Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs

If the wiki article is based upon a very select few of the pre-1992 papers, wouldn't it be outdated compared to the many post-1992 papers now available?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.The major issues with the FBG problem were not realized until after 1992, when hi-resolution imaging and color surveys were conducted. Although the arxiv date of that one paper is 1998, the print or publishing date is 2008. Here is a complete list of the references (date) I used in the paper: 1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.I think you are mixing up a very limited article that has excluded the last 20 years of research and the current scientific consensus on the subject. The fact that the article is recent but missing the last 20 years of research shows that someone is being misleading or simply unqualified to be writing it in the first place.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

There has not been major progress on the problem since the post-1992 observations (up to about 1998). The 1998 paper was posted on arxiv, but published in 2008 because the information is exactly the same. The most important quote that I can emphasize is this:It is just these attempts that brought about a problem called the excess of faint blue galaxies (FBGs), which remains one of the grand astronomical issues for a long time (Koo & Kron 1992, Ellis 1997). The difficulties lie in that one cannot find a logically simple and self-consistent way to explain the observational data of different aspects
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9802118v2.pdf"grand astronomical issues for a long time" and "one cannot find a logically simple and self-consistent way to explain the observational data of different aspects", that's coming from a peer-reviewed paper published (printed) in 2008.

Unfortunately, those articles consist of single authors and neither is published in a scientific journal (the International Astronomical Union is not a journal). Starting with the foundations of Hubble Deep Fever: A faint galaxy diagnosis#1. The excess faint blue galaxies are of irregular morphologiesAlthough some are of irregular morphologies, many are also normal disk or spiral galaxies via hi-resolution imaging, OII widths and color. The second paper referred to also claims that these are dwarf elliptical galaxies (dE), not irregulars (Irr).http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...1108C/0001108.000.html#2. the majority of these irregulars occur at redshifts 1 < z < 2.Spectroscopic redshift surveys have confirmed that the FBG below Mb of 22.5 exist before 0.5z and Mb of 24 before 1.0z. These consist of the bulk of observed FBGs (or those involved in the 2-3x excess). I’ve also plotted data from the following in figure 3.13 of my paper to demonstrate this.http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988MNRAS.235..827B
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990MNRAS.244..408C
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9503116.pdfThese two categorical facts from an unpublished paper are provably false from published, peer-reviewed papers.Now Faint blue galaxies revisited
I have read the entire paper several times and the claim that In summary, the number counts of faint-blue galaxies are not in serious conflict with ΛCDM cosmological models is not backed by any evidence or proof. More importantly, the wording is not in serious conflict; i.e. it is still in conflict. The usage of serious is subjective and there are no actual results on how large the disagreement is. If I’ve missed the solution(s) to the size versus luminosity and excess of FBGs in this paper, please refer me to the section/paragraph where it is discussed.In comparison, the peer-reviewed/published articles I have posted provide actual results such as where the number counts are observed to be 2 - 3 times higher than can be accounted for by standard no-evolution models. More importantly, the redshift distribution of galaxies in faint surveys is compatible with no evolution. So how exactly can these be dwarf galaxies, when they are 200% - 300% brighter than local ones with no evolution? A theory being off by 200% - 300% from observations seems like a serious conflict to me. Perhaps it has become less of a problem in terms of lambda-CDM redshift distribution predictions, but my theory makes identical predictions with fewer assumptions and less free variables.And finally, I will again emphasize this quote from a peer-reviewed, published paper. The difficulties lie in that one cannot find a logically simple and self-consistent way to explain the observational data of different aspects. The paper says Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 0-0 (0000) Printed 1 February 2008 and when a paper is printed it means that it was published. The date is on the first page of the paper, upper left corner. When a journal publishes a paper, it means that the results are correct and current (for the majority of cases at least).

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.Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.#1. The FBG excess is a conventional problem; otherwise, that wiki article and various papers would not exist in the first place.
#2. I have not dismissed any evidence besides that which conflicts with peer-reviewed research and observations.
#3. Although some have made a rational debate difficult with baseless accusations, I have remained calm and rational.
#4. My discussion is based solely on facts, observations and evidence.A crank is someone with ridiculous unprovable claims, no connection to convention, lacks any proof/evidence and dismisses any form of refutation without consideration or counter.I also advice looking into Occam’s razor, It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Now you can believe in a theory that requires unproven, non-classical assumptions and further fails to agree with observations (the modified big bang theory aka lambda-CDM). The other choice would be my model, which is based upon experimentally verified physics and is in agreement with all observations. BTW, the FBG problem isn’t the only problem with the big bang theory; there are several other observations that are not only at odds with, but incompatible to lambda-CDM.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

I would say that someone has a typo in their article .There's nothing wrong with the pre-1992 articles; for example, some contain irrefutable observations such as spectroscopic redshift of the FBGs and their characteristics. The problem is that many have proposed theoretical solutions that can be ruled out from later observations.Mergers between galaxies for example were not fully constrained until just recently (2011+), which is an important aspect in the FBG problem. Some suggested that drastic mergers took place around 0.3z - 1.0z, but new results demonstrate the amount of mergers is insignificant. Others purposed that the FBGs were blue dwarfs or dE, but 300% brighter than the local populations. Observations have shown that they perfectly match the characteristics of common irregulars and disk, i.e. they are fully consistent with no evolution in terms of color and redshift distribution.This is why the two papers posted are in disagreement with not only each other, but also the direct and conclusive observations from earlier studies. Then again these were never actually published in scientific journals.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

Unless you have another accepted definition for a "crank", I do not see how I fit any of the qualities listed. As I said before, I'm currently taking a break from work until my tendonitis heals. In the mean-time I'm simply getting some perspective on the average persons opinion and beliefs.The definition of Occam's razor is correct due to the word competing, implying the relevant theories have similar explanatory power. For example, both theories fit the observed redshift distribution of FBGs and SNIa. Mine however requires only classical assumptions derived from experimentally verified physics. My redshift equation also relies on a single variable rather than lamdba-CDM's three.Beyond this, my theory predicts the inferred excess of FBGs at the observed redshift; lamdba-CDM does not. The change in apparent size (angular scale) of clusters and FBGs with redshift are also equivalent. So the other aspect of Occam's razor would apply here, where "one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power". My theory is simpler and has greater explanatory power.I also stick with my comment on Arxiv censoring my paper. "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." They refused to provide a specific reason for the censorship, refused to send my request to their over-sight (scientific advisory board) and admitted that they filter papers based upon personal interest rather than content. The thing is that I'm not down with corruption, greed or censorship and when I directly experience these types of things I'm going to make sure everyone knows about it until the problem is resolved."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."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.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

I suppose that demonstrates the current state of science when a noble laureate is considered a crank. Arxiv has admitted censorship by itself "'to accommodate the interests of people within the research community' and not 'outsiders'"; keyword interest."He is now a crank like you"Once again a baseless accusation. You argue in circles and ignore basic proofs and logic. The proofs are simple, the discussion already exists from conventional literature and all you can do is repeat the same crank line over and over again. Please contribute something productive or nothing at all...Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

Some act as if I haven't tried to publish the paper (and nearly succeeded), work in cooperation with universities or make my research available to the scientific community. Although I agree that this isn't the best place for a scientific debate on the theory, that was never my intention in the first place. That doesn't mean I won't respond to reasonable posts or questions however.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. There are many wackos out there purposing absurd theories in the first place and they are not usually considered cranks. Yes, the odds of a recent graduate solving the theory of everything and proving the big bang theory wrong are astronomical. But I'll let the facts and evidence speak for themselves.1. There are 200%-300% more faint blue galaxies (FBGs) at 0.3z - 1.0z than predicted by lambda-CDM.
2. These FBGs are 200%-300% smaller than expected relative to lambda-CDM.
3. It is known from published articles that the distribution and properties of these galaxies are consistent with no evolution, i.e. the actual sizes cannot be changing.
4. The apparent (angular) sizes of galactic clusters and FBGs are observed to change by identical amounts with respect to redshift (with an error of about 6% up to 0.7z). This is the main focus of the video and only takes 2 minutes to cover.
5. My theory resolves all of these problems with a single constant and redshift equation derived from classical physics (Doppler and gravitational redshift).It doesn't take a genius to understand the problems with the big bang theory.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

The theory is derived from principles identical to modern quantum field theory and is further related to the standard model. Only the cosmological aspects and Einstein's field equations are argued against. The foundations of general relativity also remain the same including Einstein's equivalence principle and the space-time metric.This is the entire basis of a"theory of everything", where general relativity is combined with the standard model of particle physics.

I didn't give specific coordinates in my paper, but only the metric distance and general direction. If the CMBR dipole moment arises from the solar system's relative motion to the central core, then the center of the universe must exist between the two poles. This aligns exactly with the central cold patch and the local jet emerging from it's center. Breaking down the cleaned CMBR image into higher multipoles also shows the location via the quadrupole or quadrupole+octupole.In galactic coordinates the center of the universe or central core is located at about -15 degrees latitude and 340 degrees longitude. The metric distance to the core's surface can be determined from the CMBR redshift, which is about 1089z. This equates to approximately 130 trillion light years. So light is deflecting over relatively large distances, projecting the CMBR or black body spectrum of the central core into all directions of space locally.http://hendrix2.uoregon.edu/...a/123/lecture-1/cmbr-wmap.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0101/dipole_cobe.jpg
http://hera.ph1.uni-koeln.de/~heintzma/SNR/b4/CMB_s.gifEdited by Alphabob, : No reason given.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

Redshift becomes less directionally dependent as distance increases. Locally we should see galaxies and clusters along the shortest directions to the central core accelerating away. In the opposite direction, we are accelerating away from galaxies and clusters with higher gravitational potential. So the majority of objects will appear to be receding. Current surveys only cover small portions of the sky, so there is a large gap in data with respect to the directional dependence of galaxies and clusters.There will however be objects with blueshift locally and in specific directions. So far there are 7000+ galaxies with blueshift and they are uniquely distributed. Although only a blog, the author plotted most of these and provides a link to the NED database. (Distribution of Blue Shifted Galaxies).More distant objects will all have redshift, where current SNIa data does not fit isotropic expansion from 0.1z to 0.5z. I plotted these in figure 3.21, where uncertainty is too small to be fit by lambda-CDM predictions (black lines). Beyond 0.5z the uncertainty becomes too large to make any sort of conclusion.http://thecontinuousuniverse.com/images/Figure%204.12.JPGEdited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

If you were to look in a direction perpendicular to the core's direction from Earth, there would be a mixture of redshift and blueshift locally. It's basically a large bulk flow accelerating into a gravitational potential, so there will be variations in density and relative velocity. Due to the deflection of light over large distances, these directions begin to point towards the central region. This is what the dispersion in figure 3.21 is from, i.e. observations do not fit isotropic expansion.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

There are various factors involved in the local redshift including bulk flows. My paper only focuses on redshift beyond 0.1z, which is relatively close. What should be seen according to my theory is a directional dependence of distance versus redshift for SNIa. Unlike galaxy surveys, SNIa act as standard candles and are nearly equally distributed in all directions. So the plot of SNIa provides exactly what is predicted by my model. The average error below 0.5z in figure 3.21 is less than 0.21u, where the black lines are predictions from the big bang theory and red lines are from mine.http://thecontinuousuniverse.com/images/Figure%204.12.JPGAs for the CMBR, the temperature appears isotropic because only gravitational redshift and relative motion will vary it. With the surface of the central core having constant relative redshift (gravitational), the deflection of light simply projects it into all directions locally. The dipole moment arises from the relative motion of the solar system. There is also some scattering from intergalactic gas or the hot x-ray emitting gas in local clusters.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

I'm not going to worry about a single typo over 43 posts. I know the difference between purpose and proposed.

quote:

---

What is being asked here is to distinguish between what we ought to see in directions along and perpendicular to the direction to the galactic core according to your hypothesis about the universe. Can you make a specific prediction that we can compare with reality.

---

quote:

---

What should be seen according to my theory is a directional dependence of distance versus redshift for SNIa. So the plot of SNIa provides exactly what is predicted by my model.

---

Some directions travel more distance than others until they sufficiently deflect towards the central region. So by measuring the redshift and distance of SNIa in all directions, the specific predictions of my model can be compared to realilty. As for redshift below 0.1z, the galaxies with blueshift are concentrated in specific regions. My theory predicts for blueshift to occur more frequently in directions perpendicular to the central core. However, there are also bulk flows of clusters and SNIa locally; so every aspect cannot be defined by a single equation. My equations only provide the entire range of redshift versus distance, not the directional dependence.

quote:

---

This would need to be backed up by some math. I read this claim in your paper and it wasn't well supported there either. It is counter-intuitive that CMBR would come from a single point in a non-expanding universe and yet still be traveling towards us from all directions billions of years after it was emitted and appear almost completely isotropic. On the other hand, that state of affairs is easily understood from standard cosmology.

---

It is backed by math, that is what multipoles are. The relativistic jets are clearly visible on the cleaned CMBR image and show up in the quadrupole+octupole. The quadrupole moment aligns with the central core and the location of these jets. The source of the CMBR has always existed, so the universe is saturated with electromagnetic energy from the classical black body radiation. If our perspective is that of galaxies and clusters falling back towards the central region, then the source of the CMBR must also be projected in all directions locally. The theory is a steady state with embedded bulk flows.