The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer

Not my impression at all. His ideas about relativity seem to be crystal-clear. He is correcting errors exactly where I see them too. Otherwise, you might just as well say that Galileo and Newton are all the relativity any one needs while Einstein and Minkowsi are redundant. That is true but not quite. Mayer is making predictions that may stand unless refuted.
He is claiming to explain the anomalies not modelled by the existing theory. If you know how to explain them yourself, then where is your Nobel prize?
To be taken seriously by me you'd need also to substantiate and explain why his formulas match digital sky survey data while those derived from the Hubble constant do not. You'd need to send me your enlightened refutation analysing the mistakes that you allege are in the dissertation blow by blow.
Otherwise, I may suspect that you are trying to trivialise something that is too hard nut for you to refute.
Come on, Cavediver, do you homework. Trivialising out of hand what threatens you may not work. You need to demonstrate that it is indeed trivial first.Talking about errors, well, of course, I would love more experience just like you said, still what I have already is more than enough to see that the concept of the infinite point-mass the current idea of black holes and singularities is based on was a mathematical howler.
Point is an abstract representation of absolute rest that may have no physical existence and no use other in making maps of reality. It may not exist on its own but only in the dialectical opposition to a line or plane. The error is in attributing such an abstraction the possibility of a concrete existence.
Absolute rest of a dimensionless point not existing on its own other than an abstraction leads to the conclusion that a point set in motion acquires all the dimensions necessarily. Straight line is a point in motion, point is a straight line at rest. Further on, the line itself is not the territory but a map only so the same dialectical opposition persists. Straight line is circle at rest, circle is straight line in motion. Circle is again not quite the territory, it is still a map existing on paper only while only the sphere is physical, since only the sphere is possessing all the dimensions of the real motion. Thus it is clear that finally dimensionless point is but sphere at rest and sphere is point in motion while motion and rest do not exist on their own but only in dialectical opposition to each other. They are mutually implied. If that is properly understood it becomes abundantly clear that all the singularities and black holes as they are currently conceived may exist on paper only and ascribing to them any concrete physical reality is taking the map for the territory.

That reasoning is taking for granted that everything started burning up at once so it must end simultaneously too. In this flawed concept of infinity forever is long, long straight line which it may be not.If at once is understood to be not absolute but universally relative the issue may disappear. The Local Group of Galaxies is likely to be quadrillions years of age yet that figure may not mean anything universally.

Also in a previous post you claimed that everything that Mayer's theory implies you have already been teaching your students. That is a strange suggestion. Either you personally break the uniformity in the relativity teaching or I must be missing something.
For, me and my cat, we've got a few textbooks on the subject to go by in our comparative judgement and to give us an idea of what is being generally taught.
We've diligently ploughed through the books finding that all of them are listing two cases of time dilation only instead of three suggested by the new theory. No source is stating the multi-directional time geometry you said was so trivial that you were teaching it already for years demonstrating that there is no hung-up in our attitude to the flat, linear, anti-relativistic time in the canonical cosmology but such is the concept of time inherent in it.
Just one description from a typical textbook summing it all up nicely and without ambiguity:
"If a space is isotropic then it homogeneous. Likewise, if it isotropic around one point and also homogeneous, it will be isotropic around all points. Since there is ample observational evidence for isotropy and the Copernican principle would have us believe that we are not the centre of the universe and therefore observers elsewhere should also observe isotropy, we will henceforth assume both homogeneity and isotropy.
There is one catch. When we look at distant galaxies, they appear to be receding from us; the universe is apparently not static but changing with time.
Therefore we begin construction of cosmological models with the idea that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space but not in time.
In general relativity this translates into the statement that the universe can be foliated into spacelike slices, such that each slice is homogeneous and isotropic."
Further on, the author writes:
"The function (a)t is known as the scale factor and it tells us how big is the spacelike slice at the moment t. The coordinates used here in which the metric is free of cross terms dt dui and the spacelike components are proportional TO A SINGLE FACTOR t. " emphasis added by myself.Nothing here is remotely resembling any reciprocal time dilation as a function of distance. The idea is clearly that the space slices representing the entirety of the universe at any particular moment grow in time and the growth accumulates along a single straight time line. Space spreads wider and wider as the time passes is the anti-relativist concept apparent in the textbook's description. The implication of the clock ticking at the same rate at any point on the slice is inescapable too.
If that single straight time-line is run in the opposite direction, the slices are implied to gradually shrink in size until they reach the size of a single point at the time zero.
Do you want to say that is not what you are teaching your students?

Well, I may be as ignorant about the subject matter as you suggest but you are reckoning without my cat who is an extremely learned feline. When I have any trouble with maths I always consult him and he knows how to translate the most complex equation into the plainest piece of purring.

I wonder now why I should have bothered at all about any of that? Why would I need to share any unconventional directions of thought? One thing is certain and this is that the current LCDM model is not a correct description of reality. Not a true model of the universal process. On the other hand the level of absurdity in an explanation is not any reflection of the practical uselessness of a model. BBT is not much worse than Ptolemaic cosmology in that respect - both describe and predict a lot so both may serve their fleeting purpose well.
I might just as well leave people alone to believe what they want to believe.
Be sure of myself and my own reason, not be in any need of any outside confirmation to the ideas that have an intrinsic explanatory power anyway. Be satisfied with that power of explanation only and not be bothered whether the explanation is tested to be confirmed or not. Let it roll the way it will. That's what my cat is telling me now.

Larni, if they already know that as you contend they seem to keep the knowledge a well-guarded secret.
But if you refer to Crankdriver's statement in the thread where he claimed to have been teaching the same relativity and the same idea of time dilation as Mayer proposes...well, I analysed Crankdriver's contention finding it completely unfounded.
There is a crucial difference: in Mayer's model to any observer wielding Crankdriver's theoretical tools while watching the Milky Way from a region of high redshift, the Milky Way may appear to be reciprocally younger irrespective of its intrinsic age. Whereas in Crankdriver's cosmology there are no possible conscious observers at a redshft that is high from our point view as the galaxies there are assumed to be intrinsically younger. The galaxies there are assumed to be inhabiting the lifeless baby universe. Life is not supposed to have developed there to result in any possible conscious observers as yet. Crankdriver's model assumes galaxy evolution as a function of redshift, Mayer's does not. Vast difference.

Thank you, Larni, for demonstrating your proficiency in British dialects and soccer. Maybe you should stick to pub discussions of the game with your mates? To stating your opinions as to what is new on the pitch and what is not and leaving judging what is new in Mr. Mayer's cosmology and what is known to everyone already to those who actually took the trouble to read his exposition of his ideas for themselves?
It's a free country though and you can always try again and hear it from the horse's mouth:
http://www.jaypritzker.org/

Not that understood your post either apart from a reference to a footballer that is a staple pub fare which was not certain anyway as the name is spelled differently.
As to the delusions of comprehension.. that is a moot point again..it was you who claimed to comprehend definitely the level of novelty or its absence in Mayer's theory. I take it your claim was second-hand opinion based on what Crankdriver had said in one his posts. Hence my recommendation to read the original source.
If you did that to begin with, then I guess my last post might have seemed to you much less obscure.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : omitted word