Possibility of Curved Spacetime, Black Holes, Big Bang is Less than One Billionth

**cosmodel** · 11-11-06, 02:26 PM

From http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512614
(iv) The Possibility of Curved Spacetime, Black Holes, and Big Bang is Less than One Billionth.

You have probably noticed that my FGR is based on very simple principles. Now I calculate the probability that FGR is wrong. FGR generalizes special relativity (e6, event 6). Einstein`s general relativity does not generalize SR (special relativity). Because SR is well verified in high energy physics, the probability is less than one hundredth (10^{-2}) that the requirement, a gravitational theory must generalize SR, is false. My model of the universe predicts many observational facts. Its single principle is that the universe is evolving (e7). The probability is less than one hundredth (10^{-2}) that the universe is not evolving (e7 is false). My model of the universe involves the single function of time: B(t). The function is arbitrary except satisfying some conditions. Redshifts require increasing B(t) with time, the condition (36). Decreasing speed of light requires that B(t) satisfies the condition (40). The simple conditions (36) and (40) guarantee that the existence of the unique inertial frame of the universe (e1), the redshifts (not blueshifts) of galaxies (e2), the Hubble redshift-distance law (e3), the decreasing light-speed which resolves big bang difficulties (e4), and the accelerating universe (e5). These predictions of independent observational cosmological facts based on the two conditions of single arbitrary function are certainly not an accident. Therefore, the probability that my model of the universe is not scientific truth is less than one millionth (10^{-6}). Because these observational facts and the principles are independent events, the probability that FGR is false is less than one billionth (10^{-9}):

10^{-6} \times 10^{-2} \times 10^{-2} \times \cdots < 10^{-9}.

That is, the possibility that the assumptions of curved spacetime, black holes, and big bang are true, is less than one billionth.

The paper is infact rejected by arxiv.org, by http://cosmocoffee.info/
by Nature magazine, by the Journal of Mathematical Physics, and by Science magazine. The rejection reason by Science is as following:

Ref: 1137272

Dear Dr. He:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Desperately Seeking
Curved-Spacetime --- Turn to Experimental Resolution?" to Science. Because
your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial
screening process, we will not be able to send it out for in-depth review.
Although your analysis is interesting, we feel that the scope and focus of
your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are
therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.

We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We
therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be
ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of
discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual
criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision
is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather
of our stringent space limitations.

We wish you every success when you submit the paper elsewhere.

Sincerely,

X X, Ph.D.
Associate Editor