therefore, apparent velocity.

Are we talking about the same thing yet? 

 

Why can't I ever get the right font?! Sorry folks, don't mean to shout.

As for BeeCee and Strange.......

I am not saying there cannot have been a creation event. The Creator might have a sleep state and it is not human, so we have no idea if it just enjoys evolving things from scratch. I think not as others are so important to it. It is fully capable of just popping things into being as it has been doing this, whether or not on and off, for eternity. I don't imagine it finds it complicated. It is really just light.

If you think a Creator is unlikely, the universe itself is a fantastic impossibility, as are all the combined factors that allow life to ebb and flow on this planet, which seems more and more likely to be unique as we have found no signals in our search of the heavens.

I learned the power of faith when I was a bitter atheist and learned to wash my hands in acid, as noted elsewhere. This led me to try to build my "faith", a feeling....

I studied all the great faiths, and more, reading their books, trying to find what their founders knew, not what was being said in the churches and temples. I'd been there and they had no answers. They are the blind leading the blind. Which is OK. The Creator loses itself here, remember?

But they all contain a golden nugget. Do what the founder said to do. It is always simple. It is always the same. It does not involve ritual and rote prayer. It is done in all postures, even on the toilet.

When people say, "Oh, God!", they roll up their eyes. Even atheists. So, roll up your eyes and put your attention within yourself through your third eye, the Hindu Om, and focus on your greater self. It is just you there, but a higher you. Love that self and ask it for something. No, not the lottery. Then let it be. You cannot force it.

This is how I finally proceeded because all I found inside of me was me and I just didn't get it. When I got what I asked for it was really easy to start feeling that love.

Two years later I had an epiphany and I have been living in the quantum world ever since. Hence my love of all this stuff.

What I see cannot be unseen. I don't think I live in that world. I live in that world. When I go within, I am filled with an overwhelming love, rapture.

And, yes, I have an agenda. I have always loved science and I cannot stand the fact that we are looking for dark matter and energy and the BB as postulated. Even Einstein, the father of relativity, jumped off the deep end over what Hubble saw! Einstein! "Mr. Illusion"!

Considering relativity, couldn't it be possible we just don't understand the processes behind the image? It has been my goal to find a way to tie what we see to my personal, spiritual, quantum field, existence. Our other theories are full of "dark" voids filled with totally improbable things, including the very beginning and end of things. If anything, we should have learned that it is all logical.

Only the Creator aspect can make it fully logical.

[captcass]

PS: I postulate on the CMBR in my paper....

[beecee]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

As for BeeCee and Strange.......

I am not saying there cannot have been a creation event. The Creator might have a sleep state and it is not human, so we have no idea if it just enjoys evolving things from scratch. I think not as others are so important to it. It is fully capable of just popping things into being as it has been doing this, whether or not on and off, for eternity. I don't imagine it finds it complicated. It is really just light.

If you think a Creator is unlikely, the universe itself is a fantastic impossibility, as are all the combined factors that allow life to ebb and flow on this planet, which seems more and more likely to be unique as we have found no signals in our search of the heavens.

Any creator or any idea of any ID, paranormal, supernatural is unscientific. The universe obviously is not an impossibility, after all we are here and that can reasonably speculatively be explained. You keep forgetting that we have only been searching the heavens for a 100 years or so....not long and of course the sheer size and great numbers involved, plus the two greatest barriers, time and distance. You seem to be wanting to install or wish for a "god of the gaps".

Quote

 

I learned the power of faith when I was a bitter atheist and learned to wash my hands in acid, as noted elsewhere. This led me to try to build my "faith", a feeling....

I studied all the great faiths, and more, reading their books, trying to find what their founders knew, not what was being said in the churches and temples. I'd been there and they had no answers. They are the blind leading the blind. Which is OK. The Creator loses itself here, remember?

 

And I've seen men walk on white hot stones on the Fijian Island of Beqa.  That in no way means that some sky pixie or magic spaghetti monster exists.

Quote

When people say, "Oh, God!", they roll up their eyes. Even atheists. So, roll up your eyes and put your attention within yourself through your third eye, the Hindu Om, and focus on your greater self. It is just you there, but a higher you. Love that self and ask it for something. No, not the lottery. Then let it be. You cannot force it.

The greater part of man's evolution on earth has been in periods where the church maintained ignorance and beliefs in gods were needed to explain near everything around them from rain, thunder, hurricanes, etc etc, before science eventually took hold.

Quote

And, yes, I have an agenda. I have always loved science and I cannot stand the fact that we are looking for dark matter and energy and the BB as postulated. Even Einstein, the father of relativity, jumped off the deep end over what Hubble saw! Einstein! "Mr. Illusion"!

?? Einstein actually saw his CC as the greatest blunder of his life. And when he spoke of an illusion he was referring to the past, present and future...in other words no absolute "now"

 

Quote

Considering relativity, couldn't it be possible we just don't understand the processes behind the image? It has been my goal to find a way to tie what we see to my personal, spiritual, quantum field, existence. Our other theories are full of "dark" voids filled with totally improbable things, including the very beginning and end of things. If anything, we should have learned that it is all logical.

Sure its possible. And isn't that the beauty of science in that theories remain theories until further evidence is forthcoming to either modify, change or scrap altogether, or just give a more accurate account.

Quote

Only the Creator aspect can make it fully logical.

Not at all, in fact the exact opposite. Science and the present explanatory power of cosmology, the BB, nucleosynthesis, has made any ID superfluous.

And of course as the greatest educator of our time so calmly and sedately put it.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6bztIma03k

 

1 hour ago, captcass said:

And, yes, I have an agenda. I have always loved science and I cannot stand the fact that we are looking for dark matter and energy and the BB as postulated. 

DM was a fudge factor. The choice was GR was wrong despite it working particularly well and making outstanding predictions, or there was something that we cannot see that only interacts gravitationally. Since then the evidence for DM particularly with the bullet cluster observation continues to build. http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html DE can also be explained when considered with the universal expansion of spacetime and the constant mass/energy density obviously growing less. Again your argument seems to be along the lines of the god of the gaps.

By the way, I hate being labelled an Atheist, and particularly an angry one. I see things the way it appears and the way it is explained by science. I have also been witnessed   to a UFO sighting. It happened one evening so I waited until the next morning for any other reports...none were forthcoming. I wrote it off as a UFO with the emphasis on the U. I did not jump to conclusions that it was extra terrestrial in origin, despite my long held desire to have evidence of ETL before I kick the bucket.

Edited September 22, 2017 by beecee

[captcass]

Yes, but, it isn't, is it? Easily explained? We only have greatly flawed theories and are stuck going nowhere. Everyone is trying to find gap fillers on a dead end path.

Anyway, I don't debate the spiritual things, I teach them if someone wants to know. They are not required to discuss the effects in time and I have already explained where I am founded. This is not the right place to continue that discussion anyway.