Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs

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.

Thread copied here from the Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Let's see if I've got this right. You have shown that the Big Bang didn't happen, and also that the theory of General Relativity is wrong. A respectable peer-reviewed journal was going to publish your paper, but because of a disagreement on whether it should be published in one part or two, you decided to skip the whole fatiguing business of peer-reviewed publication and instead chose to circulate your ideas in the form of a four-minute YouTube video.Did it not occur to you that you would have more, much more, credibility if your paper had actually been published, whether in one part or two?

[cough]Bullshit[/cough]

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.

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

A bachelor's degree doesn't make anyone an '-ist'.

I haven't published myself. But I have been very close to the process of getting a paper published several times. What you found frustrating is completely normal. The publication process is arduous and careful so that greater trust can be put in what does get published.If you can't hack it then your amazing work will fade into oblivion. Sucks but that's life.

So my call of bullshit is correct. There is a huge difference between being a physicist and having a bachelors on physics.

I would also point out that you're doing yourself no favors by using the phrase "Theory of Everything" when you don't, so far as I can see, actually claim to have found anything remotely like a ToE. "Theory of Everything" is already a term of art in physics, you can't hijack it to describe your own idea, however highly you think of it, unless it unifies gravity and quantum field theory, which is not a claim you even make for it.

AlphaBob, aka Michael Peck, isn't being forthright about his paper, it's already available online:

• The Theory of Everything: Foundations, Applications and Corrections to General Relativity (abstract)
  
• Link to PDF of full paper

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

As a highly qualified layman with a degree of ignorance I must object to these objections.It is the study and understanding of physics that makes one a physicist and not the letters that follow one's name."Thank you, Mr Peck, for your submission to the Loyal Order of Guildsmen. We were about to review your paper but finding that you do not know the secret handshake we have been forced to reject it out of hand. Also, your socks don't match."

I agree that the letters are not so important. So why did the OP produce his diploma as his proof?I agree with what I think that Percy is saying; namely that regardless of his academic credentials or of the validity of the claims in the paper, the OP's work reflects a greater familiarity with physics than that normally associated with an undergraduate student. I double majored in physics and electrical engineering, yet I couldn't have produced anything like this paper upon graduation and I could not do so now.I'm not willing to challenge his claim of being a physicist without having read his paper. What I will suggest is that everything about his presentation here screams "crank" to me. 'Everything you know is wrong?' I know I've heard that before.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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.

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.