Dear Marco,

Your courage to speak what you think to be the truth, to the power that be (even if you might be wrong) and the decision to be a whistleblower; must be appreciated by everybody. This is the primary pre-requisite of any scientist worth the name. What is killing modern natural science is exactly the scourge of conformity and compromise for the sake of fame, fortune and funds and at the behest of parasitic world monopoly capitalism and its resurrected theological cosmology of the medieval past. The myth of the Big Bang creation of the universe was accepted as the official theory of physics in a conference at the Vatican in 1982, which excluded the radical dissidents like Hoyle, Ambartsumian, Arp, Burbidge et al.

That being said, I would take issue with some of your premises that “the Universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface”. This by proxy accepts the same official cosmology, which you claim to oppose! Because it pre-supposes a created (multiple or not; or no matter how far back in the past) universe. The only viable alternative of a “created” (this presupposes a omnipotent and omniscient creator) universe is an infinite and eternal universe, where matter particles (atoms of Democritus) are in self-induced eternal motion, development, evolution, change, “coming into being and passing out of existence”. The thinking brain of man is the highest developed product of matter. This view of the universe was insisted upon by all dialectical thinkers starting from the greatest of all, namely Epicurus.

This perspective of the universe previously seemed without merit and was demonized by ALL ruling classes of history including the present one. But no more now, after quantum electrodynamics (QED) is recognized!. Modern astrophysical evidence and our positive knowledge so far, allow for a dialectical universe (infinite and eternal) to be the only viable perspective. Please see: “The Breeding Galaxies”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320065643_BIG-BANG_CREATED_OR_AN_ETERNAL_AND_INFINITE_UNIVERSE Also: https://www.amazon.ca/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445

The dialectical view allows only a quantized, discrete and shell-like structure of the universe starting from the atom to the solar system, star clusters, galaxies and their family groups, to the clusters and super-clusters of galaxies etc.; which might fit into the distribution indicated by the SDSS BOSS Dataset plot in your article.

A humble suggestion:: Halton (Chip) Arp (I was lucky enough to be a personal friend) is the "model person" I would recommend you to follow as (a whistleblower) astrophysicist, and particularly because, you seem to know so much about SDSS BOSS Dataset. The article cited above was inspired and highly praised by Chip Arp. Chip Arp with his assertion of discordant redshifts of the quasars; stands in the same relation to Big Bang cosmology that Copernicus and Galileo were to Ptolemaic Epicycle cosmology. A vindication of Chip Arp will be the death-knell of Big Bang creation.

Official cosmology dismissed Arp’s claim of galaxy-quasars association as merely the line-of-sight coincidences, but how many such coincidences are possible? Chip Arp stood by his conviction to the end of his life, even after being demonized and banished from the US to get the cold shelter of a passive Max-Planck Institute at Garching in Germany. The SDSS BOSS Dataset is probably the best way either to refute or to confirm Arp’s (and other’s) claim. But surprisingly no such systematic and wide-scale efforts have been made so far by any powerful and the big-name astrophysics group. Only an arxiv report by some obscure Chinese duo Su Min Tang and Shuang Nan Zhang dismissed Arp and his supporters claim of quantization.: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0506366.pdf. But more recently, M. B. Bell and D. McDiarmid in a report in The Astrophysical Journal, 648:140-147, 2006 September 1, dismissed the claims of Tang and Zhang: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/503792/fulltext/

I must also mention here that the whole edifice of Big Bang cosmology is built on a contrived Hubble’s Law based on the manipulated assignment of redshifts; which were retroactively calculated to conform to Lorentz Transform, SR and GR – a practice of tautology; where they want to “prove” the very thing that was assumed in the premise!

The following quote from Hubble himself is eye-opening! "… if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principles of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results." ("Effects of Red Shifts on the Distribution of Nebulae" by E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936)

I couldn't do justice to your suggestion of alternatives to my explanation if I didn't explain that my explanation is supported by astronomical observations.

" This by proxy accepts the same official cosmology, which you claim to oppose!"

I don't claim to oppose the Big Bang per se... not the fact that there was energy released at the beginning of times (this cycle).

I am sure you only skimmed through my work. Had you read it carefully, my claim if focused on CMB hypotheses being rebutted by SDSS BOSS dataset.

The conclusions one can derive from this discovery:

a) CMB research is worthless because the Universe is not homogeneous and only incidentally isotropic.

b) The Universe is not 3D - one cannot have spherical acoustic modes in a 3D Universe.

c) The Universe is a hypersphere. A hypersphere would have spherical normal modes.

Adding to this, I have other results. I produced (derived from first principles) a Law of Gravitation that is both epoch- and velocity-dependent.

The epoch dependence means that SN1a are epoch-dependent and there would be a bias in the photometric measurement of SN1a distances. Once corrected those distances, they match perfectly my theory predictions.

You should be able to guess how difficult it is to, without any information other than the redshift, to predict the exact position of anything in the Universe (no parametrization). That is what my theory does.

Since the theory relies on the Topology and the Model for Matter, these predictions and the SDSS results support both (topology and model for matter).

I don't oppose the Big Bang by providing and Constant Universe Scheme. There is nothing in the SDSS that would support that. The topology doesn't require a Creator. Heisenberg Principle is enough to create the Universe.

I don't have a Religious bias. I just create a parameterless theory that fits the observations. The Lightspeed Expanding Hypersphere is the simplest solution to the problem. That is the only guidance I use.

The following quote from Hubble himself is eye-opening! "… if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principles of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results."

It just happens that the redshift can be due to Geometry (as in my theory) and still the Universe be in expansion (hyperspherical lightspeed expansion)

My theory corrects the SN1a distances and thus makes the observations consistent again with Hubble Law. One can use Hubble Law with the 72 km/s/megaparsec for short distances, since as the distance increases, one start looking at inner hyperspheres:

"I don't claim to oppose the Big Bang per se... not the fact that there was energy released at the beginning of times (this cycle)”

So, your contention essentially and for all practical purpose is no different from the “creation” hypothesis of official cosmology. It seems to me that you have taken a mere technical approach to the problems of cosmology and have no concern for the conceptual issues. I think you are stretching it too far if you characterize your work as “whistle blowing.”; even though I appreciate your efforts. You are offering your personal interpretation of some data, from your specific (but technical) perspective than those of others. For this NASA or anybody else will not lose their sleep or worry much about; or even care at all; or react the way they did with Chip Arp. Your cosmology in essence at best may be similar to Hoyle-Narlikar “Steady State” and "periodic creation" cosmology. In any case, I do not intend to continue further discussion on your work and wish you good luck.

That modern official cosmology is in crisis is palpable even to casual observers. There is wide-spread scepticism both about the theories and the observational claims made through mega projects (to “prove” those theories) that are obviously subjective and contrived. In fact the extraordinary and the sensational nature of many of the claims being made, only expose their hollowness. The present official paradigm of cosmology is broken and full of black holes. Any stop-gap, patch-up or other cosmetic work cannot save that paradigm of a catastrophic “beginning”. For dialectical mode of thought there is no (mega) leap in Nature, precisely because Nature consists entirely of leaps!

“My theory corrects the SN1a distances and thus makes the observations consistent again with Hubble Law.”

This seems to be an extraordinary claim of arbitrary correction of SN1a distances, and especially in the light of recent evidence that supernova distance measurements are in doubt. It is because there are more than one mechanism by which Chandrashekhar limit can be passed (and hence uncertain luminosity - distance measurements) for supernova SN1a type.

This would be my last post in this forum. Cheers!

I don't imagine that you would want any time, effort or money put into your research to be declared a waste of public or private funds, just because others might disagree with your opinions. But you (and I, and everyone else now living) will be completely forgotten, if not within a few years after we die, then within a few centuries. Read "Ozymandias", and then ask yourself whether railing against the darkness has any value.

@Jacinto Jesus Rodrigues Perez

Nonsense.

@Courtney Seligman

"I don't imagine that you would want any time, effort or money put into your research to be declared a waste of public or private funds, just because others might disagree with your opinions"

I didn't present an opinion. I presented evidence. I don't want anything to happen to any research just because of opinions.

People should argue about evidence.

I would like for people to stop wasting time with my theory if evidence were against it and if that evidence could not be squared off with the theory.

Every time new evidence is presented, there is a chance that an extension of the prior theory will be able to do a good job explaining it. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a waste of public money and time, to continue doing so if one cannot square the circle around the newly discovered evidence.

"But you (and I, and everyone else now living) will be completely forgotten, if not within a few years after we die, then within a few centuries"

Speak for yourself...:)

@Abdul Malek

So, your contention essentially and for all practical purpose is no different from the “creation” hypothesis of official cosmology. It seems to me that you have taken a mere technical approach to the problems of cosmology and have no concern for the conceptual issues.

So, it seems to me that you didn't read anything I wrote.

Hi Marco,

Thank-you for your radical explanation of the unknowns in Cosmology. Are you able to say something re what happened before the Initial Fluctuation? and also re the concept of multi universes?

@John Lee

I can only create a scenario that is consistent with the 4D Hyperspherical Initial Fluctuation and what we believe would cause it (The Heisenberg Principle). That is an example of frugality (in the lack of a better word) in creating new science (the counterexample is e.g. Singularity Science).

We know that the Heisenberg Principle is already part of our Reality Description. It fits quite well with the time before THIS Initial Fluctuation.

The description of HU Cosmogenesis is described here:

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Fluctuations-of-Zero

A description of how the Big Pop is equivalent to an Entropic Explosion like the Prince Rupert Drop is presented here:

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Was-the-Creation-of-the-Universe-an-Entropic-Explosion-An-Hyperspherical-Prince-Rupert%E2%80%99s-Drop

MULTIVERSE

There is a possibility of the existence of a Antimatter Lagging Hypersphere (ALH). That said, it is not clear it is strictly required and so following the Frugality Principle, I don't BS on it...:)

I raised its possibility to explain Gamma Ray Bursts. Now I believe GRB are just due to Phase Transitions (Neutron Star to Black Hole).

------Please support my work by writing to editors (e.g. Dr. Amendola in Physics of Dark Universe Journal, or Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, or Science Magazine or Los Alamos Archives). All journals censor my theory using nonsensical arguments.

The Community managed to censor me in most media (including Quora).

I am still awaiting to hear from NASA on my Whistleblower Claim, where I demonstrate that SDSS BOSS dataset contains data that rebuts the CMB Research required hypotheses of homogeneity and isotropy. If the Required CMB Hypotheses are rendered false by other research results, NASA should confirm or deny my Discovery.

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

Notice that nobody in the Community confirmed or rejected a discovery that rebuts both 4D Spacetime and the Big Bang. One would expect that such discovery would raise some interest...:) After all, writing about a 4D Spacetime is all the community does..:)

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Selected-Postings

Thanks Marco. The world needs creative scientists such as you, to extend the bounds of scientific speculation and understanding. In any field of endeavour, the traditionalists will always resist those who rock the boat. But history show that change does happen, even if slowly. Go for it!