Time Dilation, the Hubble Shift and God's Eternal Universe

Thanks much! I am getting the notices now, too.

The final version of my paper was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology on 29 July 2019 and can be seen here in Vol. 26, #21, of the Journal:
Page Not Found - Journalofcosmology.com.As far as I know this is the first paper to appear in a peer reviewed journal that originates the universe with an eternal Creator, or even mentions the Creator.

Your journal is a known fringe psudo-science rag with no effect or respect within the discipline.I'm afraid your paper means nothing to the reality of this universe. journal

Well, that is your opinion. The opinion of the mainstream knuckleheads who think the Big Bang singularity and an infinitely accelerating expansion of the universe are logical. The journal is certainly not mainstream, but the mainstream is idioticThe journal publishes peer reviewed papers that explore the fringes of science and subjects and possible models the other, "mainstream" journals will not touch. Things peers believe are worth consideration.Name a single journal that has published a single paper that even mentions the Creator. Not "mainstream", right? So what the hell are YOU doing here? NONE of your other journals will EVER even mention the Creator....So...take your attitude and .... Don't bother replying to this, as I do not engage with lost, bitter, hate filled people like you. You need manners and decency to speak with me.Unpublished Trolls like you belong under bridges...

Your deflection does not alter the reality.Not just me ... I am nothing. The rest of this community and the discipline at large, however, know this journal, and now you, for the pseudo-science you both practice.

It's not just the pseudoscience, they clearly do not understand the purpose of peer review.

Trouble with you, and AZPaul3, is that you don't know enough to debate the paper, so you attack the journal that took over a year to review it before publishing it. You are bitter people.....You embrace "peer reviewed" journals of idiots reviewing idiots who believe in Godless singularities and infinite accelerating expansions of the universe. Total rubbish of "Dark" this and "Dark" that. No TRUTHS, just idiotic THEORIES that you ACCEPT as somehow being "true" because the "mainstream peer-reviewed' journals support them, even though no one EVER proves anything! They, and you, just want EVERYTHING to "fit" GR.I mean, if Einstein couldn't explain what Hubble saw, and just gave up trying to complete GR and went off looking for a unified field theory, then.... ??????
Just WHO are the DUPES here?What if it is the "mainstream" journals that have been publishing an endless stream of totally unproven THEORIES for the last 100 years since Hubble that are "lost"? Sure seems to me they are getting nowhere.... Offer no proofs.... Just keep looking for "Dark" answers to "make things fit" the notion that Hubble saw receding objects, and not just "tired" time, so to speak.....They looked at "tired light", and rightly rejected it, but never even considered "tired" time. (I am using that phrase, "tired time", for the first time here and am giving copyright notice here and now.)Again, what are you Godless folks doing here? Do you REALLY believe that idiocy? How does the Creator fit into anything you think is right?Have you read the paper I only just now provided a link to? Or are you just out to put people down here?Shame on the two of you for your ....., ....., ...., thoughts and comments.I am not here for that. If you want to discuss my model, I am happy to oblige. I would like to be able to tell you of the implications of the paper in the faith aspects that they had me edit from the final journal version, or that i did not include because I knew they could not accept them.The word "faith", for instance, is akin to "UFO" in science journals. Peer reviewed journals will not accept anything with Either term. The JofC has no "religious" terminology or the word "UFO".Otherwise, just shame on you for turning your backs on the first and only paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal that originates the universe with the eternal Creator, instead of investigating and pursuing that possibility....No reviewer was able to provide a demonstrable flaw and no one has even tried to comment past me in over 15K views in two science forum threads in nearly a year.Let me know if you read the paper. I am going to bed.... Edited by Captcass, : Incomplete reply

You seem to be the one filled with hate. You have nothing I envy. And I've published in journals that had real peer review. If you want to do science then you have to actually do science.Sorry you didn't get the reception you were hoping for...

Sorry. Again. mainstream is lamestream. No progress in over 100 years because you do not understand what you are seeing. Please read the paper and stop being nasty.I expect all welcomes to be warm, especially on so-called spiritual sites. Shame. You would not address me so face to face if I stood at your front door.You said, "If you want to do science then you have to actually do science."Trouble is, to you, "science" means "accepting ridiculous theories for truth". You are equating your idiotic theories to the "truth", i.e., "science". The 2 do not equate.Edited by Captcass, : No reason given.

Well, this is not a spiritual site, so-called or otherwise.I read your paper. If you can't take criticisms, boohoo.

Demonstrate how it is wrong and explain how you could possibly read it so quickly. I can demonstrate your theories are wrong right here. What preceded the the singularity and what is outside the singularity and from what inertial frame of reference is that view? Where is the universe infinitely accelerating into? Why doesn't GR work everywhere?Never mind, I know, there are "DARK" reasons! LOL.

One thing you should have learned in 68 years: Nobody knows "the truth" at 24.

I agree it took Siddhartha until age 35!

I learned to wash my hands in acid under a Muslim Haj in Djakarta when I was 22. His teacher could walk on water. What were you doing at age 22? It took me 2 more years and much study of many things before I had my epiphany at age 24. It has then taken me this long to explain it in terms of accepted science.It seems I mistook this forum for being a spiritual debate as it is, after all, E v C.So. unless anyone wants to discuss my model and its implications, I'll bow out. I have no interest here otherwise.
Tks

I thought you said accepted science was for idiots ("the mainstream is idiotic" Message 19). You did mistake it. E v C is about stamping out creationism - and other pseudoscience. It's mostly a scientific debate, not a spiritual one, though we do find that the "spiritual" people are wrong about a lot of other things too.