Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9049 total)
62 online now:
AZPaul3, Tangle (2 members, 60 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps, DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 887,645 Year: 5,291/14,102 Month: 212/677 Week: 17/54 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time Dilation, the Hubble Shift and God's Eternal Universe
RAZD
Member (Idle past 429 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 Tanypteryx
09-15-2019 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 http://vixra.org/abs/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

Unique-IP document downloads: 193 times


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.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
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
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... 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 yet responded

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

RAZD
Member (Idle past 429 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 Captcass
09-15-2019 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 philosophy—let’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) = ∞

This means that your conclusion

... ... as Δt1 → ∞, 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
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... 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 responded

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

RAZD
Member (Idle past 429 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 117 of 189 (862946)
09-17-2019 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Captcass
09-15-2019 10:54 PM


Re: questions on review process, thoroughness, etc.
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

(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 ≤ +∞)

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.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... 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 104 by Captcass, posted 09-15-2019 10:54 PM Captcass has not yet responded

RAZD
Member (Idle past 429 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 131 of 189 (862988)
09-18-2019 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Captcass
09-15-2019 10:54 PM


wrong is wrong, math is not up for voting.
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:
Core Curriculum

This core curriculum has several components (specific courses meeting these requirements are identified later in the course description section):

  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • English
  • Leadership and Ethics
  • Comparative Literature and History
  • Naval Science
  • Physical Education and Ship’s Medicine
  • Internship
  • Sea Year
  • Major Programs

Programs

Midshipmen select their major course of study from among five programs:

  • Marine Transportation - A program combining nautical science and maritime business management.
  • Maritime Logistics and Security - A program combining nautical science and logistics and security management.
  • Marine Engineering - An engineering program focused on shipboard engineering operations.
  • Marine Engineering Systems - An engineering program emphasizing marine engineering design. Accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) Commission of ABET, http://www.abet.org
  • Marine Engineering and Shipyard Management - A program based on a marine engineering core and emphasizing the management of shipyards and other large engineering endeavors. Accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) Commission of ABET, http://www.abet.org

Mathematics

Because mathematics is so important to nearly every area of study at the Academy, all entering midshipmen take an examination administered by the department. Those students who are found to be weaker in math are placed in an extended Calculus 1 course. The extended Calculus 1 provides students with an extra hour of math instruction per week.


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, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... 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 104 by Captcass, posted 09-15-2019 10:54 PM Captcass has not yet responded

RAZD
Member (Idle past 429 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 134 of 189 (863007)
09-18-2019 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Captcass
09-18-2019 10:34 AM


Re: questions on review process, thoroughness, etc.
You are a looney.

Normally I wouldn't take it so personally, but my mother passed yesterday and, well,....................
Message 128
My mother did pass, but in 1995. But I DO still feel the loss....
Message 130

Also a very dishonest debater, crackpot and a troll it seems.

Just couldn't help myself......

See, it I was a "religious nutzo" I'd have said

So because you claim you are not a "religious nutzo" you think you don't have to have morals.

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, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... 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 133 by Captcass, posted 09-18-2019 10:34 AM Captcass has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Captcass, posted 09-18-2019 2:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021