Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs
yenmor
Member (Idle past 3655 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 07-01-2013


Message 61 of 223 (702216)
07-02-2013 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 2:00 PM


Ever heard of the factor of safety? We engineers use it a lot. I highly encourage you to use it in your financial planning as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 2:00 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 2:49 PM yenmor has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 223 (702220)
07-02-2013 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 1:17 PM


How does that tell you that the numbers you got for the Big Band Theory, the ones that were 15,000% off, were the right numbers according to the theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 1:17 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 2:58 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 63 of 223 (702221)
07-02-2013 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Theodoric
07-02-2013 2:09 PM


I've provided pretty much everything that I have in terms of endorsement. If you want the opinion of other scientist then feel free to contact them and ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 2:09 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 2:51 PM Alphabob has not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 64 of 223 (702222)
07-02-2013 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by yenmor
07-02-2013 2:10 PM


Well I did have a large safety margin, which is why I was going to publish in April. But after the journal wanted me to resubmit for the next quarterly edition, I would have to find some income and rewrite the entire thing into a 25 pg version (or publish it as two individual papers).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by yenmor, posted 07-02-2013 2:10 PM yenmor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2013 2:52 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 72 by Jon, posted 07-02-2013 9:46 PM Alphabob has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 65 of 223 (702223)
07-02-2013 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 2:44 PM


If you want the opinion of other scientist then feel free to contact them and ask.
Actually, I would think you would want to do that.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 2:44 PM Alphabob has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 223 (702224)
07-02-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 2:49 PM


(or publish it as two individual papers)
What's so bad about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 2:49 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 3:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 67 of 223 (702227)
07-02-2013 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by New Cat's Eye
07-02-2013 2:36 PM


It provides the angular scale (kpc/") with respect to redshift. So I found a survey of the largest clusters and searched for the x-ray isobars of each. These clusters are measured relative to how big they appear in the sky (arcsec). Finally I took the average size and range of local ones as a reference, then plugged them into each model via their angular scale predictions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2013 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 68 of 223 (702230)
07-02-2013 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by New Cat's Eye
07-02-2013 2:52 PM


The two parts are interdependent and the central discussion would be lost. I had previously discussed this with the journal and they said that it would be fine as one piece up until the very last minute. There's also the chance that I spend months redoing it and they decide not to publish it anyways. After already having 5 months of my time wasted being reassured that it would be published in April, I don't want to take my chances; at least not with that journal again.
So my goal right now is to get as much internet traffic so that the paper is at least visible while I work things out. I also didn't want anyone trying to steal my theory while I was being censored and delayed by others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2013 2:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2013 3:30 PM Alphabob has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 223 (702234)
07-02-2013 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 3:08 PM


From Message 67:
Finally I took the average size and range of local ones as a reference, then plugged them into each model via their angular scale predictions.
How do you know that the sizes that you think the model predicted were correct?
The two parts are interdependent and the central discussion would be lost.
The central discussion could have just referenced the two parts.
So my goal right now is to get as much internet traffic so that the paper is at least visible while I work things out.
Do you think this was a good idea?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 3:08 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 4:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 70 of 223 (702237)
07-02-2013 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by New Cat's Eye
07-02-2013 3:30 PM


I used several constraints with respect to local and distant blue galaxies to demonstrate that both galaxies and clusters are equally off in size by 200% - 300% up to 0.7z. This grand cosmological problem has been around for over 30 years, i.e. "the faint blue galaxy problem". More specifically there are 200% - 300% more of these galaxies than predicted by the big bang model. This proves that cluster sizes up to 0.7z are identical to the local, although they will appear smaller from Earth due to their increased distance. Since there is no reason to assume that the sizes drastically change beyond 0.7z, the more distant ones are observed to be off by up to 15,000% (with respect to "no evolution" lambda-CDM).
I still have the option to publish a shorter paper and include a reference as you said. But there are many things I would have to do before getting to that point. As for whether posting on a forum was a good idea, I would say yes in that it is providing me with insight on peoples reactions and opinions. If I want to help the average person understand things in terms of scientific fact rather than belief, I need to at least understand their perspectives. What I don't want are people blindly following something simply because others are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2013 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2013 5:19 PM Alphabob has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 71 of 223 (702242)
07-02-2013 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 4:23 PM


Well, it seems like they've already solved the faint blue galaxy problem. It looks like you're failing to take into consideration that "update" to the Big Band Theory, and that's leading you to the excessive error of 15000%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 4:23 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Alphabob, posted 07-03-2013 12:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 72 of 223 (702258)
07-02-2013 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 2:49 PM


I would have to find some income and rewrite the entire thing into a 25 pg version (or publish it as two individual papers).
Or more.
Why do you want to introduce your theory, invalidate the old one, prove yours, and strike down any possible objections all in one go?
Such tactics are overwhelmingly the standard of quacks, cranks, and pseudo-scientists.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 2:49 PM Alphabob has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 73 of 223 (702263)
07-03-2013 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 1:10 PM


Call for CaveDiver or Son Goku
Alphabob writes:
After someone clicks the link to endorse my paper through email, it allows me to upload the paper.
Again, your paper was not endorsed. Rather, you were endorsed for the right to submit your paper. Here's what arXiv said:
arXiv writes:
"You've just been endorsed to submit papers to the arXiv subject class physics.gen-ph."
About the faint blue galaxy problem, this is considered solved, see the Wikipedia article on Faint Blue Galaxies.
Portraying solved problems as unsolved to the uninitiated ("And I have the solution!") is a standard crank tactic. Even just promoting your ideas to the uninitiated is a standard crank tacic. The alarm bells you're setting off here are probably the same ones you're setting off in other venues like arXiv and the Astronomical Review. If you're going to behave like a kook then academia will likely continue to maintain its distance.
Everyone here is telling you the same thing: change your tactics. Stop acting like a paranoid loon (Posted at arXiv: "The following discoveries are being censored by Arxiv and several journals. Please spread the word.") and begin following a more traditional and sane path, such as grad school or at least engaging in discussion and correspondence only with other physicists.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 1:10 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 07-03-2013 12:50 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 75 by Alphabob, posted 07-03-2013 12:54 PM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 223 (702272)
07-03-2013 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
07-03-2013 7:07 AM


Re: Call for CaveDiver or Son Goku
Portraying solved problems as unsolved to the uninitiated ("And I have the solution!") is a standard crank tactic.
A viable argument would be to show that the current solution to is wrong, thus restoring the vitality of the original argument. I think that Alphabob attempts to do this by showing that the disappearance of FBG's through merger is not a reasonable speculation.
Still, I agree with you about the overall tenor. Calling his presentation a "proof", and whining about being persecuted on his first attempt to publish do come across as cranky. But perhaps he is instead merely showing youthful exuberance. Alpha is behaving as if he is being denied a forum that he has earned some right to because of his brilliance. But nobody has any right to publication in someone else's journal or hosting on a server for which someone else is footing the bill.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 07-03-2013 7:07 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 75 of 223 (702273)
07-03-2013 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
07-03-2013 7:07 AM


Re: Call for CaveDiver or Son Goku
That statement on wikipedia is very misleading... "The distribution of these galaxies has since been found to be consistent with Cosmic inflation, measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background, and a nonzero cosmological constant, that is, with the existence of the now-accepted dark energy." The distribution, not amount or size of the FBGs.
Here is more recent and actual research..
It is just these attempts that brought about a problem called the excess of faint blue galaxies (FBGs), which remains one of the grand astronomical issues for a long time (Koo & Kron 1992, Ellis 1997). The difficulties lie in that one cannot find a logically simple and self-consistent way to explain the observational data of different aspects
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9802118v2.pdf
The combined data set, although of limited size, represents a nearly complete sample representative of the overall field galaxy population at moderately faint magnitudes, where the number counts are observed to be 2 - 3 times higher than can be accounted for by standard no-evolution models
ShieldSquare Captcha
For quite some time now (see, for example, the review by Koo and Kron 1992), galaxy number counts, particularly in blue passbands, have been found to increase faster with apparent magnitude than predicted by simple no-evolution models, whereas the redshift distribution of galaxies in faint surveys is compatible with no evolution.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9703022v2.pdf
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 07-03-2013 7:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by NoNukes, posted 07-03-2013 10:02 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 07-04-2013 5:59 AM Alphabob has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024