Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs

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

He got that from your response the same way everyone else did: 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: This is from the arXiv page about their Endorsement System: 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: 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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix HTML error.

Again, your paper was not endorsed. Rather, you were endorsed for the right to submit your paper. Here's what arXiv said: 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

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

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: 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

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

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: 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. 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

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.--PercyPS - 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.

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

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

Son Goku popped in, read the paper, posted a response that drew a reply from AlphaBob, then disappeared. Anyone know his email address?--Percy

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

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

Could you fill in a few details:

1. Why do you think GR behavior hasn't been verified outside the solar system?
   ​
2. Science uses different models for the behavior of plasmas than it does for solids, liquids and gases. What leads you to believe it doesn't?
   ​
3. Where specifically is science inappropriately applying models for solids, liquids and gases to plasmas? You said it was "in space", but could you narrow it down a bit?

--Percy

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? 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. Plasmas are also electrically neutral. When you say that galaxies "rotate collectively", do you mean they all rotate in the same direction? 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. Do you have an example of application of this "fudge factor"?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.