Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs

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.

Perhaps, but quacks and cranks are not defined by where they decide to share their research; they are instead characterized by their proposals and motives. Deceivers usually do not produce equations, predictions and direct proofs."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.""A charlatan is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception."

For arxiv you need to go through the normal submission process. After you select the category, it provides you with a link to get the endorsement code. Then you receive an email with the endorsement link, which you must then send to individuals with the ability to endorse others. They are only suppose to allow legit papers and can lose their ability if endorsing pseudoscience.After someone clicks the link to endorse my paper through email, it allows me to upload the paper."Your article is scheduled to be announced at Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:00:00 GMT. The abstract will appear in the subsequent mailing as displayed below, except that the submission identifier will be replaced by the official arXiv identifier. Updates before Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:00:00 GMT will not delay announcement."Well it never appeared and on the 14th I received this:"Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who determined it inappropriate for arXiv. Please send to a conventional journal instead for the requisite feedback."After a bunch of emails with moderation, they refused to provide any specific reason for this additional requirement. I asked to have my request forwarded to the scientific advisory board (their oversight in these types of situations) and they refused several times.

I used the Ned Wright's calculator with the most recent values to avoid any errors (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html). H = 70.4, Ωb = 0.0456, Ωc = 0.222 and Ωvac = 0.728 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.4744v1.pdf)

It was 3-4 years ago, but I was in electronics lab and he was the professor for it (Eugene Surdutovich). I was discussing how matter and fields arise from planck-scale fluctuations of space, resulting in an invariant scalar field and vector field. So it's analogous to a bunch of springs and masses vibrating at the smallest of levels. I discuss this in my paper, but the results are identical to classical theory in terms of 1/r gravitational potentials in the weak field limit.He studies more in the area of nuclear/medical physics however. So I'm not sure what you would expect from contacting him.I'm not in grad school because I began working on this as an undergrad and decided I could finish it faster independently. On the chance that it is correct, I would probably receive an honorary degree at some point.

I'm only lazy a quarter of the time ha. I have actually developed tendinitis from working too much. Using mostly voice-to-text right now until it heals.

Well yea I agree that the support structure is political in terms of funding, but arxiv has a monopoly on preprints. If you don't meet their interest, they will censor regardless of the quality of research or proofs. Since most papers never get published, this heavily limits the available options. The only other preprint server is vixra (unless you count researchgate and other social platforms), which apparent makes some label it as junk. Being a recent graduate is even more difficult, because I did not plan financially for being censored.

I've provided pretty much everything that I have in terms of endorsement. If you want the opinion of other scientist then feel free to contact them and ask.

Well I did have a large safety margin, which is why I was going to publish in April. But after the journal wanted me to resubmit for the next quarterly edition, I would have to find some income and rewrite the entire thing into a 25 pg version (or publish it as two individual papers).

It provides the angular scale (kpc/") with respect to redshift. So I found a survey of the largest clusters and searched for the x-ray isobars of each. These clusters are measured relative to how big they appear in the sky (arcsec). Finally I took the average size and range of local ones as a reference, then plugged them into each model via their angular scale predictions.

The two parts are interdependent and the central discussion would be lost. I had previously discussed this with the journal and they said that it would be fine as one piece up until the very last minute. There's also the chance that I spend months redoing it and they decide not to publish it anyways. After already having 5 months of my time wasted being reassured that it would be published in April, I don't want to take my chances; at least not with that journal again.So my goal right now is to get as much internet traffic so that the paper is at least visible while I work things out. I also didn't want anyone trying to steal my theory while I was being censored and delayed by others.

I used several constraints with respect to local and distant blue galaxies to demonstrate that both galaxies and clusters are equally off in size by 200% - 300% up to 0.7z. This grand cosmological problem has been around for over 30 years, i.e. "the faint blue galaxy problem". More specifically there are 200% - 300% more of these galaxies than predicted by the big bang model. This proves that cluster sizes up to 0.7z are identical to the local, although they will appear smaller from Earth due to their increased distance. Since there is no reason to assume that the sizes drastically change beyond 0.7z, the more distant ones are observed to be off by up to 15,000% (with respect to "no evolution" lambda-CDM).I still have the option to publish a shorter paper and include a reference as you said. But there are many things I would have to do before getting to that point. As for whether posting on a forum was a good idea, I would say yes in that it is providing me with insight on peoples reactions and opinions. If I want to help the average person understand things in terms of scientific fact rather than belief, I need to at least understand their perspectives. What I don't want are people blindly following something simply because others are.

That statement on wikipedia is very misleading... "The distribution of these galaxies has since been found to be consistent with Cosmic inflation, measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background, and a nonzero cosmological constant, that is, with the existence of the now-accepted dark energy." The distribution, not amount or size of the FBGs.Here is more recent and actual research..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.pdfThe combined data set, although of limited size, represents a nearly complete sample representative of the overall field galaxy population at moderately faint magnitudes, where the number counts are observed to be 2 - 3 times higher than can be accounted for by standard no-evolution models
ShieldSquare CaptchaFor quite some time now (see, for example, the review by Koo and Kron 1992), galaxy number counts, particularly in blue passbands, have been found to increase faster with apparent magnitude than predicted by simple no-evolution models, whereas the redshift distribution of galaxies in faint surveys is compatible with no evolution.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9703022v2.pdfEdited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

My theory is compared to lambda-CDM, which is the updated theory. That's what the lambda values I provided in the other post were for.

The wiki article is based upon articles from 1979, 1989, 1990 and 1992. The ones I posted are less than half of the total I used in that section for the paper, but their dates (published) are 1996, 1997 and 2008. I have a feeling the wiki page hasn't been updated for a reason.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.