I simplified the request since I had asked for conclusions. Those are not necessary. That said, in your confirmation, please state what you think would be the implications of this discovery.

I am being censored and cannot publish them anywhere visible. Your statement might help me.

Dear Marco!

Sorry, I'm not involved in this matter. But my first impression is that your work is very interesting. My spontaneous counterquestion is: Is this consistent with the theory of the "Big Bang"?

Second remark: You said: "I am being censored ..." Not really? Are we already thus far, five hundred years after Luther and Kopernikus?

My Regards! Hans

It is consistent with observations (e.g. CMB and d(z)).

You have to understand the scope of the discovery before you reach your Luther or Kopernikus conclusion.

What I presented is evidence that the Universe started without any Bang and later Spherical modes were excited. Spherical Acoustic Oscillations in an open 3D Universe are not allowed. Starting with no Bang means that there wasn't any Big Bang.

Since this is not part of your scope, you will never be able to make an informed judgement about censorship or not.

Thanks, anyway.

@Marco: My underlying question was: Is the statement of your research in accordance with the (cosmological) theories like "big bang" or with the observations about the reality. Obviously are there considerable inconsistencies to the theories. I assume that this is the reason because you are censored?

The particle physics leads also to fundamental inconsistencies to a "big bang" and some other nonsense in contemporary physics.

I have a small understanding of your paper although I'm not involved in your spezific scientific research.

My underlying question was: Is the statement of your research in accordance with the (cosmological) theories like "big bang" or with the observations about the reality.

My theory is consistent with reality. Below (vcDistancesmall.png) are parameterless predictions of all (Union 2.1 dataset) Type 1a Supernova distances from their redshifts z.

In addition, I provided evidence of 36 Bangs (ManyBangsGlobal.png) (starting small and growing) as the seeding force on Galaxy formation.

These Bangs were in the form of Spherical Acoustic Oscillations with a wavelength of 4 Billion Light Years. These are detectable by eyeball from the map my theory was able to create from the SDSS BOSS dataset:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytuEctnD334

Spherical Normal Modes means that we don't have a 4D Spacetime.

Acoustic Oscillations starting small means we don't have a Singularity nor Big Bang.

We still have a release of energy and the creation of hot plasma and the expansional cooling of that plasma. So, all the observables are covered by my theory.

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

I assume that this is the reason because you are censored?

I believe that my theory was censored just by laziness and arrogance. Laziness because the work contains a very different paradigm than the one most current physicists have been trained and learning is work. Arrogance because the Math required is trivial and thus my theory looks "Quaint". Someone told me that as if simplicity was a demerit. Only stupid people thinks that a theory that explains reality, gets better the more complex it becomes.

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

The particle physics leads also to fundamental inconsistencies to a "big bang" and some other nonsense in contemporary physics.

Without a Big Bang and Singularity Physics to support Higgs Mechanism for Mass creation, etc, the Standard Model of Particle Physics suffers.

Fortunately my theory also provide a new paradigm for matter (coherences of stationary states of deformation of the local metric) and a whole taxonomy of all Hyperon Family and Isotopes.

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

I have a small understanding of your paper although I'm not involved in your specific scientific research.

Please feel free to ask questions. I strongly suggest you to run my python scripts and play with the Map of the Universe in the Current Epoch.

There is nothing more motivating that seeing how the Universe looks like now.

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Universe-Trove

Dear Marco!

Thank you for your reply. "I believe that my theory was censored just by laziness and arrogance." How I'm thinking.

Can you agree resp. is your theory in accordance with the following:

The appearance of the universe was 14 Billions or 100 Billions or xxx years ago about the same as now. The galaxies are drifting through the universe. They are centres of material-energetical conversions resp. cycles. In the centre of any galaxy happened from time to time (50-100 million years) a gigantic explosion much grater than a supernova. The steadily realased energy and the energy of the central explosion "condensed" to material matter, aggregate to dust, stars and planets. The celestical bodys sink caused by breaking effects gradual to the centre. The cycle is closed.

It seems that the Univers works like a perpetuum mobile, but the different laws of nature on the different forms and stages of matter causing different and eternal cycles of matter. The laws of motion of matter are leading necessarily to the form of the universe how we can observe.

My Regards! Hans

To the breaking effects see: Thesis The Deceleration of moved Energy emitting Objects by the Dop...

Dear Hans!

First I would like to mention something about your article:

The Deceleration of moved Energy emitting Objects by the Doppler effect

The missing part in your article is the usage of the proposed methodology to derive a Cosmological Ruler d(z) and to apply it to SN1a Supernovae.

If your methodology can do what I did, then it becomes a contender in the possible explanations for redshifting and astronomical observations. Notice that standard Doppler redshift does not explain the 'observed' distances when connected to Hubble Law.

Before that it is just more homework for other people...:)

Experimental Test of your Theory

Let two beams of electrons and proton meet at a position in space to form hydrogen. According to your theory, as soon as the hydrogen is formed and light is emitted, its velocity will decrease tremendously.

Did you try to find out if this experiment was performed anywhere?

Article Generation of a fast atomic hydrogen beam

After creating atomic hydrogen beans one can transversely excite it and observe emission to test your theory. They might had done that already.

Article Spectroscopic investigation of energetic atoms in a DC hydro...

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3727/49/47/475201/meta

Am I wrong to conclude that these papers or research groups might be able to tell you if your theory is correct? Is hydrogen decelerating after emission? That can be tested by transverse hydrogen excitation and time of arrival analysis in pulsed hydrogen beams.

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

The appearance of the universe was 14 Billions or 100 Billions or xxx years ago about the same as now.

NO. The appearance of the Universe at 13.58 Billion years ago is not the same as now. My theory doesn't not support a steady state Universe

The galaxies are drifting through the universe. They are centres of material-energetical conversions resp. cycles. In the centre of any galaxy happened from time to time (50-100 million years) a gigantic explosion much grater than a supernova.

There is not evidence of repetitive explosions at the centers of galaxies. There are some 2 trillion galaxies and we can see 13.58 billion years. So according to your idea, there should 2e12/1e8=2000 explosions per year or 6-12 per day, larger than Supernovae explosions at the center of Galaxies...in addition to the otherwise explainable observations.

I don't think that this is consistent with reality.

The steadily realased energy and the energy of the central explosion "condensed" to material matter, aggregate to dust, stars and planets. The celestical bodys sink caused by breaking effects gradual to the centre. The cycle is closed.

No. this is not happening. Reason given above.

It seems that the Univers works like a perpetuum mobile, but the different laws of nature on the different forms and stages of matter causing different and eternal cycles of matter. The laws of motion of matter are leading necessarily to the form of the universe how we can observe.

No. This is very vague since speaking of "forms and stages of matter" is not defined. Despite of that, I would say No because your prior sentence seems to indicate that you 'believe' in a steady state Universe and that is not supported by observations.

Dear Marco

I can't evaluate the importance of Your research work , but it seems very serious and scientific.

But I do like your way of fighting - keep on fighting.

We all do know about academic arrogance .

Most importance solutions in the nature has a "simple" explanation .

About Your 4D space-time conclusion - I do agree with You.

Might be we should replace it with a space-energy nature, because every thing and proces in the nature is a matter of energy.

But we do have a big problem , we dont know the basic nature of energy.

Wish You luck with the project

Kurt Wraae

Thanks, Kurt

In reviewing your background, your comment takes even higher value and you are even more deserving of my admiration. You work in Cosmology and likely follow a geodesics approach and a 4D Spacetime.

It is laudable for you to provide any comfort to an alternative view.

I thank you very much for your open-mindedness and kind words.

Take a look (no strings attached, you don't need to report back..:) ) to the data analysis on the link below:

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Universe-Trove

It is quite rewarding to see the Current Universe and the History it tells us. This is my token of appreciation.

Dear Marco

I will keep contact to You.

Citation by A. Einstein:

Behind all discernible laws and connections,there remains something subtle,intangible and inexplicable.

I do have close family connection to Princeton.

Have a nice day

Kurt Wraae

Here is an update.

Proof that the Universe is Hyperspherical:

https://www.quora.com/If-we-could-not-prove-the-extra-dimension-mathematically-what-is-the-solution/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

I also place a Whistleblower Claim with NASA. NASA Ombudsman has been less than forthright with his answers and tried to shift blame to the National Science Foundation. I replied that CMB research is done by NASA and the problem is not with the SDSS BOSS research (which is funded by the NSF).

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Houston-We-have-a-Problem-WhistleBlower-Complaint-to-NASA

I haven't receive a reply from NASA's Ombudsman since my rebut.

There is a reason I don't expect a reply. An honest reply from NASA would address this Discovery.

In principle, I should share the laurels with the SDSS who were the people who actually collected the data. I wouldn't have a problem with that. I suspect that myself making a discovery on their data is not being well received, that is, they wouldn't like to share the laurels of this discovery with a nobody (in their view).

They also don't want to take the blame for not inspecting their own data for results that would disagree with their expectations (that the Universe is a 3D Universe and mass fluctuations can only happen along angular dimensions).

I started reading your UT and i found many similarities with my pet theory ( https://archive.org/details/hadjidakis_FQXI_3 ). It seems that you accept a light propagation on a straight line that is 45 deg. from the emitter's radial direction. This forced you to say the rather peculiar phrase: " The imprinted photon will carry that information in a way that erases the time flow difference."(p.16) This differentiates each photon from any other photon. Does this "information" retained after reflection? ,and if this is the case then a reflected light ray would have a limit of angle α in order to return to its emitter.

I wonder if you have considered a variable speed of light (e.g. ct=κ*Rt, where κ=2.35*10-18 sec-1) that would explain much simpler the redshift (λt/λobs = ct/cobs = Rt/Robs).

PS:

• The angle of light ray from C to A in Fig. 1 (p.14) is nearly 70 deg. and distorts(misleads) the whole visualisation. The line-of-sight vector should start from about 3.5 billion years old Universe (not 8 bys). In Fig. 1, α=35 deg. hence Rt=R020.5sin(45-α)=14*1.41*sin(45-35)=3.4 bys.
• I keep reading your paper ...

Considering a variable speed of light is something that is much more offensive to Physics than considering that they obey Maxwell's equations. I decided to follow Maxwell's equations since I didn't see anything that would make space change properties throughout time.

In fact, my Law of Gravity is derived using that assumption. I considered the elasticity to be the same and be only a property of space.

Making it a property of time would introduce unnecessary parameters and complication.

All Cosmology (SN1a Distances, Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve, Gravitational Lensing, Mercury) are explained without that complication.

Of course, I was puzzled by the way, Maxwell's Laws are obeyed at all in a 4D Propagation. I have my answers, but they seem to be too complex for people to understand.

By the way, I created this question and stripped all reference to my theory to avoid having to defend my theory and this discovery at the same time.

The discovery was made with a mapping d(z). This mapping could had been anything and we would still have spherical acoustic oscillations seeding the Galaxies.

Thanks for reading the article. Once the theory is accepted, I will make a review and make more realistic plots. It surprises me that I fail doing it by eyeball. The constraints are simple . 45 degrees and line-of-sight. I thing I have both reasonably right.

If the angle is wrong it is because I choose a bad point in the 8 GLY epoch. It just has to be moved a bit to the left.

Suggestion, the speed of light is a structural property of space. If you choose not to use elasticity as a constant, you will have to come up with a physical model explaining why is that to be the case.

If you have two solutions to a problem, one that doesn't vary the speed of light and another that does, forget the one that varies the speed of light.

That was the correct approach as applied to Gravity. There was not Physical model that would provide any guidance for an epoch-dependent Gravity. Under those conditions, people correctly labored and reached absurd results (Supernovae at 36 Billion Light Years away in 13.58 Billion Light Years Old Universe). At that point and only at that point, one should question if G is really steady.

Do you really mean that photons from large distances have distinguishably higher speed from their younger brothers?

@Ioan. Hadjidakis

No. Coincidently, this is a mistake (saying that ancient photons are faster than close ones) I made in the past and took me a few days to figure that out. Once I explained to the first person, I realized my mistake.

Photon travels with both radial and tangential velocities equal to c. The process should be view through Maxwell's Equations and Huygens Principle. At each de Broglie step, EM field polarizes space and in the next step, polarization creates EM.

I provided a solution to the Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve Conundrum

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/The-Case

and create my case against the Current Science.

Marco,

All hypotheses are valid and none should be dismissed out of hand. However studying yours in relation to a fuller picture reveals the conclusions to be inconsistent and based on completely inadequate data questionable foundations and false assumptions.

As Astrostatistics members & RAS fellow I may have studied 20-30 papers and sets a week from scores of different probe & survey sources (I'm now past retirement age). That's more than most, but still not enough for a really full picture (i.e. to see the whole proverbial 'elephant').

Your input seems to have been a tiny glimpse of a tiny part of including others assumptions, from which you make a leap to guess the shape of the creature. i.e. There are many far better and more complete data sets, and much better information on the structure and s distribution of matter in the universe, bearing no resemblance to your analysis.

You need far more research to even expose a few square mm of the 'elephant'. There are some far better visuals that the one you show, including 'fly through's' and kinetic mapping. The best recent data set is from the Planck survey, there are many interpretive papers (some disagreeing). The 3 pages of references in my own paper would also give you a very good start.

Study all those and the peculiar anisotropies and work out a model to produce them THEN you may have a valid theory which someone may print. Remember there are professionals with decades of experience who can't get published, no part time non professional stands an earthly chance!

In answer to your questions then 1) is 'No'. 'Indicates' is wrong. 'Could be interpreted as' would be better IF the foundational assumptions about 'seeding' were correct, which my own research suggests clearly not.

2) Is then nonsense as we could make up whatever patterns we wish from the distribution at that level of evidence, and far better explanations with greater correlation are available. You then leap to assumptions with no further backing at all!

I'm sorry that's not what you want to hear. I know up to 50 years ago I had many similar ideas from similar and better data input levels, all of which proved wrong on wider research. It took most of that 50 years and study of most ALL the massive data streams to even start to meet the requirements for a valid model I set out above. Even then the main journals won't dare publish anything 'off doctrine' unless you're an eminent astronomer and in a big collaboration. It's unsatisfactory but that's how it works.

Dear Dr. Jackson,

First thank you for taking the time to reply to me.

My first consideration is that in reviewing the astronomical evidence I provided, you should not preface your response with your extremely impressive qualifications. It unduly supports your response whatever it would be, which should be evaluated only by its logical content (be Markovian).

First, let me tell you how I would start evaluating my "evidence".

I would appreciate if you could perform these items, despite of being retired. I provided a github repository, a video to help you and a requirements.txt to help setting up the anaconda environment. It only takes half-hour, at most.

Now, let me now focus on your answers. I really appreciate them.

1) You said No to this item:

1) In the SDSS BOSS dataset, there is information on the cross-section of the Galaxy Density Map that indicates SPHERICAL SEEDING OF GALAXIES (SSG).

The "indicates" or "could be interpreted" are rhetorical artifacts. They are intended to attract response, so disregard them.

You are saying that I have to have "foundational assumptions about 'seeding'", which are clearly not necessary. We are evaluating evidence, that is, we are seeing something you never saw before, the galaxy density of the Current Universe. You should not come to it with preconceived ideas, like this does not fit my models, since one of the possible conclusions from evaluating the 'evidence' is that there is one extra spatial dimension and your models did not account for that.

Rebuttal to Dr. Jackson (1):

I used "indicate SPHERICAL SEEDING OF GALAXIES". Let me defend that:

There are galaxies which have been seeded somehow. To be in at the same distance (spherical nature), they only have to have the same z (it is irrelevant which mapping I use). Thus, these galaxies are in a spherical pattern and have been seeded. So, I stand by my statement of Spherical symmetry, seeding (I did not specify how, yet) and that includes the use of the word "indicate".

I obviously don't touch Declination and Right Ascension as they are not supposed to change according to Hubble Observations (or at least, there is no guidance on how they would change).

I will evaluate your response to (2) next. Please review the figure below if you didn't have the opportunity to do so yet.

Dr. Jackson said:

2) Is then nonsense as we could make up whatever patterns we wish from the distribution at that level of evidence, and far better explanations with greater correlation are available. You then leap to assumptions with no further backing at all!

This was the item:

2) 2SSG distribution coalesce into 36 clusters (exact number is irrelevant, as long as it is more than 1).

This is my rebuttal. Had Dr. Jackson run the scripts, he would had recognized that my only handling of the data was to limit the range since there are outliers (large densities) which might be connected to other processes. So, the visualization only relies on the elimination of outliers (increase in sensitivity) and contrast (color mapping).

I can see 36 clusters (or 37 or 35). The exact number is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that somehow (to my surprise also), galaxy density forms a radial pattern that is similar among curves. Also, curves are close to be multiples of each other and that is a sign of a linear process taking place.

So, the protocol will not produce any other pattern you might wish. The data I showed you, is just data (added and plotted) nothing else.

It is curious that you are talking about levels of confidence since the data I presented is not fitted nor clustered mathematically. I left the clustering to be done by eyeball.

This is not a fitting!

Here is the marginal distribution (alpha is equal do distance in normalize Universe radius).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfxqMsnAinE&t=40s

showing that the map is isotropic

Dear Dr. Jackson,

Thanks for giving me the opportunity of a rebuttal. The rebuttal is attached.

The main points are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHXMO6uPVvc

I wasn't sure if you would read my rebuttal and act upon it, so I made it sound final.

That said, I am open to continue our conversation. I value extremely your input. I disagree with the arguments you set forth this time.

Thank you very much, Dr. Jackson.

Marco Pereira

Dear Dr. Jackson,

I reviewed your review. Please, let me know if you would be open to a collaboration. I certainly value extremely your skills and hope we could work together.

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

PS - The Bargain is related to what hypotheses HU require in comparison to what we have now.

Post-Morten - I reviewed all your comments and sought to learn something. The Cosmic Ride you send me into is entertaining but it is missing the Forest by the Trees. Galaxy Density tells you a history. Galaxy themselves tells you little about Cosmogenesis.

The rebuttal now contains both discussions for convenience. People can judge the strengths of each argument.

I am sure you don't mind me reviewing the reviewer. I am sure that is something every scientist always want to do..:) Since I am not a scientist, I can.

Marco,

You may rebut as you wish, and also take or ignore my (free) advice as you wish, given without preconception, but (necessarily for all) identifying my own agreement with certain fundamental assumptions you make.

i.e.

1. 'Seeding' of galaxies. It's only a theory or assumption, and weakly evidenced' that galaxies have to be 'seeded' at all after the (so called) Big Bang Epoch. However I don't think that fatal to any similar analysis.

2. Redshift. Again distances are much in question as inconsistencies remain and acceleration expansion is NOT the only mechanism hypothesized for cosmic redshift. But again, not fatal.

3. Scale. You ignored my correction and repeated your incorrect understanding that filament scales are significantly smaller than they are. The Laniakea supercluster alone spans 500million lyrs! Helicity is seem in the cluster strings AND at larger scale in the CMB.

Your finding may or may not have any significance and your analysis may or not be correct from available data. I advised you that without carefully checking correlations in 3D to eliminate the resultant apparent concentricities, selection effects etc, no professional physicist or PR journal editor would countenance publication, particularly as you posit a '4th dimension', which would take far more rigorous argument & proof! That's good, candid and free advice Marco given in order to help you. You seem to resist further research, but that's your choice.

Lastly, I'm not 'Dr' Jackson, and despite many letters after my name I carry, like most, little weight in the Academic Astronomical community. (That's partly as I largely don't adhere to current doctrine and keep an open mind). Please just call me Peter.

I'm sorry my prognosis isn't what you wanted to hear but you shouldn't get upset, just keep learning and moving ahead (as I've done for many decades). You may also ignore my advice about eminent analysis. A comment to me from Sir Martin Rees reflects the normal view ; if top professors spent time checking over others theories (there are thousands) they'd have no time to follow their own! (or earn money assumedly).

I'm sorry I can't offer you any more help. Don't give up but up your game.

Peter

Thanks for reengaging. I will be happy to gather more information and promptly change my opinions.

Peter, I also don't like to use my Dr. because I think anything I say should carry its own weight. I only used Dr. as a sign of respect. My "knowledge" of Astronomy is nothing in comparison to yours. The only reason I state anything is because I understand the Scientific Method and see many flaws and have alternative solutions.

Let's see if we can have a meeting of minds on your items. Please disregard both my theory and my feelings. This talk should only be about the two items in my challenge.

I will call you Peter from now on.

Before I start, Peter - Do you really think I am trying to prove we live in a 2D Universe??? The SDSS BOSS data shows that we live in a embedded 3D spatial manifold and that that manifold is a closed hypersurface. I make the jump that that hypersurface is a lightspeed expanding hypersphere to satisfy Hubble Law (it does for short distances since Hubble Law can only work for short distances in a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical Universe).

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

Peter,

3. Scale. You ignored my correction and repeated your incorrect understanding that filament scales are significantly smaller than they are. The Laniakea supercluster alone spans 500million lyrs! Helicity is seem in the cluster strings AND at larger scale in the CMB.

Is the Laniakea in the SDSS BOSS dataset? If so, let me know the coordinates and we can look at it in the 3D Map and track down its relevance to the marginal distributions.

I provided a counterargument showing that the clustering is shown to exist in both perpendicular directions (Declination and Right Ascension). That cover 4 Billion light years * (PI/3)= 4.9 Billion light years or 10 times the scale of the Laniakea Supercluster. The other objection to an anecdotal example is that you didn't provide evidence or information that this pattern happens far and close and everywhere and in every direction. Clustering is shown to exist from 0 to 4 Billion Light Years distance from us.

You can see how uniform the clustering is. I made a few cuts [30,35],[40,41] Declination degrees. One can make as many cuts as you want. The process that seeded galaxies is uniform.

Again, please don't use the CMB research since its analysis requires the Universe to be homogeneous, isotropic and 3D and that is what is being discussed here on the SDSS BOSS dataset. Don't make us have to choose between two surveys. Why direct me to look at shadows when you can see reality in the SDSS BOSS dataset?

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

2. Redshift might fail in the current view. I predicted the distances for the redshift z and the measured distances are just fine according to my theory. I will not defend how people calculate their distances in the L-CDM since this is one thing I criticize and want to change. Just look at my predictions and tell me that there are problems. I don't see them.

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

1. Seeding of Galaxies - I am providing the evidence that Galaxies have been seeded. You have the evidence in your computer, if you downloaded the scripts and SDSS BOSS datasets. There is no need to refer to what the community think.

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

My game is to get a straight answer from a scientist in the community.

I showed you a 3D Mass Density Plot of the Universe (as per SDSS BOSS Survey). I know that this is a sample. That said, the picture contains quite a lot of information, in the sense that it is perfectly coherent across distances and angles.

Item (1) only requires you to acknowledge the existence of a high density region at some distance from us (EARTH) and that region is Spherically distributed around us.

Do you acknowledge that? Yes or No, Peter?

Marco,

I re-iterate & clarify my response to your two statements;

1. I do NOT agree; "..indicates SPHERICAL SEEDING OF GALAXIES" partly as I don't agree 'seeding' at all, but mainly because the pattern can be produced in many way. You may say "..one of which may suggest.." but then need to re-produce how and falsify other possibilities. NOT easy!

2. I disagree; "..coalesce into(n) clusters" as that suggests a limited 2D view can be simply interpolated.

It's YOUR job, not mine or anyone else's, to falsify your conception, but as an example; if the local cosmos had a structure as for instance a 'cosmic web' or 'strands of hair' (in 3D) then many viewpoint may give a similar distribution.

".. Is the Laniakea in the SDSS BOSS dataset?.." YES! right through it. It's not 'anecdotal'!

It's also YOUR job to find references, but to help even further I've dug out this important 3D dynamic view. Note the 'web' and 'strands'.

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

* I don't think you suggest 2D. You seemed to suggest 4D.

* 'Hubble law' is not a 'Law' it's a theory, which we know is flawed.

You say; " Why direct me to look at shadows when you can see reality in the SDSS BOSS dataset? You seem to completely misunderstand the limits imposed by using just one dataset & 2 dimensions, and the methodology and cross checking required for credibility. Think on that as you watch the above video.

I'm sorry I can't spend any more time trying to help you. I have important and urgent work to progress and too little time already. You must now consider my advice on how to help yourself if you wish so advance.

Best of luck

Peter

Peter,

I only asked this:

Item (1) only requires you to acknowledge the existence of a high density region at some distance from us (EARTH) and that region is Spherically distributed around us.

Do you acknowledge that? Yes or No, Peter?

Why would you answer something else? Let's take it slowly, such that I can understand exactly what is the hiccup.

Do you acknowledge the existence of a high density region at some distance from us (EARTH) and that region is Spherically distributed around us?

Laniakea - Perseus-Pisces superclusters form part of concentric spherical regions of high density as predicted and demonstrated in the globe below. The radius is only 200 million light-years, or be located at 0.0147

Mea Culpa. I made a mistake on the processing of the Vizier data. This is a smaller subset of 1730 clusters with redshifts. Small in comparison with the 1,3 million objects in SDSS BOSS dataset.

I expected it to resemble the main distribution but it wouldn't necessarily.

I will continue working on prioritizing larger clusters to see if the smaller cluster are obscuring the appearance of a mass distribution pattern. Currently, my plots are not paying attention to cluster size.

The subset of 1700 known Cluster contained in the Abell Catalog is not representative of the larger dataset with 1.3 million objects provided by the SDSS BOSS Survey. That was expected.

I had some hope to find all Superclusters to be lined around as the Laniakea Supercluster, that is, having most of their cluster components at the same redshifts (same distance). Since I couldn't figure out yet within the Abell Catalog, which cluster belong to which Supercluster, I cannot tell you if, at least, that expectation was fulfilled.

Please feel free to provide advice on the interpretation of the Abell catalog.

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

Since my competing narrative is L-CDM, here is a demonstration on how the Hypergeometrical Universe theory falsifies 'observations' that have been attributed to Dark Matter:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-general-relativity-and-dark-energy/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

Dear Marco!

Reality are the observations and experimental findings and not the theories and mathematical descriptions. Our world view what means our picture about the reality is characterised primarily by theories and mathematical derivations.

To the facts:

-We observe the well-known spiral shape of undisturbed galaxies.

-We observe from time to time gigantic outbursts of radiation in the dephts of the universe. As I know unexplainably for the cosmologists.

-We observe galaxies at different stages visible as galaxies with different shapes. It is very easy to reconstruct the gigantic energetical-material cycles of matter within galaxies and their environment.

-We can only observe a distance of ≈14*10E9 ly around.

If an object resp. particle radiates energy its movement is involved (par example "Bremsstrahlung")

-...

Forget the "big bang". It has never happen. Hubble and also LeMaitre did not know the images taken by the Hubble-telescope.

If your obviously mostly mathematically results in accordance with the reality/observations then they are seriously.

My Regards! Hans

You are preaching to the Choir, Hans.

Read here to understand how HU is consistent with Reality (as seen in the SDSS BOSS Survey) and falsifies all evidence for Dark Matter and Dark Energy

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-general-relativity-and-dark-energy/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

To be more precise, I am still missing creating a simulation of Bullet Clusters. That said, my Hypergeometrical Force allows for the existence of large amount of Hydrogen gas in orbit around galaxies. These are held by this new force as opposed to Newtonian or HU Gravity. So, there is plenty of Dark Matter in the form of cold hydrogen gas. The loose nature and low density of these clouds make them easily the subject of overshooting. So, physically speaking I don't have any problem mimicking whatever is in the skies. The issue is that I have to modify perhaps Gadget-2 to incorporate the extra force and eliminate Dark Matter or make the Dark Matter equal to hydrogen (attracting each other and just cold). That requires effort.

I don't know how do you call matching astronomical observations, "obviously mostly mathematical results"?

Do you know that my theory replicates both SN1a Distances and Spiral Galaxy rotation curves without any parameter nor Dark Matter or Dark Energy?

Show me your corresponding results.

Did you read anything I wrote?

My regards, Marco

Below is an answer to a curious scientist's question:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6381838601210064896

Another achievement of the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory:

**Where can I buy the supercomputer you used to create this video? In the end you have to take the parameters into account how far the objects are (big errors in many measurements), how much mass they have (errors here as well), in which directions they move at which speed (almost no complete datasets here) and then run millions of simulations with different start distributions till you see the distribution of galaxies as seen on Earth today. Amazing. Must have been billions of hours of computational time!**

On my request for confirmation of my discovery, I thought that a scientist on the other side would follow the following steps:

a) confirm that I am using the correct data and thus answer the questions;

Can we use the SDSS BOSS Survey to estimate Mass distribution in the Universe?Am I using the right datasets?

Is there anything wrong with my plotting subroutine?

Those are the evident first pitfalls where I could had gone wrong.

b) Once the data quality and data plotting is certified, one would consider the projection of astronomical observations by the SDSS team into the present Universe.

Dr. Jackson never weighted on any one of those items. I don't know why and certainly don't know why he thought that just reading code was good enough. Consider Matthias Jaeger ( the ESA/Hubble Public Information Officer) who like Dr. Jackson also have a PhD in Astronomy. https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/My-Conversations-with-Matthias-Jaeger-3

He immediately realize the value of knowing the position of all galaxies in the Current Universe. Knew enough that he also knew that this is impossible to derive in the current view. The current view cannot simply project the past into the present. They have to create supercomputer simulations that kind of reproduce what we observe and them thrust that those simulations are good enough to project another several billions of years of dynamics.

That explains both why Matthias never came back after I explained how easy it is to do it in my theory and why Dr. Jackson never bother to run the scripts or understand them.

Once we reached item (b), one could ask if we are seeing a spherical distribution of galaxies. Notice that there are galaxies or densities of several levels. When one play with contrast, one is subsetting the distribution. This subsetting has a physical meaning. By choosing a subpopulation, one also a different physics.

Dr. Jackson models Galaxy formation with Dark Matter. That is dandy if Dark Matter exists. If not, then Dr. Jackson has a problem.

My theory is not just the observation of the SDSS BOSS results. I also predicted all SN1a galaxies and did so without a single parameter.

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Giants-in-the-Suburbs

In the next breadth, I predicted the Galaxy Rotation Curve

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-angular-acceleration-of-a-particle-moving-in-a-circle-of-radius-r-and-angular-velocity-w/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

It is explained in simple terms. Why it is so simple to explain something that puzzled Astronomers like Dr. Jackson for almost a hundred years. The reason is the correct paradigm. Using the correct paradigm simplifies our understanding.

Nobody would ever say that given that Dark Matter and Dark energy were born in such humble manner (unsupported parameters in the Hubble Function), they came a long way as unsupported parameters in modeling Galaxy Rotation Curve, to unsupported parameters in CMB and Bullet Clusters.

Notice that the invisible Dark Matter Halo 'seen' all over the place is still parametrized (size and shape) and thus unsupported.

Fitting something is never to be considered 'supporting evidence' of anything. It is just how you build a Castle of Cards. You can compare that with my theory. No need for anything to explain SN1a distances. No parameters (unsupported) for Galaxy Rotation. All the Hydrogen Halo should be there. In fact, they play no role in the rotation of the galaxy. They just take care of themselves.

This extra hydrogen clouds explain Weak Lensing and will certainly explain Bullet Clusters. The hydrogen cloud is there because of "some" gravitational attraction and because of the trap by the Hypergeometrical Force.

This means that their connection to the core of the galaxy is tenuous, so there is no surprise if they overshoot the colliding galaxies.

This means that my simple theory explains away Dark Matter "evidence" and does so from first principles. It is not an ad hoc theory like General Relativity or MOND. It is not like grasping at Straws -- shooting in the Dark... building a Castle of Cards.

The SDSS BOSS Survey provides real evidence for the extra spatial dimension and the hyperspherical topology of the Universe. There is not fitting parameters, despite of Dr. Jackson initial mistake. It is just the observation of the most precise measurement of mass distribution. The SDSS BOSS dataset is done by a single team, working on a robotic telescope and using the same protocols for all measurements. There is not better way to do that job.

So, it is unfortunate that Dr. Jackson would talk about Laniakea and them offer no help when I wanted to plot it (to find its real relevance to the map.

Currently, I am struggling with modifying Gadget-2 to incorporate my Hypergeometrical Force and to eliminate Dark Matter or make Dark Matter behave like hydrogen and be subject to both Newtonian Gravitation and Hypergeometrical Force.

The Goal is to start with normal spiral galaxies with the hydrogen halo, collide them and see if the final results will resemble the "evidence" for Dark Matter found in Bullet Clusters.

I wouldn't think this is even necessary but considering how much 'evidence' I have to provide ( I and only I have to provide it), I suppose I will have to produce that simulation.

Help is welcome. I compiled and ran gadget-2. I am having trouble reading the output files. The fortran code doesn't compile. Once that is done, the rest should be easy.

I am sure that you all are eager to know why the Zel'dovich approximation works since the original Lagrangian was missing the action by the Hypergeometrical Force. I am also curious about that.

Marco,

I see you'd like another confirmation of my response on a spherical distribution as your question (1). It was a clear NO! I can't 'confirm' your analysis from the available information. I hope that's now clear, though you seem to just dismiss the important related information I also gave to help.

A few more points;

1. 'Lanaeka' is all around us, we are part of it! It's very structure gives the distribution around us.

2. Planck was good but Gaia has started giving a vastly better dataset.

3. I agree most current theory is flawed or simply wrong interpretation. However there are many thousands of alternative theories out there from professional scientists alone, most far better researched & evidenced.

4. We've found maybe ~half the 'dark' matter first envisaged. Bound molecular gases such as Hydrogen are common but not so 'dark' and a small fraction. We've also found over 100 times the 'dust,' and far more additional plasma, mainly unbound electron/positrons which ARE 'dark' to EM (n~1) and is the most common form of matter by far. If you confined your surmised objection to some 'exotic' dark matter then I'd concur.

5. The galaxy rotation problem is NOT a problem once the WHOLE galaxy including the halo mass is included. I've described the 'lockstep' rotation (as has Sci-Am) more like that of a 'dinner plate', whose particles do not 'fly off' Consider WHY and HOW galaxies rotate in the first place (hardly at all addressed by mainstream). Your 'new force' has no physical basis and is simply an 'idea' for something with more detailed and well supported hypotheses, so either not needed or possibly just a new 'name' for one of them. Most would call it 'arm waving' and not even look. That may be wrong but that's how it is.

6. I saw you claim; "NO theory suggests...." (we can't be central to some spherical distribution. Yet more homework needed. Look up one of the best supported foundations of moderm cosmology the Copernican principle.

7. I DID read your short papers and claims (the ones without dead links). You actually 'derive' nothing with the slightest hint of the required rigour! Proposing anything new need as part of the work a FULL search of the literature. You'd also need to cite and refer to relevant WELL researched conflicting theories and demonstrate in detail why they fail.

I'd like you to take the positives from the above as all hypotheses are potentially valid and should be explored. However making disparaging or critical remarks on those who DO try to help you will likely put off all others.

I also can't do your work for you. I have to little time already to progress my own, frankly rather more important, work. Nobody will. If you wish it done I'm afraid it's all down to you! More research, do a PROPER scientific paper, and try to get it peer reviewed. I wish you luck.

Peter said: "I'd like you to take the positives from the above as all hypotheses are potentially valid and should be explored.

However, making disparaging or critical remarks on those who DO try to help you will likely put off all others."

MP Replied: I know about the balance one has to have. On the other hand, if I allow you to state that you have a poor opinion of my theory without reading it or understanding it, if I allow you to just say NO to Item (1) without demanding reasons, every reader will conclude that I don’t’ have a good argument. That is clearly not the case.

Please consider my criticism in the context of a scientific discussion. It has nothing to do with your effort, friendly demure and knowledge. It has with the fact that in a scientific discussion, only scientific arguments are relevant.

For the sake of Science, I will have to rebut your arguments. Thank you very much for all the help .

https://s3.amazonaws.com/hypergeo/static/media/uploads/pdfs/MarcoSummary.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.69.6063&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://people.csail.mit.edu/asolar/papers/YessenovKS17.pdf

http://www.toddzenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/OpportunityDiscovery.pdf

Original Article:

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WSN-82-2017-1-96-1.pdf

Proof of an extra spatial dimension and that General Relativity and L-CDM are WRONG and cannot explain Reality! This article also falsifies SN1a distances and Spiral Galaxy (DM evidences).

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WSN-98-2018-127-139.pdf

This introduces the Hypergeometrical Force and falsifies the Coma Cluster findings (Fritz Zwicky first hint of a Dark Matter), the Bullet Cluster and the Weak Gravitational Lensing:

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/WSN-101-2018-222-228.pdf

Here is my exchange with Dr. Michael Mooney. Dr. Mooney seems to be an astronomer with a PhD who amazingly enough cannot overcome the first step in understanding my theory - If in a 3D space, an embedded surface is 2D, THEN in a 4D Space and embedded surface is 3D!

This is the level of astronomers out there. No wonder they don't get anything right!

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

MP Says:

A proof is what you have if the discovery is not refuted. That is standard science.

The evidence was provided and I do it again here:

Proof of an Extra Spatial Dimension by Marco Pereira on Hypergeometrical Universe

if you want to see evidence, follow the link and do the homework. Pick up the scripts from github and the data from the SDSS site and run the scripts.

Read my argument in view of the data and create your counterargument if you have one or confirm the discovery.

For a scientist like yourself, I even created a place for you to give me hell and tell me wrong:

How can I get this simple discovery independently verified?

so, I make the life of someone that has criticisms easy. I am not afraid of criticism.

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

The dimension is not imaginary. The hyperspherical acoustic oscillations seeded galaxies and the proof is based on the mass distribution of the galaxies in the Universe. Hence it is not an opinion.

So, I hope you overcome your personal bias and become an objective scientist.

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

I use “proof” not to irritate the layman but because scientists like yourself refuse to confirm or refute the discovery.

So, I call it “proof” in the same way that from observing our sky one can consider the distribution around us to be a spiral galaxy.

In my case, I don’t look into the sky. I use the data obtained by the SDSS. The concept is the same. In the same way our observations are considered a “proof” that the Milky Way is a spiral galaxy, the SDSS BOSS survey data is an even more striking “proof” of the existence of an extra spatial dimension.

I don’t know how you created this comment without even reading the evidence.

I will be awaiting at researchgate for your rebuttal or confirmation.

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

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

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

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

Dr. Mooney Says:

You can wait forever for further argument and confirmation. You seem to be a self-promoter who doesn’t understand what “spatial dimension” means.

Basic geometry review: A line is one dimensional. A plane is two dimensional. A volume (space) is three dimensional. These axes exhaustively describe volume. There is no further axis and there is no “hypergeometrical universe.” I’m out.

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

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

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

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

MP Says:

I have a PhD in the same way you have a PhD. so before you assume something, you should assume that I might be right and you might be wrong.

I guess you don’t understand geometry. In a 3D space, the embedded surface is two dimensional.

In a 4D Space, the embedded surface is tridimensional.

Simple as butter. Go and learn a little before giving lessons. They betray your lack of understanding.

I will write you down as someone that cannot understand basic Physics.

I’m out.

I am amazed by the low quality of Dr. Michael Mooney reasoning..:)

Just because you can only see x, y and z in your Universe does not preclude this Universe being EMBEDDED into a higher dimensionality spatial manifold.

This simple fact did not make into Dr Mooney's Brain in his formative years, so it seems he cannot learn it now.

I came back because I am still amazed that Dr. Mooney call himself a scientist.

Best wishes, Dr. Mooney.

I was wrong about the SDSS data analysis because I didn't realize that it used CMASS protocol and CMASS requires that for any given redshift z, only galaxies with the same mass be part of the data.

That forces the distribution of mass to be spherical.

It also created recurrences.

This discussion would have been much shorter if someone (an astronomer, perhaps) had just told me that.

That said, the theory doesn't need this analysis. There is plenty of support from all the other surveys (Supernova Cosmology Project and Planck CMB survey).

.