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

It figures you would start bitching. We can count on it like the sunrise.

Well, soap is a pretty strong base. I haven't heard of a "bitter atheist" before, but what does any of that have to do with chemistry?

pH would only work if he was a sour or sweet atheist.

Well if you would not let your personal religious beliefs override your duties as a moderator maybe I wouldn't bitch as much.I just hold you to the same standards you expect others to be held to. Is that too much to expect?

I see your point, but keep in mind that I was posting as a member. The captain's site was public knowledge. As a moderator, I have to decide on a case by case basis what qualifies as spam and what qualifies as fodder for discussion. As the Captain is still around, he appears to not be a troll. You are always so quick to jump on someone for having an opinion! Granted we are in a science forum...I see that and it is why I suggested the Captain bring his material to the Faith & Belief side. Did it ever occur to you that the art of discussion involves listening to the other side? If you shoot people down before they have a chance to attempt to make a case, you've just killed the topic. And it just so happens that I found this person interesting. You seem interesting too, if only you were not so quick to snap at people for daring to assume they know about you.

The link to his site had no relevance to the discussion. There was no need to post the link. This has nothing to do about the good captain. He is destroying his own credibility quite fine on his own.
You admit in the post that what you were doing was not acceptable in this forum. Did you coordinate with the captain to post his website? How else would you know about it? I do not see that he has posted the link anywhere. There is no link in his profile either.You seem to be a strong believer in do as I say not as I do.

I would note that the Journal put out the following press release on the 10th:"Journal of Cosmology Publishes the First Peer-Reviewed Paper Originating the Universe With an Eternal CreatorThe paper also claims to do much more, answering some of physics most perplexing problems, and if accepted will chart a whole new course ahead.
Press Release - updated: Sep 10, 2019 08:00 EDTSAN DIEGO, September 10, 2019 (Newswire.com) - The peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology has announced that it has published what is bound to be a hotly debated paper by Capt. Joseph H. (Cass) Forrington, a Cum Laude graduate of the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York, that describes a cosmological model that originates the universe with an eternal Creator, something that has been a long-standing taboo in peer-reviewed science journals.The model also appears to complete General Relativity by deriving the Hubble constant as a 2.2686*10^-18 acceleration in the rate of "proper" time, rather than as an acceleration due to an expansion of space, eliminating Big Bangs and "Dark Energy."The model describes gravity as an evolutionary force in time and solutions are also provided for quantum non-locality and galactic rotation velocities by describing the astrophysical motions in terms of the evolving quantum spacetime field and is, therefore, recommended reading for both quantum and astrophysicists.The paper, "General Relativity: Effects in Time as Causation," can be found in the Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 26, #21."My point being that I am tying the two together. It is a discussion that has to be had between folks of all points of view.On the science side, I see the biggest problem as the astrophysicists not realizing they are actually looking at an evolving quantum field, not events moving through a space. They see a solid "reality", not the actual evolving world of light (energy).This is what enlightenment is; the shift in perspective from one to the other. I began living in the world of light, the quantum world, when I was 24.....As for the acid, I know what it was.....it was the stuff that disolved spoons and several layers of my skin off....The night I did it without harm, I had been fasting all day since 4 AM and repeating a prayer in Arabic, the translation of I still do not know, 1000 times. I broke the fast and did it. (All my teacher's students and his own teacher were there to witness this.) I had faith.As I was leaving, he said I could do it again now at any time, but not for just the curious, only true seekers.....In the morning when I went to the restaurant for breakfast, the waiter, who had arranged my meeting the Haj, had about 20 people waiting to see me do it.....just curious....I had doubt, but did it anyway to save Tahn's face and burned the hell out of my hands....The role of "perception" is crucial to our understanding of quantum mechacnics on all scales. All your external, surrounding, events have already occurred. We can only see the past. This means everything has already evolved for us, each, individually. If those events had not already occurred, you couldn't see them.At the same time, we seem to lead the evolution of the universe since we see everything in the past fading away with distance.In a spherical dilation pit, "life" "grows" "upward" against the direction of gravity and time, while all masses "go with the flow", so to speak.Time evolves all events forward in the forward direction of time, but time has no depth, so events have no depth in time, no permanence, and no actual depth in space. Edited by Captcass, : Addition

So you are saying that your "evolving quantum field" approach resolves the different measurements?Can you show your work? Let me expand on your error: where a is a constant.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

I am saying she is right on the model being wrong.The constant determines the distance to the cosmological horizon regardless of what it is. Higher constant = smaller universe, lower = bigger, because time appears to stop at those distances.As for your math, the constant is equal to 1 in order to get the result....I am not dividing by 1.Edited by Captcass, : No reason given.

But you have proposed a different definition, so now's your chance to show that your paradigm explains the different measurements. This is called testing.Just saying the model is wrong does not make your paradigm right, you have to demonstrate it, show that it explains the evidence better. Nope. The constant is equal to any constant number. We can also do or This is elementary mathYour factor of (1 + 2.2686*10^{^-18})^{^-1} is just another value for a.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : .

My model will be tested when the new James Webb scope goes up. Where the recessional velocity appears to reach c, we will see relativistic points of light if it is due to recessional velocity. If it is due to slower time, we will see form, as we do with GnZ11 with an apparent recessional velocity of .98c.The math is conceptual and you can play with it as you like, but it is a valid mathematical statement confirmed by others who have reviewed it. I'm sorry if you cannot grasp the concept. Your constant always equals 1 if the result is 1. "0" is fun to play with too, and i, ........ Edited by Captcass, : spelling

Congratulations, you wrote a press release and paid a press release distribution web site published it. You must be very proud.

The journal put out the release....

Then the journal paid a press distribution service to put out a press release. Congratulations.

Thank you.