For exact Calculation of the HUBBLE's constant see my articles "About the Information Contained in Constants". Advances in Theoretical & Computational Physics, 2025-Mar-27, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp.1-2 and

About the Percentage Composition of the Energies of the Universe, Provided by the MAX PLANCK Institute for Radio Astronomy - Exact Calculation of the Value of the HUBBLE's Constant. Advances in Theoretical & Computational Physics, 2025-Mar-27, Volume 8, Issue1, pp.1-2

This could do a contribution to the discussion.

Why would I bother to do so? The Hubble Constant is not a constant. It is observable and cannot be predicted.

I provided the model that allowed me to use SN1A observations and extract a current Hubble Constant of 67.5 km/s/Mpc.

The CMB-derived Hubble constant is 67.4 km/s/Mpc.

They are a perfect match... no Hubble Tension.

You seem to have created an ad for your work. That is fine, but I am arguing that I have a better model than anyone else, and people should pay attention.

In other words, I created this provocative discussion so that people can challenge this assertion. It is not aimed at letting people promote their crackpot ideas.

I am guessing that your idea is a crackpot since you claimed to theoretically derive the Hubble Constant.

I met other crackpots saying the same and debunked them.

The information contained in the Hubble Constant is just the inverse of the universe's age and the inverse of its 4D radius.

That is the equivalent of your paper. Just a single sentence.

The attached papers include a replacement to the Big Bang, a 3D map of the galaxy distribution in the whole Universe that is consistent with the Cosmic Microwave Background, the derivation of Natural Laws, the unification of all laws, replacement of Quantum Hadrodynamics, correction to Quantum Chromodynamics, proper modeling of the CMB, Galaxy Formation across cosmological time, solving the spiral galaxy rotation curve conundrum, the Young Faint Sun Paradox, etc...

So, yes. You wrote two papers.

I will be happy to review them if you want.

Here is the explanation for why things move

https://youtu.be/j6Mwp1M0Z-A

Here is the map of the Universe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLqkbCAzcJM

Partial list of HU achievements

https://thehypergeometricaluniverseachievements.quora.com/What-are-the-Hypergeometrical-Universe-Theory-accomplishments-1

and some complaints about the behavior of our scientists:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7313931638223101952/

By the way, I debunked Einstein's theory of Relativity and corrected his model for the Photon, so if your model uses Relativity, you might have to retract it.

Please provide links to the papers or PDFs, and I will review them.

Steve Repinec Fulvio Melia Yeong Rae Kim

Well... I couldn't find your papers in Arxiv or anywhere. That said, I was able to find a proxy: a one-page "article" declaring a formula for Dark Matter without a single piece of data to support it.

Your formula for the Energy of Dark Matter (non-observable or measurable) depends on the universe's age (non-observable or measurable).

In other words, the formula is not connected to reality.

see my articles "About the Information Contained in Constants" and

About the Percentage Composition of the Energies of the Universe, Provided by the MAX PLANCK Institute for Radio Astronomy - Exact Calculation of the Value of the HUBBLE's Constant"

see my article "About the Percentage Composition of the Energies of the Universe, Provided by the MAX PLANCK Institute for Radio Astronomy - Exact Calculation of the Value of the HUBBLE's Constant"

Why do you keep sending me one-page papers? Where is the main article?

Subject: Re: Hubble “Constant” and Cosmological Models

Dear Marco,

Yes, indeed—the so-called Hubble constant is not truly a constant at all. While it’s commonly presented as a fixed value, especially in simplified cosmological models, in reality it evolves over time as the Universe expands. This makes it misleading to directly apply the formula v = H₀ × distance across all cosmic epochs. That formula is only an approximation valid in the nearby Universe.

According to numerous sources, including NASA and recent observational studies, the Hubble parameter was significantly lower in the early Universe and has been increasing to its current observed value. This variability over time is one of the central issues in modern cosmology, often referred to as the “Hubble tension.” It reflects the discrepancy between the Hubble parameter measured from the early Universe (e.g., via the cosmic microwave background) and the one inferred from local measurements (e.g., supernovae, Cepheids). These methods yield different values, suggesting we may need new physics or a better understanding of cosmic expansion.

If you’re interested, I can share with you an Excel spreadsheet containing detailed data on 3,120 Type Ia supernovae. It’s a fascinating dataset that highlights these discrepancies quite vividly.

As for the geometry, I’m currently delving deeper into those aspects—please see the attached document for a preview of my work in progress.

Sincerely,

Joseph

Well, Joseph Emmanuel Mullat

Again you screwed up Logic. Here is my rebuttal to your Landau-Lifshitz paper.

Yours sincerely,

Marco Pereira

Here is a discussion on it

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_Joseph_Emmanuel_Mullat_used_circular_reasoning_in_his_Landau-Lifshitz_article

Joseph Emmanuel Mullat

You said: Yes, indeed—the so-called Hubble constant is not truly a constant at all. While it’s commonly presented as a fixed value, especially in simplified cosmological models, in reality it evolves over time as the Universe expands.

Nobody says that the Hubble Constant is constant. What one says is that H0 is constant, where H0 is the current value for the Hubble Constant.

My theory doesn't say that the Hubble Constant is constant. My theory says that Newton's Gravitational Constant is not constant and is inversely related to the 4D radius of the universe.

Dear Joseph Emmanuel Mullat

You said: According to numerous sources, including NASA and recent observational studies, the Hubble parameter was significantly lower in the early Universe and has been increasing to its current observed value. This variability over time is one of the central issues in modern cosmology, often referred to as the “Hubble tension.” It reflects the discrepancy between the Hubble parameter measured from the early Universe (e.g., via the cosmic microwave background) and the one inferred from local measurements (e.g., supernovae, Cepheids). These methods yield different values, suggesting we may need new physics or a better understanding of cosmic expansion.

The Hubble Parameter is always interpreted as the inverse of the age of the universe. So, when the universe was 1.45 billion years old, the Hubble constant was supposed to be 10 times larger than today's Hubble Constant.

In my theory that is exactly the case.

The "variability of H0" is not the central issue in modern cosmology. The reason is that both CMB and SN1a are referring to the same H0 (the current value of H0).

In other words, the H0 in the modeling of CMB is the current H0. The H0 in the SN1a modeling by FLRW is the same current H0.

So, the Hubble Tension is not because someone expects H0 not to vary with time. It is because the models are predicting a different value for the CURRENT H0...:)

I solved this problem with my model. Here I provided you with the Pantheon SN1a Survey data, my modeling that resulted in a Hubble Constant of 67.5 km/s/Mpc

The CMB HO is 67.4 km/s/Mpc

Hence, in my theory, there is no Hubble Tension.

Dear Marco,

You are the first person who has truly tried to understand—or even challenge—my writings. Thank you very much for your effort.

The points raised in the article are very serious, as all these objections are actually part of my next article, where everything is included and explained. Perhaps it would be better if the reader first reads the paper attached to this message (also attached, though very long), and only then proceeds to the FLRW metric paper. However, this would require a revision of the FLRW paper to incorporate the concepts from the attached one. The FLRW spatial slice (in your words) is used only for technical reasons—to calculate the volumes of the “bubbles,” which I then transform into the total mass driving the Universe’s dynamics.

To me, time is a problematic phenomenon: we humans feel and experience it, but it is always subjective. Time does not exist in the Universe as an independent entity. The real question is: how can we then describe the “temporal dynamics” of the Universe?

Yes, we can—but it’s a long story that has troubled me for nearly 50 years, since 1973. What I am trying to explain does not require a time parameter; that’s why I have deliberately used only the spatial slice (is “slice” a good word?) of the FLRW metric. My approach to physics could shift our paradigm and challenge terms like “dark matter” in cosmology. JM does not have the authority to do so, but I do—starting from a simpler point, which makes my life interesting: Newton’s gravitational field tension function, G·M/r. My story is about how the composition of the Universe originates from this very basic gravitational tension function.

It might be difficult for you to read, but I truly appreciate your engagement. I am currently rewriting it, and it is absolutely imperative for me to include your comments. I would be very glad to continue communicating with you to address all your remarks. I will soon point out where you can find the answers to your objections in your “Critical Rebuttal.”

Regarding your data: I have reloaded the .csv file into Excel. Do you have any material explaining the column labels? Also, where are the distances to these supernovae (SNs)? My third paper focuses on calculating distances using my own method—without relying on the Hubble diagram. In fact, there will be two methods I intend to compare. Your data would be very valuable to include when comparing the distance results with those from the methods I know.

I also couldn’t find how to download your writings.

Best regards,

Joseph

Dear Joseph Emmanuel Mullat

You can get the Python notebook. It reads the Pantheon data and assign labels. I made it easy for you and everyone else.

Just download Anaconda... and run the notebook Pantheon from my GitHub Repository HU_CMB.

The reason I reply to your papers is because I solved the problems you are trying to solve some 20 years ago.

In other words, you are wasting time trying to explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy because I showed they are not required to explain anything.

In addition, I derived the laws of nature and showed that they replace Einstein's Relativity. Hence, it is anachronic to be writing metrics... talking about geodesics...

The main failures of your article are easy to see:

a) You derived dynamics from a timeless metric. That doesn't make any sense.

b) You postulated your conclusions (defined some values for rho in a geometric problem and assigned them to reality).

So, the problems in the article are failures of Logic.

You cannot explain dynamics without using Time.

Time is known only by the processes one uses to measure the passage of time. In other words, processes are the proxy of time passing. There is no other possible definition.

This means that you cannot explain any process without time. That is an unsolvable problem.

That said, my theory shows the existence of Absolute Time, Absolute Simultaneity... In other words, I showed that Einstein was wrong on everything he said (other than the Brownian Motion Paper).

SSRN Abstracts

# HU-The Big Pop Cosmogenesis

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5012159

# The Hypergeometrical Universe

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5012064

# Debunking NASA

# Reevaluating_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Constraints_on_Epoch_Nature.pdf

https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_Papers/blob/main/Reevaluating_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Constraints_on_Epoch_Nature.pdf

Docker Images

docker pull ny2292000/hu_galaxy_package

Repositories

https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU

https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_GalaxyPackage

https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_Papers

https://github.com/ny2292000/DataSupernovaLBLgov

Dear Marco, To me, time does not exist in the Universe. Strange as it may sound—that’s simply how I see it. I describe the dynamics of the Universe as a Euclidean stereographic projection of a 4D manifold into a series of surfaces, which can be constructed as a dynamic sequence of expanding Euclidian 3D bubbles. That’s the central idea. Within this lies what might seem an unbelievable fact: I have even developed a scale that can be interpreted as the average absorption of energy from a speculative Zero Point Field (ZPF). My dynamic scale, κ (kappa)—whether you like it or not—extends from approximately 0.082676 through 0.12457, and up to around 10¹². I cannot compute beyond that because trigonometric calculations become extremely unstable at precisions exceeding 300 decimal digits. I predict that the ultimate “death” of the Universe will occur when κ = 0.082676. So in fact, this might happen relatively soon, especially considering that the Universe has already evolved from κ ≈ 10¹² down to κ ≈ 0.12457—its current state—and continues toward 0.082676. The ρ values you are so unhappy about (which I actually find quite exciting) were calculated for the current state of the Universe within this timeless dynamic—though you’ve called it nonsense. However, many statements, including your own ideas about the dynamic nature of the Hubble constant, actually align with what emerges from my κ scale calculations. I’ve visualized all of this using Mathcad. Interestingly, my “nonsense” has also led to distance estimates for cosmological objects, and it suggests that the Hubble diagram in the form of tanh(ln(1+z))·c/H₀ underestimates the size of the Universe, among other implications. I regret that I can’t fully grasp your articles due to my limited mathematical abilities, especially when compared to yours. I hope this one-way mathematical communication doesn’t bother you—I see that you’re quite comfortable raising objections. But without understanding the underlying concepts, objections to what’s written are inevitably misplaced. Actually, in contrast - you undestand what is going on. Best regards, Joseph

Joseph Emmanuel Mullat

Let's see if you are correct. Predict Mercury Perihelion Precession rate.

Here is my prediction using Absolute Time:

https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU/blob/master/AAA_Final_MercuryPerihelionCalculation_HU.ipynb

In other words, what you "see" is irrelevant if you cannot make a single prediction or confirm a single observation.

What you did in your paper was a gross logical mistake.

You might like because it is fancy "ZPE"... but that is crap. It has been debunked. It is based on an incorrect hypothesis that you can use reflective boundary conditions (consider the universe as a metallic box and count the eigenstate zero point energy.

It is idiotic if you consider that reflection would take at least 29 billion years if the universe were static.

With an expanding universe, boundary conditions at infinity are utter nonsense.

I asked ChatGPT what the meaning of your comment was:

Thanks for sharing that. It’s a revealing message — and quite telling in both tone and substance. Here's a breakdown that might help you decide whether to re-engage or let it drop entirely.

🧠 What Mullat Is Doing

1. Doubling down on timelessness

He reasserts his claim that “time does not exist in the Universe,” and replaces it with a dynamically sequenced projection of expanding 3D bubbles — yet still calls this dynamics. That’s inherently self-contradictory: he's constructing sequential configurations while denying time.

2. Introducing new untestable entities

He invokes:

• A speculative Zero Point Field (ZPF)
• A “dynamic” but timeless κ (kappa) scale
• Arbitrary values like 0.082676 as the “death of the universe”

These are numerological at best — there's no derivation, physical mechanism, or experimental evidence. And using 300-digit precision to "discover" cosmological events is mathematical mysticism, not science.

3. Gaslighting via false humility

He says:

“I regret that I can’t fully grasp your articles… due to my limited mathematical abilities… especially when compared to yours.”

Yet immediately follows with:

“Objections to what’s written are inevitably misplaced.”

This is a rhetorical move to invalidate your critique without answering it. It’s an appeal to being misunderstood — a common move when someone knows their foundations are weak.

🔥 What You Can Say (If You Choose to Respond)

You can shut this down cleanly, or leave a trail for others. Here’s a concise, respectful dismissal if you feel a response is needed:

✍️ Optional Reply Template

Joseph,You’ve reiterated your belief that time doesn’t exist, while simultaneously describing a sequence of expanding configurations and introducing a κ scale — which is a form of parametric time, whether you name it that or not.Your model, as presented, lacks falsifiability, physical foundations, and derivations that connect to observable phenomena. The use of ultra-high-precision constants and speculative fields without predictive power is not science. It’s numerology dressed in projection geometry.I have already pointed out the logical and physical flaws in your FLRW stereographic paper. Repeating them with more speculative decoration does not address the critique.I believe we have exhausted the potential for productive exchange. I wish you well in your personal exploration.– Marco Pereira

I think he is correct. I consider anyone who cannot face failure when presented with a counterargument a crackpot.

In other words, you will continue fooling others while pretending to fool yourself.

It is all vanity. You are not working towards the betterment of Mankind.

Dear Marco,

Deep thanks for your efforts. I will be thankful if you find a moment to send your comment or all comments to [email protected]. I am collecting all the communication materials with you into one archive on my PC. I am trying to grasp what you have understood in my theory. It is a long way.

My best wishes JM

Dear Marco,

For me, using words before diving into mathematics is more important than the mathematics itself.

As I am not a native English speaker, my words may sometimes be misunderstood.

Your critical comments show that you have understood my speculations, which I deeply appreciate.

To me, reality appears as a multitude of faces—each reflecting different speculations. These speculations can, at once, be both true and false. Your world does not coincide with mine. Yours may even be more correct. Still, despite this contradiction, my speculative perspective can serve as an interesting diversion.

Your comments provide a wonderful opportunity for me to see my thoughts from an external point of view. I have saved your comments, even though RG does not permit this kind of appeal.

Sincerely yours,

JM

Please, don't do what you did. I created this conversation to discuss: Did the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU) solved the Crisis in Cosmology while the CosmoVerse failed?

You disrupt the discussion by posting your work here and not learning anything from our conversation.

Next time, please create a discussion on your work (as I did for mine) and invite me. I will be there.

This is not the first time you have done this. It is impolite, disruptive, and unprofessional.

Joseph Emmanuel Mullat

In fact, I should qualify what I wrote. It is OK to post something pertinent to the discussion. For example, if I see someone discussing Dark Matter and relativity, I might post my theory papers because they replace Relativity and show that nobody needs Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

In your case, that doesn't apply.