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

Are they *all* snake oil carnys, jar? I suspect that you dont agree with the conclusions of the apologists simply because you reason differently than much of Biblical Christianity. Asd for the Captain here, I feel that his apologetics is sketchy, but his credentials are otherwise fairly sound, if accurate.

If an apologist makes claims not supported by the actual written records then YES, they are simply carny snake oil salesmen.It is not a matter of reasoning Phat but simple reality and honesty. To say the God in Genesis 1 is the same God as in Genesis 2&3 is simply denial of reality as written. To claim there is a Fall in Genesis 2&3 is simply denial of the reality as written.Credentials mean absolutely NOTHING unless supported by facts and reality. Content Phat, not source. Source is irrelevant!What was posted above what simply smoke and mirrors, an attempt to sway by emotion and totally devoid of any meaningful content.

The tales are true. Make of them what you will. But if you have eyes, see that the quantum field evolves forward for each of us each instant, otherwise we would cease to exist.

More utter word salad with absolutely no content.We are not so stupid as to be impressed by bumper sticker marketing tactics.

He has no credentials relevant to the subject matter.
Does he think he is the new Einstein?

In his acceptance email, the Editor-in-Chief noted:"Your manuscript is basically a re-think and re-write of the application of the Einstein theory to our cosmological Universe. In traditional discussions of the same material, the literature is based upon a clear distinction of the experience of the local observer and a hypothetical distant observer, with the two related to one another by Lorentz transformations. Your treatment is basically the theory from the view-point of just the distant observer (though with exceptions)."I replied that I saw it more as the point of view of a hypothetical "outside" observer. Einstein is describing what we MUST see relativisticly from our inertial frame; i.e., "relative" motion. I am describing the "true" motion an observer not restricted by the postulates of relativity and constancy of c would see.I use an oil slick on water being gently heated from below in my paper. Einstein describes the point of view of an observer within the slick. I am describing the view of the whole slick from without it.I would also note, regarding the "tales", that it is a primary principle of Quantum Physics that the observer affects the observed. I am just showing how that can be ...... "harnessed"...? And how much it affects our lives.You speak of my "credentials" as if you know me. As if my education is dependent on someone else's certification....How arrogant. My credentials are that I proved I CAN learn by graduating Cum Laude from one of the hardest (and toughest) schools in the country, where 4 years curriculum is studied in 3 years, with credits per/QUARTER ranging from 19 to 22. Where only 2/3rds of starting classes graduate.I have absolutely no friggin' need to prove to YOU what I have learned since. I have no friggin' need to show YOU any "credentials".All I need to show you is my model.....What total arrogance. Do you KNOW me? Have we friggin' met and had a conversation over drinks somewhere?"Judge not lest......" the others in this forum judge YOU....Edited by Captcass, : Addition

For your judgment, it isn’t.For everyone else’s, it is.

That is one of the symptoms. You have no idea what is going on here.We have experienced here and on other sites across the internet the appearance of the religio-science prophets who swear on a stack of their own un-peered tomes that they above all else in the history of man have the one true answer whether that be a new refutation of Einstein or Heisenberg or the discovery of the definitive proof of the existence of their favorite gods.The insistence on their own intellect and foresight which cannot be challenged by mere mortals nor questioned by their lack of experience or training or past reputation in some discipline is a telltale of the genre. The mainstream is lamestream meme and its corresponding conspiracy by the rest of humanity to keep their brilliance crushed is yet another.But, I see and feel your frustrations at the reactions you are receiving here and before you go off all pissed I feel compelled to let you know, from my perspective, what is happening here.You’re a crackpot, Captcass. That is why you are here instead of having these conversations in the Letters to the Editor section of Nature.And you’re a rather entertaining one.Many here are having fun with you. That is one of the delights of EvC. We get to have great fun with crackpots.I know this isn’t what you want to hear, Captain, but at this point you are being used for the entertainment value not the intellectual.I don’t want to discourage your participation here, Captain. You may have other insights that prove equally entertaining. Some may even be enlightening; a new perspective on our discussions.We can all wait and see any reaction to your published postulate. I wouldn’t expect much if I were you but you just never know (except in this case, truthfully, we know what to expect).In the meantime I’m thinking some here might be interested in your political, religious, moral, philosophical offerings in some of these other discussion threads. I don’t think we’ve ever had a Buchrishinjewmus here before.

Good. I am glad everyone is enjoying themselves. Science should be fun. Also so glad you can speak for everyone else who is following this thread.I hear lots of cries of, "crackpot", but that is all I hear. No one has actually replied to what I have said. Do we affect what we observe? Can that be utilized by us as a tool? Or do you just want to ignore that part of QM?You see, I think people who "believe" in the undefinable singularity and infinitely accelerating expansion of the universe to be crackpots. What totally ludicrous beliefs!
Who, in their right mind, could believe such fairy tales? LOL!And then there are those crackpots who don't even realize Life is part of the universe even though they are alive! The universe is observing itself through them and they are too blind to see that! What dummies they must be, right?And the folk here who like to humiliate people have severe social deficiencies. I don't know if you know it or not, but that is considered cruel behavior. Like schoolyard bullies and kids who like to torture small animals.There are people actually doing studies on this social derangement that has grown along with the Internet and social forums. Me, I'm an old fart who prefers simple, decent treatment of all people, and calm, thoughtful conversation.So....getting back to the conversation, how does our affecting what we observe affect what we get?When we observe something, and influence it, are we not influencing the evolution of the unverse, the quantum field? When you "will" your arm and hand to pick up a pencil, has not the continuum evolved forward for you so the pencil ends up in your hand? Have you not influenced the evolution of the universe?If we affect what we see, are we all not influencing the evolution of the universe just by opening our eyes? If you have eyes, see. Edited by Captcass, : spellingEdited by Captcass, : speellingEdited by Captcass, : additionEdited by Captcass, : No reason given.

I think that we need to split this into a Faith & Belief topic and leave this in the strict Science context and methodology. Much of what you bring up is philosophical. Can we perhaps quote your philosophical insights and incorporate them into a proposed new topic for Faith & Belief? I'll let you start it and I will review it for promotion in my administrative role. *switches hats*

Sure. Do you have a proposed topic? "What are the spiritual implications of the paper "General, etc....." or something like that?And they asked the wise man, "What about the others?. He replied, "There are no others." Hence, my explanation for non-locality. Should we discuss that in the faith or science thread?OK! This just popped into my head. How about a new, mixed, category? I am serious. I meet a lot of physicists who say they have been trying to tie the two together their whole lives, like I have.... Edited by Captcass, : No reason given.

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. 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 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) < 2Multiplying that last by gives1 < (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. 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

You missed the "I feel compelled to let you know, from my perspective, what is happening here" part of my post. I can only speak for me.But,You got the spirit and I appreciate the push back.Now, rather belatedly, welcome to EvC Capt. Crackpot! You're gonna fit right in. The observer effect? Really?Are you saying that if we observe you being crackpot you will change? We lookin' at you Cap'n.The only parts of QM we ignore are those bastardized convolutions that lead to such things as cosmic consciousness, power crystals and a universal cosmic intelligence. Good for you. No one who comprehends the physics of GM "believes" in a singularity. We already know the "singularity" is a placeholder for our ignorance at that extreme.And the "infinitely accelerating expansion of the universe" is something you just made up since there is no such beast in the scientific literature that I can find. There is an expansion, even an accelerating expansion, but an "infinitely accelerating expansion"? What is that? Right now H₀ appears quite finite at about 70 (km/s)/Mpc I know what you mean. It boggles my mind that anyone can live in this universe and not know they live in this universe. What I find mindblowing is the fact that some pond scum GSWMAML has evolved to the point where we can dare to contemplate anything about this universe at all. Barely six million years off the trees and we're digesting the light from the farthest galaxies and sending robots to other worlds. Damn smart monkeys we are. Yeah but here among friends it's ok. Do you know that in quantum mechanics an "observer" doesn't have to be a conscious being but anything that gets in the way and thus resolves a property of the particle in question? Like hitting an electron momentarily resolves the question of position of another particle.The moon really doesn't cease to exist just because you're not looking at it. There are plenty of particles zipping hither and yon banging into everything and jostling their neighbors to keep this classical world from dissolving into some kind of weird quantum phantasm. The quantum fields with all these particles remain. They do not disappear. Which quantum field? There are dozens of them. There is at least one for each particle in the Standard Model. Frankly I doubt that the universe knows or cares what we see or do or rub in our navels. Couldn't care less.Edited by AZPaul3, : For Tanypteryx

quote:

---

for our ignorance at that extreme.

---

Exactly, your model doesn't work at either end of the spectrum. You admit you are ignorant, which is a good start. Let's try to build on that.

quote:

---

Which quantum field? There are dozens of them. There is at least one for each particle in the Standard Model.

---

Really? This is proven fact? Hell, the Standard Model is a flop. The Higg's wasn't even a Higg's. Once again you "believe" a "model" is "truth" even though it is just a poor theory that is stuck and can't go anywhere.You need to listen to yourself. You proclaim theory to be known fact over and over again....Edited by Captcass, : additon

I think you meant universal comic intelligence. I hate the term "pond scum" because it is intended to be derogatory, kind of like turd in a punchbowl. So-called pond scum is usually mats of algae that float because of trapped oxygen bubbles buoying it up.As a kid, when I put a small portion of pond scum under my microscope I found that it was literally crawling with life, literally thousands of organisms in a single drop.I know you and most people don't mean it in the demeaning way, but I sure wish we had a better description for what is actually an endlessly fascinating example of teaming life. That's right, every time I go to sleep, you and the rest of the Universe disappear...Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.