ReadMe!!!! | Hypergeometrical Universehttp://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/Several blogs associated with the Hypergeometrical Universe TheoryenBrian GreeneCensorshipCoherent Nuclear FusionErik AnsonHypergeometrical UniverseKip ThorneLawrence M. KraussMax TegmarkMichio KakuNeil deGrasse TysonPaul GinspargScience NewsSheldon GlashowThe Ghost in the MachineThe Undiscovered ContinentMon, 28 Aug 2017 15:34:13 +0000- Big Bang or Many Bangs..:)http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/big-bang-or-many-bangs/<p><b>No. </b></p>
<p>I derived this simple d(z) (HU Cosmological Ruler):</p>
<p><img height="224" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-e38aeca7d29d9105b187627968e59d53.webp" width="612"/></p>
<p>This formula provides the distance as a function of redshift z. This is what you need if you want to say anything about Cosmology.</p>
<p>This d(z), which has no parameters (<math>R_0</math> is independently measured) is proven right by its correct prediction of type 1a Supernovae distances, shown below:</p>
<p><img src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-16d0ef624c3a1cef6bc460fe2c38d495.webp"/></p>
<p>HU derives from first principles this equation for Gravitation:</p>
<p><img src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-45f7e2c0d6d2ede3710d5f7e6606ad00.webp"/></p>
<p>You see again, <math>R_0</math> in the denominator of the Gravitational Constant G.</p>
<p>This means that Gravity is epoch-dependent. This makes the Stellar Candles to become epoch-dependent too (in contradiction with the current view).</p>
<p><b>Which view is correct?</b></p>
<p>The standard procedure to define which theory is better is the number of unproven hypotheses and fitting parameters. HU has simple hypotheses which DO NOT OFFEND PHYSICS.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Anyone who had Physics in high school will recognize that this is highly offensive to Mother Physics…:)</p>
<p>“How fast is the “Speed of inflation” you might ask, <b>the speed of cosmological inflation is about the space between two molecules in your water bottle right now expanding to a few hundred million light years across to a different supercluster in the universe within 100 million trillion trillionth of a second</b>.”</p>
<p></p>
<p>It is not only offensive, it is also UNNECESSARY.</p>
<p>It is done like that to allow for Singularity Physics, that is, permission for Mathematicians to write anything in papers and get them published.</p>
<p>My theory provides a simple mechanism for matter creation that does not requires high temperature.. .high density…or anything unusual.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The current view requires Inflation Theory (highly offensive theory - to both intelligence and physics).</p>
<p>HU predicts the distances without a single parameters. The current view has this shameful parametrization:</p>
<p><img src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-9ffe0bb48afb6094b5f37d1a3fd54177.webp"/></p>
<p>Here you can see where the still unseen Dark Matter and Dark Energy come from. All ‘evidences’ of Dark Matter are easily explained by the Gravitational Law above. So, there is no argument that disfavors HU and favors L-CDM (Lambda-Cold Dark Matter).</p>
<p><b>What about the Voids???</b></p>
<p>I wrote a posting about the Void (the one closest to us):</p>
<p><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/The-Void">The Void by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></p>
<p>I applied HU d(z) to the <a href="http://sdss.org">SDSS BOSS</a> dataset and made the map of the Universe:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytuEctnD334">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytuEctnD334</a></p>
<p>This is the plot of Galaxy density versus distance.</p>
<p>IT SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE IS NOT UNIFORM AND GALAXIES WERE NOT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED. ON THE OPPOSITE, IT SHOWS THAT GALAXIES WERE SEEDED BY HYPERSPHERICAL ACOUSTIC WAVES.</p>
<p>Hyperspherical Acoustic Waves can be understood by looking at the cross-sections of the Universe proposed by the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory:</p>
<p><img height="486" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-d74031c02b1eca3bd294e1bd697daca2.webp" width="640"/></p>
<p>HU proposes that the Universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface. You can understand this if you read it as the Universe lies on the surface of a lightspeed expanding SPHERE. Taking one dimension doesn’t change the physics and it helps understanding.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Once I plotted this data perpendicularly to the angular space, you get this:</p>
<p><img height="610" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-9bcea333885f9243b8c8124c1ccd28ca.webp" width="610"/></p>
<p>Here are the UNCONTROVERSIAL evidence that there are seeding of the Universe along the DISTANCE dimension.</p>
<p>Homogeneous expansion is a cornerstone of Current Cosmology. It is proven wrong here and it is plain to see. Anyone can reproduce the data <a href="http://Universe%20Trove%20by%20Marco%20Pereira%20on%20Hypergeometrical%20Universe%20(https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Universe-Trove)">here</a>.</p>
<p>This figure debunks General Relativity (it shows that the Universe is a 5D Spacetime instead of the standard 4D Spacetime), Inflation/L-CDM (since d(z) does not require any parameters - and that includes Dark Matter and Dark Energy), Big Bang (it shows 36 Bangs in increasing intensity).</p>
<p>You can understand the image by imagining the seesawing (sloshing) of the density of the Universe between our region and a region around 30% of the radius of the Universe.</p>
<p>The Big Bang evidence is the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is only visible some 380,000 years after its birth. It is based on the evidence that the Universe was hot at that time. Well, my Big Pop and Many Bangs theory provide the energy to make the Universe hot. It also shows that there wasn’t a single Bang.</p>
<p>It also provides a non-offensive Cosmogenesis theory that replaces the Fiery, Singularity based Big Bang theory.</p>
<p>In doing so, it rebuts the Higgs Mechanism for matter (mass) creation.</p>
<p>Below you can see NASA attempt to discredit my theory. They did it not by criticizing anything inside my article. They tried to criticize me by proxy - which is akin to say, you are so and so, so you cannot had created a theory that does what your theory does..:)</p>
<p>In view of that, I demanded a real argument…:) After all, the fellow is a Bonafide Astrophysicist…:)</p>
<p>NASA - Houston, we have a problem!! :)</p>
<p><a href="https://hupeerreview.quora.com/Conversation-with-Matthias-Jaeger">Conversation with Matthias Jaeger by Marco Pereira on HUPeerReview</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>In Summary</b></p>
<p>The voids are the result of two processes. The first one took place during the first 3012 years and has to do with Neutronium Acoustic Oscillations (NAO)…:)</p>
<p>They created the recomposing of Local Seed Black Holes. Those Black Holes are responsible for the galaxy density profiles seen above.</p>
<p>The other process (responsible for smaller size fluctuations) is related to the plasma waves (density fluctuations).</p>
<p>Below is video explaining the Big Pop and Many Bang Cosmogenesis theory:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r54AQc2BR5c">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r54AQc2BR5c</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><b><i>The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory has been censored since 2004.</i></b></p>
<p><b><i>Please upvote this and all posting about it such that we may one day</i></b></p>
<p><b><i>Travel to the Stars..:)</i></b></p>
<p>Theory Article:</p>
<p><a href="http://issuu.com/marcopereira11/docs/huarticle">The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory</a></p>
<p>and here</p>
<p><a href="http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WSN-82-2017-1-96-1.pdf">http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WSN-82-2017-1-96-1.pdf</a></p>
<p><b>Data Trove - You can reproduce the map of the Universe and see the Seeding of the Universe here.</b></p>
<p><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Universe-Trove">Universe Trove by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></p>
<p>Postings:</p>
<p>NASA - Houston, we have a problem!! :)</p>
<p><a href="https://hupeerreview.quora.com/Conversation-with-Matthias-Jaeger">Conversation with Matthias Jaeger by Marco Pereira on HUPeerReview</a></p>magnunPIMon, 28 Aug 2017 15:34:13 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/big-bang-or-many-bangs/Hypergeometrical Universe
- The Universe Always Ring Ten Times..:)http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/god-always-ring-ten-times/<p><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rzkIaMJj2Yk" width="560"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Does The Universe always Ring 36 Times..:) (Higher sensitivity increased the number of ringing from 10 to 36)... 10 is a more fun number.. :(</strong></p>
<p><strong>I found it hilarious that the Universe counted to 36 before exploding..:)</strong></p>
<p>The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory was used to create the map of the Current Universe, that is, the Universe in the current epoch.</p>
<p>Never mind the stupidity of discussions about simultaneity... I leave that to people who don't understand Time.</p>
<p><strong>Methods:</strong></p>
<p>Start with Celestial Data directly from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey:</p>
<p>#############################################</p>
<p>Here is the github for you to test my calculations:</p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/ny2292000/TheHypergeometricalUniverse">GitHub - ny2292000/TheHypergeometricalUniverse</a></p>
<p>The SDSS data contained two sets:</p>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://data.sdss.org/sas/dr12/boss/lss/galaxy_DR12v5_CMASS_North.fits.gz">galaxy_DR12v5_CMASS_North.fits .gz</a></li>
<li><a href="https://data.sdss.org/sas/dr12/boss/lss/galaxy_DR12v5_LOWZ_North.fits.gz">galaxy_DR12v5_LOWZ_North.fits. gz</a></li>
<li><a href="https://data.sdss.org/sas/dr12/boss/lss/galaxy_DR12v5_CMASS_South.fits.gz">galaxy_DR12v5_CMASS_South.fits .gz</a></li>
<li><a href="https://data.sdss.org/sas/dr12/boss/lss/galaxy_DR12v5_LOWZ_South.fits.gz">galaxy_DR12v5_LOWZ_South.fits. gz</a></li>
</ol>
<p></p>
<p><b>Let's start with the Map of the Current Universe:</b></p>
<p><b>UNIVERSE GLOBE</b></p>
<p><b></b> <iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="295" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ytuEctnD334" width="602"></iframe></p>
<p>This map was created using equation 19 from this article:</p>
<p><a href="https://issuu.com/marcopereira11/docs/huarticle">https://issuu.com/marcopereira11/docs/huarticle</a></p>
<p>This equation allows for the calculation of the position of a Supernova or Galaxy on their epoch hypersphere. Since it provides the Cosmological angle alpha, and since it is implicit that that region of the hypersphere has its Fabric of Space relaxed, the motion will only take place along the radial direction.</p>
<p><b>Here are the 36 rings</b></p>
<p>Below is the lateral cross-section of the Universe along an angular coordinate, so this is what you would see around any straightened-up doughnut-shaped section of the Universe.</p>
<p>The height corresponds to the density of galaxies. I expected a continuous distribution..something diffuse. What I saw was structured.</p>
<p><img alt="Hyperspherical Acoustic Oscillations" height="723" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/manybangsglobal.png" width="723"/></p>
<p>Here are the 36 rings the Universe gave away before the Big Bang…:)</p>
<p>Understand what the figure tells you. The distribution of galaxies follows some obscure clustering profile and that clustering is quantized/structured.</p>
<p><b>How do we look for Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations in our Myopic 4D Spacetime?</b></p>
<p>We consider that our visible Universe is a spherical globe (spherical volume). We sought oscillations on modulations along the angular coordinate. We did that because we cannot map the distance coordinate because of Inflation. Also, we started with the presumption that the Universe is Uniform. We cannot say that without a map to prove it. It turned out it isn’t..:)</p>
<p><b>The Hypergeometrical Universe proposes that the Universe is the hypersurface on lightspeed expanding hypersphere.</b></p>
<p>Looking into the distance is looking into the past. Since the topology is hyperspherical, looking into the past is like this:</p>
<p><img src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-77088b891c8ddca5e9c09a2df57faed9-p.png"/></p>
<p>This means that if I know where (which Cosmological Angle and direction) an object is (anytime in the past), I also know where that object is today. I can only see pi/4 or distance=0.79</p>
<p>Then I picked up the SDSS data in Celestial coordinates, aggregate it by rounding their coordinates (angular and angular to 4 digits). This means that within the Universe (normalized to 1) there are 10,000 possible bins for stars to fall. The same is valid for 360 degrees declination angle and 180 degrees Right Ascension angle). It is binned but finely binned. I wanted to preserve the cobweb-like nature of the Universe, where clusters of stars string along in long filaments.</p>
<p>Once all the 1.3 million galaxies were binned, I created a 3D scatterplot (if you run the script you will be able to do everything I did) and assigned color and dot size to the density coordinate (called Me for lack of imagination).</p>
<p>That is what you saw in the Universe Globe.</p>
<p>Since I have booth Celestial Coordinates and XYZ coordinate for every bin (and their Me density value), I can plot the data along the celestial coordinate. I grouped by RA and made a 2D Scatter (alpha versus DEC), where the height is assigned to the cluster density (Me variable). Here is the result:<br/><br/></p>
<p><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YfxqMsnAinE" width="854"></iframe></p>
<p>As one can clearly see there is a bump around 0.29. There is another close home. The wavelength seems to be around 0.24, that is, it seems that this is an unlucky Universe. That would correspond to the 13th harmonic (Pi/0.24=13). With any luck, it might be the 12th harmonic..:)</p>
<p>As long as I don't find a Black Cat someplace, we will be fine...:) </p>
<p><strong>What About Oscillation in the Distance Dimension????</strong></p>
<p>The current search for Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations focused on projecting the Cosmic Microwave Background onto Spherical Harmonics... The spherical harmonics spectrum has a maximum around L=180 or 1=2 degrees. That has been used as proof of Baryonic Acoustic Oscillation.</p>
<p>That is not correct. That is proof that the Big Bang radiation passed through a mess of galaxies and that there are characteristic parameters in the mass distribution and obviously that same parameter will be in the CMB. The galactic mass is creating shadows for the CMB. </p>
<p>That mass distribution is correctly associated with fluctuations in the plasma (Baryonic phase). So, they got something right.</p>
<p>What they didn't get right was the acoustic part.</p>
<p>Booth plasma waves and acoustic waves modulated the galactic seeding. The plasma modulated small wavelength fluctuations that we now see in the sky in an angular fashion.</p>
<p>The acoustics modulated the DISTANCE DIMENSION. Remember, in a hyperspherical topology, the Cosmological Angle corresponds to the distance d, as shown in the plot below. So acoustics will show up as density variations along with distance (NOT ANGLE).</p>
<p></p>
<p><img src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-77088b891c8ddca5e9c09a2df57faed9-p.png"/></p>
<p><b>The Fallacy of the 150 Mpc Dark Matter Evidence</b></p>
<p>I calculated the 2-point correlation shown below:</p>
<p><img alt="" height="460" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/2pointcorrelation_23true.png" width="736"/></p>
<p><img alt="2-point correlation" height="4" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/2pointcorrelation_23true.png" width="3"/></p>
<p>Each point in this plot of the 2-point correlation is derived from 650 million galactic distances. One can clearly see the component with a wavelength equal to 0.24. It looks like Earth is around 0.1 <math>R_0</math> of the center of this wave process. Since observations follow a pattern that oversample close galaxies, it is difficult to know if we are in a peak density or not. Although at this time, there is no information about the dynamics of these oscillations, that can be easily achieved with simple simulation. Notice that the closest curve has lower statistics due to the scarcity of very close galaxies. One should use the second curve to investigate its spectral composition. <strong>Those curves are smooth, which means not high-frequency modulation.</strong></p>
<p>Eisenstein et al calculated the same function and arrived at a different result:</p>
<p><img alt="" height="485" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/pdfs/eisenstein.jpg" width="776"/></p>
<p>Needless to say, our spectrum has a stronger composition of the normal modes of the hypersphere with a large peak at around 0.25*13.58 Gly= 3.4 Gly. Since we are using H_0=72, and 1 Gly=306.391534731 Mpc, sot the resonance is 14.5. So, to some degree, HU SDSS results partially replicated Black et al results. I decided to use the region further from us since there is a larger number of galaxies to do averaging. The curves further from us are smoother due to better statistics. This means that this 150 Mpc ( is likely to be a statistical error. This component corresponds to n=28, nowhere to be seen in the spectrum below.</p>
<p>Below is the Fourier transform of the higher statistics 2-pair correlation:</p>
<p><img alt="" height="478" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/pdfs/SDSS/universeringing23.png" width="825"/></p>
<p><strong>The universe, Ring 36 Time before Going Off, Please!!!!</strong></p>
<p><strong>(PS - when I wrote this I believed that these oscillations started before the Universe started moving at the speed of light. Later I realized that the oscillations were driven by Neutronium decay).</strong></p>
<p>There is a question about what is happening during those rings. Well, we first have to emphasize the distinction between what we call NAO and what the current Science calls BAO (Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations). </p>
<p>NAO happens during the Neutronium phase. This phase takes place as the Blackholium phase expands. As the hypersphere expands Neutrons start to be formed out of compressed Fundamental Dilators (FD). If the expansion goes further, Neutrons will decay into Electrons, Protons, and Antineutrinos and release energy <span>0.78254809 MeV/Neutron.</span></p>
<p><span>The total energy available to the Big Bang from our hyper shell would be converting a Neutron Star 184 light-seconds radius into protons, electrons, and antineutrinos, plus 0.</span></p>
<p><img alt="" height="205" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/pdfs/bigbangenergy.png" width="590"/></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>The Hyperspherical Conclusion</strong></p>
<p>Since we are observing acoustic oscillations along with distance d, that proves that the Universe is HYPERSPHERICAL and it is TRAVELING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.</p>
<p>Q.E.D.</p>
<p><strong>The Sequence of Events</strong></p>
<p>The next question is what is the sequence of events. It is my current view that the Big Bang was the 11 or 12 Bang on a sequence of Bangs.</p>
<p>Each Bang corresponds to an oscillation of the Hypersphere that makes some regions of the Neutronium into free neutrons. These Neutrons decay and amplify the oscillation. Thus, I see a crescendo on the second of waves. This means that the Big Bang was really nothing at all. The energy released per neutron would accelerate them to 4% of the speed of light (tangentially). This means that the Universe has to have been driven into the speed of light radially by the Big Pop.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>I placed the acoustic oscillations in the phase transition between Neutronium and Baryonium. Aside. HU considers that the Universe started as a 184 light-seconds 4D-radius hypersphere. Our Universe is the last layer of the Big Hypersphere. It started as a homogenous humongous metric deformation. From that, it decayed into a Black Hole density 4D hypersphere of the same size. It then initiates its expansion. As it expanded, Neutrons could be formed (Neutronium phase). Eventually, some of those neutrons decayed into proton, electron, and antineutrinos (the first little Bang)… Which initiated an oscillatory sloshing within the Neutronium. As the neutronium expanded, the core started to collapse, that is, space stretch and space contraction started annihilating each other. In the end, the core contained a 4D hypersphere containing the same amount of compression as we have in stretch trapped into our Universe. The process nets an extra step of stretch which propelled the Universe at the speed of light. Like a Big Pop... That motion, together with the slushing Neutron Explosions make up what we call the Big Bang.</p>
<p><b>Fascinatingly, the sequence should be a crescendo of Neutronic explosions. So the Big Bang should be the 36 Big Bang. The Universe didn’t come out of a Big Bang. The 36 Big Bangs came out of the Neutronium Universe.</b></p>
<p>PS- In calculating cluster density, I used as a proxy a Non-quantized NZ field (number density). That field is composed of floats, as opposed to integers. That minimized the possibility that my results could be the result of a numerical mistake...:)</p>
<p>The results using 1 for each cluster are even more striking...so much, I decided to throw a Monkeywrench on the calculations by using NZ. The python scripts will be made available on my Github site</p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/ny2292000/TheHypergeometricalUniverse">GitHub - ny2292000/TheHypergeometricalUniverse</a></p>
<p>The SDSS data is available at the beginning of this posting..:) so you can play with your Universe.</p>
<p>Little by little people are starting to realize I might be correct..:) I had to show the Universe ringing at the Beginning of Times for them to pay attention..:)</p>
<p></p>magnunPISat, 25 Feb 2017 17:21:54 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/god-always-ring-ten-times/Hypergeometrical Universe
- Das Klingerln des Universumshttp://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/das-klingerln-des-universums/<p>Title</p>
<p><img alt="" height="486" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/universe1.png" width="713"/></p>
<p>Click the link below to youtube video showing how the Universe looks like. This is the first ever correct view of the Universe, so enjoy it...:)</p>
<p><a href="https://youtu.be/ytuEctnD334" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">My view of the Universe</a></p>
<p><strong>Figure Axis description</strong></p>
<p><em>The plots are <strong>2-point correlations</strong>, that is, one choose a center (displayed in the legend) and create spheres of increasing radius (shown in the x axis) .Then you sum the mass for the galaxies in the surface of that sphere. The surface is not infinitely thin due to binning of the radius values, so there is a volume in the surface. That mass is presented in the coordinate y. The first plot is the most important, since it shows contains the most information. As you move the centers farther away from us, there are less and less observations. We can only observe up to on radian (the size of the Universe is one radian or the 4D radius). As we move the center of the 2-point correlation, the maximum sphere we can draw gets clipped by our observational window of 1 radian.</em></p>
<p><em>The number of galaxies in a small sphere near our center point is smaller, so the statistics of the first measurement (legend =0) suffers (seem from the small ripples - they are likely due to statistics). Remember, I bin the data into different radii. the larger the radius the larger the number of galaxies I can choose in my sampling. Remember, this is the result of sampling of the total number of galaxies (1.3 million). A supercomputer could do a better job than my Mac. That said, the consistent shapes presented in the current figures indicate that the statistical error does not change the qualitative conclusion of us seeing a beating. The exact shape of the figure depends upon the choice for a mass proxy. That shape might change as I think about the problem. The overlying oscillations should not (since I can't conceive a model where introducing a mass proxy will ondulate this 2-point correlation).</em></p>
<p>Baryonic Acoustic Oscillation are extremely light imprints (vibrations) on the initial mass distribution that supposedly grew up to become Galaxies Clusters in our current Universe. The current view is that these oscillations were plasma oscillations. I beg to disagree.</p>
<p>The reason being is that plasma sound speed is small in comparison to the speed of light. Plasma fluctuations would create smaller features in the Universe. In HU, the Universe started as a 180 light-seconds wide Black Hole. A little later (easily calculable) its density becomes one of a Neutron Star. During this phase transition, the speed of sound can compete with the light speed. I think that that is the phase where this ondulations were imprinted. As the Universe expands, the speed of sound decreases, leaving the ondulation slowly dissipating. The increased density in places leads to an increase in galaxy formation. The subsequent plasma waves create the smaller structure (clusters of galaxies).</p>
<p>The current explanation that Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations doesn't make sense....:) That is the reason people have trouble understanding it...:)</p>
<p><strong>Das Klingeln des Universums</strong></p>
<p>The Hypergeometrical Universe theory (HU) proposes that the Universe to be a lightspeed hyperspherical hypersurface. Peering into the past looks like this:</p>
<p></p>
<p>HU challenged General Relativity, Dark Energy, Friedmann-Lemaitre prescribed Universe composition by challenging the ruler used on Cosmos distance measurement. Correcting for the overestimation of distances leads to a well-behaved Universe where the maximum distance observed is 0.71 of the maximum distance possibly traversed by light (13.58 billion light years).</p>
<p>HU provides a simple way to calculate alpha for any given redshift Z. Since the beginning of the Universe, matter has been moving around such as to relax the Fabric of Space. HU explained that the reason things move is to relax the fabric of space. The success of HU calculation means that for most of the type 1A Supernova explosions, the Fabric of Space was relaxed. Having the FS relaxed means that the FS normal is pointing towards the radial direction. There is no tangential motion. Only radial motion under those conditions. This means that whatever alpha we can calculate, that alpha will remain the same up to the outmost hypersphere (our current epoch).</p>
<p>This makes it easier to calculate distances. We can just project them into the outmost hypersphere and take it from there.</p>
<p>Being a simple-minded accounting, shaking day-in and day-out on the NYC subway, I wasn’t able to find any help among the Astrophysicists…:) To be just, I am forever indebted to Daniel Eisenstein who was kind and replied to two of my emails. Unfortunately, the subject requires a little more information.</p>
<p>I will present my hypotheses (interpretation choices) made when choosing datasets and columns. I used column NZ as a number density, proxy to the galaxy mass.</p>
<p><strong>Mass 2-point correlation:</strong></p>
<p>This is a simple and clear concept. You sit on a given galaxy and calculate the distances to each one of the other 1,312,681. For each distance you assign its NZ. Later you bin the distances and group by distance aggregated NZs to create the Universe 2-point correlation presented on the plots. Alternatively, I could aggregate 1s for each object. Had a done that the curve would look different since the data has a larger number of stars on large distances. The ondulations should still be there. I will double check that.</p>
<p>This is the Universe 2-point correlation for the complete view of the Universe (as complete as the four fits files below).</p>
<p>This is the complete Universe composed by these four SDSS files:</p>
<p></p>
<p>These files can be found here:</p>
<p><a href="http://data.sdss.org/sas/dr12/boss/lss/galaxy_DR12v5_CMASS_North.fits.gz" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">galaxy_DR12v5_CMASS_North.fits .gz</a></p>
<p><a href="http://data.sdss.org/sas/dr12/boss/lss/galaxy_DR12v5_CMASS_South.fits.gz" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">galaxy_DR12v5_CMASS_South.fits .gz</a></p>
<p><a href="http://data.sdss.org/sas/dr12/boss/lss/galaxy_DR12v5_LOWZ_North.fits.gz" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">galaxy_DR12v5_LOWZ_North.fits. gz</a></p>
<p><a href="http://data.sdss.org/sas/dr12/boss/lss/galaxy_DR12v5_LOWZ_South.fits.gz" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">galaxy_DR12v5_LOWZ_South.fits. gz</a></p>
<p>These are large files...</p>
<p>One clearly can see oscillations due to the slouching of plasma at the time the Black Hole Universe started to disassemble. Current view is that this happened at the time the Universe became transparent (Plasma to Gas transition). That might be correct, but I jot down the other possibility just for the record.</p>
<p>The figure shows the sum of the Galactic masses within a varying radius shown on the x-axis centered at our current position. You clearly can see the ringing..:)</p>
<p>Frequency analysis are shown below:</p>
<p>One can easily recognize the bump on the 2-point correlation. This bump means that the initial acoustic oscillations resulted in a galaxy cluster around 0.7 R_0.</p>
<p>As we shift the center for mass 2-point correlation, one can see that the figure doesn’t change other than because of the fact that the data is limited to our horizon.</p>
<p>This is consistent the Universe being homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale.</p>
<p>The quality of the data is astounding. In fact, it is not the quality of the data. It is the quality of the model. Lambda-CDM analyse the same data wit a bad model. Below is the quality of the resulting 2-point correlation:</p>
<p>Same data - different model…:)</p>
<p>The quality of the model is so bad, that one starts to wonder if the recurrence is actually where the model is placing it. 150 Mpc doesn’t match my 0.75 R_0.</p>
<p>This means that L-CDM and Inflation Theory distorted distances to such a degree that an actual recurrence might have been displaced or maybe never existed in the first place. In doing so, L-CDM mislead scientist to characterize the dynamics of Dark Matter incorrectly. This recurrence is attributed to anchored Dark Matter interaction. The proposed physics requires Dark Matter to Attract Matter but not be influenced by Matter as it slouches around in the early Universe. This is a lot of new Physics that has been proposed, probably based on an artifact due the Inflation Theory.</p>
<p>This peak is nowhere to be found in my plots. This means that the Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations have <strong>NO Dark Matter INFLUENCE.</strong></p>
<p><strong>This is how I missed watching the Super Bowl... :)</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>PS - If you want to have fun with the Universe..:) just track down the SDSS files and use my Python script below.</strong></p>
<pre class="ql-syntax" spellcheck="false"><span class="hljs-keyword">import</span> os
<span class="hljs-keyword">import</span> astropy.units <span class="hljs-keyword">as</span> u
<span class="hljs-keyword">from</span> astropy.io <span class="hljs-keyword">import</span> fits
<span class="hljs-keyword">import</span> numpy <span class="hljs-keyword">as</span> np
<span class="hljs-keyword">import</span> pandas <span class="hljs-keyword">as</span> pd
<span class="hljs-keyword">import</span> matplotlib.pyplot <span class="hljs-keyword">as</span> plt
<span class="hljs-keyword">from</span> numba.decorators <span class="hljs-keyword">import</span> jit
<span class="hljs-keyword">import</span> matplotlib.cm <span class="hljs-keyword">as</span> cm
<span class="hljs-keyword">from</span> scipy.optimize <span class="hljs-keyword">import</span> curve_fit
<span class="hljs-keyword">import</span> timeit
<span class="hljs-function"><span class="hljs-keyword">def</span> <span class="hljs-title">read_test_pyfits</span><span class="hljs-params">(filename, colname)</span>:</span>
<span class="hljs-keyword">with</span> fits.open(filename, memmap=<span class="hljs-keyword">True</span>) <span class="hljs-keyword">as</span> hdul:
data = (hdul[<span class="hljs-number">1</span>].data[colname])
<span class="hljs-keyword">return</span> data.copy()
<span class="hljs-function"><span class="hljs-keyword">def</span> <span class="hljs-title">read_nobs_pyfits</span><span class="hljs-params">(filename)</span>:</span>
<span class="hljs-keyword">with</span> fits.open(filename, memmap=<span class="hljs-keyword">True</span>) <span class="hljs-keyword">as</span> hdul:
data = (hdul[<span class="hljs-number">1</span>].data)
<span class="hljs-keyword">return</span> np.shape(data)[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>], hdul[<span class="hljs-number">1</span>].columns.names
<span class="hljs-function"><span class="hljs-keyword">def</span> <span class="hljs-title">get_BOSS_data</span><span class="hljs-params">(gal)</span>:</span>
nObs, cols = read_nobs_pyfits(gal)
colnames = [x <span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> x <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> cols <span class="hljs-keyword">if</span> x <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> [<span class="hljs-string">'ID'</span>, <span class="hljs-string">'RA'</span>, <span class="hljs-string">'DEC'</span>, <span class="hljs-string">'Z'</span>, <span class="hljs-string">'NZ'</span>, <span class="hljs-string">'BOSS_SPECOBJ_ID'</span>,
<span class="hljs-string">'BOSS_TARGET1'</span>, <span class="hljs-string">'BOSS_TARGET2'</span>, <span class="hljs-string">'EBOSS_TARGET0'</span>, <span class="hljs-string">'ZOFFSET'</span>, <span class="hljs-string">'TARGETOBJID'</span>,
<span class="hljs-string">'OBJID'</span>, <span class="hljs-string">'PLUG_RA'</span>, <span class="hljs-string">'PLUG_DEC'</span>, <span class="hljs-string">'Z'</span>]]
ncols = len(colnames)
myGalaxy = pd.DataFrame(data=np.zeros([nObs, ncols]), columns=colnames)
<span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> rowname <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> myGalaxy.columns:
myGalaxy[rowname] = read_test_pyfits(gal, rowname).byteswap().newbyteorder()
print(myGalaxy.columns)
pi4 = np.pi / <span class="hljs-number">4.0</span>
sqrt2 = np.sqrt(<span class="hljs-number">2</span>)
myGalaxy.DEC = myGalaxy.DEC.round(<span class="hljs-number">1</span>)
myGalaxy.RA = myGalaxy.RA.round(<span class="hljs-number">1</span>)
myGalaxy[<span class="hljs-string">'CosRA'</span>] = np.cos(myGalaxy.RA / <span class="hljs-number">180.0</span> * np.pi)
myGalaxy[<span class="hljs-string">'SinRA'</span>] = np.sin(myGalaxy.RA / <span class="hljs-number">180.0</span> * np.pi)
myGalaxy[<span class="hljs-string">'CosDEC'</span>] = np.cos((<span class="hljs-number">90</span> - myGalaxy.DEC) / <span class="hljs-number">180.0</span> * np.pi)
myGalaxy[<span class="hljs-string">'SinDEC'</span>] = np.sin((<span class="hljs-number">90</span> - myGalaxy.DEC) / <span class="hljs-number">180.0</span> * np.pi)
myGalaxy.Z = myGalaxy.Z.abs()
myGalaxy[<span class="hljs-string">'distance0'</span>] = np.abs(zDistance(myGalaxy.Z))
myGalaxy[<span class="hljs-string">'distance'</span>] = <span class="hljs-number">0.0</span>
myGalaxy[<span class="hljs-string">'density'</span>] = <span class="hljs-number">0.0</span>
myGalaxy[<span class="hljs-string">'alpha'</span>] = np.round(pi4 - np.arcsin(<span class="hljs-number">1</span> / sqrt2 / (<span class="hljs-number">1</span> + np.abs(myGalaxy.Z))), <span class="hljs-number">3</span>)
myGalaxy = myGalaxy.sort_values(by=[<span class="hljs-string">'Z'</span>])
myGalaxy.reset_index(drop=<span class="hljs-keyword">True</span>, inplace=<span class="hljs-keyword">True</span>)
<span class="hljs-keyword">return</span> myGalaxy
<span class="hljs-function"><span class="hljs-keyword">def</span> <span class="hljs-title">zDistance</span><span class="hljs-params">(Z)</span>:</span>
pi4 = np.pi / <span class="hljs-number">4.0</span>
sqrt2 = np.sqrt(<span class="hljs-number">2</span>)
<span class="hljs-keyword">return</span> np.round(pi4 - np.arcsin(<span class="hljs-number">1</span> / sqrt2 / (<span class="hljs-number">1</span> + np.abs(Z))), <span class="hljs-number">3</span>)
<span class="hljs-meta">@jit</span>
<span class="hljs-function"><span class="hljs-keyword">def</span> <span class="hljs-title">get_distances</span><span class="hljs-params">(myGalaxy, N1=<span class="hljs-number">0</span>, N2=<span class="hljs-number">1</span>)</span>:</span>
N2Max = myGalaxy.shape[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>]
autocorr = pd.Series(data=np.zeros([<span class="hljs-number">200</span>, ]))
totalLength = len(myGalaxy)
<span class="hljs-keyword">if</span> (N2 > N2Max):
N2 = N2Max
<span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> i <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> range(N1, N2):
CosRA = myGalaxy.iloc[i].CosRA
SinRA = myGalaxy.iloc[i].SinRA
CosDEC = myGalaxy.iloc[i].CosDEC
SinDEC = myGalaxy.iloc[i].SinDEC
r = myGalaxy.iloc[i].alpha
rPrime = myGalaxy.alpha
v1 = np.tile([r * CosDEC * CosRA, r * CosDEC * SinRA, r * SinDEC], myGalaxy.shape[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>]).reshape(
[myGalaxy.shape[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>], <span class="hljs-number">3</span>])
v2 = np.array([rPrime * myGalaxy.CosDEC * myGalaxy.CosRA, rPrime * myGalaxy.CosDEC * myGalaxy.SinRA,
rPrime * myGalaxy.SinDEC]).reshape([myGalaxy.shape[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>], <span class="hljs-number">3</span>])
myGalaxy.distance = <span class="hljs-number">0</span>
myGalaxy.density = <span class="hljs-number">0</span>
myGalaxy.distance = (<span class="hljs-number">100</span> * np.sqrt((v1 - v2) * (v1 - v2)).sum(axis=<span class="hljs-number">1</span>)).astype(int)
unique = np.unique(myGalaxy.distance)
<span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> i <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> unique:
inds = myGalaxy.distance == i
myGalaxy.loc[inds, <span class="hljs-string">'density'</span>] = myGalaxy.loc[inds, <span class="hljs-string">'NZ'</span>]
autocorr = autocorr.add(myGalaxy.groupby([<span class="hljs-string">'distance'</span>])[<span class="hljs-string">'density'</span>].sum(), fill_value=<span class="hljs-number">0</span>)
<span class="hljs-keyword">return</span> autocorr / (N2 - N1)
<span class="hljs-meta">@jit</span>
<span class="hljs-function"><span class="hljs-keyword">def</span> <span class="hljs-title">get_map</span><span class="hljs-params">(myGalaxy)</span>:</span>
<span class="hljs-keyword">return</span> myGalaxy.groupby([<span class="hljs-string">'RA'</span>,<span class="hljs-string">'DEC'</span>,<span class="hljs-string">'distance'</span>])[<span class="hljs-string">'density'</span>].sum()
<span class="hljs-function"><span class="hljs-keyword">def</span> <span class="hljs-title">func</span><span class="hljs-params">(x, *params)</span>:</span>
y = np.zeros_like(x)
<span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> i <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> range(<span class="hljs-number">0</span>, len(params), <span class="hljs-number">3</span>):
ctr = params[i]
amp = params[i + <span class="hljs-number">1</span>]
wid = params[i + <span class="hljs-number">2</span>]
y = y + amp * np.exp(-((x - ctr) / wid) ** <span class="hljs-number">2</span>)
<span class="hljs-keyword">return</span> y
<span class="hljs-keyword">if</span> __name__==<span class="hljs-string">'__main__'</span>:
gals = [<span class="hljs-string">'galaxy_DR12v5_CMASS_North.fits'</span>,<span class="hljs-string">'galaxy_DR12v5_CMASS_South.fits'</span>,
<span class="hljs-string">'galaxy_DR12v5_LOWZ_North.fits'</span>,<span class="hljs-string">'galaxy_DR12v5_LOWZ_South.fits'</span>]
myGalaxy0 = get_BOSS_data(<span class="hljs-string">'galaxy_DR12v5_CMASS_North.fits'</span>)
numGalaxies=myGalaxy0.shape[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>]
gal = <span class="hljs-string">'galaxy_DR12v5_CMASS_South.fits'</span>;
myGalaxy1 = get_BOSS_data(gal)
numGalaxies1=myGalaxy1.shape[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>]
gal = <span class="hljs-string">'galaxy_DR12v5_LOWZ_North.fits'</span>;
myGalaxy2 = get_BOSS_data(gal)
numGalaxies2=myGalaxy2.shape[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>]
gal = <span class="hljs-string">'galaxy_DR12v5_LOWZ_South.fits'</span>;
myGalaxy3 = get_BOSS_data(gal)
numGalaxies3=myGalaxy3.shape[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>]
myGalaxy= pd.concat([myGalaxy0,myGalaxy1,myGalaxy2,myGalaxy3])
chunckGalaxies=<span class="hljs-number">5</span>
maxNum=myGalaxy.shape[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>]
dMax=myGalaxy.distance0.max()
n=<span class="hljs-number">21</span>
positions = np.round([i*dMax/n <span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> i <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> range(n<span class="hljs-number">-1</span>)],<span class="hljs-number">3</span>)
inds=[]
<span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> pos <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> positions:
indsGroup = myGalaxy[myGalaxy[<span class="hljs-string">'distance0'</span>]==pos].index.tolist()
<span class="hljs-keyword">if</span> (len(indsGroup)!=<span class="hljs-number">0</span>):
inds.append(min(myGalaxy.index[indsGroup]))
start_time = timeit.default_timer()
chunckGalaxies=<span class="hljs-number">500</span>
maxNum=myGalaxy.shape[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>]
dMax=myGalaxy.distance0.max()
n=<span class="hljs-number">21</span>
positions = np.round([i*dMax/n <span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> i <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> range(n<span class="hljs-number">-1</span>)],<span class="hljs-number">3</span>)
inds=[]
<span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> pos <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> positions:
indsGroup = myGalaxy[myGalaxy[<span class="hljs-string">'distance0'</span>]==pos].index.tolist()
<span class="hljs-keyword">if</span> (len(indsGroup)!=<span class="hljs-number">0</span>):
inds.append(min(indsGroup))
autocorr={}
N1=<span class="hljs-number">0</span>
<span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> i <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> inds[<span class="hljs-number">1</span>:]:
<span class="hljs-keyword">if</span>((i-N1)>chunckGalaxies):
N2=N1+chunckGalaxies
<span class="hljs-keyword">else</span>:
N2=i
autocorr[myGalaxy.distance0.iloc[i]] = get_distances(myGalaxy,N1=N1,N2=N2)
N1=i
elapsed = timeit.default_timer() - start_time
print(i, zDistance(myGalaxy.Z.iloc[i]), elapsed)
df=pd.DataFrame.from_dict(data=autocorr)
df.columns=[<span class="hljs-string">'centered at '</span>+ str(x) <span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> x <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> df.columns]
x=df.index*<span class="hljs-number">0.01</span>
df.plot(x=x, y=df.columns[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>],title=<span class="hljs-string">'Universe 2-point correlation'</span>, legend=<span class="hljs-keyword">True</span>).set_xlabel(<span class="hljs-string">'2-point correlation'</span>)
fig = plt.gcf()
fig.set_size_inches(<span class="hljs-number">18.5</span>, <span class="hljs-number">10.5</span>)
plt.xlim([<span class="hljs-number">0</span>,<span class="hljs-number">1.2</span>])
plt.ylim([<span class="hljs-number">0</span>,<span class="hljs-number">20</span>])
fig.savefig(<span class="hljs-string">'./CloseUniverseFina0.png'</span>, dpi=<span class="hljs-number">100</span>)
df.to_excel(<span class="hljs-string">'./CloseUniverseFinal0.xlsx'</span>)
df=pd.DataFrame.from_dict(data=autocorr)
df.columns=[<span class="hljs-string">'centered at '</span>+ str(x) <span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> x <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> df.columns]
x=df.index*<span class="hljs-number">0.01</span>
df.plot(x=x, y=df.columns[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>:<span class="hljs-number">10</span>],title=<span class="hljs-string">'Universe 2-point correlation'</span>, legend=<span class="hljs-keyword">True</span>).set_xlabel(<span class="hljs-string">'2-point correlation'</span>)
fig = plt.gcf()
fig.set_size_inches(<span class="hljs-number">18.5</span>, <span class="hljs-number">10.5</span>)
plt.xlim([<span class="hljs-number">0</span>,<span class="hljs-number">1.2</span>])
plt.ylim([<span class="hljs-number">0</span>,<span class="hljs-number">20</span>])
fig.savefig(<span class="hljs-string">'./CloseUniverseFinal1.png'</span>, dpi=<span class="hljs-number">100</span>)
df.to_excel(<span class="hljs-string">'./CloseUniverseFinal1.xlsx'</span>)
df=pd.DataFrame.from_dict(data=autocorr)
df.columns=[<span class="hljs-string">'centered at '</span>+ str(x) <span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> x <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> df.columns]
x=df.index*<span class="hljs-number">0.01</span>
df.plot(x=x, y=df.columns[<span class="hljs-number">10</span>:<span class="hljs-number">15</span>],title=<span class="hljs-string">'Universe 2-point correlation'</span>, legend=<span class="hljs-keyword">True</span>).set_xlabel(<span class="hljs-string">'2-point correlation'</span>)
fig = plt.gcf()
fig.set_size_inches(<span class="hljs-number">18.5</span>, <span class="hljs-number">10.5</span>)
plt.xlim([<span class="hljs-number">0</span>,<span class="hljs-number">1.2</span>])
plt.ylim([<span class="hljs-number">0</span>,<span class="hljs-number">20</span>])
fig.savefig(<span class="hljs-string">'./CloseUniverseFina2.png'</span>, dpi=<span class="hljs-number">100</span>)
df.to_excel(<span class="hljs-string">'./CloseUniverseFinal2.xlsx'</span>)
fig=plt.figure()
df=pd.DataFrame.from_dict(data=autocorr)
ax=plt.plot(np.fft.rfft(df[df.columns[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>]]))
plt.xlim([<span class="hljs-number">0</span>,<span class="hljs-number">30</span>])
plt.ylim([<span class="hljs-number">-15</span>,<span class="hljs-number">35</span>])
plt.xlabel(<span class="hljs-string">'Universe Ringing Frequency'</span>)
plt.grid(<span class="hljs-keyword">True</span>)
fig.set_size_inches(<span class="hljs-number">9.5</span>, <span class="hljs-number">5.5</span>)
plt.xticks([i <span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> i <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> range(<span class="hljs-number">0</span>,<span class="hljs-number">30</span>)])
plt.tick_params(axis=<span class="hljs-string">'x'</span>)
fig.savefig(<span class="hljs-string">'./UniverseRinging1.png'</span>, dpi=<span class="hljs-number">200</span>)
df.to_csv(<span class="hljs-string">'./UniverseRinging.xlsx'</span>)
fig=plt.figure()
ax=plt.plot(np.fft.rfft(df[df.columns[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>]]))
plt.xlim([<span class="hljs-number">0</span>,<span class="hljs-number">10</span>])
plt.ylim([<span class="hljs-number">-15</span>,<span class="hljs-number">40</span>])
plt.xlabel(<span class="hljs-string">'Universe Ringing Frequency'</span>)
plt.grid(<span class="hljs-keyword">True</span>)
fig.set_size_inches(<span class="hljs-number">9.5</span>, <span class="hljs-number">5.5</span>)
plt.xticks([i <span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> i <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> range(<span class="hljs-number">0</span>,<span class="hljs-number">10</span>)])
plt.tick_params(axis=<span class="hljs-string">'x'</span>)
fig.savefig(<span class="hljs-string">'./UniverseRinging2.png'</span>, dpi=<span class="hljs-number">200</span>)
fig=plt.figure()
ax=plt.plot(np.fft.rfft(df[df.columns[<span class="hljs-number">0</span>]]))
plt.xlim([<span class="hljs-number">0</span>,<span class="hljs-number">10</span>])
plt.ylim([<span class="hljs-number">-15</span>,<span class="hljs-number">240</span>])
plt.xlabel(<span class="hljs-string">'Universe Ringing Frequency'</span>)
plt.grid(<span class="hljs-keyword">True</span>)
fig.set_size_inches(<span class="hljs-number">9.5</span>, <span class="hljs-number">5.5</span>)
plt.xticks([i <span class="hljs-keyword">for</span> i <span class="hljs-keyword">in</span> range(<span class="hljs-number">0</span>,<span class="hljs-number">10</span>)])
plt.tick_params(axis=<span class="hljs-string">'x'</span>)
fig.savefig(<span class="hljs-string">'./UniverseRinging3.png'</span>, dpi=<span class="hljs-number">200</span>)
</pre>
<p></p>magnunPIWed, 08 Feb 2017 22:24:31 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/das-klingerln-des-universums/Hypergeometrical Universe
- Second Peer Review - 3http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/second-peer-review-3/<p class="qtext_para"><b>But putting all of that aside, I will take a narrow view of the manuscript. It proposes a distance(redshift) relation, and we can quantitatively see how well this matches the data. The proper way to do this is not by making plots, it is to compute chi^2 values from the distance moduli (mu) and covariance matrix in Union2.1:<br/> <br/> chi^2 = (mu_observed - M - mu_theory)^T . (covariance matrix^-1) . (mu_observed - M - mu_theory)<br/> <br/> where M is a constant that can be fit (the host-mass relation can also be fit, but failing to do so won’t affect the results much). After computing chi^2 values for LambdaCDM and HU, you can see if HU is favored or disfavored by the data compared to LambdaCDM. By my eye, HU is significantly worse, but the chi^2 values will say for sure.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer: In trying to give current Cosmology their best shot, I tried to use the newest Cosmological Model I could find. I was directed to use Planck-15 python package. Here is the fitting code:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="qtext_para">from astropy.cosmology import Planck15</p>
<p class="qtext_para">from astropy import constants, units</p>
<p class="qtext_para">def d_planck15(z):</p>
<p class="qtext_para">R0 = (constants.c)/(Planck15.H<wbr/>0)</p>
<p class="qtext_para">d_L = (Planck15.luminosity_dist<wbr/>ance(z))/R0.to(units.Mpc)</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><wbr/>plt.plot(z, d_L)</p>
<p class="qtext_para">R0=<span class="qlink_container"><a class="external_link" data-qt-tooltip="r0.to" href="http://r0.to/" onclick="return Q.openUrl(this);" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">http://R0.to</a></span>(units<wbr/>.lyr)/1e9</p>
<p class="qtext_para">return R0, d_L</p>
<p class="qtext_para">z = np.arange(0.0,1.5,0.01)</p>
<p class="qtext_para">R0<wbr/>, d_L=d_planck15(z)</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="qtext_para">This was an honest attempt to represent Friedmann-Lemaitre Model applied to the Supernova Survey. From my research, it implements this equation:</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in_feed" master_h="31" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-0fa997d30abe5cd0c5ebe5051222d80c?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="295" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-0fa997d30abe5cd0c5ebe5051222d80c?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">with six parameters (if one excludes H<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi></mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math>' id="MathJax-Element-13-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-90" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-91"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-92"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-93"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-94">0</span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi></mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math></span></span></span>). By comparison, HU predicts the data without any parameters (if one excludes H<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi></mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math>' id="MathJax-Element-14-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-95" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-96"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-97"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-98"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-99">0</span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi></mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math></span></span></span>, which I took from the literature as being 72).</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>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).</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">In any event, here is the results from the requested calculation:</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="172" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-98e1a4779e0639e4fe8d5f259dcc369a?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="657" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-91436c178e9fb7edc1afbdb3aa2400ef?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">The Power Divergence is 1.33 and the p-value is 1.0.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">The nice but uninformative figures are here:</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="400" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-ae4184a0d49eb85c8a0c07a9891c2353?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="600" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-031b5b2104a0ad753a55a425894fe7ba?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="400" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-d96e303e9a39f3bfeefc8f66569c86ee?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="600" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-ac3d57f50dc0a990f8eb16f91d5a98fe?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">To my unbiased eyes..:) These <b>predictions</b> (not fittings) are better that the six parameters Friedmann-Lemaitre <b>fitting</b>. One should emphasize that HU has no parameters and FL has six!</p>
<p class="qtext_para">I have to say that this is a semi-log plot and shouldn’t be compared with the distance vs z plot below.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Below are the two placed in the same plot:</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="400" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-94908c4660e421235f8388aa85aecb44?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="600" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-529cc2e40a3b55bb0833bf2956c16365?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">I suspect the reviewer thought that HU data was intended to fit the raw data (with x). They might not had realized that I corrected the data and displayed it below.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">PS - By the way, I know that it is incorrect to say that a data analysis is wrong or biased because it didn’t consider an epoch-dependent G. The reason I say that is because the theory has been censored for 12 years without a peer-review and thus not using my epoch-dependent G is a matter of choice. This is my first one and I am thankful I can reply to it here.</p>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:18:44 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/second-peer-review-3/Hypergeometrical Universe
- Second Peer Review - 2http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/second-peer-review-2/<p class="qtext_para"><b>I’m also skeptical that the luminosity of a SN Ia if G were different would scale as G^-3 (or M_ch^2).</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>Ni-56 production is not a simple rate-limited process; SNe Ia undergo a deflagration that (in most cases) transitions to a detonation. They burn about half their mass to Ni-56 (depending on when the detonation occurs). Even if Ni-56 production were a simple process, the radius (and thus the density) of the white dwarf also changes with G.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer: Simple analysis of Chandrasekhar mass was presented in the appendix to the article:</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="206" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-8fa37972aef4787c2f2235d35593b8f5?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="1073" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-417fbf80a93d0a4f7c3d5c1c3f69fd61?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="718" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-a2af5594eada34c225bd5d1d1366d825?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="1064" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-4efdba386a231f788b89d63716e4019e?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">So the author took into consideration changes in the Radius. The reviewer seems to be wrong when stating that the density changes. That is not supported by the equations above. This is an important result (albeit trivial). It means that pressure and temperature profiles remains the same and are independent upon G, making Nucleosynthesis G-independent.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">The Chain reaction is given by:</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="231" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-cbcec531a880a9856ab8a69cc2f25766?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="669" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-42643b9c58a8f1dd0abd2a527572ea3a?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">White Dwarfs are mostly Carbon and Oxygen. During detonation, a temperatures and pressure shockwave acts as a nuclear chemistry cauldron. Increased temperature, collisional rates modulates the reaction rates of the intermediate reactions (expediting them). The approximation of this chain reaction as a simple second-order reaction is clearly supported by this argument.</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>Peak Luminosity</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">The observation of Type 1A Supernova explosions measure Peak Absolute Luminosity (it could measure integrated luminosity instead). The reason for measuring peak absolute luminosity is that variable ejecta make photon diffusion very variable. The peak absolute luminosity is related to both rate of Ni<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>56</mn></mrow></msup></math>' id="MathJax-Element-4-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-19" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-20"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-21"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-22"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-23"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-24"><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-25">56</span></span></span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>56</mn></mrow></msup></math></span></span></span>and the duration of the coasting burn process.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>Arnett</b> indicated that the luminosity depends upon the rate dN<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>56</mn></mrow></msup></math>' id="MathJax-Element-5-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-26" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-27"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-28"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-29"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-30"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-31"><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-32">56</span></span></span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>56</mn></mrow></msup></math></span></span></span>/dt. In reality it should be [N-56](t=0), that is the maximum concentration of Ni<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>56</mn></mrow></msup></math>' id="MathJax-Element-6-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-33" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-34"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-35"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-36"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-37"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-38"><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-39">56</span></span></span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>56</mn></mrow></msup></math></span></span></span> just before ejecta makes light diffusion difficult. The maximum concentration of N<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>56</mn></mrow></msup></math>' id="MathJax-Element-7-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-40" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-41"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-42"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-43"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-44"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-45"><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-46">56</span></span></span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>56</mn></mrow></msup></math></span></span></span> is dN<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>56</mn></mrow></msup></math>' id="MathJax-Element-8-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-47" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-48"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-49"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-50"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-51"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-52"><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-53">56</span></span></span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>56</mn></mrow></msup></math></span></span></span>/dt * RampingTime. Ramping time is the time it takes for the explosion to travel from the core to the surface of the White Dwarf. Since he considered in his article that all RampingtTmes to be the same for all Supernovas, that aspect becomes irrelevant (just a multiplicative constant).</p>
<p class="qtext_para">One can consider that the RampingTime has been normalized by WLR and thus Radius are normalized. In that case, we are left with the influence of dN<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>56</mn></mrow></msup></math>' id="MathJax-Element-9-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-54" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-55"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-56"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-57"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-58"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-59"><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-60">56</span></span></span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>56</mn></mrow></msup></math></span></span></span>/dt=k[C]<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mn>2</mn></msup></math>' id="MathJax-Element-10-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-61" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-62"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-63"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-64"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-65">2</span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mn>2</mn></msup></math></span></span></span>. Since the radius are normalized, the concentration of Carbon falls by G<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>&#x2212;</mo><mn>3</mn><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>/</mo></mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math>' id="MathJax-Element-11-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-66" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-67"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-68"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-69"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-70"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-71"><span class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-72">−</span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-73">3</span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-74"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-75"><span class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-76">/</span></span></span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-77">2</span></span></span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>−</mo><mn>3</mn><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>/</mo></mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math></span></span></span>.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">If one uses your argument the Radius are not identical and depend upon G<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>&#x2212;</mo><mn>1</mn><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>/</mo></mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math>' id="MathJax-Element-12-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-78" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-79"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-80"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-81"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-82"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-83"><span class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-84">−</span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-85">1</span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-86"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-87"><span class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-88">/</span></span></span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-89">2</span></span></span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>/</mo></mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math></span></span></span> then the RampingTime will decrease accordingly, yielding the same effect.</p>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:18:01 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/second-peer-review-2/Hypergeometrical Universe
- Second Peer Review - 1http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/second-peer-review-1/<p class="qtext_para"><b>This manuscript presents the predicted luminosity distance in the Hypergeometrical Universe (HU) model and compares against the Union supernova compilation. Unfortunately, I do not believe that it is suitable for publication. I detail (only the major) issues below.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>The gravitational constant changing dramatically throughout the history of the universe is disfavored by growth-of-structure constraints, pulsar-timing experiments,</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer: Current Growth of structure constraints analysis suffer from not considering a hyperspherical topology, that is, a topology where mass is homogeneously distributed since the beginning of times.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Symmetry minimizes the influence of Gravitation on accretion dynamics. In addition, the turn-on size of stars (dimensions for which Gravitational pressure equals fusion energy pressure) and their radius become smaller ( G^{<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>&#x2212;</mo><mn>0.5</mn></mrow></msup></math>' id="MathJax-Element-1-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-1" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-2"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-3"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-4"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-5"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-6"><span class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-7">−</span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-8">0.5}) </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></nobr></span></span>due to stronger gravitation. The mass density remains the same yielding a normal star (just smaller and shorter lived – which we cannot detect since we only see a snapshot of their lives). Thus given that their density is the same, the metal synthesis shouldn’t be affected. Smaller stars might be compensated by a larger number of them. Star Size variability might increase by the influence of stronger gravitation on the acretion process.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Pulsar timing experiments might not be sensitive if the average pulsar mass also changed with epoch as one would expect of stars in general.</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>Solar-system tests (e.g., Lunar distance), stellar evolution, and so forth.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer: You are perfectly correct in considering that a distance in principle could detect travel through a 4D dimension. The caveat is that line of sight travel would bring the light to where we are but at an earlier time. This can only be understood if you consider that despite the fact that an hypersphere can be locally approximated as a hyperplane, that is not perfect. As soon as you add curvature (or distance), the traversed space differs from sqrt(2) times the distance to the mirror (see figure below).</p>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:17:09 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/second-peer-review-1/Hypergeometrical Universe
- First Peer Review - 9http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-9/<div class="board_item_description">
<div id="UdYReA">
<div class="inline_editor_content" id="__w2_ICXqLJh_content">
<p class="qtext_para"><b>So overall, I am not convinced that the author has properly calculated the actual impact of the geometry of the universe that he proposes. Since he is not modifying physics in a fundamental way, but only the geometry (which is arguably the appeal of his model), many experiments in physics can be reinterpreted in terms of this new setup. As far as I can tell, they would not allow the set up to be possible. Thus unless the author can convincingly prove that the standard well known local physics is not modified in his setup, it is premature to try to calculate the impact on cosmology.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer. As much as I would like to criticize the reviewer for not paying attention to important details in the article and for not making a minimum effort to understand it better by asking a question before issuing a rejection, I am extremely thankful for their work and attention.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">I am not sure what the reviewer means by</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>Thus unless the author can convincingly prove that the standard well known local physics is not modified in his setup, it is premature to try to calculate the impact on cosmology.</b></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="qtext_para">The only item that affects local physics is the epoch-dependent G. We demonstrated that it doesn’t affect the Oklo Natural Reactor during its 2 billion years existence. HU itself tackles Gravitational Lensing and the Precession of Mercury Perihelion. I believe that that is enough due diligence for a single contributor. Given guidance on what specifically the reviewer means, I could easily tackle other items. Gravitational Lensing and Mercury issues took little time to solve, so one would expect that local physics issues wouldn’t be a challenge.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">There are intrinsic challenges for anyone to understand my theory. For the established scientist, the theory is challenging because it doesn’t use their tools. Some of the ‘hidden’ goals of the theory (challenging GR, Inflation Theory, Chromodynamics) are hidden because it is counterproductive to defend everything in a huge paper. Nobody will read it and nobody will review it.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">As a busy mostly ignorant, non-scientist, I might not be the best person to defend this idea. This piecewise attempt to introduce the theory to the community is the best I could come up with.</p>
</div>
<div id="__w2_ICXqLJh_disclaimer"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="VgKpFT">
<div class="ActionBar Post" id="__w2_ZqhJh2H_action_bar">
<div class="action_bar_inner"></div>
</div>
</div>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:16:08 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-9/Hypergeometrical Universe
- First Peer Review - 10http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-10/<p class="qtext_para"><b>* Finally, I do not think it is possible for G to vary in the way that the author proposes. For one, we have constraints on the variation of G on Earth from the Oklo natural nuclear reactor and, going back further into the past, from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis which mean that if cannot have change by more than a few percent. If it were changing together with Hubble, we would find that the galaxies and orbits destabilise etc. Moreover, as the author notices, stars are very sensitive to the strength of gravity (e.g. </b><span class="qlink_container"><a class="external_link" data-qt-tooltip="arxiv.org" href="http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1102.5278" onclick="return Q.openUrl(this);" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><b>arXiv:1102.5278</b></a></span><b>) and we would have know about such variations.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer: This was an interesting connection proposed by the Reviewer to challenge the epoch-dependent G.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">I will tackle first the Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactor Argument. Oklo is 2 billion years old. During Oklo’s existence, G would had varied 1/13.58 to 1/11.58 or 13.58/11.58 = 117%. Gravitation would be 17% stronger. The effect of Gravitation would be felt as Gravitational dilation of time. If one considers two billion years as <span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>T</mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math>' id="MathJax-Element-15-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-100" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-101"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-102"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-103">T<span></span></span><span></span></span><span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-104">0</span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>T</mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math></span></span></span> the dilation would be:</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="519" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-544248bbb9b6b56adc493d9c1b4d6db5?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="599" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-a59aa906e1b257fe15bd738cfa63edd0?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">The effect of Gravity appears on the G terms. The largest contribution is of the order of 10^{-9}. If G is 17% stronger that term would still be irrelevant on the radioactive decay taking place in the Oklo cavern.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">The fact that the depletion of Uranium is through a chain reaction process introduces a much higher uncertainty since through 2 billion years water levels in the cavern varied and thus the level of neutron moderation. I fail to see how epoch-dependent G could be detected by measurements in Oklo cavern.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Big Bang Nucleosynthesis had to consider not only an epoch-dependent G but also an epoch dependent Chandrasekhar mass (for Supernova Explosions) and an epoch dependent star size. Not only Chandrasekhar mass is dependent upon G but also the trigger mass of stars. Gas gathers in a star until it lights up. A stronger Gravity would make that process to happen at smaller masses. The stronger G means that internal pressure profile, luminosity would remain the same. The only thing different would be the average size of the star and the average lifetime of the star. We can only see a snapshot of any epoch, so we are not able to detect Star lifetime changes from epoch to epoch.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Nucleosynthesis is only sensitive to temperature and pressure profiles within stars and not their radiuses.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Smaller masses and stronger gravity would make celestial dynamics insensitive to G variations.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">The referred article presents a model of screened Gravitation. Needless to say, their conclusions are model dependent and my interpretation of the Supernova Survey data challenges the 3D spacetime view. The other issue is that the article might not had considered that star masses would be smaller to compensate the increased Gravity.</p>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:15:09 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-10/Hypergeometrical Universe
- First Peer Review - 8http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-8-1/<p class="qtext_para"><b>The rest of the paper in fact makes use of some simple geometrical arguments to obtain distances and I have to admit I do not understand what they refer to. Proper null geodesics of the metric must be calculated to be able to say anything about distances.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer: Those simple arguments are worth understanding. Within them are :</p>
<ol>
<li>the concept that light that reaches us here and now, has to “diffract” from hypersphere to hypersphere at 45 degrees.</li>
<li>The current Doppler shift is replaced by a projection of a 4D k-vector onto a local hyperplane (a hyperplane is a local approximation of a very large hypersphere in a small neighborhood). As light travels from hypersphere to hypersphere the 4D k-vector adjust itself until it becomes just a retarded electromagnetic wave always traveling at 45 degrees.</li>
</ol>
<p class="qtext_para">This theory was created using a totally different framework than the one you are used to. That explain the difficulty you faced. The idea that <b>“one needs to use null geodesics of the metric to say anything about distances”</b> show attachment to standard tools. The obvious distinction that the hypersphere has a symmetric and homogeneous distribution of mass and thus will pose a very different metric than the ones the reviewer might be used to was not realized.</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>* I do not understand the assertion that the speed of light is \sqrt{2}c. What is light for the author? What is the experiment which would give such a result?</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">No experiment would show that since we live in a 3D Hypersphere.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">The proposed article would support the Hyperspherical Geometry and the Lightspeed Expansion and thus indirectly support a dynamical reference frame traveling at the speed of light.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">I mentioned in the past answers to this Peer Review. Light is a spatial modulation of dilaton field. Not unlike a modulation on a carrier.</p>
<div class="board_item_description">
<div id="NdqrdW">
<div class="PostContentEditableExpandable PostContentExpandable SimpleToggle Toggle Expandable" id="__w2_F5M3yr4__expanded">
<div id="lCRsom">
<div id="pVuAan">
<div class="inline_editor_content" id="__w2_GE56iKH_content">
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="650" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-1e4e9364a3cfef395d583bbbb60dc816?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="700" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-8bab6ad69c1cff39f761742e9b463bf3?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:12:44 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-8-1/Hypergeometrical Universe
- First Peer Review - 7http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-8/<p class="qtext_para"><b>* 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.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">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:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="qtext_para">from astropy.cosmology import Planck15</p>
<p class="qtext_para">from astropy import constants, units</p>
<p class="qtext_para">def d_planck15(z):</p>
<p class="qtext_para">R0 = (constants.c)/(Planck15.H<wbr/>0)</p>
<p class="qtext_para">d_L = (Planck15.luminosity_dist<wbr/>ance(z))/R0.to(units.Mpc)</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><wbr/>plt.plot(z, d_L)</p>
<p class="qtext_para">R0=<span class="qlink_container"><a class="external_link" href="http://r0.to/" onclick="return Q.openUrl(this);" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">http://R0.to</a></span>(units<wbr/>.lyr)/1e9</p>
<p class="qtext_para">return R0, d_L</p>
<p class="qtext_para">z = np.arange(0.0,1.5,0.01)</p>
<p class="qtext_para">R0<wbr/>, d_L=d_planck15(z)</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="qtext_para">This was an honest attempt to represent Friedmann-Lemaitre Model applied to the Supernova Survey. From my research, it implements this equation:</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in_feed" master_h="31" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-0fa997d30abe5cd0c5ebe5051222d80c?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="295" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-0fa997d30abe5cd0c5ebe5051222d80c?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">with six parameters (if one excludes H<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi></mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math>' id="MathJax-Element-2-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-9" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-10"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-11"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-12"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-13">0</span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi></mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math></span></span></span>). By comparison, HU predicts the data without any parameters (if one excludes H<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi></mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math>' id="MathJax-Element-3-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-14" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-15"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-16"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-17"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-18">0</span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi></mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math></span></span></span>, 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).</p>
<p class="qtext_para">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.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">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.</p>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:10:37 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-8/Hypergeometrical Universe
- First Peer Review - 6http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-6/<p class="qtext_para"><b>* The recent detection of gravitational waves by LIGO confirms that we understand reasonably well the generation and propagation of these waves on cosmological distances. For the reason explained above, they would also have been sensitive to the full 5D structure of the space time and therefore their luminosity would have been completely different in such a 5D setup.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer: This is a clear example of Gravitational Wave Dephasing. These Gravitational Waves are actual modulations on the top of the dilaton field (metric waves with wavelengths equal to the Compton Wavelength of an Hydrogen Atom). In fact, there are two kinds of wave (hypersuperficial and hypervolumetric) so the final picture is slightly more complex.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">The LIGO detection happens through dephasing of the very slight modulation of the dilaton field. This modulation happened because of dilator positional change (two Black Holes doing Dance Macabre). The physics of Gravitational Waves is trivial and it is consistent with HU Gyrogravitational Law.</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="650" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-1e4e9364a3cfef395d583bbbb60dc816?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="700" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-8bab6ad69c1cff39f761742e9b463bf3?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:09:46 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-6/Hypergeometrical Universe
- First Peer Review - 5http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-5/<p class="qtext_para"><b>* Even if one were to brush this off as some sort of new physics (e.g. inspired by open string theory), gravity must know about the extra dimensions. Again, we know with excellent precision that the force of gravity in the solar system falls off as 1/r^2 and therefore it is 3+1 dimensional. It is possible to have a model of gravity which is 4D at small distances but sensitive to the full 5D space at large distances (see the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati model) but this means that the universe behaves in a completely standard way until the acceleration era. This is not what the author has in mind and comes with its own inconsistencies (ghosts etc) which have not been solved.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer: This is a very important argument. The answer is the same as the one given to photon confinement. The short answer is that Gravitation and Electromagnetism are also carried by metric waves (dilaton field) in my theory. This dilaton field knows about the extra spatial dimension. It doesn’t care, in the sense that its work (dephasing) will only be felt by matter (dilators) contained with our hypersphere. This means that despite of the dilaton field travels within the 4D spatial manifold, our observation of it only happens through retarded potentials traveling at 45 degrees from hypersphere to hypersphere.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Current view of fields fails doesn’t consider them to be carried by waves. An electric field is normally drawn as lines. This is another paradigm shift HU brings about. Interaction occurs through metric waves (elastic deformations of space) and not through anything that resembles an arrow (inelastic deformation of space). In considering metric waves as carrier of interaction, it becomes clear that for a dilaton field to be EXTENSIVE, dilaton wave contributions have to occur in phase. This brings about the concept of a Cosmological Coherence.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">For the dilaton field, the whole Universe is just a Cosmological Coherence.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">This doesn’t mean that there isn’t dephasing processes. These processes occur onto spatial modulations of the basic dilaton field (its frequency is around 10<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>24</mn></mrow></msup></math>' id="MathJax-Element-17-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-112" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-113"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-114"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-115"></span><span></span></span><span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-116"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-117"><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-118">24</span></span></span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi></mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mn>24</mn></mrow></msup></math></span></span></span>Hz). Electromagnetic waves are spatial modulations (the dilator moves as an oscillating dipole) of the basic dilaton field. The same can be said of the LIGO detected Gravitational Waves.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">This brings the dimensionality aspect of Natural Laws. The standard thinking is that Gravitation is represented by a field and that field is spread out onto an spherical area, thus the <b>1/r^2 . We argue that the anthropic dephasing argument presented before forces gravitation and electromagnetism to always travel at 45 degrees from hypersphere to hypersphere as retarded potentials. This means that the 4D spatial manifold is there but the dilaton field doesn’t care!</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">This is a new argument and because of that it will take a little time for people to understand it. It is based on the concept of dephasing. If there is not dephasing the field is not absorbed nor does any work.</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>A field spread out onto a 4D hypersphere is a useless (not used) field. The “diffracted” portion of the field traveling at 45 degrees does do work. That diffracted portion only sees a 3D manifold.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">I hate to say that everyone is wrong but I have to..:)</p>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:09:00 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-5/Hypergeometrical Universe
- First Peer Review - 4http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-4/<p class="qtext_para"><b>Models of this type were studied extensively in the late 90s/early 2000s under the guise of braneworlds (see e.g. the Randall-Sundrum model), but the extra dimensions were compact in order to prevent the existence of low-mass Kaluza-Klein modes. The size of this extra dimension would have to be microscopic, of the order of inverse TeV in order to avoid this problem.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer: Needless to say, this is different to Kaluza-Klein Model. It has a 5D Spacetime but that is the only similarity. Kaluza-Klein had a narrow scope and was contrived. Electromagnetism is placed into a metric but the physics is never updated. Electromagnetic waves were never said to deform space. If that was the case, a Coulomb charge could create a Black Hole.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">So, there was no physics in Kaluza-Klein and there is not physics in this question. It is just a model based question that only make sense for theories that are based on a specific framework.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">The reviewer tried to find in my theory low-mass Kaluza-Klein modes and there is none. Again, this is a continuation of the prior questioning of energy mass confinement within my moving hypersphere. My prior answer showed that there is no need for confinement.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">It is not the reviewer’s fault. HU theory is quaint in comparison to others. This is a strength not a weakness. It is always easy to work within a logical framework that the whole Mankind took centuries to build. It is difficult to challenge that framework and even more difficult to challenge that framework with some simple model.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">The language is not familiar, so the reviewer might not realize what is a lightspeed traveling Universe in a hyperspherical topology. This was never considered prior to this work since under relativity, Matter cannot travel at the speed of light, certainly not the whole Universe.</p>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:08:13 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-4/
- First Peer Review - 3http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-3/<p class="qtext_para">continuation of First Peer-Review</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>* Why and how is matter/light attached to a submanifold of the full 5D space time?</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer: In this question, the reviewer missed the dynamical aspect of the problem. The reviewer’s mind is used to static universes (m-branes) where containment is a question. In an open non-compact manifold, containment is not required. For example while light travels freely throughout the 4D manifold ,its absorption only happens where we are. This is not a quantum mechanical observer argument. It is a dephasing argument. An electromagnetic wave is only absorbed when there is dephasing, that requires matter on the right place and time. This is the subtle reason why light coming from inner hyperspheres (earlier epochs) will travel from hypersphere to hypersphere always at 45 degrees. On any other path, light would arrive where we are before we arrive here. This is an anthropic argument for light absorption. We only detect light from the past because these photons always traveled at 45 degrees. When I say, from hypersphere to hypersphere, I mean from de Broglie step to de Broglie step.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Matter is only effected to change its motion tangentially. Any matter traveling at different speed would be quite far away after 13.58 billion year and thus would not interact or be relevant. This is a simple explanation that exhibits non-criticallity, unlike Anthropic arguments current Cosmology has to resort to.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">This is a Universe traveling at speed of light in an inertial fashion. There is no need for matter/light to be attached to this submanifold. Under these condition, interaction only yields tangential motion, given that the actual 4D Speed of light is <span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msqrt><mo stretchy="false">(</mo></msqrt><mn>2</mn><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></math>' id="MathJax-Element-16-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-105" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-106"><span class="msqrt" id="MathJax-Span-107"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-108"><span class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-109">(</span></span><span></span></span><span><span></span><span></span></span><span><span>√</span><span></span></span></span></span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-110">2</span><span class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-111">)</span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msqrt><mo stretchy="false">(</mo></msqrt><mn>2</mn><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></math></span></span></span>c. This value is derived from energy equipartition (tangential velocity is equal to radial velocity) followed by a non-critical Anthropic Argument (what we considered to be the Universe is what is traveling together with us – the nature of a moving reference frame makes anything outside the hypersphere not easily detectable – I made an exception to the lagging antimatter hypersphere which in the model is mapped to Dark Matter).</p>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:07:29 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-3/Hypergeometrical Universe
- First Peer Review -2http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-2/<p class="qtext_para">continuation of First Peer Review:</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>I must admit that I am very confused by what the author proposes. It appears to me that, at least initially, the HU does not change any of the standard laws of physics but only changes the geometry in which the Universe is embedded. He proposes that the observed universe is the surface of a 3-sphere expanding into a new non-compact spatial direction. If this indeed the fundamental proposition, then it does not work:</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer: The reviewer is honestly confused. That is not his fault. He is trying to understand something without reading the full article on HU (some 77 pages long - it is mentioned in the references). In addition, the reviewer fails to understand the proposed topology and states that</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>“I propose the observed Universe to be the surface of a 3-sphere expanding into a new non-compact spatial direction.”</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">That is not correct. If you replace 3-sphere by 4-sphere then it starts making sense or work.</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>It is important to notice that the Universe is not the volume inside a sphere but the ‘area’ on the hypersurface of the lightspeed expanding hypersphere!</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">The other very important missing part is that this hypersphere is expanding at speed of light c. Since the reviewer had such a limited understanding of the model, it is surprising that he reached any conclusion. <b>I should remind you again that this article is not presenting HU, instead the article is presenting an analysis based on HU (two assumptions from HU) of the Supernova Survey data.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">The idea behind this article was to mention the theory and to provide the assumptions derived/supported by HU theory:</p>
<ol>
<li>Epoch-dependent Gravitation</li>
<li>The Ligthspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe topology</li>
</ol>
<p class="qtext_para">Here is the article:</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><span class="qlink_container"><a class="external_link" data-qt-tooltip="amazonaws.com" href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/hypergeo/static/media/uploads/pdfs/+Hypergeometrical+Universe+Theory+Supernovae+High+Z+Predictions_v5.pdf" onclick="return Q.openUrl(this);" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Hypergeometrical Universe Theory Supernova High Z Predictions</a></span></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><i>These are assumptions that are not required to be supported by anything. They could had been taken as hypothesis without any support. Because of that, I didn’t expect that editors would speculate on my theory without reading it nor understanding it nor asking me any questions. That said, here is a brief explanation of HU theory.</i></p>
<p class="qtext_para">The reviewer mentioned that HU doesn’t change any of the standard laws of physics. That is a naive view of the presentation of the theory. The theory recovers the laws of physics (electromagnetism and Gravitation) from first principles. It doesn’t simply recover them but instead it presents a different law of Gravitation (Gyrogravitation) which is consistent with what we know about Gravitation, Gravitational Lensing, Mercury Perihelion Precession. HU Gravitational Potential for a non-rotating Sun is equal to the Gerber’s potential. HU also discards Strong Force and Weak Force by introducing a new model for matter. HU GyroGravitation is a <b>Velocity-Dependen</b>t Gravitation which is not amenable to General Relativity Geodesics methodology.</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="259" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-45f7e2c0d6d2ede3710d5f7e6606ad00?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="668" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-6c626d1051ce355d17bb2fd88efc3923?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">here you can see why G is epoch-dependent. <span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>R</mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math>' id="MathJax-Element-18-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-119" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-120"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-121"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-122">R</span><span></span></span><span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-123">0</span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>R</mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math></span></span></span> is the 4D radius of the Universe and the Gravitational Constant is inversely proportional to it.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">So it is incorrect to simply say that HU does not change the laws of physics.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">HU replicates the standard laws of physics for the simple reason that HU has to comply with reality. That said, HU provides a different reason for that reality.</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>It changes the laws of physics</b> (see attached article with the theory and derivations). <b>It reduces all laws to a single law</b>:</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>Dilators will dilate in phase with the surrounding dilaton field</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">This simple law (The Quantum Lagrangian Principle) is just stating that dilator do not do any work or conversely, that space dilation is quantized. This requirement makes dilators to shift sidewise (tangential motion) an amount x depicted below:</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="portrait qtext_image zoomable_in_feed" master_h="348" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-4831737d769956a4fbfe867612e35c15?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="303" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-4831737d769956a4fbfe867612e35c15?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para"><span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>R</mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math>' id="MathJax-Element-19-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-124" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-125"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-126"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-127">R</span><span></span></span><span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-128">0</span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>R</mi><mn>0</mn></msub></math></span></span></span> is 13.58 billion light years (the current 4D radius of the Universe) and <span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>&#x03BB;</mi><mn>1</mn></msub></math>' id="MathJax-Element-20-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-129" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-130"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-131"><span><span><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-132">λ</span><span></span></span><span><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-133">1</span><span></span></span></span></span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>λ</mi><mn>1</mn></msub></math></span></span></span> is approximately the Compton wavelength of a hydrogen atom (femtometer). x is proportional to acceleration, if one considers motion as a deformation of the local metric (local fabric of space):</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="portrait qtext_image zoomable_in_feed" master_h="375" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-ed1f1b3e0729ed6fc2741a10ef16a278-c?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="278" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-ed1f1b3e0729ed6fc2741a10ef16a278-c?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">The Silver Surfer above is shown over a relaxed Fabric of Space (FS). Below is another one traveling left:</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="portrait qtext_image zoomable_in_feed" master_h="365" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-1c1e06b2a2a3aeb05e7d92be96c59fd6-c?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="339" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-1c1e06b2a2a3aeb05e7d92be96c59fd6-c?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">The FS is a preferential reference frame but it is not easily detectable from within our hypersphere. In the same way that the Cosmological Time (<span class="render_latex"><span class="MathJax" data-mathml='<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>&#x03D5;</mi></math>' id="MathJax-Element-21-Frame" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 15px; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;" tabindex="0"><nobr aria-hidden="true"><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-134" role="math"><span><span><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-135"><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-136">ϕ</span></span><span></span></span></span><span></span></span></nobr><span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML" role="presentation"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>ϕ</mi></math></span></span></span>) which times the expansion of the Universe is also no easily detectable. Although we all know that there is an absolute time and an absolute time flow. We use it to tell that the Universe is 13.58 billion years old.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">These Silver Surfers are presenting a paradigm shift on the way we see forces. In HU, there is no need for Force, Masses. The only thing one needs is to know where a dilator will be and when. Those two questions are answered by the Quantum Lagrangian Principle (QLP). That said, I used the QLP to derive Electromagnetism and Gravitational forces from first principles. QLP is fundamental and because of that it can be used to derive Laws we consider Natural (God Given or Natural Part of this Universe - no explanation required).</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Newton’s laws have a Stress-Strain mapping on HU. This means that a Force exerts a torque onto the Fabric of Space, tilting ever so slightly it at each de Broglie step of the Universe expansion. Details are in reference 1 of the article.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">I derived Natural Laws by considering the model for matter based on Dilators. The Fundamental Dilator is a coherence between “stationary” deformation states of the local metric. It represents electron, proton, positron and antiprotons depending upon which phase is in-phase with the Universe (they tunnel and spin within the 4D spatial manifold).</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="347" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-3c5098f9b0f57b55311b2674ad150786-c?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="606" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-95ec894b95facfe2d4ae63f60b8873e3-c?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">Stationary is between quotes because all dilators travel within the 3D locus of the lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface, so they are not stationary in the lato sensu. Below is the representation of the Fundamental Dilator for proton and antiproton:</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="499" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-61678b3e9f62a6fe551ab60d555f0d66-c?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="757" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-8cbba5a612368f5881894b079b4ffa87-c?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">As dilators change shape and spin within the 4D spatial manifold, they generate waves (dilaton field) and change their footprint within the 3D Universe.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">They only interact at their largest footprints (quantized phases which generates intermittent interaction).</p>
<p class="qtext_para">The times of these interactions are called within the theory de Broglie Steps (of expansion of the hyperspherical shockwave universe).</p>
<p class="qtext_para">This view of matter differs from the current view. <b>Matter within HU is made of space (deformed, changing, spinning space).</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">The only requirement is that dilators will position themselves at each de Broglie step at positions where they are in phase with the surround dilaton field. Electromagnetism and Gravitation are derived from this Law. Strong and Electro-Weak are replaced by elements of the HU Standard Model.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">This means that HU is also proposing a replacement of the Standard Model. <b>That said, this is not relevant for the reviewing of my application article. HU could be wrong on everything on its Standard Model and still the Universe could be an lightspeed expanding hypersphere and G could be epoch dependent.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">I will refrain to include the whole theory here (77 pages long). I hope it will not be necessary to defend the whole Theory of Everything just to present an application (prediction) of the theory. If it is, I will be happy to do the best I can do at that time.</p>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:06:14 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-2/Hypergeometrical Universe
- First Peer Review -1http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-1/<p class="qtext_para"><b>Reviewer 1</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>Dear Editor,</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>Dear Reviewer 1</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>The author seeks to interpret the data for the dependence of luminosity of supernovae on redshift as evidence for a rather revolutionary cosmological model, the Hypergeometric Universe (HU), claiming that the fit is at least as good as the concordance model of cosmology.</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Answer: Here we don’t have a question, but the reviewer is clarifying that I claim that my model fits the data better than the current model of cosmology. Here I emphasize that if my theory is correct, comparison of chi-square is not even meaningful since the current model would be fitting incorrect data.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Comparisons of chi-square are not meaningful, since if one considers my theory to be correct, the Supernova Positions would be in different positions, so the initial fitting by Friedmann-Lemaitre Model wouldn’t be correct any more. So chi-square considerations are not a good idea.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">In addition, this application of my theory has no parameters (other than H0), L-CDM has six.</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in_feed" master_h="31" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-0fa997d30abe5cd0c5ebe5051222d80c?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="295" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-0fa997d30abe5cd0c5ebe5051222d80c?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<p class="qtext_para">Below is the error distribution and the chi-square calculation for good measure</p>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="400" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-ae4184a0d49eb85c8a0c07a9891c2353?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="600" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-031b5b2104a0ad753a55a425894fe7ba?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>
<div class="qtext_image_wrapper"><img class="landscape qtext_image zoomable_in zoomable_in_feed" master_h="172" master_src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-98e1a4779e0639e4fe8d5f259dcc369a?convert_to_webp=true.png" master_w="657" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/HubbleFolder/main-qimg-91436c178e9fb7edc1afbdb3aa2400ef?convert_to_webp=true.png"/></div>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 13:04:39 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-peer-review-1/Hypergeometrical Universe
- HU Rebuttal Letterhttp://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/hu-rebuttal-letter/<p dir="ltr" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801">Dear Dr. Rhode,</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801">Thanks a million for reviewing my article. I included a response to all the issues raised by the two reviewers.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801">You can send this email to them if you so desire or send this link</p>
<p dir="ltr" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801"><span color="#333333" face="Georgia, Times, Times New Roman, serif" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_13048" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_13049"><a class="yiv3257906387enhancr2_3e725c19-3994-cfb2-4fae-4d7399d3e9d8" href="https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Hypergeometrical-Universe-ever-Criticized-by-Real-Scientists" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_13052" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">Was the Hypergeometrical Universe ever Criticized by Real Scientists? - Quora</a></span></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801">I realized that the internet allows for easier reading that just a pdf response.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801">Since it took almost four months for the review to be completed, the theory marched on. Below is the revised (perhaps not completely polished yet) version.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801">Here is the revised article:</p>
<p dir="ltr" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801"><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/hypergeo/static/media/uploads/pdfs/+Hypergeometrical+Universe+Theory+Supernovae+High+Z+Predictions_v5.pdf" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_13450" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" title="https://s3.amazonaws.com/hypergeo/static/media/uploads/pdfs/+Hypergeometrical+Universe+Theory+Supernovae+High+Z+Predictions_v5.pdf">https://s3.amazonaws.com/hypergeo/static/media/uploads/pdfs/+Hypergeometrical+Universe+Theory+Supernovae+High+Z+Predictions_v5.pdf</a></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801">Here is the data and calculations:</p>
<p dir="ltr" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801"><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/hypergeo/static/media/uploads/pdfs/iPythonDerivation.zip" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_13343" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" title="https://s3.amazonaws.com/hypergeo/static/media/uploads/pdfs/iPythonDerivation.zip">https://s3.amazonaws.com/hypergeo/static/media/uploads/pdfs/iPythonDerivation.zip</a></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801">Please feel free to reconsider my application in view of my addressing to the reviewers concerns. Also, please feel free to ask questions. This theory is not written in the language standard scientists are familiar with.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801">Thanks,</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801">Marco Pereira</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801"></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801"><b> </b></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801"><b id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12915">Reviewer 1</b></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12801">Dear Editor,</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12802">The author seeks to interpret the data for the dependence of luminosity of supernovae on redshift as evidence for a rather revolutionary cosmological model, the Hypergeometric Universe (HU), claiming that the fit is at least as good as the concordance model of cosmology.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12803"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12804"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/First-Peer-Review-1" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12805" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">First Peer Review-1 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12806">I must admit that I am very confused by what the author proposes. It appears to me that, at least initially, the HU does not change any of the standard laws of physics but only changes the geometry in which the Universe is embedded. He proposes that the observed universe is the surface of a 3-sphere expanding into a new non-compact spatial direction. If this indeed the fundamental proposition, then it does not work:</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12807"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12808"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/First-Peer-Review-2" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12809" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">First Peer Review-2 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12810">* Why and how is matter/light attached to a submanifold of the full 5D space time?</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12811"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12812"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/First-Peer-Review-3" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12813" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">First Peer Review -3 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12814">Models of this type were studied extensively in the late 90s/early 2000s under the guise of braneworlds (see e.g. the Randall-Sundrum model), but the extra dimensions were compact in order to prevent the existence of low-mass Kaluza-Klein modes. The size of this extra dimension would have to be microscopic, of the order of inverse TeV in order to avoid this problem.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12815"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12816"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/First-Peer-Review-4" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12817" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">First Peer Review - 4 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12818">* Even if one were to brush this off as some sort of new physics (e.g. inspired by open string theory), gravity must know about the extra dimensions. Again, we know with excellent precision that the force of gravity in the solar system falls off as 1/r^2 and therefore it is 3+1 dimensional. It is possible to have a model of gravity which is 4D at small distances but sensitive to the full 5D space at large distances (see the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati model) but this means that the universe behaves in a completely standard way until the acceleration era. This is not what the author has in mind and comes with its own inconsistencies (ghosts etc) which have not been solved.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12819"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12820"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/First-Peer-Review-5" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12821" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">First Peer Review - 5 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12822">* The recent detection of gravitational waves by LIGO confirms that we understand reasonably well the generation and propagation of these waves on cosmological distances. For the reason explained above, they would also have been sensitive to the full 5D structure of the space time and therefore their luminosity would have been completely different in such a 5D setup.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12823"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12824"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/First-Peer-Review-6" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12825" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">First Peer Review -6 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12826">* 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 th luminosity distance-redshift relation can be derived. It would be different.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12827"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12828"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/First-Peer-Review-7" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12829" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">First Peer Review - 7 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12830">The rest of the paper in fact makes use of some simple geometrical arguments to obtain distances and I have to admit I do not understand what they refer to. Proper null geodesics of the metric must be calculated to be able to say anything about distances.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12831">* I do not understand the assertion that the speed of light is \sqrt{2}c. What is light for the author? What is the experiment which would give such a result?</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12832"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12833"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/First-Peer-Review-8" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12834" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">First Peer Review - 8 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12835">* Finally, I do not think it is possible for G to vary in the way that the author proposes. For one, we have constraints on the variation of G on Earth from the Oklo natural nuclear reactor and, going back further into the past, from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis which mean that if cannot have change by more than a few percent. If it were changing together with Hubble, we would find that the galaxies and orbits destabilise etc. Moreover, as the author notices, stars are very sensitive to the strength of gravity (e.g. <span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12836"><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1102.5278" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12837" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">arXiv:1102.5278</a></span>) and we would have know about such variations.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12838"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12839"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/First-Peer-Review-10" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12840" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">First Peer Review - 10 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12841">So overall, I am not convinces that the author has properly calculated the actual impact of the geometry of the universe that he proposes. Since he is not modifying physics in a fundamental way, but only the geometry (which is arguably the appeal of his model), many experiments in physics can be reinterpreted in terms of this new setup. As far as I can tell, they would not allow the set up to be possible. Thus unless the author can convincingly prove that the standard well known local physics is not modified in his setup, it is premature to try to calculate the impact on cosmology.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12842"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12843"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/First-Peer-Review-11" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12844" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">First Peer Review - 11 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12845">Moreover, I should say that today the geometry of the universe is much more precisely constrained by angular diameter distance measurements of the baryon acoustic oscillations in galaxy correlation functions. This agrees very well with the supernova data and I suspect very much would be a very different prediction in the HU model.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12846"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12847"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/First-Peer-Review-9" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12848" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">First Peer Review - 9 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12849">I thus am unfortunately forced to reject this manuscript.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12850">######################### ##################### ######################### ##################### ######################### ##################### ######################### #####################</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12855"><b id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12856">Reviewer 2</b></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12857">This manuscript presents the predicted luminosity distance in the Hypergeometrical Universe (HU) model and compares against the Union supernova compilation. Unfortunately, I do not believe that it is suitable for publication. I detail (only the major) issues below.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12858">The gravitational constant changing dramatically throughout the history of the universe is disfavored by growth-of-structure constraints, pulsar-timing experiments, Solar-system tests (e.g., Lunar distance), stellar evolution, and so forth.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12859"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12860"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Second-Peer-Review-1" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12861" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">Second Peer Review - 1 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12862">I’m also skeptical that the luminosity of a SN Ia if G were different would scale as G^-3 (or M_ch^2). Ni-56 production is not a simple rate-limited process; SNe Ia undergo a deflagration that (in most cases) transitions to a detonation. They burn about half their mass to Ni-56 (depending on when the detonation occurs). Even if Ni-56 production were a simple process, the radius (and thus the density) of the white dwarf also changes with G.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12863"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12864"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Second-Peer-Review-2" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12865" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">Second Peer Review - 2 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12866">But putting all of that aside, I will take a narrow view of the manuscript. It proposes a distance(redshift) relation, and we can quantitatively see how well this matches the data. The proper way to do this is not by making plots, it is to compute chi^2 values from the distance moduli (mu) and covariance matrix in Union2.1:</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12867">chi^2 = (mu_observed - M - mu_theory)^T . (covariance matrix^-1) . (mu_observed - M - mu_theory)</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12868">where M is a constant that can be fit (the host-mass relation can also be fit, but failing to do so won’t affect the results much). After computing chi^2 values for LambdaCDM and HU, you can see if HU is favored or disfavored by the data compared to LambdaCDM. By my eye, HU is significantly worse, but the chi^2 values will say for sure.</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12869"><span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12870"><a href="https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Second-Peer-Review-3" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12871" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">Second Peer Review - 3 by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12872">------------------------- ------------------------- -----------</p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12875">Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. | <span id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12876"><a href="https://www.elsevier.com/legal/privacy-policy" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12877" rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank">Privacy Policy</a></span></p>
<p id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12878">Elsevier B.V., Radarweg 29, 1043 NX Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Reg. No. 33156677.</p>
<p dir="ltr" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12879">Brighten your day.</p>
<p class="yiv3257906387qtdSeparateBR"><br clear="none"/><br clear="none"/></p>
<div class="yiv3257906387yahoo_quoted" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12639">
<div id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12638">
<div id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12637">
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12636"><span face="Arial" id="yiv3257906387yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1479735038074_12635" size="2" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"></span><hr size="1"/></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 12:59:49 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/hu-rebuttal-letter/Hypergeometrical Universe
- Hurray HU has a Peer-Reviewhttp://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/hurray-hu-has-a-peer-review/<p class="qtext_para"><img alt="" height="434" src="http://hypergeo.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/uploads/blog/Dr_Illuminati.jpg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="495"/></p>
<p class="qtext_para"></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Title: Hypergeometrical Universe Theory Supernovae High Z Predictions</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Heliyon</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>Dear Dr. Pereira,</b></p>
<p class="qtext_para">Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Heliyon. Unfortunately, the reviewers have advised against publication of your manuscript, and in agreement with this assessment we are returning the manuscript to you.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">For your reference, the reviewer comments are appended at the end of this message.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Thank you for submitting your work to this journal and giving us the opportunity to consider your work.</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Kind regards,</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Dr Sneha K Rhode</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Associate Editor</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Heliyon</p>
<p class="qtext_para">Comments from the editors and reviewers:</p>
<p class="qtext_para"><b>Editor</b><br/> <br/> -</p>
<p class="qtext_para">The two referee report we received for your paper are quite critical and do not favor publication. The reports raises substantial issues of concern. Thus in light of the information we acquired, we must reject your paper.</p>magnunPITue, 22 Nov 2016 12:53:30 +0000http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/hurray-hu-has-a-peer-review/Hypergeometrical Universe