[Colin2B]

You can see its childish mistakes and astonish its reputation when you reconsider the theory  by the method active learning ............And you can upgrade your cognitive performance. You can promote  to super league of science. Please try;

@captcass could very easily direct the same comments towards yourself and your ideas.

[xersanozgen]

could very easily direct the same comments towards yourself and your ideas.

The person who can create this response can read the flaws of SR more easily.

[captcass (OP)]

Let me summarize once again the methodological flaws of the special relativity theory:

Please don't. I did not start this thread to talk about the reliability of SR, or GR, or anything else. If you want to talk about that, please start your own thread. I was a budinsky in another thread, thinking it pertained, but the originator asked me to bow out and I apologetically did.

I suggest the same course of action for you.

Thank you.

And thank you, Colin.

[Colin2B]

could very easily direct the same comments towards yourself and your ideas.

The person who can create this response can read the flaws of SR more easily.

And understand the flaws in your reasoning more easily.

However, as @captcass has pointed out your input into this thread is off topic and he is asking you to confine your theory to the thread you have already started.

[captcass (OP)]

Hey @Colin, I realized 2 days ago that what I describe regarding gravity has deeper meaning. I originally wanted to show the evolutionary aspect but also wanted to show it created energy, but thought that was out of reach. I was wrong and had a "duh" moment. Energy is created as E_k = 1/2 mv². I therefore modified this paper to include this:

"Dilation creates a density at the faster end due to length contraction necessary to maintain c, and there is an increase in energy and pressure due to an increase in frequency. As the motion and densities appear when a dilation gradient is introduced, we see the creation of energy. Gravity then magnifies that energy by evolving the density down gradient into slower areas of time, giving the photons a greater relative frequency, energy and, therefore, mass. They also appear to increase in velocity, as below."

The manifestation of real energy from potential energy was the last step I needed. Once energy is manifested it can be converted to any form.

The updated version #8 is now up online at: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109

[Colin2B]

Thanks, I’ll take a look.

[captcass (OP)]

Hey, @Colin2B, Well, this is the very best solstice I have ever had.

One of my daughters is giving me my first grandchild tomorrow, a girl, and I learned tonight from other daughter, who is in town for the birth, that she will be giving me my second next January.

When I got home from dinner with them, I had an email from the Editor-in-Chief of the journal I mentioned above, after it had already been approved by an Executive Editor, that he had aproved it and had forwarded it on to two other specialists in fields they, themselves, weren't expert in, to check technical details, etc. He said it usually took 2 -3 weeks for them to respond.

Both of them are active professors at top notch US universities and the Editor-in-Chief is a world renowned astrophysicist at an ivy league school. The Executive Editor is world renowned in fluidics and cosmology.

I am not putting up the latest version yet on vixra as that might be published in the journal and they should now have first dibs.

I can tell you that I finally woke up to the fact that the kinetic energy is simply translated into thermal energy in the center of a spherical dilation pit where the GDE impedes on itself from all directions, duh, so I have now gone from kinetic to thermal energy manifestations.

The other major change is that I have switched from black holes to MECOs. With black holes I didn't have solid evidence of the empty space, but the MECO (Magnetic Eternally Collapsing Object) Rudolph Schild and team discovered, where the "black hole" in a quasar was supposed to be, has a 4,000 AU diameter empty space within it, making the empty space a property of MECOs. This confirms my theory at what was the black hole, and is now the MECO, end.

Cheers, I say, Cheers on this solstice night!

I am copying this on the "What is Space" thread/

[Colin2B]

@captcass
Congratulations on the great news, I’m sure the impending births take priority but the I know from experience that the conception to print process is long and hard work.
Look forward to seeing details of publication. Will journal contract allow you to put a final copy on vixra?
Hope the review process goes smoothly and not too much extra work, will look forward to seeing final issue.

I haven’t finished going through all of your paper. Some of the questions I have will be around the diffence of view of the event horizon of a black hole at ~13.9 Gly looking outwards compared to current view which gives a different description and timing and might give you something verifiable.
I’m also trying to understand the differences between your view of “IBEX failing to find a shock wave at the edge of the heliopause as expected, as also might be the “dead zone” discovered by Pioneer 1” and the various interpretations of the IBEX data.

[captcass (OP)]

Will journal contract allow you to put a final copy on vixra?

Thanks, Colin. I expect I can put it up once it is published as it is an open journal that provides immediate online open access.

Sorry I don't have time right now to get into your questions. Busy day here.

[captcass (OP)]

ome of the questions I have will be around the diffence of view of the event horizon of a black hole at ~13.9 Gly looking outwards

Sorry for the long delay in replying.

I am not saying the event horizon looking outward is due to a black hole (I am now defining a black hole as a MECO, as above). Both event horizons are due to time appearing to stop. Looking outward it is due to the time dilation effect from the acceleration in the rate of proper time. Looking inwards towards the MECO, it is due to the relativistic effects of gravity and mass accretion.

I’m also trying to understand the differences between your view of “IBEX failing to find a shock wave at the edge of the heliopause as expected, as also might be the “dead zone” discovered by Pioneer 1” and the various interpretations of the IBEX data.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this. They expected IBEX to show a shock wave at the leading edge of the heliosphere due to the solar system's movement "through" space. They did not find it and I am saying it is because that motion "through" space does not exist. It is just the continuum evolving forward. Pioneer was expected to be hit with interstellar winds, which would have provided material to create the shock wave, and the winds aren't there.     

[Colin2B]

Sorry for the long delay in replying.

I am not saying the event horizon looking outward is due to a black hole (I am now defining a black hole as a MECO, as above). Both event horizons are due to time appearing to stop. Looking outward it is due to the time dilation effect from the acceleration in the rate of proper time. Looking inwards towards the MECO, it is due to the relativistic effects of gravity and mass accretion. .

Yes, that makes sense, but what I am interested inis the difference between your predictions and current expansion view (if any) and whether you might have a testable observation.

Current view is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and will become exponential in the future, so light emitted from objects past some time dependent on their current redshift will never reach the Earth. All currently observable objects will slowly freeze in time while getting progressively redder with fainter light.
Suggestion is objects with the current redshift z from 5 to 10 will remain observable for no more than 4–6 billion years, and light emitted by objects situated beyond a  comoving distance of about 19 billion parsecs will never reach Earth.

I’m also trying to understand the differences between your view of “IBEX failing to find a shock wave at the edge of the heliopause as expected, as also might be the “dead zone” discovered by Pioneer 1” and the various interpretations of the IBEX data.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this. They expected IBEX to show a shock wave at the leading edge of the heliosphere due to the solar system's movement "through" space. They did not find it and I am saying it is because that motion "through" space does not exist. It is just the continuum evolving forward. Pioneer was expected to be hit with interstellar winds, which would have provided material to create the shock wave, and the winds aren't there.     

This is interesting. I’m looking at the data from IBEX so might be a while before I reply. Seems fo be suggestion of difference in galactic magnetic field compared to expectation whereas you view it as evolution of continuum. Wondering how it would be possible to differentiate?

[captcass (OP)]

Yes, that makes sense, but what I am interested inis the difference between your predictions and current expansion view (if any) and whether you might have a testable observation.

The effect manifests the same for both dilation and expansion. It just depends on how you interpret it. However, if we calculate when Ho would give us a recessional velocity of c we get ~13.9+ Gly. The current estimate of the age of the universe since the BB is ~13.77 Gy. Therefore, when the James Webb telescope is put into service, if we see objects past 13.77 Gly it reaffirms my point of view.

Whether due to expansion or dilation, we get dimmer, more highly red-shifted objects that appear to freeze when time appears to stop.

Seems fo be suggestion of difference in galactic magnetic field compared to expectation whereas you view it as evolution of continuum. Wondering how it would be possible to differentiate?

IBEX expected to find a "bow shock" due to motion "through" space. I am saying they did not find it because we are not moving through space that way. We are evolving forward embedded in an evolving space instead.

[Liz888]

Time accelerated significantly. Now in the days less than 24 hours.

[Colin2B]

Therefore, when the James Webb telescope is put into service, if we see objects past 13.77 Gly it reaffirms my point of view.

Well worth keeping an eye on this, will look forward to seeing the result.

IBEX expected to find a "bow shock" due to motion "through" space. I am saying they did not find it because we are not moving through space that way. We are evolving forward embedded in an evolving space instead.

Thanks, I’ll look through the IBEX info.

[captcass (OP)]

Hey @Colin2B, apparently I can figure out gravity, but am too dense to figure out how to remove a comment on vixra. How, pray tell, did you remove yours? As I made mine as a guest, it doesn't show in my profile when I log in.

Now at 26 days and no word back from the referees.....

[Colin2B]

Not aware I put a comment on. I did download the paper, but that’s all.

[Colin2B]

Now at 26 days and no word back from the referees.....

Any word yet?
I’ve been busy lately so havent followed up the IBEX, will get back on track soon.
Looking fwd to hearing some good news on your paper.

[captcass (OP)]

I should be able to update shortly........Thanks for the support.......

[captcass (OP)]

Just an update;...

Three months ago the Editor in Chief agreed to publish the paper. The hold up is on how. As you can imagine, there is a lot of controversy. Bangers are having a hard time with concepts in time.....It is such a new, and simple, approach, but is the flip side of how we have been looking at it since Hubble. Deriving and explaining the Hubble Shift my way shifts the whole perception. We have the quantum continuum instead of "space". That is a big shift for bangers. 

There are now 2 individuals supporting it and 2 not.......the 2 not did not provide demonstrable reasons why it does not work. It went back, I understand, to them, and perhaps to more, to see if anyone could find a demonstrable way to disprove it.

As I say, it has now been 3 months since then......

I am encouraged in that 3 months have now passed, regardless of the number of reviewers.....

I would remind readers of the current online version to just replace MECOs for black holes (https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1748) and understand that I also specify in the final, journal, version that the forces at the center of a spherical dilation pit translate the kinetic energy created by dilation into thermal energy.

The link, again, is: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109
This version now has 99 downloads.
Thanks again for being patient.



.

[captcass (OP)]

Hello Colin2B. It is with great pleasure that I can now announce, after slightly more than a year, that the final version of my paper, "General Relativity: Effects in Time as Causation", has been accepted by the journal. I have a few editorial changes to make and that is all. The pre-journal version, again, can be found here: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109. For the journal version, the reader should simply replace "black hole" with "MECO" ("Magnetic Eternally Collapsing Object") and understand that I clarify that the kinetic energy manifested by gravity is translated into thermal energy at the focus of a spherical dilation gradient. They are telling me I am now officially a "cosmologist".