[quote]Okay, then your monograph is talking about a toy universe, not our real universe, because it utterly fails to match observations.
Basically, you keep insisting that your monograph is correct because ... you want it to be correct, not because its predictions match actual observations.
You appear not to understand what observational data exists. Do you understand what produces emission and absorption lines in spectra? I've pointed out multiple times that your theory cannot explain the redshifts of emission/absorption lines, [I]but you never respond to that criticism[/I], as though you simply do not know what I'm writing about. Why don't you ever say anything about emission and absorption lines that would indicate that you understand them?
I would be genuinely interested in helping you with your theory if you showed that you were willing to learn what observational data exists -- but you don't -- you just keep repeating your same ignorance over and over without making any progress in learning.
In order to convince anyone who is knowledgeable about physics that your alternative theory has any merit, you must first show that you actually understand the current mainstream explanations that you want to overthrow. Otherwise, you're just arguing from ignorance.
I am not interested in continuing to discuss this until you demonstrate that you actually understand (even if you think they're mistaken) the current mainstream explanations of emission lines, absorption lines, Doppler shifts, and cosmological redshifts.[/quote]It's complicated to think of cosmology in a structured manner, with
some concepts more fundamental than others. Even as I attempt this
in the monograph, I find it necessary to repeatedly rework it. The
idea of a fourth spatial dimension, for example, is more fundamental
than the red-shift, in my formulation. I accept your criticism that
I have not yet explained your "spectral lines" to your satisfaction,
though I do claim that the explanation of red-shift described in the
monograph is, based on the more fundamental concepts, correct.

[QUOTE=davar55;282642]It's complicated to think of cosmology in a structured manner, with some concepts more fundamental than others.[/QUOTE]Yes, it is. You don't seem to know some very basic things that are much, much simpler than cosmology. It's like you're trying to build a house without knowing how to properly use a hammer to drive a nail.

[quote]Even as I attempt this in the monograph, I find it necessary to repeatedly rework it.[/quote]That's because what you really need is to stop pretending that you have the knowledge to intelligently discuss cosmology, and go back to learn much more elementary concepts first.

[quote]The idea of a fourth spatial dimension, for example, is more fundamental than the red-shift, in my formulation.[/quote]Since you have not yet even shown us that you actually know what produces a red-shift, you have no business making a pronouncement about whether a spatial dimension is more fundamental than a red-shift.

[quote]I accept your criticism that I have not yet explained your "spectral lines" to your satisfaction,[/quote]Okay, thank you for that acknowledgement.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;282665]
That's because what you really need is to stop pretending that you have the knowledge to intelligently discuss cosmology, and go back to learn much more elementary concepts first.
Since you have not yet even shown us that you actually know what produces a red-shift, you have no business making a pronouncement about whether a spatial dimension is more fundamental than a red-shift.
[/QUOTE]

Challenging certain basics in cosmology and presenting an alternate
viewpoint is not pretense.

And the current viewpoint, that red-shift implies high relative velocity
among galaxies, hence a long-term spatial expansion, is certainly
susceptible to being explained by a different mechanism.

The monograph describes the Universe as finite but unbounded,
and then elaborates on that, to include an argument that the
Universe has always existed, always will, and is constant in size.

These points are fundamental, moreso than the consequent red-shift,
which the monograph DOES explain in terms of the skin.

Please show us something that demonstrates that you understand what produces emission and absorption lines in spectra.

[QUOTE=davar55;283076]Challenging certain basics in cosmology and presenting an alternate viewpoint is not pretense.[/QUOTE]Your pretense is that you pretend to understand enough about basic physics to understand what the "certain basics in cosmology" actually are. You don't, as long as you don't understand what produces emission and absorption lines in spectra.

[U]You're not challenging "certain basics in cosmology" !!

What you are challenging is merely your own [B]misunderstanding[/B] of mainstream cosmology !![/U]

One critical mistake you make is that you seem to think that cosmological redshifts are merely a shift in spectral intensities, so that the maximal intensities occur at different wavelengths. [U]But that is incorrect.[/U]

Cosmological redshifts, just like Doppler redshifts/blueshifts, are the [I]difference in wavelength at which specific emission and absorption lines appear in the spectrum[/I] !! [U]Your theory does not explain that observation !!!!![/U] Any theory that conflicts with reall observational data, such as yours, cannot be correct!

That is why the famous Michaelson-Morley experiment was so important.

In order for the then-prevailing theory that an "ether" permeated space and that light traveled as vibrations of this "ether" to be correct, the Michaelson-Morley experiment would have to have shown that the measured speed of light in the direction of Earth's orbital motion differed from the measured speed of light in the direction perpendicular to Earth's orbital motion.

But what the experiment actually showed was that the measured speed of light was the same no matter what direction it was traveling. That result proved that the "ether" theory was incorrect -- because it was incompatible with real observational data.

Similarly, your theory, as it is now, is incompatible with real observational data -- thus [U]it cannot be correct[/U], no matter how much or how stubbornly you argue. What counts here is not stubbornness of argument, but agreement with real observational data.

I've been willing to advise you how you might modify your theory so that it agrees with known observational data, but as long as you stubbornly ignore what I write about emission/absorption lines, you put up an artificial roadblock that prevents me from helping further.

If you do not have a correct understanding of emission/absorption lines, you cannot understand why your theory, as it is, is hopelessly in conflict with real observational data, and thus must be false. As long as that is so, you won't understand what changes I might be able to propose to modify your theory so that it moves into agreement with real observational data.

Are you willing to learn what produces emission/absorption lines, or not?

[quote]And the current viewpoint, that red-shift implies high relative velocity among galaxies, hence a long-term spatial expansion, is certainly susceptible to being explained by a different mechanism.[/quote]Yes, but that different mechanism would have to be in agreement with real observational data. Your proposed mechanism does not meet that criterion.

[quote]The monograph describes the Universe as finite but unbounded, and then elaborates on that, to include an argument that the Universe has always existed, always will, and is constant in size.[/quote]But if that argument is based on a false theory of what causes real observational data, as yours is, then it cannot be true.

[quote]These points are fundamental,[/quote]But real observational data is more fundamental than any points you assert.

[quote]moreso than the consequent red-shift, which the monograph DOES explain in terms of the skin.[/quote]But its explanation does not agree with real observational data!!! Its explanation is, therefore, [U]wrong[/U].

[QUOTE=cheesehead;283293] Any theory that conflicts with reall observational data, such as yours, cannot be correct!
[/QUOTE]
From the Murphy laws collection: a theory is correct if, to satisfy it, you will need to scrap no more then half of the experimental observations.:smile:

[QUOTE=LaurV;283294]From the Murphy laws collection: a theory is correct if, to satisfy it, you will need to scrap no more then half of the experimental observations.:smile:[/QUOTE]I want this on a T-shirt. :smile:

Sorry to keep you waiting. I'm working on an answer to the
objections regarding the monograph, in particular to the issue
of better explaining the em-shift to avoid the necessity of
a spacial expansion which implies the requirement of a big
bang initiation. Since time regresses infinitely, that alone
should be sufficient to obviate the big bang explanation, but
the shift is a real phenomenon that must be accounted for.
The paragraphs in the monograph that explain it are not
detailed enough, so as per your objections the next time
I update the monograph I'll expand that explanation in particular.

[QUOTE=davar55;307558]Since time regresses infinitely, that alone
should be sufficient to obviate the big bang explanation[/QUOTE]Funny how just stating your pre-determined conclusion isn't enough for some people.

[QUOTE=lavalamp;307578]Funny how just stating your pre-determined conclusion isn't enough for some people.[/QUOTE]

Of course. But the infinite regress is arguable for prior to the experimental
discovery of the em-shift, and precedes it logically. There is some argument
for it in the monograph, but it needs a rewrite.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;282132]Stop dodging....
If you're not going to [B]honestly address the flaws in your theory[/B]
...[/QUOTE]

Looking back at these comments, maybe it's better if we start over.

Galaxies and stars are light/emr sources.

In measuring their spectra and comparing to known atomic spectra,
we discover a spectral shift, often red, sometimes blue.

We must explain this.

My explanation is in the monograph, to be updated sometime in
the next 12 months (if I'm able).

I thought the explanation in draft 2 was sufficient (see posting
of cosmo2.txt earlier in this thread).

I too value precision and conciseness.