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

OK. I am tired of the mud slinging. If anyone wants an actual discussion and debate, just let me know. Otherwise.....
BiBi

Yes we do not promote peoples home pages here. But you being you see no problem in doing it. Great admin work.

Tanypteryx writes: Don't forget that "Simple fact is, he has forgotten more than you will ever know...."

I've forgotten more than I'll ever know. I think. But then I'm not sure...

Oh I just love when the godidit crowd starts claiming they are being attacked and people are being mean to them.

For the peanut gallery and lurkers here is a sample of the mud the good captain has been slinging. He started it immediately after a criticism of the journal that published his diatribe.

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 idiotic

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 Unpublished ****** like you belong under bridges...

Message 19

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.....

Message 22

I have studied things you probably don't even know exist.

Simple fact is, I have probably forgotten more than you will ever know....

Message 41

So what was that about mudslinging?

Slow day ...

I notice he does not tell us what kind of acid. I wonder if it was that horrible Boric acid.

I notice he does not tell us what kind of acid. I wonder if it was that horrible Boric acid.

Well I've used Vinegar several times, and it seems to have seeped in ...

Of course it could be the dreaded hydroxilic acid.

Edited by RAZD, : .

... that this popped up on Facegoob:

quote:

---

New Hubble Data Breaks Scientists’ Understanding of the Universe
A new attempt to find the universe's age revealed troubling flaws.

There may be fundamental flaws with our understanding of the universe.

The problem came to light as scientists tried to calculate and measure a value called the Hubble Constant, which represents how rapidly the universe is expanding outward.

The value was first calculated by astronomer Edwin Hubble in the 1920s. But since then, astronomers observing and measuring the universe’s expansion have arrived at different values of the Hubble Constant, none of which seem to agree with one another. The discrepancy calls into question not only our idea of how old the universe is, but also our ability to fundamentally understand the physics that drive its behavior.

Freedman is responsible for the latest measurement of the Hubble Constant, which she calculated using a different kind of cosmic landmark from previous experiments.

Her team measured the brightness of red giant stars in distant galaxies. Because these stars reach uniform size and brightness, their distance from Earth can more readily be calculated than some other stars. Freedman’s work, which has been accepted but not yet published by The Astrophysical Journal, found that the universe is expanding at 69.8 kilometers per second per megaparsec, per the press release.

That’s a slower rate of expansion than was calculated in another recent study that focused on a different kind of star but a faster rate than was calculated in yet another study that measured light leftover from the big bang called the Cosmic Microwave Background.

“The Hubble constant is the cosmological parameter that sets the absolute scale, size and age of the universe; it is one of the most direct ways we have of quantifying how the universe evolves,” Freedman said in the press release. “The discrepancy that we saw before has not gone away, but this new evidence suggests that the jury is still out on whether there is an immediate and compelling reason to believe that there is something fundamentally flawed in our current model of the universe.”

---

Maybe Captcass can explain this, seeing as he didn't answer your question.

Enjoy

If we derive the Hubble Constant as a 2.2686*10^-18 s/s acceleration in the rate of proper time, instead of a spatial acceleration, and then apply that acceleration to the time elements of Einstein’s Tensor, we eliminate singularities and infinite expansions because the geodesics are slightly distorted:

Can you tell me how we could test this? or how could it be invalidated?

quote:

---

geodesic
[ jee-uh-des-ik, -dee-sik ]

adjective

Also ge·o·des·i·cal. pertaining to the geometry of curved surfaces, in which geodesic lines take the place of the straight lines of plane geometry.

---

ie - the shortest distance along a curved surface between two points is a geodesic.

So how are the geodesics distorted?

Obversely, as Δt1 → ∞, infinite divergence is impossible as Δt1 is always divided by a sum > 1; i.e., ∞ / (1 + 2.2686*10^-18) < ∞.

Nope, obviously not, because the answer is still ∞ -- you'll need to do better than that.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ∞

Edited by RAZD, : .

"....... there is an immediate and compelling reason to believe that there is something fundamentally flawed in our current model of the universe."

Because they are looking at it astro-physically rather than as an evolving quantum field.

As per the mud slinging. Mea Culpa and I apologize for losing my cool.....

How do you quote someone here? I don't see a "quote" button???

Edited by Captcass, : addition of quesiton

How do you quote someone here? I don't see a "quote" button???

Some posting tips courtesy of RAZD: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Thank you. I also want to apologize to Theodoric for saying he called me a liar. I mistook his tag line as a comment on what I said.

As for the acid. I never knew what kind it was. It disoveled metals. I know it was real because I washed my hands in it twice, once with, and once without, faith. With faith it was like water. Without faith it burned like hell and I lost several layers of skin on my hands.

There is also the possibility it was a strong base.

I was a bitter atheist at the time but I learned the power of faith and that set me off on my studies of all the religions....All of this is recounted in the site I linked to (but shouldn't have) above.

If you don't know what it was then you again have absolutely no evidence or even idea if faith had any effects at all.

Just more Bad Burrito nonsense.

"....... there is an immediate and compelling reason to believe that there is something fundamentally flawed in our current model of the universe." Because they are looking at it astro-physically rather than as an evolving quantum field.

And???

As per the mud slinging. Mea Culpa and I apologize for losing my cool.....

I guess you didn't realize that the peer review process does not end at publication. If you read scientific journals after a controversial paper is published you will see that there are often (sometimes lasting for years) letters and articles asking for clarifications and also maybe challenging specific or general conclusions.

Peer review functions to improve a report so that all terminology is logically defined and all conclusions are supported by observations and evidence.

Acting all insulted, when people ask questions or make critical comments is not going to help anyone understand what you are trying to communicate.

Maybe your writing is not as clear and your conclusions are not as obvious to the readers as you think and attacking the reader's intelligence and character is hardly professional nor clarifying.

Captcass writes: I was a bitter atheist at the time....

I'm glad you've adjusted your pH.

Since you came here to discuss spiritual matters, maybe you'd be better off participating in a different thread.