[myuncle]

space=distance between every atom in the universe
time=movement of every single atom in the universe

eh, what do you think?

[captcass]

h, what do you think?

I think you should read the paper linked in Reply #156 above. Time evolves space forward. This is not a direction IN space, but the direction the continuum as a whole, i.e. ALL space, is evolving in in situ.. It is the direction of time, which is why the time element could be added to Eintein's Fundamental Metric along with the standard x,y,z spatial axis. As noted above, when a dilation gradient is introduced we also see an evolution down the dilation gradient which is the gravitational direction of evolution General Relativity describes. It is a secondary, relativistic, direction of time. GR describes the resultant of the Fundamental and Gravitational directions.

[myuncle]

along with the standard x,y,z spatial axis.

and that's how atoms and particles move, in every direction. The x,y,z coordinates are just a human representation to keep track of these movements.

[captcass]

and that's how atoms and particles move, in every direction

Not so. I really don't want to get into particles, which are actually all virtual representations of superposition waveforms, but electrons have only two possible orientations, up or down. In spin, we talk of hot/cold, black/white and hard/soft. These are just different orientation spins around the 3 axes. But they are each either/or. There is no in between. Also, neither pair affects any other pair. Cold has nothing to do with hard/soft, etc.
As all "particles" are waveforms, they are "events" in space being evolved forwrd (as above) by time.

[myuncle]

and that's how atoms and particles move, in every direction

Not so. I really don't want to get into particles, which are actually all virtual representations of superposition waveforms, but electrons have only two possible orientations, up or down. In spin, we talk of hot/cold, black/white and hard/soft. These are just different orientation spins around the 3 axes. But they are each either/or. There is no in between. Also, neither pair affects any other pair. Cold has nothing to do with hard/soft, etc.
As all "particles" are waveforms, they are "events" in space being evolved forwrd (as above) by time.

I hope you are joking. The charge of electrons is a total different discussion. In space the electrons, like any other particle, can move in any direction.

[captcass]

The charge of electrons is a total different discussion

You are correct. I didn't mean to conflate the two. I agree they can move in any direction. They cannot, however, spin in any direction.
I was trying to make the point that when you look at an object, say a chair, that the "particles" (events) that make it up are evolving in situ. They are not evolving through a pre-existing space along the x,y,z axes. They are evolving in the forward direction of time. They also evolve "through" space along the x,y,z axes when an external force is applied to shift their position within the continuum, as in when we move the chair.
"Particles" aren't even there until we observe them. Until we do they are only evolving waveform probabilities.

[myuncle]

The charge of electrons is a total different discussion

You are correct. I didn't mean to conflate the two. I agree they can move in any direction. They cannot, however, spin in any direction.
I was trying to make the point that when you look at an object, say a chair, that the "particles" (events) that make it up are evolving in situ. They are not evolving through a pre-existing space along the x,y,z axes. They are evolving in the forward direction of time. They also evolve "through" space along the x,y,z axes when an external force is applied to shift their position within the continuum, as in when we move the chair.
"Particles" aren't even there until we observe them. Until we do they are only evolving waveform probabilities.

ah ok, I understand what you mean. You mean that the particles evolve constantly: they move, change, they decay, etc. But I prefer not to talk about time direction, only movement has a direction. The concept of direction of time is too philosophical, because in this is a concept of a flowing thing. In fact nothing is flowing. Is just that these particles when they are moving (planets, things, light, etc), we interpret these movements as events, our brain allow us to make sense of these change, and we interpret them as "events", as "facts". And every animal has this skill. Some movements are more constant than others (planets orbiting the sun, hourglass, clocks), and we interpret these movements as constant events (or time...), but phisically speaking these particles they are just behaving the way they are supposed to.

[captcass]

these particles they are just behaving

First, there is no such thing as a particle. There is only particle-like behavior. Second, "behaving" is action over time.
Time flows and this is the primary force of the universe. "Events" consist of densities in the spatial aspect being evolved forward (in the time direction) by time.
It is impossible to not talk about the time direction as it is the "energy components" (Einstein's words) of Einstein's Tensor. As I noted above, it determines the gravitational direction of evolution.
In my paper I note:
"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 kinetic 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."
In the final version being published in the journal I also note that in a spherical dilation pit, the forward evolution is impeded in all directions at the focus of the pit and that this translates the kinetic energy into thermal energy.
I would ask that you read my paper before we discus this further so I do not have to re-write it here. It is only 21 pages.

[myuncle]

First, there is no such thing as a particle.

Are you saying they don't exist? If particles don't exist, I think I can't carry on with the discussion.

from wiki
"In the physical sciences, a particle (or corpuscule in older texts) is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume, density or mass. They vary greatly in size or quantity, from subatomic particles like the electron, to microscopic particles like atoms and molecules, to macroscopic particles like powders and other granular materials."

[captcass]

Are you saying they don't exist?

They don't exist as a "thing". They are evolving events. An electron is neither a particle nor a wave. It is an electron, which can display both properties depending on how we observe it.

This is why I don't like discussing particles. Of course we consider a ball to be a "particle" for practical purposes, but it is not. It is an interaction of the waveform probabilities within the continuum. When you are not looking at your ball, it doesn't even exist for you.

We can never find a way to formulate absolute quantum determination because our actions, including thoughts, hopes, expectations and observations, affect the next instant’s manifestation of events.

For instance, I have a sea glass business and would ocean kayak to my favorite collecting site. I landed at the beach one day and found two marbles right next to each other right next to my kayak. They were just plain, colorless, well frosted, marbles but marbles are rarer than reds (which are 1 in 5,000 pieces) and to find two right next to each other is remarkable.

So I said, "Lord, (the Creator is neither male nor female, but this is how I address It) thank you. I sure would like to find a red marble, though. I've got a blue one, and I thank you, but I sure would like to find a red one. Please, Lord?"

I put that thought aside and went back picking and after about 2 hours I was tired and it was time to go tide-wise, but there was just a little more beach to cover, so I decided to just make a quick pass and see if I could spot anything big just lying on top. Normally I would walk very slowly, looking for the gems amongst all the other glass.

Just before I got to the end there was this huge red marble. It's 15/16ths of an inch in diameter. It is a beautiful blood red with a white swirl that forms a wave. Click on the link below to view it.

http://captcass.com/images/Red%20Marble%20cropped.jpg

I rolled my eyes up and went, "Lord!, Oh God! Dear Lord, etc." Then, when I bent down to pick up the marble, there were also two pieces of jewelry quality RED glass, one on either side of the marble. I went, "Oh, Lord! Dear God!, etc.” a bunch more and danced around with tears in my eyes. This is how the Creator talks to me. The two red pieces, to me, were the Creator saying the marble was not a coincidence, that I asked for red and got red. The odds of finding all three together are just too vast for it to be otherwise.

I would also note that I had only pictured a small, regular sized red marble when I asked. I find the Creator always gives us a much better version of what we ask for than what we imagined. I believe this is because the Creator has a by far greater imagination than we do.

The point here is that neither the marble, nor even that section of beach it lay upon, existed for me until I observed them and all the superposition possibilities collapsed into my reality, which was partly determined by my wishes, faith and expectations. This eliminates the possibility of the formulation of an absolute quantum determination.

It is also why I don't like discussing "particles". 

I don't include the above in my paper because it is indeterminate. I do explain non-locality, however, which also reinforces the indeterminate property. In brief: what Alice and Bob see depends on each other because all points of view have to be harmonized in a continuum.

[myuncle]

Are you saying they don't exist?

They don't exist as a "thing". They are evolving events. An electron is neither a particle nor a wave. It is an electron, which can display both properties depending on how we observe it.

This is why I don't like discussing particles. Of course we consider a ball to be a "particle" for practical purposes, but it is not. It is an interaction of the waveform probabilities within the continuum. When you are not looking at your ball, it doesn't even exist for you.

We can never find a way to formulate absolute quantum determination because our actions, including thoughts, hopes, expectations and observations, affect the next instant’s manifestation of events.

For instance, I have a sea glass business and would ocean kayak to my favorite collecting site. I landed at the beach one day and found two marbles right next to each other right next to my kayak. They were just plain, colorless, well frosted, marbles but marbles are rarer than reds (which are 1 in 5,000 pieces) and to find two right next to each other is remarkable.

So I said, "Lord, (the Creator is neither male nor female, but this is how I address It) thank you. I sure would like to find a red marble, though. I've got a blue one, and I thank you, but I sure would like to find a red one. Please, Lord?"

I put that thought aside and went back picking and after about 2 hours I was tired and it was time to go tide-wise, but there was just a little more beach to cover, so I decided to just make a quick pass and see if I could spot anything big just lying on top. Normally I would walk very slowly, looking for the gems amongst all the other glass.

Just before I got to the end there was this huge red marble. It's 15/16ths of an inch in diameter. It is a beautiful blood red with a white swirl that forms a wave. Click on the link below to view it.

http://captcass.com/images/Red%20Marble%20cropped.jpg

I rolled my eyes up and went, "Lord!, Oh God! Dear Lord, etc." Then, when I bent down to pick up the marble, there were also two pieces of jewelry quality RED glass, one on either side of the marble. I went, "Oh, Lord! Dear God!, etc.” a bunch more and danced around with tears in my eyes. This is how the Creator talks to me. The two red pieces, to me, were the Creator saying the marble was not a coincidence, that I asked for red and got red. The odds of finding all three together are just too vast for it to be otherwise.

I would also note that I had only pictured a small, regular sized red marble when I asked. I find the Creator always gives us a much better version of what we ask for than what we imagined. I believe this is because the Creator has a by far greater imagination than we do.

The point here is that neither the marble, nor even that section of beach it lay upon, existed for me until I observed them and all the superposition possibilities collapsed into my reality, which was partly determined by my wishes, faith and expectations. This eliminates the possibility of the formulation of an absolute quantum determination.

It is also why I don't like discussing "particles". 

I don't include the above in my paper because it is indeterminate. I do explain non-locality, however, which also reinforces the indeterminate property. In brief: what Alice and Bob see depends on each other because all points of view have to be harmonized in a continuum.

ehm, what can I say, great story bro.

[captcass]

ehm, what can I say, great story bro

Thanks. I have lived in that world for 45 years. Now I can finally describe the effects that manifest it. Here are 2 other brief stories that demonstrate the same thing:

The Girl and Reds

One day there was a girl about age 8 or 9 at the beach. She was only looking for reds (1 in 5,000 pieces). In 2 hours, she found 9 reds, whereas I, who was looking for whatever, would find a red every 3 or 4 months.

At one point she came running up to me and starting talking to me and as we were finishing up she looked down and picked up a beautiful red right from right between my feet.

I wanted to strangle that poor little girl. 

Children tend to find what they are looking for because they believe they can.

A Stranger’s Faith

I began my business by selling on the headlands. One day a man came down and asked me where to look. I told him there was a slag pile in the cove next to me and that because it replenished the beach he might find something rare like a red.

He came back in about 15 minutes with a beautiful red and asked me where else he could look. Knowing what was happening and laughing to myself,  I told him he could go to the beach behind me and that there was much more glass there and maybe he could find something even rarer, like a grape purple, which are 1 in 10,000 pieces.

He came back in about 20 minutes with a beautiful grape purple. I found about 1 a year. 

He simply believed what I told him, as would a little child. Sound familiar?

[captcass]

You asked why he isn’t taken seriously. These are some of the reasons, but I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing just quoting a few of the ones mentioned in conversations around the community.

Hey Colin2B. I see this has been marked as the "best answer" for this topic on 3/3/19 and, for the life of me, cannot see why. Who were you replying to with this in your reply #145 and who would have marked it as "best answer"?
As for my paper, it is still with the reviewers. It has been a long winter of waiting. I have gotten 2 grandchildren and a whole set of new teeth during the wait. They are looking for anyone who can demonstrate it is wrong before publishing it as peer reviewed. As it went to reviewers last June, I am encouraged since no one has yet been able to do so. For those interested, the link for the pre-MECO version is http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109. I am still reserving the final MECO version that is going to be published in the journal, one way or the other, (peer reviewed or as a commentary) for the journal.

[captcass]

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". 

In his Acceptance, the Editor-in-Chief said:
"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 plan to accept this paper because this change in viewpoint may be easier for some readers to understand....."

[captcass]

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.

Hey Colin2B. The paper was published today in the Journal of Cosmology, Vol 26. I know this because I am also the new Assistant Editor and Assistant Webmaster of the journal.
Go figure! 
The final version, which replaces black holes with MECOs and clarifies a few more points can be found here: http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC26/General%20Relativity%20and%20Effects%20in%20Time%20as%20Causation%20JofC.pdf

As the paper deals with spacetime as a whole, and not just the Hubble shift, I will now be shifting this thread to the "What is Space?" thread for any further discussion.
Thanks for your support, Colin2B.
Cass

[captcass]

The journal put out the following press release on my paper on 10 Sept. 19:

"Journal of Cosmology Publishes the First Peer-Reviewed Paper Originating the Universe With an Eternal Creator

The paper also claims to do much more, answering some of physics most perplexing problems, and if accepted will chart a whole new course ahead.
Press Release - updated: Sep 10, 2019

SAN DIEGO, September 10, 2019 (Newswire.com) - The peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology has announced that it has published what is bound to be a hotly debated paper by Capt. Joseph H. (Cass) Forrington, a Cum Laude graduate of the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York, that describes a cosmological model that originates the universe with an eternal Creator, something that has been a long-standing taboo in peer-reviewed science journals.

The model also appears to complete General Relativity by deriving the Hubble constant as a 2.2686*10^-18 acceleration in the rate of "proper" time, rather than as an acceleration due to an expansion of space, eliminating Big Bangs and "Dark Energy."

The model describes gravity as an evolutionary force in time and solutions are also provided for quantum non-locality and galactic rotation velocities by describing the astrophysical motions in terms of the evolving quantum spacetime field and is, therefore, recommended reading for both quantum and astrophysicists.

The paper, "General Relativity: Effects in Time as Causation," can be found in the Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 26, #21."

The link is: http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC26/General%20Relativity%20and%20Effects%20in%20Time%20as%20Causation%20JofC.pdf

[captcass]

Just an update, on Oct 3rd 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"

[captcass]

Due to temporary problems at the Journal of Cosmology, to view my paper, please go to: http://www.journalofcosmology.com/General%20Relativity%20and%20Effects%20in%20Time%20as%20Causation%20JofC.pdf

[captcass]

There is a webmaster problem at the Journal of Cosmology. I have been assured this will be sorted out shortly.

In the meantime, my paper can still be found in its original location at http://www.journalofcosmology.com/JOC26/General%20Relativity%20and%20Effects%20in%20Time%20as%20Causation%20JofC.pdf 

[puppypower]

One way to look at space, is by looking at the same space, first with a microscope and then with a telescope. Through a microscope we will get the impression that this space is expanding, while through the telescope this same space will appear to contract. But in the end, space did nothing. It was all a relative reference illusion, based on how we were viewing it.