Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs

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.

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?

That is true, but accepting your conclusions on anything but faith in your ability requires a substantially higher IQ. Er.. really?

Perhaps you should get out more. The web is replete with the efforts of cranks who reject conventional physics and who produce equations, predictions, and alleged proofs. We've had at least one previous proponent of an alternate cosmology cite such work in this forum.

A viable argument would be to show that the current solution to is wrong, thus restoring the vitality of the original argument. I think that Alphabob attempts to do this by showing that the disappearance of FBG's through merger is not a reasonable speculation.Still, I agree with you about the overall tenor. Calling his presentation a "proof", and whining about being persecuted on his first attempt to publish do come across as cranky. But perhaps he is instead merely showing youthful exuberance. Alpha is behaving as if he is being denied a forum that he has earned some right to because of his brilliance. But nobody has any right to publication in someone else's journal or hosting on a server for which someone else is footing the bill.

This "more recent" stuff is still last century (i.e. pre 2000) stuff, primarily dated on studies from the mid to late 1990s.

What reason would that be?Does not that 2008 paper suggest solutions to the problem?And upon further review isn't that 2008 paper really a 1998 paper? It is the print date and not the publication date that is 2008.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

1. The paper was written and published in 1998 and makes reference only to data and observations that are earlier than 1998. Your attempt to re-date the paper based on a printing date is hogwash.2. The paper suggests a number of possible solutions to the problem. What you are doing is the time honored tactic of quote mining.3. Yes, there has been more work done on the problem since 1998. Here's a journal article from this century. Faint blue galaxies revisited, Henry C. Ferguson, 2005

quote:

---

In summary, the number counts of faint-blue galaxies are not in serious conflict with ΛCDM cosmological models. Nevertheless, there are interesting faint-blue galaxies in deep images, at least some of which may be progenitors of present-day dE galaxies. Spectral-inflection selection in the HUDF reveals in intriguing population of faint, compact galaxies that appear to have waited to z < 1.5 to form stars.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : Fix linkEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Perhaps Percy has covered this ground but... I agree with you that the references in the wikipedia article are dated. That said, I cannot join you in your paranoia parade down Hubris Street. Consider your own position as expressed here that nothing of significance has occurred with respect to FBG's since 1998. How can you hold that position while simultaneously accusing the authors of the wikipedia article of ignoring the last twenty years of work? According to you, only the 1992-1997 period is meaningful.As best as I can tell, there may be an outstanding FBG issue, but quote mining articles by cherry picking apparently supporting portions while ignoring the more balanced approach given in the references is definitely a deceptive practice. I admit that I know next to nothing about the FBG problem. I had not heard of it prior to the discussion here.If I were to look at these references, would I find that they universally support your position or would I find them to be more akin to that 1998 reference that I did look at? Can I trust your characterization of not just the articles, but the state of the science? What about you would engender such trust? Your use of equations? Your curve busting brilliance? The length of your bibliography?I ask those questions because I don't feel I can trust you. When I read your paper, I am urged to check every single assertion you make. You want me to believe that not just Wikipedia, but all of science is involved in a giant cover up that is actually easily visible in peer reviewed articles. Sorry, but I just cannot get there.

The above is an absolute lie. I've been perfectly clear about what portions of your behavior causes me to think you are likely a crank. Percy has been at least as direct with you.Can I assume that you've been equally honest in your characterizations of the folks who did not publish or host your paper?

When I click on the wiki link I see the statement of Occam's razor is exactly as AlphaBob presented. Of course there is also this:

quote:

---

In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

---

No it does not mean that. You really ought to know better. What would you say now about all of those pre 1992 papers? What would be your response, Alphabob, if I were to demonstrate conclusively that the article in question was published in a journal in 1998?ABE:http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/298/2/483.full.pdf
Edited by NoNukes, : Why be coy?

The location of the center of the universe is not given, but a direction to the source of the CMBR is given fairly explicitly.

When you are suspended again for the 145th time, the reason for the action will of course be a complete mystery to you.

And of course we see blue and red shifted galaxies in any direction we look. This answer is useless.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. How does this 'light deflection" create a CMBR that appears to be highly isotropic based on the view from our solar system? The CMBR seems to come from all directions and not from any central location.