
Register  Sign In 

QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details 

Thread Info



Author  Topic: Time Dilation, the Hubble Shift and God's Eternal Universe  
RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
Slow day ...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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:

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, : .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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
... that this popped up on Facegoob:
quote: Maybe Captcass can explain this, seeing as he didn't answer your question. Enjoyby 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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:

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: ie  the shortest distance along a curved surface between two points is a geodesic. So how are the geodesics distorted?
Obversely, as t1 ‘ , infinite divergence is impossible as t1 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, : .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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:

quote: Because they are looking at it astrophysically rather than as an evolving quantum field. So you are saying that your "evolving quantum field" approach resolves the different measurements? Can you show your work?
Message 54 Razd:
Obversely, as t1 ‘ , infinite divergence is impossible as t1 is always divided by a sum > 1; i.e., / (1 + 2.2686*10^18) < . Nope, not obvious, because the answer is still ∞  you'll need to do better than that. Let me expand on your error:
where a is a constant. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
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. 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.
As for your math, the constant is equal to 1 in order to get the result.... Nope. The constant is equal to any constant number.
∞ + ∞ = ∞ which can also be written 2 x ∞ = ∞ We can also do
∞ + ∞ + ∞ = ∞ which can also be written 3 x ∞ = ∞ or
∞_{1} + ∞_{2} + ∞_{3} + ... + ∞_{a}= ∞ which can also be written a x ∞ = ∞ This is elementary math Your factor of (1 + 2.2686*10^{^18})^{^1} is just another value for a. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : .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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
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" Enjoyby 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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:

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:
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. Enjoyby 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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
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 t_{1} ‘ you claim:
However, this can also be written:
Now (with your thinking):
So t_{1} CAN = because (according to your way of thinking) both are less than (1 + 2.2686*10^18) (edit)But more than that, it means t_{1} CAN > (according to your thinking) ... and still be < (1 + 2.2686*10^{^18}) ... ie, as as t_{1} ‘ a point is reached where:
Thus thinking that t_{1} ‘ means that t_{1} is always < results in a paradox that
This paradox is resolved by replacing ">" with ≥ and "<" with ≤, which proves that your equation is wrong and should be written:
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 ? Take your time. 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, : .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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
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? Enjoyby 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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
re Message 53
quote: Because they are looking at it astrophysically rather than as an evolving quantum field. A previous measurement:
quote: The press release referred to in the article quoted in Message 53 says
quote: (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:
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: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
When did they add instruments to the James Webb Telescope to test for awareness? Alexa is on board ... 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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
((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? Enjoyby 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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
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 t_{1} CAN > (according to your thinking) ... and still be < (1 + 2.2686*10^{^18}) ... ie, as as t_{1} ‘ a point is reached where:
Thus thinking that t_{1} ‘ means that t_{1} is always < results in a paradox that
This paradox is resolved by replacing ">" with ≥ and "<" with ≤, which proves that your equation is wrong and should be written:
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) Enjoyby 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)


RAZD Member (Idle past 1100 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
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 jokeby 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)



Do Nothing Button
Copyright 20012022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023