Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 1 of 223 (701991)
06-28-2013 2:07 PM


Hello, my name is Michael and I am a physicist from Michigan. I would like to share some conventional proofs that allow an expanding universe or the Big Bang theory to be conclusively ruled out. I have condensed the central discussion into a four-minute YouTube video, written at a level suitable for the average person (http://youtu.be/4ItFWXAfDHY). In short, the apparent sizes of distant galaxies and clusters are compared to the predictions of lambda-CDM. It is further demonstrated that the theory underestimates the size of distant clusters by up to 15,000% with respect to observations. This also relates to the well known faint blue galaxy problem.
For those who understand the standard model, quantum mechanics and general relativity, the paper provides a much more constrained discussion. It was suppose to be published in the April edition of The Astronomical Review, but I had to instead self-publish due to a disagreement with the editorial board about splitting the paper into two. The self-published version can be found under the video’s description (on vixra/researchgate) or by googling the title The Theory of Everything: Foundations, Applications and Corrections to General Relativity.
I will be checking in over the next couple of weeks to answer any questions or problems.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2013 6:44 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 4 by Theodoric, posted 06-29-2013 12:36 AM Alphabob has replied
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2013 3:36 AM Alphabob has not replied
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2013 3:37 PM Alphabob has replied

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


Message 5 of 223 (702022)
06-29-2013 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2013 6:44 PM


It’s somewhat more complicated, but yes. Beyond not being able to share my preprint due to censorship from arxiv moderation (it’s complicated), I became tired of the incompetence. After having my paper for 4 months, the editorial board responded with the following, I would not object to a paper for the Astronomical Review that proposes some new or non-standard theory as long as it is consistent; and I think very likely that is what we have here. I was then reassured several times that the paper would be published in time throughout the month of April. On April 29th, I received an email asking to reduce the paper to 25 pages (originally 83 pgs) and submit for the next quarterly edition. More specifically, they wanted me to publish the first half, wait 6 months and then publish the cosmological aspects separately. If I had continued to pursue publishing, I would be out $5,000+ and delayed by half a year or more. Although the publishing and revision processes were fatiguing, I did not have many options.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2013 6:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 06-29-2013 2:12 AM Alphabob has not replied

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


Message 6 of 223 (702023)
06-29-2013 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Theodoric
06-29-2013 12:36 AM


I received my bachelor degree in physics from Oakland University in 2011 (departmental/academic honors). Here is proof... http://thecontinuousuniverse.com/images/degree.JPG

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Theodoric, posted 06-29-2013 12:36 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 06-29-2013 1:40 AM Alphabob has not replied
 Message 9 by Theodoric, posted 06-29-2013 3:28 AM Alphabob has replied

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


Message 14 of 223 (702043)
06-29-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Theodoric
06-29-2013 3:28 AM


The definition of a scientist is A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences. My degree only qualifies me to be a scientist. I also took several graduate level courses as an undergrad and ended up being the reason why there were no grading curves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Theodoric, posted 06-29-2013 3:28 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2013 1:34 PM Alphabob has replied

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


Message 15 of 223 (702047)
06-29-2013 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
06-29-2013 7:26 AM


Re: My Opinion
It was at the end of my post so you might have missed it; The self-published version can be found under the video’s description (on vixra/researchgate) or by googling the title. If a theory is correct, it will get out regardless of the route taken. Another thing to take into consideration is that journals are publishing many papers based upon the big bang theory; so even with the perfect paper and countless proofs, the options are much more limited than usual.
About the cost of publishing, you are correct and I should have actually calculated it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 06-29-2013 7:26 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2013 1:26 PM Alphabob has replied

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


Message 18 of 223 (702067)
06-30-2013 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2013 1:26 PM


Re: My Opinion
Perhaps with the cosmological aspect, someone could independently realize that an asymptotically flat universe provides the illusion of accelerated expansion. However, I had this figured out 3-4 years ago. The complicated part is deriving a self-consistent mathematical model that combines general relativity and the standard model. The paper is also on record at the copyright office, so I’m not worried about anyone succeeding in taking credit for my work.
The paper itself has been downloaded over 200 times in about a month (unique IPs); most papers receive less than 30 in that amount of time. It’s not that I haven’t been diligent, but that some have a lot to lose by the acceptance of this theory. I submitted to every viable journal, contacted several universities and tried to make my preprint available on arxiv with endorsements. Self-publishing via vixra, researchgate and the video just happened to be the only option left after the astronomical review.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2013 1:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 19 of 223 (702068)
06-30-2013 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2013 1:34 PM


In the earlier stages I had been discussing what are now the foundations of the theory with another student. My professor overheard and asked to speak with me privately in the hallway. He then went on to say that I was a genius and asked what my plans were after graduating. Beyond this, I had sent earlier drafts of the paper to several professors and received positive responses (including the endorsements for arxiv). They however could not do anything beyond sharing it with others. There were also some crucial additions and revisions after this point.
Regardless, my paper has reached a lot of scientist through researchgate. A few have already accepted it as the correct theory and I am expecting this number to increase over the following months.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2013 1:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2013 3:36 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 44 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 9:21 AM Alphabob has replied

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


Message 21 of 223 (702105)
07-01-2013 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
06-30-2013 3:36 PM


That was one of the first things I did. They told me to upload it to arxiv and/or submit to a journal. Arxiv however censored me even after receiving endorsements from several scientists in the relevant fields. This is how arxiv runs (Fledgling site challenges arXiv server – Physics World):
"'to accommodate the interests of people within the research community' and not 'outsiders'".
Science is no longer science when it operates on individual interests rather than scientific fact; this is instead pseudoscience by definition. "Pseudoscience is often characterized by ... or an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation". EvC was more of a weekend test to see what type of response I would get from a forum. My goal is not to reach only the scientific community, but also the billions who already do not believe in big bang cosmology.
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2013 3:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Jon, posted 07-01-2013 2:28 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 07-01-2013 2:38 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 07-01-2013 3:15 PM Alphabob has not replied

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


Message 26 of 223 (702121)
07-01-2013 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jon
07-01-2013 2:28 PM


Re: viXra
Many of the papers on vixra are indeed pseudoscience and non-scientific literature. However, I support the central reason for why the site exists and it’s acknowledgement of scientific censorship. I see it as another location to share my research. Although being on vixra might negatively affect the view of some, far more will actually skim through the paper and attempt to judge the science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jon, posted 07-01-2013 2:28 PM Jon has not replied

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


Message 27 of 223 (702122)
07-01-2013 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NoNukes
07-01-2013 2:38 PM


Well yes, that is also one of my goals. However, why shouldn’t I help the billions understand things as scientific fact rather than belief? Measuring the size of objects and plotting them on a graph requires an IQ of around 85; the average IQ is 100. The lack of counters to my paper would imply that the revisions after peer-review were sufficient. Maybe a few are trying to prove it wrong and have not been successful, but I haven’t heard anything yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 07-01-2013 2:38 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 07-01-2013 5:32 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 07-01-2013 7:39 PM Alphabob has not replied

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


Message 28 of 223 (702123)
07-01-2013 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by New Cat's Eye
07-01-2013 3:37 PM


I didn't discuss this in detail within the video, but the cluster sizes were measured from 3-sigma x-ray isobars (computer generated from Chandra and the XMM cluster surveys). The major and minor diameters were averaged to produce the plot. Uncertainty in the average size was at most 25%, while the big bang theory is off by up to 15,000%. My theory is in agreement with observations to within 20% with respect to both cluster and galaxy sizes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2013 3:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2013 10:33 AM Alphabob has replied

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


Message 31 of 223 (702152)
07-01-2013 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jon
07-01-2013 5:32 PM


I didn't post the paper here for critical review of my research. That was what I spent almost a year doing via journals and peer-review. I am only informing people that the theory is out and accessible to everyone.
What many don't realize is that not all important papers get published in a journal. This is essentially what arxiv was for, until they began censorship on the basis of personal interests rather than scientific fact. Antony Lisi for example never even submitted for peer-review, but received mass attention without a single drop of proof. Weinstein's theory of everything has recently hit the mainstream media, but can apparently be ruled out from LHC results (and he has no paper). There was even a paper published by Harvard University that has heavily influenced worldwide economics; the results were later found to be fabricated (Meet the 28-Year-Old Grad Student Who Just Shook the Global Austerity Movement).
What is now referred to as science is much more similar to politics if anything else. My goal is to bring the discussion back to scientific facts through all means necessary. If this requires testing the intellect of the average person then so be it.
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 07-01-2013 5:32 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Theodoric, posted 07-01-2013 10:09 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 33 by AZPaul3, posted 07-01-2013 11:19 PM Alphabob has replied

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


Message 34 of 223 (702158)
07-01-2013 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Theodoric
07-01-2013 10:09 PM


Who said that? The arxiv endorsement program works by seeking others who have submitted papers in the relevant fields, and then contacting them with a request for the paper to be allowed (along with a unique code from arxiv). It is strict enough that if someone endorses pseudoscience, arxiv moderation is likely to take away that person privilege to endorse others. To date, all of the people I contacted are still able to endorse others.
Now, I contacted several phds who have multiple papers uploaded to arxiv on the relevant subjects (cosmology, dark matter, dark energy, ect). These included Prabir Rudra, B. G. Sidharth and a few others. They may not be as well known as Hawking, but are reputable scientist none the less. I also received an "up vote" on my paper from another physicist on researchgate, which is a different kind of endorsement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Theodoric, posted 07-01-2013 10:09 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Theodoric, posted 07-01-2013 11:35 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 36 by hooah212002, posted 07-01-2013 11:44 PM Alphabob has not replied

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


Message 37 of 223 (702164)
07-02-2013 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by AZPaul3
07-01-2013 11:19 PM


That is why I joined researchgate and began posting questions that discuss my research. I get stats of every university that has read my questions, viewed the paper or even downloaded it. So I can say for a fact that it has reached the scientific community in terms of multiple universities and countries.
One thing to think about however is the available options when being censored. Its difficult enough to publish a theory that doesn't challenge the conventional model, let alone one that does. What happens when someone comes up with the correct theory and they are left to the same options as the "cranks"? Should that person not use all viable options to share their research?
I was never expecting this forum to somehow convince the media or scientific community about my theory. If I can however demonstrate to a few additional individuals that the proofs are rather simple and conclusive, then I would consider that a small win. At most I'll lose respect from those who I do not care to have respect from in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by AZPaul3, posted 07-01-2013 11:19 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by AZPaul3, posted 07-02-2013 12:49 AM Alphabob has replied

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


Message 38 of 223 (702166)
07-02-2013 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Theodoric
07-01-2013 11:35 PM


phd, although I do not know who exactly endorsed it out of the list; which is why I was cautious about listing the people in the first place. Peer-review and endorsements are usually kept confidential. But here was my email to them:
"I am seeking an endorsement for arxiv, to upload a preprint of "The Theory of Everything". The last chapter derives the proper model of the universe with a new redshift equation and resulting constant. This allows several anomalies to be resolved including dark energy, dark matter and baryon asymmetry. A copy of the paper can be downloaded (.pdf) or viewed on google docs (link). Below is a copy of the arxiv endorsement link."
This is what I received from arxiv afterwards, not a whole lot of info.
"You've just been endorsed to submit papers to the arXiv subject class
physics.gen-ph."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Theodoric, posted 07-01-2013 11:35 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 12:17 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