First Peer Review - 7

Posted by: magnunPI 7 years, 5 months ago

(0 comments)

* I do not understand why the author uses the standard equation for luminosity distance in LambdaCDM cosmology (calling it the "improved Hubble law"). This fundamentally assume an FRW geometry in 3 spatial dimensions, with the cosmological constant and non-relativitistic matter as the only sources of energy in the universe. If the author would like to make claims about how well supernovae fit his model, he should start with a metric and with a definition of how light propagates (e.g. on null geodesics in standard physics). Given the metric and its dynamics which one would obtain by solving Einstein equations, an equation for the luminosity distance-redshift relation can be derived. It would be different.

Answer: Here the reviewer shows that they completely missed the point. I used the best Cosmological Model I could find given that I am certainly ignorant of this field. I was directed to use Planck-15 python package:

from astropy.cosmology import Planck15

from astropy import constants, units

def d_planck15(z):

R0 = (constants.c)/(Planck15.H0)

d_L = (Planck15.luminosity_distance(z))/R0.to(units.Mpc)

plt.plot(z, d_L)

R0=http://R0.to(units.lyr)/1e9

return R0, d_L

z = np.arange(0.0,1.5,0.01)

R0, d_L=d_planck15(z)

This was an honest attempt to represent Friedmann-Lemaitre Model applied to the Supernova Survey. From my research, it implements this equation:

with six parameters (if one excludes H0${}_0$). By comparison, HU predicts the data without any parameters (if one excludes H0${}_0$, which I took from the literature as being 72). The quality of the Friedmann-Lemaitre fitting is not relevant since the main thrust of my article is to consider that that data might be wrong (biased by the lack of an epoch-dependent G).

I provide my argument clearly within my model. To require me to write my model on some other framework is unfair, unreasonable and doesn’t make sense since I am setting forth a new view of the Cosmos, which is not consistent with the current model based on Einstein equations. My model is challenging exactly Einstein’s equations in the form of Friedmann-Lemaitre Model.

In principle, Einstein’s equation can be written for any topology, be it static or dynamic. In practice, my Gyrogravitational Force is velocity dependent and thus cannot be represented by geodesic equations. This means that I cannot see Einstein’s Equations as a valid start to any dressed version of HU.

• ← First Peer Review - 6
• First Peer Review - 8 →