The Theory of Everything
The premise is incorrect. There’s nothing about inflation that violates the laws of physics.
Please stop making claims about things you don’t actually know about.
You could be right if you like Rube Goldberg devices. As I mentioned in my own comment, a simple light speed expanding hyperspherical surface produces the same desirable result (isotropy and homogeneous microwave cosmic background).
To discuss if faster than the speed of light violates Strict Relativity, or the validity of the mechanism for space expansion and the deceleration of that expansion is irrelevant if the simpler theory explains everything without those artifacts.
Here I am just attacking this theory by proposing a simpler and equally satisfying alternative. I don’t need to consider space being formed here and there if I have a theory where the observables are consistent with reality and I don’t have to create space.
Focus your critique on the focus of my argument.
You claimed that it “suspends the laws of physics”. It doesn’t. And it doesn’t rely on Rube Goldberg devices, either. You should learn what you’re talking about before you make these claims; this is part of why nobody’s taking you seriously.
Inflation, followed by a hot big bang, is exactly what you’d expect to happen with a Dark Energy-like field that starts in a false vacuum state, for example. No twisting ourselves in knots necessary, and no violation of Relativity (expansion of space is not at all the same thing as motion through space, and so distances can increase much faster than light with no problems). Andinflation correctly predicts the small deviation from 1 of the spectral index of the primordial fluctuation power spectrum (relevant to the statistics of the CMB).
If you make bold, false claims that show you’re quite comfortable making assertions without knowing what you’re talking about, people are unlikely to read what you have to say on other topics.
I really appreciate you clarifying the expectations and consistency of the Inflation Theory. That said, it is not clear (just by glancing) that my idea wouldn’t predict correlation over small distances since my theory has the Universe starting at a small volume in the 4D spacial manifold.
No matter how beautiful Inflation Theory is, I am offering a simpler theory that explains Universe expansion without Dark Energy-like field or Dark Energy. My theory is so simple that this should be evident just by thinking about a expanding sphere. So I am not trying to make you enjoy less a beautiful theory. I am trying to make you just for a second consider if my simple topology doesn’t explain the same observations. With respect specifically with the small deviation from 1 of the spectral index of the primordial fluctuation power spectrum, I have to say that this is an open question in my theory.
That said, due to its simplicity, I would exhort you and others to read it without the prejudice that comes from you already spousing a more beautiful theory. I wouldn’t ask you to do so, if there wasn’t compensating discoveries from my simple reasoning.
With respect to being false. Inflation Theory was evidently false (faster than speed of light expansion) before people adorned it with caveats that it is the space that is expanding and not matter that is dislocating…etc. So there are nuances. Of course, if the logical framework wasn’t adorned, it would be false.
The question is if we need to introduce this many caveats and if the other theory produces anything that cannot be produced within Inflation. I believe the answers are no and yes.
By the way, my bad manners almost got the best of me. I shouldn’t state that my theory might do this or that without leaving you with a link to the theory
Similarly, you avoiding focusing on the main point of my question might be taken as an argument avoidance and lower your ranking on quora.
>> That said, due to its simplicity, I would exhort you and others to read it without the prejudice that comes from you already spousing a more beautiful theory.
That isn’t where the criticism is coming from. The criticism is coming from the utter lack of evidence that your theory is actually valid; it seems that for basically every observational result that differs from your theory, you say “oh, it’s not done yet, it can be corrected”. But if there’s no compelling reason to believe the fundamentals are right (and there aren’t), that isn’t a very compelling argument.
>> Theory was evidently false (faster than speed of light expansion) before people adorned it with caveats that it is the space that is expanding and not matter that is dislocating
You are, once again, factually incorrect. This is simply the way General Relativity works, as has been understood since way before inflation theory was even put forward. You can’t just invent historical precedent like that, based on how you think it probably went, or based on the assumption that physicists used to have the same misconceptions about GR that you do.
>> Similarly, you avoiding focusing on the main point of my question might be taken as an argument avoidance and lower your ranking on quora.
I have already explained why your hypothesis is false elsewhere. The only new thing here was your (entirely false) claims about Inflation, which I wanted to point out. That’s why I’m “avoiding the main point”; this is the main point for me, because it’s why I bothered commenting. I think it serves to illustrate the degree to which you (don’t) value factual accuracy in your claims, and the degree to which you (don’t) understand the physics that’s relevant to your claims. You then assume that criticisms from physicists are invalid, despite not having the knowledge required to actually evaluate it.
You should stop assuming you’re right for no reason, even when contradicted by actual evidence. It’s really not a good look, especially if you’re going to accuse others of letting ego get in the way of proper scientific reasoning.
I created a reply with a very good fitting of my theory to the Union2.1 Type 1A Supernova redshift data. I would say, it is a perfect fit for a theory with no moving parts (adjustable parameters).
Please take a look and let me know how did you reach a different conclusion than “the Hypergeometrical Universe explains perfectly Hubble law”.
With respect to cosmology dynamics modeling, there are clear paths to check if there is a fit. I would believe it would be trivial to modify the code for parallelized tree smooth particle dynamics to accommodate the expanding Universe, changing gravitation strength and using my gyrogravitation equation. I would do it or advise someone who want to do it. Unfortunately, I don’t work in this field and have no access to supercomputer time.
Arnett (1982) first demonstrated that at maximum light the instantaneous bolometric luminosity is approximately equal to the instantaneous rate of energy deposition by radiative decay.
The rate of energy deposition (rate of 56Ni accumulation) is equal to the rate of C+O reaction and that scales with M^2 or (G^-3). Homology eliminates scaling with R (or volume).
This tides up the volume uncertainty consideration.
At the beginning, I considered that the density would be different. It turned that the density doesn’t depend upon G. Now, if one uses homology and scales the early epoch White Dwarf to a present time White Dwarf, then density scales with G^(-3/2).
The maximum light of the instantaneous bolometric luminosity is approximately equal to the instantaneous rate of energy deposition and that will scale with M^2 or G^-3.
I believe you have the wrong attitude. If one introduces you an unexpected argument, a good scientist would take a look to see if there is anything salvageable in it. I might not be the best (almost certainly am not) defender of my own ideas - that is why I would like to have it deposited on Los Alamos Arxives. The idea should defend itself (with the help of scientists).
Please take a second look at the idea. See that the fitting is perfect. Consider what Arnett said in 1982 about maximum luminosity (which is in line with my initial argument). What I was missing was homology. After seeing homology applied to stars, I was going to reinvent the wheel and apply it to White Dwarves. Luckily, I found Arnett’s paper.
By the way, if you are now happy, not with the whole theory but with the short paper, please find a way to offer to endorse it (or get someone that can do it) such that the idea can find better defenders.
There are currently no comments
required (not published)