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

It's not difficult, Manuel. This is not a proposition from Wittgenstein.

quote:

---

for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

---

That is exactly what science is for. And it was all logical and elegant up to and including GR and became illogical when Hubble's shift was misinterpreted as an acceleration in space rather than an acceleration in time, effects in spacetime being able to be expressed in terms of either aspect (perspective).As we are the universe figuring itself out it should be doable.....I would add that my comments re my mother passing were meant to get folks to realize we should treat people decently and with civility, and we should do that......
wait for it..............."religiously". Well, it is what, 14 hours later now? Ahhhhhh, a day of peace... The reason is that even those who claim to be "spiritless" feel empathy for not just other people, but dogs, cats, fish, bugs and plants and feel poorly about themselves when they feel they have hurt any of the above (or even pond scum) needlessly, and certainly don't want to be perceived by others as being such a cruel person.Pretty much all of humanity feels this way. And the other species, as well. In fact, all species can co-exist in loving relationships inter-specially. (Please search for "BLT", a bear, lion and tiger raised together in mutually loving relationships with each other and people - of course inter-species bonding is already very well known by everyone, right?) People keep pet spiders......We don't find a lot of crazy anything running around just doing harm and trying to hurt who/what- ever. In fact, no species is like that.....We all recognize a one-ness and feel empathy for each other. As humans, we laugh at what hurts, like in slapstick, so we do not feel the other's pain.I explain this one-ness, that also explains, or, better yet, is evidenced by, non-locality.... in the Origins section...We are all of us more of us coming forth from within us. (copyright )And we all begin with 1. (Even in the sense all life on Earth evolved from 1 original cell)This is not "religion", it is spirituality, happily an aspect most religions get right.....This is why I hate the phrase, "life begins..". On this planet the only scientifically appropriate completion is, "...with a single cell in the ocean." The rest is an evolutionary flow of division, near-replication and multiplication.Even from a Christian "Creationist" point of view, from whatever starting point, the rest is an evolutionary flow of division, near-replication and multiplication.Hey, Ma! Just look at us now! But I can guarantee you, no matter how you look at it, we are all one life in origin......and we have deeper, spiritual, connections the non-spiritual just aren't seeing.... Sorry, I don't mean to be condescending.Edited by Captcass, : AdditionEdited by Captcass, : No reason given.Edited by Captcass, : No reason given.Edited by Captcass, : No reason given.Edited by Captcass, : No reason given.Edited by Captcass, : No reason given.

What Captcass is saying makes no sense, so this is more for the interest of others. What exactly qualifies as an observer is currently not entirely resolved. We do have some results suggesting that there are issues with applying QM to other observers directly, but this is an ongoing area of research.Electrons don't have a position, so really you aren't resolving that property when you observe it. It's more that you make the electron report a position to you, or as some physicists like David Mermin say "give you a position experience". QM doesn't actually describe what microscopic objects are like, it describes what reactions they give to observers when observers probe them.

Sorta like a girlfriend.It’s not her mood when you ask her. It’s what she’ll tell you her mood is in retaliation for not having divined what her mood is.

To give a fuller exposition.Quantum Theory predicts probabilities for a how a system will react to certain kinds of questioning/probing/measurements/way of looking at it given:
(a) What way you are measuring it
(b) The results of previous measurements, along with what exactly those measurements were.Once you get a reaction to your measurement it then provides rules for updating your expectations of future reactions (those rules were once called "collapse", but today we say "state reduction" or "Bayesian updating")However note that the predictions depend on what you've witnessed before, so different users of quantum theory can disagree on the probabilities. Probabilities are subjectiveAlso the different ways of looking at the system don't cohere or make sense together. It's just a collection of incompatible subjective "impressions" of the system that can't be made sense of together. Impressions are subjectiveObviously these two forms of subjectivity are not what one normally wants in a fundamental theory, but it seems to be the way the world is. Quantum theory deals with your probabilities for reactions you might receive from micro-systems.What happens for classical things like a stone is that Quantum Theory says that every way of looking at it makes sense together and that they can be combined into one cohesive picture. The probabilities are also definitive and don't depend on the observer.Thus it says there will be inter-subjective agreement. All observers should expect to see the same reactions for each given way of probing and all ways of probing make sense together. Thus you can detach the observer from the description and speak of what the stone is "actually like" independent of any observer.Since you can now speak of the stone without reference to anybody, i.e. as it is in itself, you are then able to have equations for the stone that predict what it will be like in the future and was like in the past. In other words its history and predictions for its future.Since we can't detach observers from the description of micro-systems we can't really speak about their past which is a bit of difficulty for cosmology in some areas. It also means statements like "the protons in your body were once in stars" are not strictly true.Edited by Son Goku, : Tidying

I don't intend to begin a new debate here, but I just want to note that 2 days ago the Journal of Cosmology began its first new volume in 3 years based on my model.Vol #27: "Time Dilation Cosmology in the Evolving Spacetime/Quantum Continuum: General Relativity & the Hubble Shift".

It is still not a real scientific journal. It is an online vanity press.Journal of Cosmology - Wikipedia

Let me know when MIT, Perimeter or Stanford invites you to guest lecture on your model. Until then I'm not interested.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

d

quote:

---

It is still not a real scientific journal. It is an online vanity press.

---

This explains why, after 14 months of peer review, they have not only published a paper by, but made it the center piece of, the first new volume they have begun in 3 years, by a newcomer?The journal was begun in the tradition of John Maddox of Nature magazine. It is peer reviewed in the respect that other scientists believe it has enough merit to be considered in a public forum. Especially since current "theories" are pretty much nonsensical.Now, my friend, be careful what you say next...... I will discuss it, but I will not allow libel to go unanswered. I am the "fight a duel over honor" type... a Fed academy grad... where we had an honor code....and I have the resources to pursue legal action...

quote:

---

when MIT, Perimeter or Stanford invites you to guest lecture on your model

---

A Harvard/Smithsonian astrophysicist just made my model the basis of a new volume in his journal, that hasn't published a new volume in 3 years.....Schild also told me he is also going to ref my intro to the new journal and my model in two papers he is currently working on.I find it sad that my simple "heads up" about the great news for me, where a paper in a volume of a journal that might get 30 views a month is now the latest volume (after 3 years) on the home page of the journal that gets 60K/mo views.....Which, of course, also proves my point about.....what my origins section says.... If you jokers can't see what is happening in MY life, and has been for soooooo loooong.... and can't understand the words coming out of my mouth, I am sorry. I really am. I am working to end that pain of hopelessness you feel.You are not alone. I have posted in three forums. The folks in ScienceForums hate me, like, sadly, you do, (even though I lost my mom ) (They, sadly, don't know about my mom. ) but I actually got help there as I worked things out..... Credit due...In the respectable NakedScientists forum moderated by Cambridge University, no one has challenged me at all for, I guess, over a year, in the two threads that have remained hot topics for all that time and in the one thread had over 12K views since I had the last word and the other, that I began, over 7K.....I'll settle gladly for 1 in 3, especially when that one is sponsored by, and moderated by, Cambridge.Sadly you folk just want to diminish anything, or any one, you don't understand outside your BB "THEORIES".You both could have just let my update be simply that, but you are in spiritual pain, feel lost, and where you want to attack and diminish your fellows if they have a different "point of view". You are insecure, and it shows, my friends. So, hush, now.As, really, all we are is "different points of view", see the dilemma here? The cause of inquisitions and war and genocide?You don't debate anything here, like at least they do in ScienceForums, and those folk really know their stuff, and got really nasty like you folk, over the course of a heated 11 day debate that left me unbloodied. All of this, even though you know I lost my mom , albeit, as it turns out, in '95.And, sadly, your minds are closed, and have been for a loooooonnnnggg time to OTHER theories and models even though YOUR THEORY doesn't work without "placeholder": "I don't knows".Sooo, once again, if anyone has legit things to discuss without the vile bile of the injured, hateful, violent souls....in the words of Frazier, "I'm listening".I would be happy to discuss the spiritual implications of my model in another thread..

You are a looney is what you are. Nothing I have posted is libelous. So tell us who reviewed the article before publication. I quote PZ Meyers here

quote:

---

... it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the... website of a small group... obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth.

---

Sue away.

I didn't say you libeled me, I just cautioned you.The original owners of the journal did pursue "life in space" issues, exploring possibilities. Ownership changed after Vol. 14.CBS: Jun 28, 2019 - "New research being presented at the Astrobiology Science Conference shows the International Space Station has an irritating mould problem not only on the inside, but the outside, too. The spores which astronauts spend hours cleaning every week can survive X-ray exposure...... "As I noted in a previous post, I do not see life coming from space. Life spreads from within: We are all of us more of us coming forth from within us. If the right building blocks (H2O and C) are present in the right conditions, life begins building structures.I would also note that life grows matter "up" against the direction of gravity and what I see as a forward direction of time.I don't know who reviewed the paper. there were at least 4 and of the 4 they were split 2 for and 2 against...Others may have been consulted, but I don't know any other details.....

Cautioned me for what? Why are you making legal threats? Because I pointed out that this "journal" is considered a farce on the scientific world.New owners? As far as I can tell this is still Rudolf Schild's pet vanity project to put out papers no reputable journal will publish. He has papers on nonwackadoodle subjects in other journals.So how about you quit being an ass and quit threatening legal action. It is quite telling that the only people that threaten legal action are cranks and charlatans.

Typical non-responsive personal attack....Ho Hum

Yes it was a response. You made a threatening post. I responded. You then again doubled down and "cautioned" me. Well go fuck yourself. Do not threaten me with legal action and expect me to submissively slink away.
Ad hominem? Yeah probably, but a think a tempered response to your threats. If you feel this pertains to you maybe you should rethink a few things.Edited by Theodoric, : new subtitle

I cautioned you because you are over the edge with anger and are prone to wild name calling and accusations and violent outbursts like this. Sad, really.