The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory challenges General Relativity and Special Relativity. The reason for that is that they seem to be a perfect replacement to the Geodesics Paradigm Einstein proposed.
Do you have a preferred test that you think HU might fail?
HU tools are:
a) Natural Laws
b) Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Topology
c) Homology between the topology and the Minkowski Metric
Dear Marco,
Yes, pick up a mobile phone and connect the GPS, does it work?
That proves that relativity works and any theory that contradicts it doesn't
Do you mean that if HU theory predicts the same behavior, then GPS working proves that HU is correct.
Is that your reasoning?
Dear Marco,
Question 1: Is there are General Relativity test that The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory fails?
Answer 1: Yes, pick up a mobile phone and connect the GPS, does it work?
That proves that relativity works and any theory that contradicts it doesn't
Question 2: Do you mean that if HU theory predicts the same behavior, then GPS working proves that HU is correct.
Is that your reasoning?
Answer 2: No, go to Answer 1
Does your theory predict the same GPS result as relativity?
Not? Well, you already have your answer to Question 1
Yes? well keep looking for more answers and tests
Sergio,
I know that you are just a scurrilous copycat of my work. That said, if I tell you that HU passes all tests of GR, HU will also pass Gravitational Time Contraction and SR Time dilation.
I also showed that astronomical observations refute Einstein's equations.
Best wishes on your copycatting.
MP
Dear Marco,
Back to the same?
Are you aware that credibility is a very important value in a scientist and should never be lost?
Are you aware that if you accuse someone of scurrilous copycat, can anyone look at both works and check that you lie?
Are you aware that anyone can check your history and verify that your credibility is on the floor?
Are you the inventor of the hypersphere? Not
Are you the first one to propose without being able to prove that the universe has a hyperspheric shape? Not
I would scurrilous copycat to Homer Simpson if I demostrated that the universe is shaped like a donut? Not
Anyone who does not accept the questions he does not like, would he accept in his work based on data, the data that he does not like? Not
Would there be any reason not to cite you, as I have quoted other researchers if I had used your work? Not, before there would be no reason. Now obviously neither I nor anyone is going to cited you, because if you do not have credibility, your work either
Take this answer not as an attack but as the opportunity to correct mistakes, it is urgent that you change your attitude in this forum if you want to recover credibility
Dear Sergio,
You are not the first copycat and your are not the most scurrilous.
Are you aware that if you accuse someone of scurrilous copycat, can anyone look at both works and check that you lie?
My recollection is that you use a hyperspherical model and that you didn't tell me if that hyperspherical hypersurface travels at the speed of light. I can only conclude that that is because you didn't want to say that the model you have is the same as mine.
We have the prior correspondence. So, there shouldn't be any doubt that you know about my work.
Do you still claim you don't know the speed at which your Hyperspherical Model expands?
Are you the first one to propose without being able to prove that the universe has a hyperspheric shape? Not
Yes. I am in two senses. I proposed that the Universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface. Any other speed is wrong because it has to explain CONTAINMENT AND DIMENSIONAL LEAKING.
Provide the reference for the hyperspherical universe shape. Obviously, I am excluding 4D spacetime theories for the simple reason that time and space don't have the same dimensions.
Do you still claim you don't know the speed at which your Hyperspherical Model expands?
MP
Dear Marco,
Show me that I am not going to waste time with nonsense accusations of copycat and I will answer your questions.
If not, I do not think that the effort would be use, I repeat, anyone can see both works and draw their own conclusions
Dear @Sergio Garcia Chimeno,
Do you still claim you don't know the speed at which your Hyperspherical Model expands?
I asked this because this is fundamental for us to understand if you are copying my work or not. This is a yes or no question.
By the way, if the 4D radius is not expanding at the speed of light, I will be happy to apologize and wish you the best of luck.
What is the answer?
MP
Dear Marco,
I don't know at what speed it expands, it's not something I use in my theory.
I will not use c as that speed never and if it turns out that for some mysterious reason I use it, then if I will cite you.
I think it's fair right?
Dear Sergio,
You obviously don't have a theory if you didn't copy the lightspeed expansion or faked like the people from Uppsala.
The first obvious step to have a cosmological theory is to fit the Type 1a Supernova data from the Supernova Cosmology Project.
In case you don't copy my epoch-dependent Gravitation, you are left with the current view, that is, you will have to create a brane (to map it to the hyperspherical hypersurface) and give it negative surface tension or create some pressure somehow. People already did those tricks.
This means that your model would be compliant with the current view, but it would have at least two extra parameters (Dark Matter and Dark Energy).
So, if you are planning to copy my epoch-dependent G, it has to be inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe to work. You would also have to copy my SN1a Absolute Luminosity G-dependence. IT has to be equal to G^{-3}.
So, if you don't know what is the speed of your expansion, then you are not compliant with the Supernova Cosmology Project and because of that you don't really have a theory.
That is the reason of my criticism. I don't believe you when you say that there was prior art using a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface embedded in a 4D Spatial Manifold.
I look for it before putting a name on my theory, as you should have done. I suggest that if you realize that you have a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical Universe that you stop using a different name for my theory and refer to the original name - the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU).
Otherwise, history will not look kindly upon you.
Cheers,
MP
PS. No. It is not fair or ethical.
Imagine that Einstein remained a patent clerk in Bern and created Special Relativity. You are using the same paradigm and telling me that you don't know what is the speed you place in your "Minkowski" metric. But at the same time, you are just giving it a name and trying to front run SR.
It is the same situation.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation