Don't be silly, Adrian. You cannot argue scientifically by expressing empty statements like this one "The reasons why your theory is invalid have been explained to you not so long ago" without providing a link, or anything that I could fend off.  

An idea is entitled to see its detractors..:)

On the other hand, that is also a sign of weakness (mental).  Even if my idea were wrong, stupid, etc. I presented data from SDSS BOSS that showcase hyperspherical acoustic waves.

That is independent upon my little theory..:)  Never mind my theory. Just mind the fact that I discovered them and that they are not consistent with a 4D Spacetime.

So, your answer is EMPTY... nothing there.  Just an illogical knee-jerk reflex to save the theory you depend upon to make a career, keep your relevance, feed your kids etc.. Nothing related to science.

"The Universe is a homogeneous spider web of galaxies. There is no rotation center. No Global angular momentum. No mechanism for Torque."

At the same time everyone forgets about the spins in standart model. Also forgets about similar relationship between the speed of light and the limit of angular momentum of a black hole.

With hypergeometry one must be consistent until the end.

Thanks, Vasilly,

This question was aimed to get someone/everyone/anyone to redo (or run my scripts) my analysis and reach a conclusion - supporting a 4D Spacetime or decrying it.  My conclusion rebuts the crappy theory that Adrian Sfarti swears by...:) 

I just want an honest discussion about the SDSS BOSS data, especially about the Hyperspherical Waves I discovered there and its implication to the Standard Model of Cosmology.

You know the meaning of scientific dissenting.  Someone (e.g. Albert Einstein) will come up with an idea and publish/debate that idea.  

In face of censorship, scientific dissenting takes the form of creating challenging questions. This is an available path.

The community (of scientists) should take down the so-called theory with arguments.

You seem to be incapable of reading (illiterate).  Many Bangs not "multiple big bangs".

My theory states exactly the opposite "multiple Big Bangs" would convey.

The evidence of many Bangs (in a crescent order), indicates that the Universe acoustic oscillations started small and increased). SO, the Universe didn't come up from a Big Fiery Bang (a singularity, Planck time etc and all the BS).

Do yourself a favor.  Learn how to read and then express opinions, if you can create them.

"You have no proof of the validity of your theory. Quite the contrary , there is ample proof of the invalidity of your theory."

I don't need to repeat that: "saying something....doesn't make it true". I asked for a single link to such exchange or argument. 

I provided the evidence of hyperspherical acoustic waves in the body of the question.  Why aren't you looking into it? That is the question.... my theory is the answer to the question.

By the way, where is the evidence of Dark Energy or Dark Matter...or Inflation Theory???  Would that come from distance measurement that rely on SN1a Supernova d(z) which I am contesting??

I cannot make it easier for you to shoot down the scientific innuendo that my question was designed to convey....

I am acting in good faith...Data is here.. .Analysis is here... It takes few minutes to get the data and run the scripts... it just looks bad for you to repeat empty sentences without providing any proof...:)   That is not how science is debated.

You are doing a disservice to Science and the scientific community for not even reading the body of the question, never mind the article, concluding whatever you want to conclude irrespectively to what I wrote, discovered.

That is a boorish behavior that has no place among scientists...:)

############################################

Github:

"github.com/ny2292000/TheHypergeometricalUniverse"

Below is the self-help video to set up the Anaconda environment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04JeZ1n4qNI

Attached it the proof of hyperspherical waves.

Below are links to how one debate ideas:

I spent a very good time explaining, defending the theory to George Dishman and Jonathan Doolin.  During that discussion, I had to modify my own understanding of how ancient photons travels along the 4D spatial manifold.  That understanding is still changing... that said, that is a very small part of my theory.  I benefitted from discussion with them and know that George Dishman is the person who understands the theory the best...  It takes time... it takes good faith to ask questions, as opposed to reading what you believe I would had written from your preconceived ideas.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_would_anyone_think_that_Strict_Relativity_is_valid_over_Cosmological_Distances

This is my review of Antoine J. H. Acke work on Gravito-Electromagnetism:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/My_review_of_Antoine_JH_Acke_Gravito-Electromagnetism_Explained_by_a_theory_of_Informaton-2

I honestly sought to understand if that theory was fundamental. If it were then that would lead me to try to find out a common thread...

I don't mind being wrong. In fact, I would love to be proved wrong. Interacting with people who cannot read is upsetting...:)

That is why I make it so easy for people to find mistakes in my theory.

E.g. Here I stated that HU expands (recast) Newton's Laws

https://www.quora.com/How-influential-is-Sir-Isaac-Newton/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

The ideas are presented in simple way. Anyone can rebut what I wrote.

Another example:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-difference-between-truth-knowledge-your-view-marco-pereira

Here I say Adrian that: He Cannot Handle The Truth..:) and stop kissing that beautiful pig..

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-difference-between-truth-knowledge-your-view-marco-pereira

The evidence for the Big Bang is the CMB. Nothing before the CMB is visible.  One cannot see Inflation, the Big Bang itself, Singularity etc.  The only information we have comes from the hot plasma blackbody radiation that was freed at 380,000 years after the Big Pop.

The Many Bangs presented as evidence would produce a hot plasma  and thus produce a CMB.  In fact, I calculated the energy released to be equal to 1E21 Supernovae during the first 3012 years of the Universe.

The Hyperspherical Topology proposed in HU, explains perfectly homogeneity of CMB without the need of instantaneous thermal equilibrium and Inflation.

So, there isn't only ONE solution. I provided this one in my article. You would know about it had you read my article before criticizing it. 

The reason my theory is not a solution to EFE is because I am proposing a topology with a dynamic 5D Spacetime that rebuts EFE. I am also providing evidence from the SDSS dataset that rebuts GR.

Did you understand that There is More Than One Solution that Explains CMB?

##################################################

Just to make a comparison, when I read Antoine's article, I wrote:

"I apologize for doing such a cursory reading. If I misinterpret something, let me know and I will correct my so-called review."

This is being open to ideas and being polite, respectful of someone else's work.  Just for guidance, Adrian.  You are more than welcome to write a review of my work.  It is available

 I explained the Cosmological Redshift without a single parameter. So, I know what is the origin of redshift. L-CDM explains it with Dark Energy...:)  Is that what you bring as evidence that I am wrong. Did you read my derivation of d(z) and how it matches SN1a Supernova distances.

This is a prediction as opposed to a fitting.

Are you serious that you are still talking without ever reading my work? You have no shame???

EFE is ad-hoc.  My theory also predicts Gravitational Lensing and Mercury Perihelion Precession angle.  

I can rebut EFE if I show that there is evidence that the Universe has one extra dimension and behaves like a lightspeed expanding hypersphere.

As I mentioned, you are welcome to write a review of the theory.  It will be good for you, since you will be reading it for the first time. It is clear for anyone to see that you are a blind mathematician and not a physicist.

Only a mathematician would say: "Math says that you are wrong." while referring to the solution to an AD-HOC equation.

For instance - my theory derives a law of gravitation. That law shows that G is epoch-dependent, which implies that SN1a are also epoch dependent. I derived the SN1a epoch dependence to be G^(-3). which would mean that distances have to be corrected by G^(3/2) (they are overestimated).

What do you think is a more physical (less offending to physics)?

a) That G is epoch dependent (That same paradigm was used to derive Natural Laws from first principles).

b) The Whole Universe was condensed in an infinitesimal volume which expanded to infinity (at infinite speed) ... matter was created of nothing... Dark Energy (nowhere to be seem) drove the Inflation and later slowed down (for no good reason) and then accelerated again..etc..

Option a) explains the Universe without a single parameter.  Option b) cannot prove the existence of Dark Matter which makes up 68% of the Universe... where matter is only 5%... so for each kilogram of matter around you there is 13 Kg of Dark Matter.. and you cannot find it...not Dark Energy...

A mathematician would certainly choose b)...since that is an EFE solution.

###############################################

You would need to come up with an experimental falsification. Of which , you have none.

I don't need to prove that the tests applied to GR were a falsification. 

I just need to prove that another solution also pass those tests.

Unlike you, I do believe scientists do a great job collecting data, designing experiments. My issue is with interpretation.

I came up with evidence of a 5D hyperspherical spacetime by showing hyperspherical acoustic waves footprint on the galaxy density as view by SDSS BOSS.  That is how one rebuts a 4D Spacetime paradigm.  That is the trust of my QUESTION.

Adrian Sfarti,

I gave you the scripts, told you how to set up the anaconda environment and you tell me that I don't have an experiment. This is a Cosmological problem. I have ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS.  That is how one does science in Cosmology.

Stop beating around the bush. focus on my evidence and say something meaningful.

Don't be a lazy sophist.. Stop saving face.... nothing can be done at this point..:)  Nobody wants to know about my theory here. Here is the place to discuss the evidence that I provided.

I will create a question where you can present your observations about my theory for everyone to see... Make me proud!!!

Here it is:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_Adrian_Sfarti_thinks_about_the_Hypergeometrical_Universe_Theory

 I will forgive your prior mistakes and allow you to start with a clean slate.  Please feel free to contribute to the review of my work.

Don't forget to rebut my criticism of yours.  It is here and it very critical.  Hyperspherical Waves are evidence of a 5D Hyperspherical Spacetime.

Notice that I emphasize the stupidity of your mistakes because you are extremely arrogant and disrespectful of other people work.

When I say that EFE is ad-hoc, I say that because it is. There is no criticism to Einstein for coming up with an ad-hoc equation. The comment is to stop Adrian Sfarti from hiding behind Einstein to defend L-CDM.

Ad-hoc equations are as good as hypotheses or postulates. They might be wrong.

They might be just one solution to the problem. there might be another.

I would say that Adrian Sfarti made a fool of himself but he doesn't even deserve that much credit.

I don't know exactly what he means about doing "experiments' in cosmology. I suppose (guessing wildly) that experiment might be guessing two models and see which fits better..:)

The scripts don't do anything other than plot 1.3 million galaxies in Celestial Coordinates in the Current Epoch (using HU Newton's 1st Law) and then looking around it (perpendicular to the angular dimension). 

I am writing this to help anyone else. Adrian is too stupid to understand it.

In any event, he dodged this question and left the room...:)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_Adrian_Sfarti_thinks_about_the_Hypergeometrical_Universe_Theory

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Slippery-Sophist-Never-Meaningfully-Criticize-Anything

Repeat your claim here where everyone can read.  We will argue there..:)

Your theory is incomplete if 5D describes it. You need 5D to express electromagnetism, and 6D to express mass. UP to 10D is needed when quantum effects are considered at high energy, and 12D is needed for the large scale cosmology of super symmetry.

When symmetry is lacking then you need the 26D of original string theory. All of these dimensional frames can be constructed on a base of three velocity components vectors or tensors, instead of three directional length components.

The researchers have agreed in another thread that GR breaks down at high energy when QM must be considered.

@Jerry Decker

Researchers agreeing means nothing else that people are able to be Sheeple.

You should read my theory before stating thing like that. This is not a theoretical conversation about requirements to describes this or that. If you state that I need something, you have to provide a proof (written somewhere that whatever you say is an absolute requirement) and after reading my work, show how my model for matter does not explains mass..or electromagnetism.

It seems you didn't do either.

My posting is quite simple and direct. I am stating that spherical acoustic oscillations are not consistent with a 3D Universe but are consistent with a hyperspherical Universe. Just agree with that or not.... That is what I would like to hear instead of a lecture on something else.

I RETRACTED MY ANALYSIS OF THE SDSS DATA. THE WAVES (RECURRENCES) WERE DUE TO BIAS IN THE DATA COLLECTION. THE PROTOCOL CMASS REQUIRED ASTRONOMERS TO, FOR A GIVEN REDSHIFT Z, ONLY COLLECT DATA ON GALAXIES WITH THE SAME MASS.

THAT SAID, THERE IS PLENTY OF SUPPORT FROM THE REST OF THE SURVEYS:

SUPERNOVA COSMOLOGY SURVEY AND THE PLANCK SATELLITE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND.

Jerry Decker

If you don't bother to read my theory or ask any questions, you can only say nonsense.

In other words, it is arrogant on your part to think that I don't have answers to your questions/objections.