A development with respect to the earlier post covering Yukio Tomozawa's remarkable paper, claiming a mathematical demonstration of the impossibility of the standard, Friedman "balloon" universe, in light of the observed dipole in the CMB.
My old interlocutor Paul Rimmer has, after a lengthy hiatus, posted a response to the Tomozawa paper here.
UPDATE 3/10: It is clear that Paul has no intention of restoring the link. Alas, in the absence of the link, it were impossible to allow his solution to be assessed.
The status quo ante remains in place.
UPDATE 3/5: Paul has pulled the link to this down...
In it, we see that Paul claims Tomozawa has made a "mistake".
But it has been pointed out that Paul's answer apparently ignores the fact that Tomozawa's paper treats the expansion- the accelerating expansion- of the CMB, while Paul's treatment apparently ignores this acceleration.
More comments are beginning to flow in, and the entire shebang will eventually be written up, in the interest of determining whether there exists any truly logical, self-consistent basis upon which to claim that one ought to "shut up and calculate", based on the assumption, of course, that everyone agrees what the calculations should represent (it appears very likely at this point that everyone does not agree about what the calculations represent).
As another PhD, whose doctoral thesis was on General Relativity, apparently prophetically indicated at the end of my initial treatment of this matter:
"The (Big Bang) models based on (General Relativity) are castles built on sand.
1) The equality of relative velocities cannot be tested in the photon frame, as the scientific method requires.
2) Light speed in its own co-moving frame must be zero, not c.
3) The westbound (Speed of Light) > c.
An inconsistent theory – like relativity – is worse than being wrong. It can show anything is true – or false.
No discussion is possible until 1 & 2 are made consistent with reality.
Why let MS choose a battleground based on contradictions?"
I have opened this discussion up to several physicists, inviting them to comment on Tomozawa's initial theorems, and Paul Rimmer's claims of a "mistake" in them.
I will be updating these responses as they come in, in order to determine whether or not there exists any consistent, logical basis upon which issues such as this one can be dealt with, under the premises of standard model, General Relativity mathematics.......
Or whether even PhD's can come up with diametrically opposite conclusions from the same observations, based on the application of the same mathematics.
Let the Math Wars begin!
