I would be ungrateful if I didn't make distinction between my conversation with Erik Anson and the lack of conversation with the other scientists.
Erik Anson overplayed my ignorance when he stated that my theory couldn't reproduce astronomical data. I am certainly not a Cosmologist...:)
That said, I have enough focus to learn the little Cosmology I need to prove that my theory complies with reality.
Erik was correct to state that I don't really know Inflation Theory. It is not that I don't enjoy a beautiful theory. It is because my ugly theory is more likely to be correct, so I didn't include in my hobby the task "to master Inflation Theory"... The same is valid for "String Theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy etc".
From my point of view, those are just stupid things very intelligent people do. Nothing else.
My last message to Erik was meant to give him the opportunity to prove me wrong - not about my theory, but about my claim that I face an infinite wall of intellectual dishonesty - people cannot find an error in the theory and withdraw or say vague things or to make tangential comments to avoid having to support a theory that challenges everything. Erik did both. Created a tangential discussion about Inflation Theory. Inflation Theory will defend itself. My request was for him to find mistakes on my theory. Once he challenged my theory I provided a simple few pages paper with high school math which was able to create the best fit to the astronomical data ever, he just didn't comment on it. Just return to vagaries, meaningless comments about nothing. It was very disappointed but not unexpected. It happened before with another Astrophysicist Sam Wormley. He was also kind to provide me a critique, which I rebutted without problem. After that, it was just (Why do you want my opinion??? :)
Science is correct.... the only change I want to make it the Why Science is Correct!
I will post the discussion and make a comment about what I meant in asking questions, if my reply wasn't polished or if it was wrong or right...to the best of my knowledge.
I provided a physically correct reply in the first time. I provided a clearer support for it a day later.
Being myself a layman in Cosmology, it took me a day to come up with a solution. A sharp Cosmology PhD student like Erik should had solve the problem in a second. Why didn't he just cleared up anything incorrect and supported the idea?
It is not my goal to do everything in this field. It is my goal just to provide a paper that people can read and refer to when they realize that those ideas are better. If enlightned people discuss my ideas, they will evolve faster or be set aside. Either way, the ideas would have their chance.