Am 16.09.2014 20:17, schrieb Eric Flesch:
On Tue, 16 Sep 14 05:42:59 GMT, davd wrote:
I am interested in comments that either support the paper or show that
there are serious problems with the arguments within it.

I did read DC's paper a couple of years ago as it has been publically
available, and unlike the journals I am interested in static models of
the universe. However, I did not like the model of light ... Since the
model of light was wrong, the [this] static model was wrong, was my take.

This is my opinion too, but:

1) One never should say something is wrong without proof.

2) Every attempt to try to understand Phillips relation better (than
only by heuristics) is very commendable! I say this although I hope and
think, that Crawfords interpretation is wrong.

I have a static model with modified cosmic gravitation and with only one
single and slightly free parameter: the density of the infinite,
Euclidean WPT-universe. It explains the cosmic redshift _and_ time
dilation (and a great lot more) by the cosmic gravity of the world
potential theory (WPT):

www.wolff.ch/astro/q.pdf

In spite of all this my publishing problems are much greater than
Crawford's problems: Until now I made five attempts without success to
publish my new static cosmology:

www.wolff.ch/astro/Pub_e.pdf

Peter Wolff

[Mod. note: let's try to keep this thread related to publication in
astrophysics rather than the merits of competing fringe theories,
otherwise I will have to start applying the speculativeness criterion.
-- mjh]