|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
AlphaBob in Message 5 writes: Beyond not being able to share my preprint due to censorship from arxiv moderation... AlphaBob, aka Michael Peck, isn't being forthright about his paper, it's already available online:
The paper is 65 pages and very heavy on math. Whether or not its claims have any validity, and as others have already noted, it makes no sense that someone who could produce such work would also believe that the next step after Astronomical Review is EvC Forum. Here's a list of other astronomy journals Michael could have chosen from. Michael may be of a type occasionally seen here, very knowledgeable about something or other, in this case math and cosmology, but otherwise profoundly disconnected from the rest of reality. He said he couldn't provide a copy of his paper, yet it's online. He said publishing would cost him $5000, but the Astronomical Review Author Guide states that they charge $25/page, which would be around $2000 for 83 pages. As he gradually shares with us more and more of his story little inconsistencies like these will become increasingly glaring. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Alphabob writes: How did you get that from my response? He got that from your response the same way everyone else did:
Alphabob in Message 38 writes: 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 classphysics.gen-ph." This says that you were endorsed for paper submission, not that your paper was endorsed. I think you're confused about how arXiv works. There's no process for endorsing papers. There's only the process gaining endorsement for submitting papers. This is from the arXiv Primer page:
User Endorsement If you are a new user or are submitting to a new archive, you may be required to find endorsement before your submission will be processed. Users with recognized academic affiliations may be exempt from the endorsement process, while other users should contact eligible arXiv endorsers to verify that they are active members of the scientific community. This process helps restrict arXiv submissions to relevant and legitimate research contributions without adding to the administrative cost of arXiv, and thus it is an essential contribution to both the legitimacy andthe sustainability of arXiv as a free resource. This is from the arXiv page about their Endorsement System:
What are my responsibilities as an endorser? A typical endorser would be asked to endorse about one person a year. The endorsement process is not peer review. You should know the person that you endorse or you should see the paper that the person intends to submit. We don't expect you to read the paper in detail, or verify that the work is correct, but you should check that the paper is appropriate for the subject area. You should not endorse the author if the author is unfamiliar with the basic facts of the field, or if the work is entirely disconnected with current work in the area. And here are instructions for seeking endorsement, which you no doubt read and followed but have either forgotten or for some reason decided not to describe for us:
If you're looking for an endorsement, you can find somebody qualified to endorse by clicking on the link titled "Which of these authors are endorsers?" at the bottom of every abstract. You can then find the email addresses of the submitter on the abstract page at the top of the"Submission history" section. It's best for you to find an endorser who (i) you know personally and (ii) is knowledgeable in the subject area of your paper -- a good choice for graduate students would be your thesis advisor or another professor in your department working in your field. If you do not personally know anyone who is eligible to endorse, you can search for recent submissions in your field of interest and then verify that the submitter is eligible to endorse. It is often a good idea to send eligible endorsers a copy of your proposed submission along with the endorsement request. Please note, however, that it is inappropriate to email large numbers of potential endorsers at once, or to repeatedly email the same endorser with a request for endorsement. So now we have enough information to piece together what happened at arXiv. You contacted several endorsers at arXiv and eventually received back the message, ""You've just been endorsed to submit papers to the arXiv subject class physics.gen-ph." You submitted your paper, but it never appeared at the arXiv website. Why was that? You just say that "it's complicated," but I think the real story is that something in your communications or behavior raised alarm bells, or perhaps there's some part of their process you didn't understand. Maybe it was their requirement for a "non-exclusive and irrevocable license to distribute." Whether or not your physics has any validity, clearly you're having problems dealing with real world issues and interactions, as your misadventures with the arXiv process make clear. You need a secretary or some kind of intermediary or translator. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix HTML error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Alphabob writes: That statement on wikipedia is very misleading...... Here is more recent and actual research... ... I have a feeling the wiki page hasn't been updated for a reason. It is you who are being misleading. As NoNukes pointed out, the papers you cited are all from the end of the previous century, and they all predate the very existence of Wikipedia and so couldn't possibly be more recent than that article, which reflects the current consensus within science. Why don't you begin with reasonable goals? Convince the relevant scientific community (not just a few researchers) that there's still a faint blue galaxy problem, and then in subsequent papers you can introduce your solution. From there you can build out to your other issues and eventually to your Theory of Everything. Your task will become much easier once you've created some credibility with some small well written papers. Don't fall in love with the discriminated-against maverick image you've been fostering, but rather work to become an accepted and respected member of the scientific community. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Alphabob writes: If the wiki article is based upon a very select few of the pre-1992 papers, wouldn't it be outdated compared to the many post-1992 papers now available? Second, it is a wiki page; not a published peer-reviewed article. I'll go in and update it if you really think it's that important. NoNukes just cited a paper from 2005 saying it isn't a problem. I just found another paper from 1998 saying it isn't problem: Hubble Deep Fever: A faint galaxy diagnosis. It begins:
The longstanding faint blue galaxy problem is gradually subsiding as a result of technological advancement, most notably from high-resolution Hubble Space Telescope imaging. So sure, go ahead and update the Wikipedia article, we'll find out who cares, but what I think is important is what I spent most of my time saying and you spent all your time ignoring: you're going about this in the wrong way. Flaunting your odd combination of paranoia and delusions of grandeur is going to get you exactly nowhere. Begin working collegially instead of adversarily within the scientific community. Start with a few small well-written papers and develop some credibility, then build up from there. Here at EvC Forum we get a lot of cranks, and you fit the profile pretty well. You must work on reining in your feelings so you can effectively modify your behavior and stop acting like a crank. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Alphabob writes: I was accused of being a crank by just saying that my paper was available. So your definition of a crank may differ from the usual meaning. ![]() You're really going to cherry pick a definition of crank in order to claim that you're not a crank? Really? Would the genius who solved the most pressing cosmological conundrum of the day really find himself in the middle of an argument about whether he is or is not a crank at a creation/evolution discussion board? By the way, you screwed up Occam's Razor. You want the simplest hypothesis that explains all the evidence (that's the "necessity" portion from Occam's original formulation). You think your hypothesis explains more of the evidence than currently accepted theory, so if you're determined to stay here then you should be focusing your efforts on how to make the issues both understandable and convincing for laypeople. My advice hasn't changed. Stop acting like a crank. You can start by taking down your comment at arXiv about censorship. Start your science career with some short well-written papers and build some credibility. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Alphabob writes: "Nineteen scientists, for example, Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, testified that none of their papers are accepted and others are forcibly re-categorized by the administrators of the arXiv either due to the controversial nature of their work, or it not being canonical to string theory, in what amounts to intellectual censorship." Brian Josephson's current area of research is telepathy and other areas of parapsychology. He is now a crank like you, and like Robert Gentry who was described in the very next paragraph of the article you quoted from the New World Encyclopedia article on arXiv:
New World Encyclopedia writes: "Robert Gentry, a Seventh-Day Adventist, submitted papers on the Big Bang written from a creationist perspective. The arXive administrator removed his papers and revoked his posting rights in 2001. Gentry filed a lawsuit in the district court of Knoxville, Tennessee. Gentry noted, "I'm a creationist and a believer in the Bible, but I want to know the truth. I want these papers to be tested by the scientific community." This incident is similar to others that involve censorship of papers that support the intelligent design theory in life science fields. These cases raise questions about academic freedom in the areas of academia and academic publishing that are supposedly value-neutral." If Josephson and Gentry are really the kind of company you identify with then you'll continue to be treated like a crank by the mainstream scientific community, and deservedly so.
I am also planning on writing much shorter papers and publishing them. However, it is crucial that I make my research available to the general public and scientific community; mostly in terms of ensuring no one attempts to steal credit from me. Tendinitis notwithstanding, if you can respond to messages here then you can write papers. Better start now, because if the evidence is really in your favor then that evidence is out there for anyone with more sense than you to examine and take advantage of. But I doubt you'll do that, because your need to feel like the object of discrimination is overwhelming your desire to make legitimate scientific contributions. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Alphabob, I'm calling you a crank because you're acting like a crank. Instead of working assiduously to join the ranks of the scientific community and fulfill their requirements you instead sit on the outside making accusations while promoting your ideas to a community unqualified to evaluate them, including extravagant claims of genius, of a "Theory of Everything", of 15,000% error in the Big Bang theory, and of nefarious behavior by sinister scientific forces.
If you're really interested in contributing to scientific knowledge, then do it and stop wasting your time here. If you're really interested in helping laypeople understand your theory, then explain it in language we can understand. If you're a crank, then just keep doing what you're doing. We get lots of cranks here, you're fitting right in. --Percy PS - Josephson isn't the first top-class scientist to become attached to ideas with little scientific support in his later years, as witness Fred Hoyle and James Watson.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I don't see where he ever defines or identifies the location of the center of the universe.
He has the CMBR emerging from the universe's core, yet the CMBR arrives from all directions. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Alphabob writes: I just think the use of "crank" should be left to those studying telepathy or drawing random shapes on paper and saying it's "the theory of everything". Cranks do not get accepted to publish in conventional journals, let alone be asked to resubmit at a shortened length. Sure cranks publish in mainstream journals, the most famous example being Stephen C. Meyer's paper in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer is just as sure he's right as you're sure you're right, and he believes his views are discriminated against by mainstream science, just like you do. Unlike you Meyer doesn't waste his time peddling his views at Internet discussion boards, but he's still a crank. I don't have the necessary background in cosmology, so given how spare your explanations analyzing your claims would take a great deal of my time because I would have to do a great deal of research. Naturally I'm not going to make a big investment in time for someone who gives every indication of being a crank. Maybe Cavediver or Son Goku will check in. They already possess the necessary knowledge to evaluate your claims. It looks like you attracted an ally in Bolder-dash - lucky you! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Son Goku popped in, read the paper, posted a response that drew a reply from AlphaBob, then disappeared. Anyone know his email address?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Hi Alphabob, just a couple brief comments.
I wish Son Goku were here. He must have run out of time again. Cavediver is also fluent in this area, but he hasn't been around in a while. Getting involved in discussions about whether or not you're a crank is the kind of things cranks do. The rest of your behavior is also just like a crank. Cranks are unable to make their ideas comprehensible to laypeople, and they prefer less to discuss their ideas than complain about perceived censorship and ill treatment. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Theodoric writes: How long till Alphabob claims victory and leaves the discussion? It wouldn't surprise me at all if Son Goku quits first. I didn't expect this, but it seems that Alphabob is now adopting the same approach on the technical side that he's using on the crank issue. He doesn't care whether he's right or makes sense, he just wants to be contentious. Illumination is not his goal, in fact the opposite. He seems to have a large emotional investment in winning rather than in getting things right. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
justatruthseeker writes: Mainstream has yet to show that GR applies anywhere but in the solar system in describing the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses. But then that's why they have to add 95% ad-hoc Fairie Dust when they apply that same math to the behavior of plasma. Could you fill in a few details:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23185 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
justatruthseeker writes: 1. Because everywhere "but" the solar system you require 95% ad-hoc Fairie Dust. That's why flat rotation curves don't match what is predicted. Did you mean to say, " That's why flat rotation curves don't match what is observed"? If so, then since it would make no sense for cosmologists to use flat rotation curves that do not match observations, why do you think this is what they are doing?
2. Show me one single plasma experiment where the gravitational force was ever any consideration at all? I don't think I could show you a single plasma experiment, let alone one where gravity was a consideration. I was just asking you for more information.
Solids, liquids and gasses are "neutral" - that is they have equal numbers of protons and electrons in their atomic makeup. Plasmas are also electrically neutral.
Plasma responds strongly to the electromagnetic force and acts collectively. And hence galaxies (99% plasma) rotate collectively. When you say that galaxies "rotate collectively", do you mean they all rotate in the same direction?
3. To the behavior of plasma - 99% of the universe - instead of where it only applies - to the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses (solar systems - planets), 1% of the universe. When I asked "where specifically" I was thinking more along the lines of an example of where "in space" science is inappropriately applying models for soilds, liquids and gases to plasmas.
And hence they require a 95% fudge factor for applying the incorrect theory to the situation at hand. Do you have an example of application of this "fudge factor"? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025