Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
 2 online now: Newest Member: sensei Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin Post Volume: Total: 904,086 Year: 967/14,231 Month: 967/1,514 Week: 0/234 Day: 0/36 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 890 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 91 of 189 (862854) 09-14-2019 10:30 AM Reply to: Message 55 by Captcass09-13-2019 11:03 AM

Even More Interesting
re Message 53
quote:
"....... 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.
A previous measurement:
quote:
Hubble finds universe is expanding faster than expected
University of California Berkeley Press Release
2 June 2016
A NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image of the galaxy UGC 9391, one of the galaxies in the new survey. UGC 9391 contains the two types of stars Cepheid variables and a Type 1a supernova that astronomers used to calculate a more precise Hubble Constant. The red circles that mark the locations of Cepheids. The blue X denotes the location of supernova 2003du, a Type Ia supernova. The observations for this composite image were taken between 2012 and 2013 by Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3. Image credit: NASA, ESA, and A. Riess (STScI/JHU).
Astronomers have obtained the most precise measurement yet of how fast the universe is expanding at the present time, and it doesn’t agree with predictions based on other data and our current understanding of the physics of the cosmos.
The discrepancy the universe is now expanding 9 percent faster than expected means either that measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation are wrong, or that some unknown physical phenomenon is speeding up the expansion of space, the astronomers say.
Previous direct measurements of galaxies pegged the current expansion rate, or Hubble Constant, between 70 and 75 km/sec/Mpc, give or take about 5-10 percent a result that is not definitely in conflict with the Planck predictions. But the new direct measurements yield a rate of 73.24 (1.74) km/sec/Mpc, an uncertainty of only 2.4 percent, and clearly incompatible with the Planck predictions, Filippenko said.
The press release referred to in the article quoted in Message 53 says
quote:
New Hubble Constant Measurement Adds to Mystery of Universe's Expansion Rate
July 16, 2019
Astronomers have made a new measurement of how fast the universe is expanding, using an entirely different kind of star than previous endeavors. The revised measurement, which comes from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, falls in the center of a hotly debated question in astrophysics that may lead to a new interpretation of the universe's fundamental properties.
Now, University of Chicago professor Wendy Freedman and colleagues have a new measurement for the rate of expansion in the modern universe, suggesting the space between galaxies is stretching faster than scientists would expect. Freedman's is one of several recent studies that point to a nagging discrepancy between modern expansion measurements and predictions based on the universe as it was more than 13 billion years ago, as measured by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite.
"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," said Freedman. "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.
But more recently, scientists took a very different approach: building a model based on the rippling structure of light left over from the big bang, which is called the Cosmic Microwave Background. The Planck measurements allow scientists to predict how the early universe would likely have evolved into the expansion rate astronomers can measure today. Scientists calculated a value of 67.4 km/sec/Mpc, in significant disagreement with the rate of 74.0 km/sec/Mpc measured with Cepheid stars.
Freedman's team sought to check their results by establishing a new and entirely independent path to the Hubble constant using an entirely different kind of star.
Certain stars end their lives as a very luminous kind of star called a red giant, a stage of evolution that our own Sun will experience billions of years from now. At a certain point, the star undergoes a catastrophic event called a helium flash, in which the temperature rises to about 100 million degrees and the structure of the star is rearranged, which ultimately dramatically decreases its luminosity. Astronomers can measure the apparent brightness of the red giant stars at this stage in different galaxies, and they can use this as a way to tell their distance.
The Hubble constant is calculated by comparing distance values to the apparent recessional velocity of the target galaxies that is, how fast galaxies seem to be moving away. The team's calculations give a Hubble constant of 69.8 km/sec/Mpc straddling the values derived by the Planck and Riess teams.
But the results do not appear to strongly favor one answer over the other say the researchers, although they align more closely with the Planck results.
NASA's upcoming mission, the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), scheduled to launch in the mid-2020s, will enable astronomers to better explore the value of the Hubble constant across cosmic time. WFIRST, with its Hubble-like resolution and 100 times greater view of the sky, will provide a wealth of new Type Ia supernovae, Cepheid variables, and red giant stars to fundamentally improve distance measurements to galaxies near and far.
(nothing about the James Webb Telescope)
Note: their measurements, 69.8 km/sec/Mpc, "... align more closely with the Planck results" (which were 70 to 75 km/sec/Mpc 5%).
So we have, in chronological order:
1. 70 to 75 km/sec/Mpc (5%), the European Space Agency's Planck satellite results
2. 67.4 km/sec/Mpc, based on Cosmic Microwave Background results
3. 73.24 (1.74) km/sec/Mpc, based on Cepheid stars (variables)
4. 69.8 km/sec/Mpc, based on red giant stars
This does not seem to me to be enough discrepancy to throw out the current model, rather it is an indication of the difficulty of making more accurate measurements and refining the results.
To show that the current model is wrong, i would expect a greater disagreement than 4%. This just shows that it is not quite right ... yet.
Conversely, to show that a different definition for the Hubble Constant provides better results, one would have to demonstrate (a) that it explains all the current evidence, (b) resolves the current discrepancies and (c) provides a prediction that will test the new paradigm.
Enjoy
How do you quote someone here? I don't see a "quote" button???
... already shown several times, some posting tips:
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

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 55 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 11:03 AM Captcass has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 890 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 92 of 189 (862855) 09-14-2019 10:46 AM Reply to: Message 88 by jar09-14-2019 7:03 AM

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

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 88 by jar, posted 09-14-2019 7:03 AM jar has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 17005
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0

 Message 93 of 189 (862856) 09-14-2019 4:04 PM Reply to: Message 57 by Captcass09-13-2019 11:44 AM

Captaincass writes:
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.
Much respect. Theo is actually defending you and chiding me for posting your website. My apologies if I stepped out of line. I was curious as to who you were...and dont consider you as "just another one of *those* crazy Christians." I would like to discuss your faith and belief in another topic.
As for the acid. I never knew what kind it was. It dissolved 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've had a few similar experiences which tested and/or confirmed my faith. Critics claim that *we* jump at any unevidenced event to bolster our faith due to lack of evidence but thats irrelevant to this science topic.
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.
I dont see you as a troll nor a spammer and thought you were interesting. (I'm curious by nature ) I can see where the critical thinking purists here insist upon standard scientific review of any theory...but I chided them for being so tough on your theory without considering that it meant a lot to you and was not simply some cultic jibber jabber. Science Forums love evidence, however, so I might ask you what personally convinced you that you were possibly on to something new or never discussed the way you framed it?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

 This message is a reply to: Message 57 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 11:44 AM Captcass has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 94 by Captcass, posted 09-14-2019 4:38 PM Phat has not replied

Captcass
Member (Idle past 1112 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 06-07-2018

 Message 94 of 189 (862859) 09-14-2019 4:38 PM Reply to: Message 93 by Phat09-14-2019 4:04 PM

quote:
what personally convinced you that you were possibly on to something new or never discussed the way you framed it
I have been studying QM and GR for years. Decades ago I saw a comment that GR described a curvature in the forward direction of time. I have been trying to picture that ever since.
About 5 or 6 years ago I had the inspiration about gravity being an evolution of events within the continuum. For that to be valid, I had to be able to explain Ho as due to time dilation. Though I now see it as fairly simple, it took me three years to come up with the correct explanation and derivation.
In all my years of research I have never found anything like what I finally came up with when I put the pieces all together.
If you would like to start another thread about spirituality, I would be happy to participate.
I understand the science guys not wanting "religion" here. That is why I differentiate between spirituality and religion. "Religion" contains too many gross errors. I am not a Christian. I am a Buchrishinjewmus I tell the Christians I am not a Christian, I follow Jesus instead.
I tell the astro folk that spacetime has 2 elements, space and time. They are looking at the physical spatial aspect, and it is diffcult for them to shift perspective to what is happening in the ephemeral time aspect, but there is a time aspect to consider.
Edited by Captcass, : spelling

 This message is a reply to: Message 93 by Phat, posted 09-14-2019 4:04 PM Phat has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 890 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 95 of 189 (862868) 09-15-2019 7:47 AM Reply to: Message 86 by Captcass09-13-2019 10:05 PM

another approach
((t1 / (1 + 2.2686*10^-18)) CAN approach, but never reach ....
just as t1 CAN ‘ . but also can never reach it.....
If they can't reach infinity, what finite number do they stop at?
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 86 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 10:05 PM Captcass has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 890 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 96 of 189 (862869) 09-15-2019 9:09 AM Reply to: Message 86 by Captcass09-13-2019 10:05 PM

this too is false, it is also bogus ...
And they do so at different rates and one does not ever equal the other
The "rate" of ((t1 / (1 + 2.2686*10^-18)) is the same as the "rate" of t1 because {1/(1 + 2.2686*10^-18)} is a constant.
But this is also bogus because there is no "rate" of approaching infinity.
Can you tell me what +1 equals if it doesn't equal ?
Can you tell me what -1 equals if it doesn't equal ?
Note that I have edited Message 89 to add this section:
(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)
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 86 by Captcass, posted 09-13-2019 10:05 PM Captcass has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 97 by Theodoric, posted 09-15-2019 10:33 AM RAZD has replied Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-15-2019 12:07 PM RAZD has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 8069
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.4

 Message 97 of 189 (862870) 09-15-2019 10:33 AM Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD09-15-2019 9:09 AM

Re: this too is false, it is also bogus ...
Maybe this is why his paper was published in a vanity journal as opposed to a legitimate, respected journal?

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 96 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2019 9:09 AM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 98 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2019 11:41 AM Theodoric has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 890 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 98 of 189 (862871) 09-15-2019 11:41 AM Reply to: Message 97 by Theodoric09-15-2019 10:33 AM

Infinity is like the Borg Cube of math
The problem stems from not understanding what the concept of infinity means.
Infinity is like the Borg Cube of math ... all numbers will be assimilated ... resistance is futile ...
" ... all your base are belong to us ... "
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : added a base joke

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 97 by Theodoric, posted 09-15-2019 10:33 AM Theodoric has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3744
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 2.6

 Message 99 of 189 (862872) 09-15-2019 12:07 PM Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD09-15-2019 9:09 AM

Re: this too is false, it is also bogus ...
My question is why didn't the "peer reviewers" catch this error? I wonder if they forced any revisions in the "year of review?"

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 96 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2019 9:09 AM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 100 by Captcass, posted 09-15-2019 1:45 PM Tanypteryx has not replied Message 101 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2019 2:24 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Captcass
Member (Idle past 1112 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 06-07-2018

 Message 100 of 189 (862876) 09-15-2019 1:45 PM Reply to: Message 99 by Tanypteryx09-15-2019 12:07 PM

Re: this too is false, it is also bogus ...
quote:
I wonder if they forced any revisions in the "year of review?"
There were 3 revisions. As my original paper as submitted predicted black holes were empty space, and as that is what Schild's team found, I happily changed "blackhole" to "MECO".
As they were considering it, I compiled some clarifications that I added as 1 revision when I did the only other revision they wanted, which was to temove "religious" terminology like "faith" and "IATIA" from the Origin section. The predited final section is in the pre-journal version on Vixra.
I had originally submitted it to another journal, don't remember which, whose editor forwarded it to the Executive Editor of the J of C, who then contacted me....

 This message is a reply to: Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-15-2019 12:07 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 890 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 101 of 189 (862879) 09-15-2019 2:24 PM Reply to: Message 99 by Tanypteryx09-15-2019 12:07 PM

questions on review process, thoroughness, etc.
My question is why didn't the "peer reviewers" catch this error? ...
Good question. It certainly calls into question the caliber of their review process.
As theodoric says, it is a vanity press, so they just need the appearance of review, and if they are too hard on the papers that could cut into the profits by discouraging applicants.
Just a thought.
From viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1804.0109, -- the link to the PDF paper:
quote:
Submission history
[v1] 2018-04-07 15:22:25 (removed)
[v2] 2018-05-02 13:54:56 (removed)
[v3] 2018-05-07 23:41:22 (removed)
[v4] 2018-05-10 10:00:51 (removed)
[v5] 2018-05-16 23:02:31 (removed)
[v6] 2018-05-18 10:11:22 (removed)
[v7] 2018-05-24 11:21:03 (removed)
[v8] 2018-06-14 23:33:55
The revisions (v2 through v8) would tend to indicate that some changes were made, however it also says this:
quote:
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.
1 comment
Capt. Cass Forrington 2 months ago edited
Capt. Cass Forrington's Author's Note: The final version of this paper, which replaces black holes with MECOs and clarifies some other items, was published in the Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 26, #21, Journal of Cosmology pp 15119.- 15143, on 7/29/2019 and can be found there.
So the version here is not the same as the version published in the Journal of Cosmology, for which no link was provided.
quote:
The Journal of Cosmology describes itself as a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal of cosmology,[1] although the quality of the process has been questioned.[2][3][4][5][6][7] The journal has been closely related historically with a similar online website, Cosmology (or Cosmology.com).[8] The journal was established in 2009 and is published by Cosmology Science Publishers. Rudolph Schild is the editor-in-chief and executive editor.[1]
Disputes with other scientists
Scientists who have posted accounts of personal attacks by the journal's staff members include Susan Blackmore,[13] David Brin,[14] and PZ Myers.[15]
Journal of Cosmology
General Relativity: Effects in Time as Causation
quote:
21. Capt. Joseph H. (Cass) Forrington, General Relativity: Effects in Time as Causation, By deriving the Hubble constant as a 2.2686*10-18 acceleration in the rate of proper time, rather than as an acceleration through space (or as due to an expansion of space), and adding that acceleration to the time elements of Einstein's Tensor, we complete General Relativity, eliminating Big Bangs and Crunches, infinite expansions (accelerating or not) and "Dark Energy". The acceleration manifests a time dilation gradient looking outward so older frames are also slower frames until a 1 s/s difference is reached, a "Limit of Relativity", at the cosmological horizon, where time appears to stop, the same effect we would see with a recessional velocity of c, which a Hubble constant of 70 Mps/sec indicates occurs at ~13.9+ Gly, just beyond the currently accepted Cosmological Horizon at ~13.8 Gly.
Looking inward into the galaxies, we see another 1 s/s Limit of Relativity at the event horizons of the MECOs at the centers of the galaxies, where time also appears to stop. This gives us an eternal spacetime (quantum) continuum evolving between two apparent Limits of Relativity, and, if we accept the 1 s/s Limit of Relativity as establishing the boundaries of our universe in all directions, and as the center of a MECO is empty space, the center of each MECO at the center of each galaxy is a branching of the universe into an infinity of other universes as the older frames at the cosmological horizon fade away.
Time evolves space (and the events therein) forward. This makes time the fundamental force of the universe. This is the evolution of space in situ in the forward direction of time, not a forward evolution in space. This is the Fundamental Direction of Evolution (FDE). When a time dilation gradient is introduced, we also see an evolution of events down the gradient, because to the outside observer the next instant manifests first in the faster frames. This is the Gravitational Direction of Evolution (GDE). This is why gravity only has one direction and why it overpowers the other forces so easily even though it appears to be so weak: it is an irresistible evolutionary force in time. The apparent curvature of motion of distant objects we observe from our inertial frames as the continuum evolves forward is a resultant of these two directions of evolution. General Relativity describes how that evolution appears to an inertial observer due to the Lorentz transformations in a spherical dilation pit and under other, but not all, circumstances.
It is shown how this gravitational evolution manifests kinetic energy which is translated into pressure and thermal energy at the focus of a spherical time dilation pit.
Galactic rotation velocities are explained by applying this view of the evolving spacetime continuum, eliminating "Dark Matter".
The origin of spacetime is explained, which allows for the explanation provided for non-locality.
Capt. Forrington is a Cum Laude graduate of the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York, 1972. He has had a lifelong interest in quantum physics, relativity and cosmology.
One particular statement he read decades ago about General Relativity describing the "curvature of events in the forward direction of time", often came back to occupy his thoughts and, in 2013, he had an inspiration regarding gravity as an evolution of events in the forward direction of time within the quantum continuum that sent him back to school to refresh his calculus, then study quantum mechanics and tensor calculus so he could develop his concept further from there. For the concept to work, the Hubble shift had to be able to be explained as being due to time dilation and it took three years of attempts to finally arrive at the final, definitive, derivation.
Capt. Forrington is also the founder and curator of Fort Bragg, California's International Sea Glass Museum, and is an avid proponent of the recycling of glass in the formation of glass reefs worldwide on our badly depleted continental shelves, as the minerals used to make, color and clarify the glass form the basis of a food chain and Fort Bragg's world famous Glass Beaches have created the richest marine environment in at least Northern California.
pp 15119 - 15143.
One wonders why the link provided in Message 1 was not to this more final PDF version of the paper. Especially as it includes a significant change from black holes to MECOs.
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 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-15-2019 12:07 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 102 by Captcass, posted 09-15-2019 3:59 PM RAZD has replied

Captcass
Member (Idle past 1112 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 06-07-2018

 Message 102 of 189 (862883) 09-15-2019 3:59 PM Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD09-15-2019 2:24 PM

Re: questions on review process, thoroughness, etc.
quote:
One wonders why the link provided in Message 1 was not to this more final PDF version of the paper
I was making various revisions to the vixra version before I submitted the final vixra v8 to the journal that forwarded it to J of C.
You don't publish journal versions in vixra as the journal now has copyright. If I had put the final journal up I would have violated that. I can only publish it on my own site and I have registered a new domain to do just that. If they had just accepted v8, I would have had to remove it from vixra.
The J of C is not a vanity journal. People only pay a reviewer's fee and a posting fee, as listed on the journal's site. They also waive those fees if the individual is from a poor country and can't afford the fee.
Addition: You cannot post links to outside sites on vixra. Hence my comment in lieu of a link.
I would also note that there were several papers on vixra that preceded this one over the last 5 years that helped me work through things. I completely removed each of those when i found a fatal flaw or had an inspiration to improve it in a major way.
You are only allowed 9 v's on vixra per paper....

 This message is a reply to: Message 101 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2019 2:24 PM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 103 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2019 5:35 PM Captcass has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 890 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 103 of 189 (862888) 09-15-2019 5:35 PM Reply to: Message 102 by Captcass09-15-2019 3:59 PM

Re: questions on review process, thoroughness, etc.
That doesn't really answer my question:
quote:
One wonders why the link provided in Message 1 was not to this more final PDF version of the paper
I was making various revisions to the vixra version before I submitted the final vixra v8 to the journal that forwarded it to J of C.
The link to the Journal article is HERE (PDF)
It would have saved people some time tracking it down if you had just posted that link instead of the vixtra one. That would also look more professional, linking the final version instead of (essentially) draft versions.
Reading it I notice you still have the same misunderstanding of ∞ that you can treat it like a fixed number.
Consider this:
(11 + 12 +13 + ... + 1N) = N
and (11 + 12 +13 + ... (no end)) = ∞
so ∞ + 1 = ∞ and you can regress this as (∞ + 1) + 1 = ∞
and ... ∞ + k = ∞ (where k is a constant of any value -∞ ≤ k ≤ +∞)
thus we can regress this to where we have ∞ + ∞ = ∞
so ... ∞ x 2 = ∞ ... and you can regress this as (∞ x 2) x 2 = ∞
and thus ∞ x k = ∞ (where k is a constant of any value -∞ ≤ k ≤ +∞)
quote:
Lesson 10: Infinity times 2
While all of this might sound a bit strange or a bit fake, we’ll soon see that these ideas are in fact completely rigorous. Indeed, the rigor and beauty of these ideas are such that we’ll be forced to somehow believe that there really are many kinds of infinities (scare quotes because I won’t discuss here what it means to really be). So enough with the fluffy philosophylet’s do some math. What we’ll focus on in this lesson is giving precise meaning to the phrase infinity times 2 is infinity. Actually, what we’ll show, is that infinity type 1 times 2 is infinity type 1.
And yes, the infinity you are using is what they call infinity type 1.
What this means is that your formula in Message 1
... / (1 + 2.2686*10^-18) < .
is incorrect, and it should be
/ (1 + 2.2686*10^-18) =
... ... as t1 ‘ , infinite divergence is impossible ...
Does not follow. It may be true, but this is not the reason.
Enjoy
ps - Presumably your BS is from your graduation Cum Laude from the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York, 1972. Out of curiosity what was the specific field? I've studied navigation and know how to use a sextant, but i"m never really sure where I am ... and in my youth I was foredeck crew on an Olson30 ULDB racing sloop. Nice pic.

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 102 by Captcass, posted 09-15-2019 3:59 PM Captcass has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 104 by Captcass, posted 09-15-2019 10:54 PM RAZD has replied

Captcass
Member (Idle past 1112 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 06-07-2018

 Message 104 of 189 (862890) 09-15-2019 10:54 PM Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD09-15-2019 5:35 PM

Re: questions on review process, thoroughness, etc.
quote:
It would have saved people some time tracking it down if you had just posted that link instead of the vixtra one
The vixra link was posted way before my paper had been accepted. When I returned here to this thread to note that it was accepted and published, I posted a link or info on how to get there, I forget which and am not going o go back thru all the posts.
You are getting close to understanding why my formula is correct and has been accepted by everyone else reviewing the paper, now over 300....
Actually, I do not know if they all agree with my paper. I doubt it very much.
But not a one has commented on your supposed "fault".
Since no one has responded, I can only add to what I had so,.....
I am now going to share some of what I call my "quantum tales" that demonstrate how the universe evolves forward for us, each of us, every one of us as an individual.
I use these often to explain "things" to people in my museum...
I have been working on further concepts implied by my theory. One of those came up in a forum the other day when someone wanted me to talk about "particles". What I told him led him to ask me if I was saying particles didn't exist and that led to me sharing these short "quantum" tales:
"They don't exist as a "thing". They are evolving events. An electron is neither a particle nor a wave. It is an electron, which can display both properties depending on how we observe it.
This is why I don't like discussing particles. Of course we consider a ball to be a "particle" for practical purposes, but it is not. It is an interaction of the waveform probabilities within the continuum. When you are not looking at your ball, it doesn't even exist for you.
We can never find a way to formulate absolute quantum determination because our actions, including thoughts, hopes, expectations and observations, affect the next instant’s manifestation of events.
For instance, I have a sea glass business and would ocean kayak to my favorite collecting site. I landed at the beach one day and found two marbles right next to each other right next to my kayak. They were just plain, colorless, well frosted, marbles but marbles are rarer than reds (which are 1 in 5,000 pieces) and to find two right next to each other is remarkable.
So I said, "Lord,thank you". I sure would like to find a red marble, though. I've got a blue one, and I thank you, but I sure would like to find a red one. Please, Lord?" (the Creator is neither male nor female nor human, etc., but this is how I address It. It is simply the greater Self within us that is manifesting us. I.E., our very Life. All living things are just a different point of view for It. We instinctively roll our eyes up, even atheists, when saying, "Oh, God". That is the "3rd eye" spot, the Hindu Om chakra, the frontal lobe of the brain.).
I put that thought aside and went back picking and after about 2 hours I was tired and it was time to go tide-wise, but there was just a little more beach to cover, so I decided to just make a quick pass and see if I could spot anything big just lying on top. Normally I would walk very slowly, looking for the gems amongst all the other glass.
Just before I got to the end there was this huge red marble. It's 15/16ths of an inch in diameter. It is a beautiful blood red with a white swirl that forms a wave. Click on the link below to view it.
http://captcass.com/images/Red%20Marble%20cropped.jpg
I rolled my eyes up and went, "Lord!, Oh God! Dear Lord, etc." Then, when I bent down to pick up the marble, there were also two pieces of jewelry quality RED glass, one on either side of the marble. I went, "Oh, Lord! Dear God!, etc. a bunch more and danced around with tears in my eyes. This is how the Creator talks to me. The two red pieces, to me, were the Creator saying the marble was not a coincidence, that I asked for red and got red. The odds of finding all three together are just too vast for it to be otherwise.
I would also note that I had only pictured a small, regular sized red marble when I asked. I find the Creator always gives us a much better version of what we ask for than what we imagined. I believe this is because the Creator has a by far greater imagination than we do.
The point here is that neither the marble, nor even that section of beach it lay upon, existed for me until I observed them and all the superposition possibilities collapsed into my reality, which was partly determined by my wishes, faith and expectations. This eliminates the possibility of the formulation of an absolute quantum determination.
It is also why I don't like discussing "particles".
I don't include the above in my paper because it is indeterminate.
The Girl and Reds
One day there was a girl about age 8 or 9 at the beach. She was only looking for reds (1 in 5,000 pieces). In 2 hours, she found 9 reds, whereas I, who was looking for whatever, would find a red every 3 or 4 months.
At one point she came running up to me and starting talking to me and as we were finishing up she looked down and picked up a beautiful red right from right between my feet.
I wanted to strangle that poor little girl.
Children tend to find what they are looking for because they believe they can.
A Stranger’s Faith
I began my business by selling on the headlands. One day a man came down and asked me where to look. I told him there was a slag pile in the cove next to me and that because it replenished the beach he might find something rare like a red.
He came back in about 15 minutes with a beautiful red and asked me where else he could look. Knowing what was happening and laughing to myself, I told him he could go to the beach behind me and that there was much more glass there and maybe he could find something even rarer, like a grape purple, which are 1 in 10,000 pieces.
He came back in about 20 minutes with a beautiful grape purple. I found about 1 a year.
He simply believed what I told him, as would a little child. Sound familiar?
This is quantum physics, not "religion", though I expect some of the "pure" science folks will be uncomfortable.

 This message is a reply to: Message 103 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2019 5:35 PM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 105 by jar, posted 09-16-2019 8:07 AM Captcass has not replied Message 117 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2019 12:56 PM Captcass has not replied Message 131 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2019 10:21 AM Captcass has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

 Message 105 of 189 (862892) 09-16-2019 8:07 AM Reply to: Message 104 by Captcass09-15-2019 10:54 PM

Re: questions on review process, thoroughness, etc.
This is quantum physics, not "religion", though I expect some of the "pure" science folks will be uncomfortable.
No, that is not quantum physics it is the classic snake oil salesman carny spiel.

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 104 by Captcass, posted 09-15-2019 10:54 PM Captcass has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 106 by Phat, posted 09-16-2019 8:53 AM jar has replied

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