
Register  Sign In 

QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total) 
 
Jorge Parker  
Total: 918,223 Year: 5,480/9,624 Month: 505/323 Week: 2/143 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0 
Thread ▼ Details 

Thread Info



Author  Topic: Time Dilation, the Hubble Shift and God's Eternal Universe  
RAZD Member (Idle past 1519 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
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 ePrint archive, viXra:1804.0109,  the link to the PDF paper:
quote: The revisions (v2 through v8) would tend to indicate that some changes were made, however it also says this:
quote: So the version here is not the same as the version published in the Journal of Cosmology, for which no link was provided.
quote: Journal of CosmologyGeneral Relativity: Effects in Time as Causation quote: 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.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 1519 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 
That doesn't really answer my question:
quote: 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:
(1_{1} + 1_{2} +1_{3} + ... + 1_{N}) = N and (1_{1} + 1_{2} +1_{3} + ... (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: 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) = This means that your conclusion
... ... 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.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 1519 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:

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.... Most curious. It seems that what you regard as peer review is random people on the internet making comments regardless of their expertise in appropriate fields. That's not how it works. For instance, a typical garage mechanic is not equipped with the expertise to comment on medical procedures, and their failure to do so is no vindication of the medical procedures.
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". And it is no surprise to me that some random internet joker is not equipped with the expertise to see this error. There is nothing "supposed" about it, and you seem to be of the opinion that facts can be ignored if someone else ignores it. Your problem is that I have demonstrated mathematically that your mathematical formula is wrong. You based a conclusion on that formula, so you need to review that conclusion and replace the formula with a corrected version. As I pointed out in Message 103 the actual math shows
(1_{1} + 1_{2} +1_{3} + ... + 1_{N}) = N and (1_{1} + 1_{2} +1_{3} + ... (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 ≤ +∞) Your formula: / (1 + 2.2686*10^18) < , multiplied by (1 + 2.2686*10^18) gives = (1 + 2.2686*10^18) x , and 1 < (1 + 2.2686*10^18) < 2 Multiplying that last by gives 1 < (1 + 2.2686*10^18) < 2, but we know from the actual math that 2 = So your formula reduces to < (1 + 2.2686*10^18) < and as I said you need to replace "<" with and ≤ (1 + 2.2686*10^18) ≤ is only valid when (1 + 2.2686*10^18) ≡ Now I have explained this several different times in several different ways, and your unwillingness/failure to grasp this truth at this point puts your whole paper into question  because you fail to incorporate a fact.
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,..... Truth is not a popularity contest. No if you are interested in the truth you could contact a local college with a math department and ask them. 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 1519 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:

You are getting close to understanding why my formula is correct ... Just to be clear, what I am getting more than "close to understanding," is knowing that your formula is wrong. Period. As such it cannot be used to make conclusions.
... and has been accepted by everyone else reviewing the paper, now over 300.... Curiously, I find it instructive that you make no effort to show your formula is valid by challenging my math, but instead rely on a purported "review" that is nothing but hearsay and assumption. In other words it seems you cannot show my math is wrong. BS in → BS out. Which is no surprise. So tell me, did your math class at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy discuss infinity?
quote: Now I'm not criticizing your education, I'm just saying it was not what would be enough for a BS in Math, so maybe you could contact one of your math professors regarding my critique of your formula that any constant times infinity is de facto infinity. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . 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 1519 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:

You are a looney.
Normally I wouldn't take it so personally, but my mother passed yesterday and, well,....................
Also a very dishonest debater, crackpot and a troll it seems.Message 128 My mother did pass, but in 1995. But I DO still feel the loss.... Message 130 Just couldn't help myself...... See, it I was a "religious nutzo" I'd have said Fascinating. So I can now ignore the rest of what you have posted. Keep looking for your marbles. Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. 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)



Do Nothing Button
Copyright 20012023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024