Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 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 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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 32 of 223 (702154)
07-01-2013 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Alphabob
07-01-2013 9:02 PM


So no reputable scientists actually endorsed your paper?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Alphabob, posted 07-01-2013 9:02 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Alphabob, posted 07-01-2013 11:21 PM Theodoric has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 33 of 223 (702157)
07-01-2013 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Alphabob
07-01-2013 9:02 PM


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.
And this is a totally unnecessary and ineffective means to accomplish your goal. No one here cares, Mike.
We cannot influence the discipline nor create some semblance of acceptance for you and your hypothesis. We haven't the standing nor, in most cases, the intellect.
If you make any adherents here they will be of the Wal-Mart denizens.
"Wow ... ah ahe ... I dint no that. Uh ... do it mean somtin?"
Worse, Mike, by coming here to air your revolutionary genius new ideas showing Einstein and all the rest of cosmology's designated smart people from the last 100 years to be wrong, you are following the path exclusively reserved for the prototypical crank physicist wannabe.
You need to be "out there" on the physics forums and blogs where the research Docs, the acknowledged cosmologists and the people within the core of the discipline talk. You gain nothing presenting your work here, and, indeed, lose what little standing you may have left.
What is now referred to as science is much more similar to politics if anything else.
There is no doubt in my mind that politics and a bias towards the status quo permeate all the journals in every discipline. You think it's bad now, think prior to the 20th century when Lord Kelvin ruled all of physics and NO ONE the whole world over presented anything without his approval. Even then, the effective theories and the great paradigm shifts could not be denied. But they came from within the discipline not from the Department of Physics at Wal-Mart.
There are today too many venues to publishing and disseminating radical new ideas for any worthy hypothesis to go un-aired regardless of the politics. If your proposals have any value they will be seen by "them out there" not us here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Alphabob, posted 07-01-2013 9:02 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 12:02 AM AZPaul3 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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 35 of 223 (702159)
07-01-2013 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Alphabob
07-01-2013 11:21 PM


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.
Did they endorse your "paper"? If I contact them will they support you?
I also received an "up vote" on my paper from another physicist on researchgate, which is a different kind of endorsement.
Ph.D. physicist or a bachelors "physicist" like you?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Alphabob, posted 07-01-2013 11:21 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 12:12 AM Theodoric has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 36 of 223 (702161)
07-01-2013 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Alphabob
07-01-2013 11:21 PM


I also received an "up vote" on my paper from another physicist on researchgate, which is a different kind of endorsement.
Damn, my reddit account has over 19k upvotes. Awesome. No wonder redditors tell everyone that upvotes don't matter because if everyone knew this, all of reddit would be published. /r/atheism would produce so many astro-physicists NdT himself would be out of a job.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Alphabob, posted 07-01-2013 11:21 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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 39 of 223 (702167)
07-02-2013 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 12:12 AM


So no on the endorsements you implied?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 12:12 AM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 12:35 AM Theodoric has replied

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


Message 40 of 223 (702169)
07-02-2013 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Theodoric
07-02-2013 12:17 AM


How did you get that from my response? I've been endorsed by at least one of the phds I contacted to upload my paper onto arxiv. Arxiv moderation decided to later censor my paper anyways. One of my previous professors also endorsed the paper in terms of sending it to a bunch of colleagues. The paper was also "up voted" on researchgate, which is not as easy to get as a reddit "up vote" because it's qualified scientist doing the voting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 12:17 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 07-02-2013 7:12 AM Alphabob has replied
 Message 43 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 9:12 AM Alphabob has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 41 of 223 (702170)
07-02-2013 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 12:02 AM


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.
Excellent. Then why are you wasting your time here? You have one hell of an uphill fight on your plate right now but instead you spend your energies here trying to find someone to convience of your brilliance? That's what quacks, cranks and charlatans do, Mike.
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?
Inside the physics community, Mike, not off in the weeds looking for some small measure of personal gratification to confirm one's own ego. Only cranks take that route since they can't get their ego-fix the hard required disciplined way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 12:02 AM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 12:58 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 42 of 223 (702179)
07-02-2013 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 12:35 AM


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 class
physics.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 and
the 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 12:35 AM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 1:10 PM Percy has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 43 of 223 (702187)
07-02-2013 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 12:35 AM


How did you get that from my response?
Because your response addressed nothing I posted. You have provided no information on anyone that supports your paper.
You name dropped Prabir Rudra and B. G. Sidharth, please provide what they wrote to support your paper and their contact information so we can contact them to find out what they feel about what you wrote.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 12:35 AM Alphabob has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 44 of 223 (702189)
07-02-2013 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Alphabob
06-30-2013 1:19 PM


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.
A conversation he heard in the hallway convinced him you were a genius?
What is the professors name?
I can call or email them to confirm.
quote:
Clara Castoldi Adjunct Associate Professor (248) 370-4870 162 HHS castoldi@oakland.edu
Michael Chopp Distinguished Professor (248) 370-3421 274 HHS chopp@neuro.hfh.edu
Ken Elder Professor (248) 370-3424 186H SEB elder@oakland.edu
David Garfinkle Professor (248) 370-3411 186J SEB garfinkl@oakland.edu
Evgeniy Khain Assistant Professor (248) 370-3412 272 HHS khain@oakland.edu
George Martins Associate Professor (248) 370-3417 174 HHS martins@oakland.edu
Alberto Rojo Associate Professor (248) 370-3422 186C SEB rojo@oakland.edu
Bradley Roth Professor (248) 370-4871 166 HHS roth@oakland.edu
Andrei Slavin Professor and Chair (248) 370-3401 186G SEB slavin@oakland.edu
Gopalan Srinivasan Distinguished Professor (248) 370-3419 186F SEB srinivas@oakland.edu
Vasyl Tyberkevych Research Associate Professor (248) 370-3421 274 HHS tyberkev@oakland.edu
Yuejian Wang Assistant Professor (248) 370-3423 164 HHS ywang235@oakland.edu
Yang Xia Professor (248) 370-3420 276 HHS xia@oakland.edu
I would also like to get their opinions on your paper. So maybe I was just email all of them.
ABE
Oh yeah. If you are such a a genius why are you not in graduate school?
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Alphabob, posted 06-30-2013 1:19 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Jon, posted 07-02-2013 11:57 AM Theodoric has replied
 Message 56 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 1:38 PM Theodoric has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 223 (702192)
07-02-2013 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Alphabob
07-01-2013 5:09 PM


while the big bang theory is off by up to 15,000%
How do you know that you calculated the sizes correctly for the Big Bang Theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Alphabob, posted 07-01-2013 5:09 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 1:17 PM New Cat's Eye 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