ReadMe!!!! | Hypergeometrical Universehttp://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/2021-07-28T16:29:41.927328+00:00Several blogs associated with the Hypergeometrical Universe TheoryFirst Question to Kip Thorne2016-06-06T04:56:05.991062+00:002021-07-28T16:29:41.927328+00:00M Phttp://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/author/MP/http://127.0.0.1:8090/blog/first-question-to-kip-thorne/<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Dear Professor Thorne,</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">I created a new theory of everything that recovers (give a reason) for Gerber's velocity dependent potential. As you know, that potential provides the correct value for Mercury Perihelion precession. The corresponding force also provides the same amount of gravitational lensing.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Since that theory contains a velocity dependent component, it is well equipped to explain Spiral Galaxy angular momentum anomaly. A rotating black hole at the center of the galaxy can provide the drag needed for things to make sense again.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The theory also provides a new model for matter based on a fundamental dilator - a coherence between local metric stationary states. Electron, proton, positron and antiproton are considered to be just the four phases of this coherence (90 degrees apart).</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Using this paradigm, I derived from first principles all natural laws (Gravitation, Electromagnetism) and explained away the two other forces (strong and electroweak). They are not required to explain confinement (there isn’t quarks in my theory) and neutron decay (decoherence of the neutron occurs due to phase fluctuations as the Universe expands).</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The model comes with a Cosmogenesis and a new topology - It is considered a light speed expanding hypersphere. That explains away the need for inflation naturally providing a isotropic Universe.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">In modeling the known dilaton fields, I realized the real nature of the de Broglie field. </span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The theory also explains why c is the limiting speed and provides an alternative explanation for the passage (and slowing down) of time. This provides an explanation of the why an hyperbolic space works in Restrict Relativity.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">When people rejected evaluating paradigm that could support Gerber’s formula, they missed the opportunity to recover quantum mechanics (derive Schroedinger’s equation from first principles), providing an alternative view of what a Black Hole is and understand where entropy is located within a Black-Hole.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"> </span></p>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="t1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="td1" valign="top">
<p class="p3"><span class="s1"><b>“</b></span></p>
</td>
<td class="td2" valign="top">
<p class="p4"><span class="s1">Mr. Gehrcke wants to make us believe that the Perihelion shift of mercury can be explained without the theory of relativity. So there are two possibilities. Either you invent special interplanetary masses. [...] Or you rely on a work by Gerber, who already gave the right formula for the Perihelion shift of mercury before me. The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through, but the formula cannot be obtained as a consequence of the main assumption made by Gerber. Mr. Gerber’s work is therefore completely useless, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that the theory of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury. I have not mentioned the work by Gerber originally, because I did not know it when I wrote my work on the perihelion motion of Mercury; even if I had been aware of it, I would not have had any reason to mention it.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gerber#cite_note-16"><span class="s2"><sup>[C 1]</sup></span></a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">a theory where space and matter are not the same has these problems. My theory provides a model for matter as a coherence between stationary deformation states of the local metric, so matter and space is the made up of the same stuff (space).</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">I would like the opportunity to give a talk about my theory.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Thanks,</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Marco Pereira</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">PS- </span></p>
<p class="p5"><span class="s1">I made a case for it, published the theory in a book.</span></p>
<p class="p6"><span class="s1"><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/id1116381537">https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/id1116381537<span class="s3"></span></a></span></p>
<p class="p7"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p5"><span class="s1">You can see the case here.</span></p>
<p class="p6"><span class="s1"><a href="http://hypergeometricaluniverse.com/blog/the-case-for-the-hypergeometrical-universe/">http://hypergeometricaluniverse.com/blog/the-case-for-the-hypergeometrical-universe/<span class="s3"></span></a></span></p>
<p class="p7"><span class="s1"></span></p>
<p class="p5"><span class="s1">I am looking forward to hearing from you.</span></p>