I wrote to them twice and they didn't respond so I'm "unclear on what I were banned for" except that it was for pushing ATM in a mainstream section since it was given as a reason by the modrstors.

I assumed it was because the moderators thought that energy has to be conserved in an expanding universe what many physicists believe is the case not being too familiar with the consequences of the Big Bang hypotesis. One of which is that energy can't be conserved in the expanding universe. But since it is a mthematical result, easy to show, then I didn't think I was banned for this but only because of the lack of knowledge of moderatos who might have thought, as most "pre-Big-Bang-school" physicists do, that energy can't be created.

I assumed somethng looking morally better for moderators since not knowing something is not a crime. Banning someone for telling the truth looks much worse, so why should I assume this possibility first while I'm "unclear on what I were banned for"?

That the energy has to be created in the expanding universe I've shown in my paper and I provided a reference to it. Of course I don't require anyone to read it unless someone accuses me of bending the facts, then he/she should rather read all the evidence in the matter.

Nobody ever accused me of bending the factes. Some, e.g. prof. John Baez and others, also from my university, just stated that since my results are based on strict conservation of energy they aren't valid since there can't be strict conservation of energy in the expanding universe.

There can't be any doubt that conservation of energy necessarily implies a stationary universe, however the density of such a universe has to be over twice as big as it is presently observed. So the only debatable thing is what is the real average density of the universe and not whether the energy can be created. If the density of the universe is smaller than what the principle of conservation of energy and Einstein's gravitation requires, then the energy has to be created for sure, since there are no adjustable parameters in Einstein's gravitation to play with.

What physicists need from astronomers is to prove that the density of the universe is much less than 6x10^{-27]kg/m^3. This way the astronomers will prove that the universe is expanding (as the theory of it is already there but many physicists happen to doubt it because of the consevation of energy). This way those physicists who don't believe are proved wrong and it be proved that energy can be created. The astronomers don't need to get involved in the theory of gravitation since gravitation is something the physicists can handle themselves.

And of course the astronomers can ban any physicists who doesn't believe that the universe is expanding because it doesn't change the physics a bit. Just might change for a while what people will think about the universe.