|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If a theory is correct, it will get out regardless of the route taken. This is I suppose true, but the route may involve someone else thinking of it independently and publishing it, as has happened from time to time when people have been insufficiently diligent in seeking recognition for their ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I also took several graduate level courses as an undergrad and ended up being the reason why there were no grading curves. It follows that there are some physicists who know that you are awfully good at physics, and are therefore predisposed in your favor. Have you shown your work to them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, I suggest that you ask these people who recognize your genius and the correctness of your theory what they should do to draw attention to your ideas. I would be surprised if any of them mentions either YouTube or EvC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I looked through the viXra website where you currently have your paper hosted. I browsed through some papers in a subject I'm familiar withlinguisticsand found little there worth my while.
What do you think of the quality of the typical submissions to that website? Do you think that might impact how people view your work?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
but also the billions who already do not believe in big bang cosmology. I think your goal should be to receive a response, critical or admiring, from people who can understand your paper. The opinions of people who cannot understand the paper, but are simply ideologically predisposed to accept your conclusion don't really validate your work. In short, why should you care what the billions think? Why should I care? Initially, at least, shouldn't it be the thousands of real physicists that are your concern? Aren't you the least bit concerned that you haven't heard or addressed any serious counters to your arguments?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
Arxiv however censored me even after receiving endorsements from several scientists in the relevant fields. So you say. So far your track record on honesty has not been to good here. Who were these scientists? If you cannot give names how about their fields of study, educational background and current positions they hold. I have no reason to believe your assertions. You need to back up your claims with actual evidence.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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. Maybe you measured the sizes wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The lack of counters to my paper would imply that the revisions after peer-review were sufficient. I think it means that few if any serious people with the required background and knowledge have even read your paper. Which is why you've been told several times that this isn't a good place to get a critical review of your research. There are few members here with the relevant background required for such a critique. The same goes for YouTube. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Measuring the size of objects and plotting them on a graph requires an IQ of around 85; the average IQ is 100. That is true, but accepting your conclusions on anything but faith in your ability requires a substantially higher IQ.
The lack of counters to my paper would imply that the revisions after peer-review were sufficient. Er.. really? 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025