Mosheh Thezion's cosmology

[Mosheh Thezion]

In that case the earth is sometimes moving faster relative to the galaxy, and sometimes slower, depending on whether it's orbital motion is with or against the motion of the solar system itself relative to the galaxy, right?

Yes.. but we would never know the difference.. although if we sent a satalite to orbit on the other side of the solar system, and used some relay satalite to bouce the signal around the sun, we could probubly test it in that way..
assuming we know the exact motions of the star, galaxie, and supercluster.
for if we are in error, super cluster motion could oppose our attempted slow down.

-MT
I am however concerned about Gravity and its effect on this time flow, as is often alluded to in many cosmology concepts.

[Mosheh Thezion]

Oh but your idea does violate thermodynamics. Nothing naturally becomes ordered without the expenditure of energy. Where did the energy come from?
THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS: either energy is further applied... as from that outsdie source.... or.. the energy used in the unwinding of matter so to speak, could be predesigned so to speak into the matter itself..
where in.. the original giant nucleon, could develope its spin from energy within its own mass.. as could the supercluster mass, and the galactic mass , and star mass objects..... this is discussed in proposals for the 4th circle rise.. the 12,13,14,15th dimensions.
A solid nucleon, assuming it is made only of neutrons, is totally chaotic and without form. No patterns. That is what entropy does, it destroys patterns.
Because?? you believe it is made of neutrons smashed together... I do not.
Galaxies and stars and planets are all ordered, patterned forms of matter. Some type of energy had to be expended for it to go from a solid nucleonic mass to stars and planets.
Of course.. i.e. applied energy to do all of it, yet as i just said, the energy can be seens as from within the formed mass....
in which case.. its 2 circles of applied energy.. and 2 circles of its breakdown into the structure of the universe.
A homogenized pudding is disorder, filled with the effects of entropy. A four-layer cake is ordered and has patterns.

And we had to do work to make the layers? yes?
we had to do work to get order.. Just as in Fusion.
-MT

[Mosheh Thezion]

Done. So 4D is another circle than 0D. And in 4D, the remnants of space after the explosion move in two directions, not diagonal. 2 directions is 2D, so 4D is already a 2D dimension, not a 0D dimension. Your dimensional rise is thus not symmetrical, which it should be in your ideas. The next explosion would occur at 6D, not at 8D.
And a reason for any of this (or even a decent definition) is still lacking. An explanation why anything would raise a dimension, and why that would result in anything, is lacking. Evidence of any of these dimensional rises is lacking.
You pointing to e.g. superclusters, quasars, or whatever, and saying that they are evidence, is not the same as having any evidence. You have to show that there is a connection between the two, that the existence of reality follows from the math, the formulas, the theory.

No.. its about patterns.... and when you contemplate the making of a 3D space from a zero point something...
one must realise that zero is a number.. and so is.. .99
As is.. 1.89... and the idea that we can, as in big bang, explode directly from zero to 3 is where i make an arguement.

I propose it cannot do so.. and must rise up.. threw progressive levels.

For Logic tells us.. we cannot begin with the 2nd dimension.. Unless we already have the 1st dimension.....

I.e.. Instead of a crude explosion, why not a natural progressive rise following a natural progression threw what we know of as dimensional levels.. from 0D.... to .99D... to 1D.. to 2D... to 3D... to 3.9 D.
that is four 90 degree angles.. or one full circle motion.

And we will notice that the zero D, is quite mysterious, as it must have been expansive, but how, and in what way, is still questionalble.

The 4D rise i take from Carl Sagan and others, who discuss it as Time, and still in relation to hypercubes, balloon expansion, and relativity concepts.

So if we impose the idea of what we all believe to be the 4th dimension apon a dimensional progression of VECTOR FORCES, we end up with ideas that will probubly sound like mine.

And then at 8D we see again, this step requires an expansion quality, which just so happens to fit into the pattern so far.. as seen in 0D, and 4D, then here again at 8D... this is discussed as the "Timing Scale Patterns"

do you will to discuss that specifically?
-MT

[worzel]

In that case the earth is sometimes moving faster relative to the galaxy, and sometimes slower, depending on whether it's orbital motion is with or against the motion of the solar system itself relative to the galaxy, right?

Yes..

And yet the sun is not speeding up and slowing down relative to the galaxy, right?

[Mosheh Thezion]

Is the Sun moving with the galaxy in its direction or against it?

and at what speeds... i.e.. it all adds up to the real speed of the earth in space.
-MT

[worzel]

Is the Sun moving with the galaxy in its direction or against it?

and at what speeds... i.e.. it all adds up to the real speed of the earth in space.
-MT

The point is that the earth and the sun can't both be moving at the same speed relative to the fixed background that you propose is responsible for time dilation. The difference in their speeds (and therefore their time dilation) must alter over the course of a year due to the earth's orbit, according to what you've said. So according to your theory, on earth we should be able to observe this difference by observing the light from the sun redshifting and blushifting from the average over the course of a year.

[Wolverine]

This has gone on quite long enough.

THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS: either energy is further applied... as from that outsdie source.... or.. the energy used in the unwinding of matter so to speak, could be predesigned so to speak into the matter itself..
where in.. the original giant nucleon, could develope its spin from energy within its own mass.. as could the supercluster mass, and the galactic mass , and star mass objects..... this is discussed in proposals for the 4th circle rise.. the 12,13,14,15th dimensions.

Of course.. i.e. applied energy to do all of it, yet as i just said, the energy can be seens as from within the formed mass....
in which case.. its 2 circles of applied energy.. and 2 circles of its breakdown into the structure of the universe.

Mosheh, you've continued to employ meaningless terms like "applied energy" -- you cannot keep relying upon concepts which you never even defined. The closest you ever came to providing a specific meaning was here. Needless to say, that's neither sufficient nor acceptable.

Let's review.

Celestial Mechanic asked you the following:

One problem with your writing is that you use terms in non-standard ways without giving your definitions. The main examples I have are of "applied energy" and "quality of applied energy". Now in real physics we have kinetic energy and potential energy, and you will see energy identified as to its source such as gravititational energy and electromagnetic energy and rest mass energy, but nothing called "applied energy". Applied to what? And similarly with "quality" of energy. What is this "quality" that energy has? Is there only one "quality"? How do we measure it?

Your reply:

There is no way to know... all we can do is look at the universe and apply the concepts of a dimensional progression, and as we fit the progression to the evidense, we notice that the evidense will piont to patterns.. and details which then become apparent as having to do with the supposive quality of the applied energy.
And we cannot measure something which exists outside our universe.
We can only look at the result of its actions as surmise ideas about what kind of energy could do it.. as the evidense has laid out.

This, like most of your other contributions, offers nothing but circular logic mixed with word salad.

You went on to describe in a later post (emphasis mine):

well, i can only suppose that if something was able to apply energy and make our universe then it stands to reason that it maybe able to manipulate any number of things and forces from the subatomic to the heavenly..
there really is no way to know.. and its pure conjecture.

This should send you a very strong signal about what you've attempted to present here.

When asked for calculations, you've posted statements like this:

Your asking for new math.... math based on a dimensional progression which will in one swoop unify all the math systems we know and replace all of them...

i wont be giving you that.

When warned by a moderator to provide calculations or anything else substantive in nature to substantiate a claim, you declined.

When warned by an administrator not to discuss your ideas on other threads (which you've done repeatedly in the past), you chose to do so anyway.

The tangental forays here delving into relativistic territory, fusion (and whatever else) are totally unnecessary given that there isn't even a house of cards upon which to base them.

Faultline hit the nail on the head in his post here; you've been made aware of this by other posters as well, myself included.

Despite being informed of the numerous problems, gaps, and contradictions in your ideas, you've subsequently attempted to latch on to any number of unrelated topics/discoveries, claiming that they're "evidence" for your model. That's simply not how science works. To be perfectly forthcoming, I don't think you understand what constitutes evidence, and that's unfortunate.

Tremendous latitude has been granted spanning many threads over the course of months. Unfortunately you've presented enough Circulus in demonstrando to last us for many more, despite the best, heroic efforts of many knowledgeable members of this community.

We're finished here, as is Mosheh Thezion's stay on this forum.