Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 59 (9108 total)
 0 online now: Newest Member: sensei Post Volume: Total: 907,751 Year: 4,632/14,231 Month: 1,347/2,209 Week: 186/325 Day: 11/87 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Big Bang and Cosmology

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

Author Topic:   Time Dilation, the Hubble Shift and God's Eternal Universe
RAZD
Member (Idle past 949 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 76 of 189 (862825) 09-13-2019 5:06 PM Reply to: Message 71 by Captcass09-13-2019 3:31 PM

Re: Interesting and errors in infinity ( )
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. ...
LOL. The creds of your reviewers have already been questioned, along with the journal, so that doesn't impress me.
What I grasp is that you have a fundamental error in your math, and that calls your conclusions into question.
For instance, what your wrote in Message 1
... as t1 ‘ , infinite divergence is impossible as t1 is always divided by a sum > 1; i.e., / (1 + 2.2686*10^-18) < .
Is not correct:
as t1 ‘ ,
t1 / (1 + 2.2686*10^-18) ‘ ,
Thus I question your conclusion that "infinite divergence is impossible"
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

 This message is a reply to: Message 71 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 3:31 PM Captcass has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3901
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

 Message 77 of 189 (862830) 09-13-2019 5:34 PM Reply to: Message 67 by Captcass09-13-2019 1:51 PM

Re: Is This Science Going Anywhere?
This is just weird, to me.
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.
It is not clear to me what you are talking about tying together here, quantum mechanics and astrophysics or science and religion
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).
Ok, so this is the biggest problem on the science side, what do you see as the biggest problem for the religion side?
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.
Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are all out of alignment.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

 This message is a reply to: Message 67 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 1:51 PM Captcass has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 09-13-2019 5:42 PM Tanypteryx has replied Message 80 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 6:46 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 8347
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2

 (1)
 Message 78 of 189 (862831) 09-13-2019 5:42 PM Reply to: Message 77 by Tanypteryx09-13-2019 5:34 PM

Blinded with SCIENCE!
The other sign of pseudoscience and whackadoodliness.
Invoking quantum this, quantum that.
I am really hoping Son Goku chimes in.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

 This message is a reply to: Message 77 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-13-2019 5:34 PM Tanypteryx has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 79 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-13-2019 6:14 PM Theodoric has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3901
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

 (1)
 Message 79 of 189 (862834) 09-13-2019 6:14 PM Reply to: Message 78 by Theodoric09-13-2019 5:42 PM

Re: Blinded with SCIENCE!
I am really hoping Son Goku chimes in.
Me too, although I don't see any real communication happening.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

 This message is a reply to: Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 09-13-2019 5:42 PM Theodoric has not replied

Captcass
Member (Idle past 1171 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 06-07-2018

 Message 80 of 189 (862836) 09-13-2019 6:46 PM Reply to: Message 77 by Tanypteryx09-13-2019 5:34 PM

Re: Is This Science Going Anywhere?
"quantum mechanics and astrophysics or science and religion"
Not religion. In my paper I call it the universal cosmic consciousness, which is not unique. both Einstein and Newton considered the possibility that the universe was somehow alive.
Religion implies too many other things such as ritual, moral law, dietary law, etc. I differentiate between spirituality and religion.
I am showing how the universe can be manifested out of simple self-awareness; the relativistic effects that manifest the apparent energy that forms the masses. The physicality and the sciences that describe that follow that, but they are still quantum events.
I am not going to comment on "problems" in the various religions. I will note that they all contain a core truth, a golden spiritual nugget: If you love your greater self creating you from within, your world becomes miraculous. I.e., the quantum continuum evolves forward for you in "scientifically" unexpected ways, and the love backfills you 10 fold.
Sorry about the molecular alignment problem. I was rushing at the end...

 This message is a reply to: Message 77 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-13-2019 5:34 PM Tanypteryx has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 81 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-13-2019 7:54 PM Captcass has replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3901
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

 Message 81 of 189 (862837) 09-13-2019 7:54 PM Reply to: Message 80 by Captcass09-13-2019 6:46 PM

Re: Is This Science Going Anywhere?
Not religion. In my paper I call it the universal cosmic consciousness, which is not unique. both Einstein and Newton considered the possibility that the universe was somehow alive.
Religion implies too many other things such as ritual, moral law, dietary law, etc. I differentiate between spirituality and religion.
OK, I wasn't thinking of churches and organized religion, but more what you call spirituality.
You writes:
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 looks to me like you are getting ready to give us the pros and cons on the science side and on the spiritual side or do I still have it wrong?
Ok, so this is the biggest problem on the science side, what do you see as the biggest problem for the religion side?
I am showing how the universe can be manifested out of simple self-awareness
Since this doesn't make any sense to me, I am going to ask some picky questions.
How exactly are you showing this?
How do you define manifested and simple self awareness?
Is there a scale of self awareness from simple to complex that I can use to measure self awareness to determine its level?
the relativistic effects that manifest the apparent energy that forms the masses. The physicality and the sciences that describe that follow that
This is incomprehensible to me, so I cannot even frame a question.
Sorry about the molecular alignment problem. I was rushing at the end...
That's really the molecubic or molecubicular alignment problem.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

 This message is a reply to: Message 80 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 6:46 PM Captcass has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 82 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 8:28 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Captcass
Member (Idle past 1171 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 06-07-2018

 Message 82 of 189 (862838) 09-13-2019 8:28 PM Reply to: Message 81 by Tanypteryx09-13-2019 7:54 PM

Re: Is This Science Going Anywhere?
"...on the spiritual side...."
I don't really see a problem in perception on the spiritual side. If we go back to religion, yes, there are many problems with many "religious" representations of spirituality, from my point of view.
"How exactly are you showing this?"
I can't explain this any more clearly than in the paper.
"How do you define manifested......"
become apparent
"... and simple self awareness?"
The IATIA state - I Am That I Am
"Is there a scale of self awareness from simple to complex that I can use to measure self awareness to determine its level?"
"....the relativistic effects that manifest the apparent energy that forms the masses."
Energy is only apparent. As are the masses it comprises. Once the energy is "apparently" manifested we can begin applying the physical sciences to it...

 This message is a reply to: Message 81 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-13-2019 7:54 PM Tanypteryx has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 83 by jar, posted 09-13-2019 8:56 PM Captcass has not replied Message 84 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-13-2019 9:29 PM Captcass has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5

 Message 83 of 189 (862840) 09-13-2019 8:56 PM Reply to: Message 82 by Captcass09-13-2019 8:28 PM

Re: Is This Science Going Anywhere?
quote:
become apparent
The IATIA state - I Am That I Am
Energy is only apparent. As are the masses it comprises. Once the energy is "apparently" manifested we can begin applying the physical sciences to it...
Utter complete nonsense and word salad, the voice of the Carny Huckster and Snake Oil Salesman.
Sorry but there is ZERO actual content in those pontifications, just bullshit.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

 This message is a reply to: Message 82 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 8:28 PM Captcass has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3901
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

 Message 84 of 189 (862841) 09-13-2019 9:29 PM Reply to: Message 82 by Captcass09-13-2019 8:28 PM

Re: Is This Science Going Anywhere?
Ok, I'm done. I'll wait to read the Nobel Committee description of your discovery.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

 This message is a reply to: Message 82 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 8:28 PM Captcass has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 87 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 10:21 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 949 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 (2)
 Message 85 of 189 (862842) 09-13-2019 9:37 PM Reply to: Message 71 by Captcass09-13-2019 3:31 PM

and more infinity ((()))
I see you've moved on to other comments. In Message 76 I was a little rushed, so just to make sure you understand, I'll finish now, just to be clear:
$\color{white} \frac{1}{(1 + 2.2686*10^{-18})}$
is just a constant factor, nothing special ... so
as t1 ‘ ,
t1 / (1 + 2.2686*10^-18) ‘ ,
They approach the same , and thus = ... in fact ... ≡ ... one is not different from the other, and understanding this is necessary to do the math you pretend to use.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

 This message is a reply to: Message 71 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 3:31 PM Captcass has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 86 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 10:05 PM RAZD has replied

Captcass
Member (Idle past 1171 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 06-07-2018

 Message 86 of 189 (862843) 09-13-2019 10:05 PM Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD09-13-2019 9:37 PM

Re: and more infinity ((()))
((t1 / (1 + 2.2686*10^-18)) CAN approach, but never reach ....
just as t1 CAN ‘ . but also can never reach it.....
And they do so at different rates and one does not ever equal the other

 This message is a reply to: Message 85 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2019 9:37 PM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 89 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2019 8:09 AM Captcass has not replied Message 95 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2019 7:47 AM Captcass has not replied Message 96 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2019 9:09 AM Captcass has not replied

Captcass
Member (Idle past 1171 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 06-07-2018

 Message 87 of 189 (862844) 09-13-2019 10:21 PM Reply to: Message 84 by Tanypteryx09-13-2019 9:29 PM

Re: Is This Science Going Anywhere?
"I'll wait to read the Nobel Committee description..."
As I noted above, the James Webb scope being launched in 2021 will be a great test...

 This message is a reply to: Message 84 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-13-2019 9:29 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 88 by jar, posted 09-14-2019 7:03 AM Captcass has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5

 Message 88 of 189 (862845) 09-14-2019 7:03 AM Reply to: Message 87 by Captcass09-13-2019 10:21 PM

Re: Is This Science Going Anywhere?
When did they add instruments to the James Webb Telescope to test for awareness?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

 This message is a reply to: Message 87 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 10:21 PM Captcass has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 92 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2019 10:46 AM jar has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 949 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 89 of 189 (862846) 09-14-2019 8:09 AM Reply to: Message 86 by Captcass09-13-2019 10:05 PM

Re: and more infinity ((())) redux (edited)
Let's try again ... you have a problem with the concept of ...
just as t1 CAN ‘ . but also can never reach it.....
What does it reach? Does it reach (-1)? How big is (-1)?
Take your time. Be explicit, give references if you can.
Now, ALTERNATIVELY ... taking a different approach:
Let's look at your formula again ... as t1 ‘ you claim:
$\color{white} {\frac{{\Delta}{t}_{1}}{(1 + 2.2686*10^{-18})}} < {\infty}$
However, this can also be written:
$\color{white} {{\Delta}{t}_{1}} < {(1 + 2.2686*10^{-18})} {\infty}$
$\color{white} {(1 + 2.2686*10^{-18})} {\infty} > {\infty}$
So t1 CAN = because (according to your way of thinking) both are less than (1 + 2.2686*10^-18)
(edit)But more than that, it means t1 CAN > (according to your thinking) ... and still be < (1 + 2.2686*10^-18) ... ie, as as t1 ‘ a point is reached where:
$\color{white} {\infty} < {{\Delta}{t}_{1}} < {(1 + 2.2686*10^{-18})} {\infty}$
Thus thinking that t1 ‘ means that t1 is always < results in a paradox that
$\color{white} {\infty} < {{\Delta}{t}_{1}} < {\infty}$
This paradox is resolved by replacing ">" with ≥ and "<" with ≤, which proves that your equation is wrong and should be written:
$\color{white} {\frac{{\Delta}{t}_{1}}{(1 + 2.2686*10^{-18})}} ~ {\leq} ~ {\infty}$
It also proves that (a) times = for any value of the constant a.
This paradox/problem arises due to thinking of as a number rather than a concept. (/edit)
BTW ... just for fun, can you tell me what is greater than ?
This, of course, means that your conclusion that "infinite divergence is impossible" is not a valid conclusion.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : nits to pick
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

 This message is a reply to: Message 86 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 10:05 PM Captcass has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 949 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 90 of 189 (862847) 09-14-2019 8:36 AM Reply to: Message 71 by Captcass09-13-2019 3:31 PM

a thousand relativistic points of light
Just curious ... a couple of questions ...
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.
First
... Where the recessional velocity appears to reach c, we will see relativistic points of light if it is due to recessional velocity ...
Can you tell me where the prediction "Where the recessional velocity appears to reach c, we will see relativistic points of light if it is due to recessional velocity" comes from? Who/what is the source? Journal article etc.
Or is this something you made up, in which case it is a straw man, a test of no value.
Second
... If it is due to slower time, we will see form, as we do with GnZ11 with an apparent recessional velocity of .98c.
What if we only see "an apparent recessional velocity" of 0.99c or 0.999c with the Webb telescope? Will we still "see form" in those conditions?
Why does "slower time" not produce "relativistic points of light" as well?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

 This message is a reply to: Message 71 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 3:31 PM Captcass has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)