Nobody's interested in wrong answers, what matters are the right ones. So announcing that some theory is wrong, isn't interesting; what's interesting is producing the correct description. One shouldn't mix up sociology with physics.

So what's the CORRECT description for the measurements-or what's the reason the measurements aren't correct? And why is the proposed correct description, in fact, DIFFERENT from the ``usual'' one? It's this last point that's missing! Words don't count.

There's no argument in the text linked to, only statements of personal taste, that's irrelevant. These don't amount to a ``refutal'' of general relativity, anyway, since they don't address its assumptions (general coordinate invariance) only, some of, its conclusions (certain ways of measuring dark energy, that can be identified with the cosmological constant, that's a consequence of general coordinate invariance).

Whether supernovae are ``standard candles'' or not is irrelevant for the consistency of general relativity. If they are, they can be used for something-namely, deducing the rate of expansion of spacetime; if they aren't, they can't. Whether they are or aren't depends on their equation of state (that depends on non-gravitational interactions), not on the properties of spacetime.

So to refute their use as standard candles, what's necessary is to produce the equation of state, consistent with measurements, that shows they aren't standard candles and then show how this modification affects the analysis of the measurements, that used them.

However, this wouldn't amount to any refutal of general relativity.

Incidentally, it is possible to take into account a dependence of Newton's constant on time (and/or space)-just introduce additional fields. This has been done with scalars (Brans-Dicke) as well as with fermions and gauge fields too (supergravity) and constraints are known. These are generalizations, not contradictions, of general relativity.

Acoustic oscillations aren't inconsistent with general relativity-they're known properties of solutions of Einstein's equations. They're the result of studying particular sources to Einstein's equations.

Extra dimensions aren't inconsistent with general relativity, either. It's possible to write Einstein's equations for any number of dimensions and show that they have solutions. it then suffices to check which class of solutions fit the data better. The claim that solutions in 4+1 dimensions fit the data better than solutions in 3+1 dimensions doesn't imply that general relativity is refuted-on the contrary!

It is possible that the experiments have certain systematic issues-but this doesn't affect the consistency of the theory; they're separate issues.

Science isn't about ``rebuttals''; it's finding the correct description-which can take many different, but equivalent, forms.

While the correct description is, of course, mathematically consistent, any candidate description is, also, otherwise it doesn't even make sense.

Very verbose, Mr. Nicolis.

Stam Nicolis

Acoustic oscillations aren't inconsistent with general relativity-they're known properties of solutions of Einstein's equations. They're the result of studying particular sources to Einstein's equations.

Why didn't you read what I wrote. I've never said what you are refuting.

• I said that Spherical Acoustic Oscillations are not consistent with a Boundless 3D Universe.
• I also said that a lightspeed hyperspherical expansion is not consistent with Einstein's Equations

Please, only refute what I said!!!!

Let me know if you can refute these two statements and I will hold you hand and drive you through my proof.

While Dr. Nicolis thinks, I will explain in a simple manner why spherical acoustic oscillations are not compatible with a Boundless 3D Spatial Manifold.

Spherical acoustic modes or any mode that depends upon distance cannot happen in a boundless 3D Spatial Manifold because the boundary conditions are placed at infinity and that would yield an oscillation with an infinite wavelength.

Another way of thinking about this is that there are no WALLS (boundaries) in a boundless 3D Spatial Manifold.

So, this explains item (1) in my reply to Dr. Nicolis. To say that under some arbitrary conditions (where some boundary condition is arbitrarily imposed) there are oscillations does apply to the Universe as a whole. So, Dr. Nicolis objection has no value in this discussion. I am talking the Universe and I am talking about Einstein's equations validity to the Universe expansion.

Here is a simple presentation explaining the same thing:

https://www.quora.com/How-do-two-dimensional-organisms-on-a-sphere-realize-that-they-live-on-a-sphere/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

Both statements are wrong. Acoustic oscillations don't assume bounded space nor does the expansion of spacetime-that's described by solutions to Einstein's equations-have anything to do with the speed of light. Even less does the accelerated expansion, that's described by the cosmological constant.

Acoustic oscillations are described here: https://www.ias.u-psud.fr/Dark_energy/presentations/castanderBAO_081124.pdf

and the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric is described here: Article Lecture Notes on General Relativity

It might be a good idea to understand that ``refutal'' is a meaningless word in this context.

The manifold in question, incidentally, is not a three-dimensional spatial manifold, but a four-dimensional spacetime.

It suffices to write down the equations and their solutions, before making pronouncements about what can't happen.

And, once more: while acoustic oscillations and the (accelerated) expansion of spacetime are consistent with general relativity,

they aren't compulsory outcomes. So it's wrong to deduce that were they not observed, this would imply that general relativity is wrong.

They represent particular solutions of Einstein's equations.

If you want to argue that they haven't been observed, you have to look at the experimental papers, not the theoretical ones. You're arguing about an experimental procedure, not a theoretical property.

I suggest you to refute what I say from a framework that is distinct from the one what I am refuting.

It makes your argument weak.

I suggest you go back to what acoustic oscillations are. Simple Physics.

Oscillations requires boundary conditions.

I will not refute your ideas using the framework of your idea. One has to do at a level above them.

Just focus on item (1) and don't use the theory I am refuting. Doing otherwise is illogical.

Focus.

I am saying that spherical acoustics requires boundary conditions at a position that is distinct from Infinity. I also saying that I concluded that the Universe as a hypersphere being embedded is the correct solution.

If you think that my idea is so outrageous, you can complain to the people in Uppsala that copied it from me.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-similarities-and-the-differences-between-Marco-Pereiras-Hypergeometrical-Universe-Theory-HU-and-the-Uppsalas-Anti-De-Sitter-Space/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-universe-extra-dimension.amp

There's nothing to refute, since the statements are meaningless.

Incidentally-the paper from the Uppsala group is nothing but an application of general relativity.

I guess I lost you. That is ok. You argument (weak as it is) will remain here. I will build upon it and show how lousy is the reasoning of the people who argues against my ideas (when they do).

You are one of two (Two french guys in fact) that opened their big mouths and said something, for which I am thankful.

Looks like only the French are myopic enough to argue against things that are obviously correct.

Cursory reading of the Uppsala paper article title is not enough for you to understand that they are proposing my extra spatial dimension (out of their asses) and not referring to my work.

It also shows that what I am proposing, you people will eventually propose (since academicians are very slow pokes).

Thank you for your service, Stam.

Since I lost Dr. Nicolis, I will continue but I might first take a look on his considerations.

Let's see:

He mentioned the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric is described here:

Article Lecture Notes on General Relativity

Well, even I know that this metric is the basis of L-CDM.

L-CDM uses a contrived Hubble Parameter:

Then they vary the parameters to fit the distances to Type 1a Supernovae from the Supernova Project:

Well. Fitting data is nice. Well, I can predict those distances:

I wonder how silly Dr. Nicolis might feel. Bringing a theory that FITS data and cannot predict it and dare to refer to the article!!!!

My theory PREDICTS all SN1a distances

Typical arrogance of the French Scientific Establishment. That is the only explanation..( I had a sample of two French)

Hence Dr. Nicolis think that I am to abide to the Friedmann-Lemaitre Model, which my theory surpasses. What is the Logic here? (Rhetorical question).

Hence I showed Dr. Nicolis advice is weak as it is his Logic.

I will check next the second reference.

Second Article:

https://www.ias.u-psud.fr/Dark_energy/presentations/castanderBAO_081124.pdf

This is a presentation based on simulations using Dark Matter working as ANCHORS to matter and energy.

Well, one cannot make anything more contrived. That is how Cold Dark Matter discovered they were COLD.Some how interaction cannot heat up dark matter (otherwise it would diffuse and not produce the right anchoring behavior for matter to reproduce a peak a 150 MPC.

This means that this is a FITTING that imposed into Dark Matter another absurd behavior of being cold and never exchanging energy.

According to this model Dark matter hangs around in cold clumps and yet it does not clump otherwise we would have Dark Matter stars etc.

This Cold aspect crashes with the Halo nature. Halo requires exactly the opposite nature - non-clumpiness.

So, the reference is about a SIMULATION that places absurd, conflicting constraints on Dark Matter.

It just happens, my theory explains all Dark Matter so-called evidence:

Read these two articles to see that I explained the M33 Galaxy rotation curve without Dark Matter and did the same for the Coma Cluster.

Main Article:

2017: The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory: Cosmogenesis, Cosmology and Standard Model

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

2018:The Case for the 4th Spatial Dimension and the Hypergeometrical Force

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

2018: The Coma Cluster, Bullet Cluster and Weak Gravitational Lensing

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

Here is the M33 solution to the Conundrum.

IN SUMMARY

Dr. Nicolis provided me two references (Friedmann-Lemaitre Model and the Fitting of the 150 Mpc peak on the two-point distance correlation).

The two point distance correlation is not an observable. This means that this is a Fitting twice removed from observations...;) which are only angular (CMB two-point angular correlations).

In return, I showed that I predicted all SN1a distances (Friedmann-Lemaitre cannot do it).

I also showed that my theory predicts both the M33 Rotation Curve and the Coma Cluster Mass distribution.

My theory also solves the early galaxy puzzle for the simple reason that I derived all Natural Laws of Nature and that includes this epoch-dependent, velocity-dependent Law of Gravitation:

So, it is a pity that Dr. Nicolis devoted so little time to investigate my theory.

That said, his failures were educational.

Notice that Dr. Nicolis never even touch item number (2):

That the Universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface is a fact know to Fulvio Melia:

Without refuting General Relativity, Dr. Melia concluded that having the 4D Radius of the Universe expanding at the speed of light. This is not a solution to Einstein's equations.

I already showed that I provided an epoch-dependent Law of Gravitation that replicates all Einstein's successes (Gravitational Lensing, Velocity Time DIlation, etc) and allows me to predict the SN1a distances. Thus the Supernova Project also supports lightspeed expansion that thus also Refutes General Relativity.

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey data was used to create this 3D Galaxy Density Map of the Universe:

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

The white region has a radius of 5 Billion Light Years, is spherical. This implies that the Universe is embedded and hyperspherical.

Add Hubble Law and you get the lightspeed expanding aspect of the Universe.

That lightspeed expanding nature means that the Hubble constant is H_0 =72 km/c/mpc

It turns out that that is also a successful prediction of my theory.

All this is nothing more than general relativity-no refutation, just restatement (where it makes sense; lightspeed doesn't). Sorry, too little, too late. This all's been done. An ``epoch-dependent'' law of gravitation, that's been known for more than fifty years, is quite heavily constrained: Article Constraints on Scalar-Tensor Theory of Gravity by the Recent...

and doesn't constitute a ``refutation'' of general relativity, either.

Whether supernovae are ``standard candles'' or not is irrelevant for the consistency of general relativity. If they are, they can be used for something-namely, deducing the rate of expansion of spacetime; if they aren't, they can't. Whether they are or aren't depends on their equation of state (that depends on non-gravitational interactions), not on the properties of spacetime

Dr. Nicolis is dancing around the simple fact that the equation of state of the Supernova provides a G-dependence equal to G^{-3}.

So, I derived the epoch-dependence of the Supernova ABSOLUTE LUMINOSITY using the work of Dr. David Arnett. The derivation is attached.

The point that Dr. Nicolis avoids is that there is only one linkage of SN1a epoch-dependence G that would REFUTE General Relativity.

That very unlikely path requires three pieces of the puzzle to fit together:

So, it turns out that my law of Gravitation has an R_0^{-1} dependence. SN1a Absolute Luminosity has the G{-3} dependence and the SDSS showed that the Universe was seeded by spherical acoustic oscillations.

So, you can see - there is no moving parts and everything fits together.

The problem with Mathematicians like Dr. Nicolis is that they are not capable of rethinking what they think they know.

Dr. Nicolis speaks of covariance constraints but overlook obvious failures like:

Hence, Postulates are clearly failing and Dr. Nicolis tries to pull me in...:) and argue within that framework..>:)

That is not how Science should be done!

I did a post-mortem of Dr. Nicolis comments and suggestions. He is welcome to say something if he wishes. Thanks for waiting until I was done.

This doesn't have anything to do with general relativity. General relativity's consistency doesn't require the existence of supernovae (the claim about the dependence of the luminosity of supernovae on Newton's constant is missing. Arnett's work deals with something else, completely unrelated to the specific issue. It would be useful to understand what is being copied. Supernovae of type II are totally different objects from supernovae of type Ia. That's why the type was invented.).

Cf. http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-type_ia_supernovae.php why supernovae of type Ia are relevant (and supernovae of type II are not).

The expansion of the Universe doesn't define any absolute frame for time, for the very trivial reason that the equations that describe it, within general relativity, allow time redefinitions-the singularity is in spacetime, not space or time alone; and while the CMB does define one reference frame, there's nothing requiring it to be used. Any other is perfectly well defined.

So any theoretical description that does rely on absolute time and on a particular reference frame isn't a refutation of general relativity-it's a consistent limiting description, known as Newtonian gravity.

It's a limiting case of general relativity, when relativistic effects are negligible. It can't explain a lot of things, starting with the precession of Mercury, for instance. Nor does it single out the CMB, nor can it describe the anisotropies. Of course it can't describe relativistic effects-by construction. It's meaningless to claim that the non-relativistic limit of general relativity refutes it.

Once more: mathematical consistency≠experimental relevance. When discussing experiments, one should refer to experimental procedures, not theory. When discussing theory, mathematical consistency alone matters. The fact that general relativity has properties, that Newtonian gravity doesn't, doesn't imply that general relativity is inconsistent; especially since it's known how to derive Newtonian gravity from general relativity. It's the other way, that's meaningless.

You are such brilliant person, how many times do I have to tell you that what refutes General Relativity is the Universe being a hyperspherical hypersurface (thus having 4 spatial dimension and one time) and the radius of that hypersphere is expanding at the speed of light.

That is not a solution to Einstein's equations.

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

ALL the intermediate steps....all the elements of the puzzle fitting together just make the conclusion stronger.

What I did is not a FITTING. Everything fits together without a contrived hypothesis of any kind.

Let me emphasize the nature of the stuff you defend:

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

To tell me that the Age of the Universe is not Absolute Time offends Occam's Razor. Absolute Time explains everything. I also explained the time dilation that Einstein liked so much.

There is no need for time dilation. I corrected Newton's Laws of Dynamics. If you stick around long enough, I will be able to explain that to you.

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

while the CMB does define one reference frame, there's nothing requiring it to be used.

That is where Einstein failed and you still fails to understand that an absolute reference frame eliminates the Relativity of motion.

The introduction of the 4th spatial dimension allowed me to create a theory based on the deformation of the Fabric of Space (which does not exist on a 4D spacetime theory).

The derivation of everything is kind of long. I don't think I can do here.

Here my goal is just to refute General Relativity with ALL astronomical observations.

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

When discussing experiments, one should refer to experimental procedures, not theory.

This is a valid commentary, but an unnecessary constraint to impose on my argument.

My goal is to prove that the Universe is:

a) Lightspeed Expanding

b) Hyperspherical Hypersurface

Planck Survey with the R_h=ct shows that that is the case. Supports (a) and (b).

I go one step further and show that the SDSS data shows that the Universe is a hyperspherical hypersurface. I predict H_0=72km/s/mpc, the correct Hubble value for short-distances. So SDSS also supports (a) and (b)

Finally, I introduce my Law of Gravitation to show that the Supernova Project ALSO shows the the Universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface.

Hence, the theoretical part of my theory was only used in the Supernova Project - to get a full analysis and be able to say that ALL astronomical observations refute GR.

My theory also falsified all DM so-called evidence and replicated all successes of GR and succeed where GR failed.

How high is this Barrier that I have to overcome, Stam? How High do I have to JUMP?

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

I will explain again.

The astronomical data supports only:

That refutes Einstein's equations.

Once you understand that, I will be happy to explain the rest.

Arnett's work deals with something else, completely unrelated to the specific issue.

Arnett's work dealt with the Absolute Luminosity of a Supernova. Being Type 1a just means that it would detonate when it reached the Chandrasekhar Mass Limit and have the Chandrasekhar Radius.

Don't speak without knowing which paper or understanding what I extracted from it. I just extracted the G-dependence of the Absolute Luminosity.

It doesn't-general relativity is consistent with as many spatial dimensions as one pleases. So the claim that spacetime is five-dimensional doesn't imply that general relativity is mathematically inconsistent.

The statement about the speed of the radius of the hypersphere is, equally, wrong. In fact the expansion is superluminal, a known effect of the positive cosmological constant, and that's fully consistent with general relativity, where it's known as the solution to Eiinstein's equations found be de Sitter in 1918.

The ``G-dependence'' is irrelevant for type Ia supernovae, which are different from type II. That's why type Ia are used as standard candles and not type II. So it doesn't make sense using the properties of II when discussing properties of Ia.

Absolute luminosity of type Ia≠absolute luminosity of type II qualitatively.

The expansion of the Universe doesn't define any absolute frame for time, for the very trivial reason that the equations that describe it, within general relativity, allow time redefinitions-the singularity is in spacetime, not space or time alone; and while the CMB does define one reference frame, there's nothing requiring it to be used. Any other is perfectly well defined.

One would hope you would follow the advice you gave to me. Absolute Time is an observable - it is part of Reality. Its Nature cannot be defined by a model.

It has to be defined how everything fits together and OCCAM"S RAZOR.

Your mistake reads here "very trivial reason that the equations that describe it, within general relativity"

You insist in using General Relativity for each and every reply while dancing around the evidence provided. If the evidence is not refuted, you cannot use Relativity as a crutch. You have to use Reasoning. Thought Process and not parrot solutions from a theory you cannot defend.

I used an Absolute Time and time projections for proper reference frames. That is sufficient to satiate the Theoretician's need for a proper time.

I also explained how that is incorrect. First accept that the Universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface and that Einstein's equations are wrong. Then I will discuss the rest.

If you have a computer and know how to run python scripts, I provided my python scripts.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9nwsc7zyzp3kzwy/Archive.zip?dl=0

This link contains both the scripts and the SDSS, Supernova Data

The ``G-dependence'' is irrelevant for type Ia supernovae, which are different from type II. That's why type Ia are used as standard candles and not type II. So it doesn't make sense using the properties of II when discussing properties of Ia.

How could you possibly make this mistake, Stam? Don't you know why Type 1a Supernova are Stellar Candles? They are Stellar Candles because they always detonate when they reach the Chandrasekhar Mass Limit and do so when they have the Chandrasekhar Radius. Both have G dependendence!

I guess, this is not inside a General Relativity Book...:)

Absolute time is a non-relativistic approximation, that can be obtained from general relativity in a known way. It's not in contradiction, just a limiting case.

Proper time ≠ absolute time. Proper time is relevant for flat spacetime. Our Universe isn't flat.

That the universe is expanding is known since Hubble and described by general relativity. So Einstein's equations aren't wrong-they do describe the expansion, consistently and, up to a point, quantitatively.

They're incomplete: The expansion is superluminal. To get that requires new experiments.

All that's known and consistent and been done. It's nonsense to talk of luminal expansion of spacetime and claim that this is inconsistent with Einstein's equations; it's not and was known since 1918-it just was realized in 1932.

It's possible to write code to simulate anything, so the scripts don't show anything relevant.

Since type Ia supernovae emit light the same way, the G-dependence is irrelevant in distinguishing them. It's trivial to take into account, that's why it need not be mentioned. That, also, is irrelevant for discussing consistency of general relativity.

Once more, general relativity is consistent in five as well as in four spacetime dimensions.

I described everything including interaction at Relativistic velocities using a framework that contains Absolute Time and proper times for that matter.

You don't need to refer to Relativity at each comment...:)

That the universe is expanding is known since Hubble and described by general relativity. So Einstein's equations aren't wrong-they do describe the expansion.

General Relativity is only wrong if the Universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface.

The expansion hinges on the Stellar Candles Hypothesis. The L-CDM is a fitting.. an stupid fitting... a very poor theory. The fitting parameters have no other determination (for example where is the evidence that we have 85% of Dark Matter... where is the independent confirmation of such number)

So, L-CDM is legless. Please don't use it in comments.

Also. don't comment on my scripts without reading them.

I didn't create scripts using my theory.

I just create plotting scripts.... PLOTTING.

Since I have a second of your attention, I might as well show you the 3D Galaxy density map of the Universe:

and the Radial Marginal Distribution showcasing the 36 recurrences of the hyperspherical acoustic mode:

The measurement of the expansion can be realized using standard candles (though not only); general relativity is NOT wrong if the expansion is uniform (zero cosmological constant) or accelerating (positive cosmological constant). These are both solutions to Einstein's equations.

Cold Dark Matter doesn't have anything to do with the consistency of general relativity either, since it represents a possible source for Einstein's equations.

GR is consistent in the presence as well as in the absence of CDM, just as it's consistent whatever the value of the cosmological constant.

How to obtain the densities has been described quite extensively. The percentage is around 25%, not 85%, though for dark matter; the cosmological constant is around 70% and 5% for ordinary matter.

Therefore objections about Λ-CDM that are based on personal taste are nonsense. The theory is, also, well known. So any other theory better get the same numbers, to better accuracy-if it can't it's no good.

Galaxies are relevant for detecting dark matter, e.g. http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/rotation_curves.htm and here the Newtonian approximation is adequate.

If one produces plots without a theory, the plots don't affect any discussion. They're irrelevant. The claim that these plots do correspond to their captions doesn't make sense.

Acoustic modes mean something completely different and don't have anything to do with galaxies. They make sense way before galaxies were formed: https://www.ias.u-psud.fr/Dark_energy/presentations/castanderBAO_081124.pdf

The measurement of the expansion can be realized using standard candles (though not only); general relativity is NOT wrong if the expansion is uniform (zero cosmological constant) or accelerating (positive cosmological constant). These are both solutions to Einstein's equations.

Did you ever read Einstein's equations.

It has two sides. The left side tells you about the Universe Curvature. The right-side tells you about the Stress Tensor (energy, mass content of the Universe).

Having the curvature of the Universe changing irrespectively with the inner contents of the Universe is the opposite that Einstein's prescribed.

So, learn how to read Einstein's equations. Don't pay attention to the trees and miss the forest.

Well the statement about them is wrong. The change in spacetime isn't irrespective of the matter content, just the effects of the latter aren't significant. For cosmology only the cosmological constant matters and it's enough to describe accelerated expansion.

Matter, that's created in an expanding Universe, can't counteract the accelerated expansion produced by the cosmological constant.

And please confirm that you were wrong on both Einstein's equations and on the Type 1A Supernova G-dependence. That is important.

I wasn't and it's irrelevant. It suffices to know how to read-and how to solve Einstein's equations, not just copy and paste them. Nor copying from popular accounts about them.

There is no point in trying to solve equations if you cannot read them.

At least tell me that you are ignorant about Supernovae...:)

IF you cannot pass this test of Intellectual Honesty, then arguing with you is just a rhetorical game and a waste of time.

The solutions to Einstein's equations are described here: Article Lecture Notes on General Relativity

The reason supernovae Ia can be used as standard candles is described here: http://www.astro.ex.ac.uk/people/hatchell/rinr/candles.pdf

Nowhere does Newton's constant appear in the way claimed. The reason how it appears anyway is irrelevant is that the absolute luminosity of all supernovae Ia is the same, therefore the only reason their apparent luminosity at the Earth is different is their distance from the Earth. That's all that's needed, along with the fact that luminosity decreases with the square of the distance, since the wave is spherical.

The presence of supernovae doesn't affect spacetime on cosmological scales-their gravitational effect on spacetime on such scales is negligible-it suffices to compute how the de Sitter metric is affected by them. Not by much.

From there to the accelerated expansion is just a straightforward application of the de Sitter metric-that's four dimensional in spacetime, not space. While many people wonder about extra dimensions, the spacetime that is of relevance to cosmology is four-dimensional, not five-dimensional.

How to take into account variations of Newton's constant can be found here: Article Evolving Newton's Constant, Extended Gravity Theories and Sn...

These aren't in contradiction to general relativity-they're generalizations of the Einstein equations, including fields that describe the variation of Newton's constant.

From your article:

Article Evolving Newton's Constant, Extended Gravity Theories and Sn...

If Newton's constant G evolves on cosmological timescales as predicted by extended gravity theories then Type Ia supernovae (SnIa) can not be treated as standard candles. The magnitude-redshift datasets however can still be useful.

Needless to say, this shows that SN1a detonate when they reach the Chandrasekhar mass limit. The first obvious error in this article is that it does not derive an independent Law of Gravitation which can tell you how G is epoch-dependent.

The second obvious error is that it treats the issue in a 4D Spacetime and uses Einstein's equations. The reason this is a problem is items (1) and (2).

When items (1) and (2) are valid, Einstein's equations are not.

The third issue I have is that you did not confess that you were wrong about Supernovae.

Why is that so difficult? You know that for you to learn something new here, you will have to be wrong. Don't you want to learn something new?

By the way, I don't know how this article was published without addressing that. By that I mean, the possibility of CIRCULAR REASONING.

The reason supernovae Ia can be used as standard candles is described here: http://www.astro.ex.ac.uk/people/hatchell/rinr/candles.pdf

Now I know why you know so little about the subject of SN1a and G. You read children's PPP. and somehow cannot detect inconsistencies between two sources of information.

The second article clearly tells you that SN1a are G dependent.

"If Newton's constant G evolves on cosmological timescales as predicted by extended gravity theories then Type Ia supernovae (SnIa) can not be treated as standard candles. The magnitude-redshift datasets however can still be useful."

"If one produces plots without a theory, the plots don't affect any discussion. They're irrelevant. The claim that these plots do correspond to their captions doesn't make sense."

This statement is proven wrong by the plot itself. Tell me how this modulation of galaxy density is not pertinent to a Cosmological discussion?

Don't be lazy. Just run the plots and write back informed opinions.

Had you done your homework, you wouldn't state "opinions" as facts:

"While many people wonder about extra dimensions, the spacetime that is of relevance to cosmology is four-dimensional, not five-dimensional."

The presence of supernovae doesn't affect spacetime on cosmological scales-their gravitational effect on spacetime on such scales is negligible-it suffices to compute how the de Sitter metric is affected by them. Not by much.

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

This showcases your lack of understanding of the problem of Supernova!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

It is not that Supernova would affect Spacetime on Cosmological scales. That is not the problem we are trying to solve...That is another problem that somehow you decide to explain me using the theory that observations deem incorrect.

The problem is that G will affect the SN1a Chandrasekhar Mass and that will yield an smaller Supernova at larger distances.

Items:

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

Stop wasting time.

Tell me that if my fundamental Law of Gravitation is correct, Dr. Reiss analysis, L-CDM etc is wrong.

By the way, my derivation from Dr. Arnett's work is superior than anything a theoretician can do starting from Einstein's equations.

If for nothing, for the reason that Einstein's equations is proven wrong from the result of the modeling of Supernova Absolute Luminosity.

Once you realize that I can teach you the rest.

Stam Said:

The image posted was clear enough to be able to read the equations-it does require a bit more to learn how to solve them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

By reading, I don't mean physically being able to detect the letters and join them into words. I mean understanding those words. That is where you are failing.

Rμν is the Ricci curvature tensor

Tμν is the stress–energy tensor

This is the curvature tensor on the left-side of the Equation. The curvature of the Universe decreases as the Universe expands.

The right-side of the equation is the Stress Tensor (energy + mass or kinetic energy +potential energy).

If you knew how to read the Einstein's equations, that would read as:

The Expansion of the Universe (its curvature and radius) is dependent upon the state evolution of the energy/mass content of the same.

If the radius or curvature changes at constant speed (lightspeed) while the Universe expands (Potential Energy and kinetic energy changes), this means that Einstein's equations are either trivial (the solution is a constant expansion) or invalid.

My reading of it tells me that it is invalid.

Items:

##############################################Stop wasting time.

Tell me that if my fundamental Law of Gravitation is correct, Dr. Reiss analysis, L-CDM etc is wrong. By the way, my derivation from Dr. Arnett's work is superior than anything a theoretician can do starting from Einstein's equations. If for nothing, for the reason that Einstein's equations is proven wrong from the result of the modeling of Supernova Absolute Luminosity. Once you realize that I can teach you the rest.

The counterexample you gave me of Spherical Acoustic Oscillations taking place in the Universe referred to the L-CDM explanation for the 150 mpc recurrence.

That is akin to Religion. The recurrence requires ANCHORING Cold Dark Matter..;)

A Construct that hasn't been detected anywhere, for which I have falsified its 'observations' with a simple theory that is supported by all astronomical evidence.

This means that your counter-example demonstrates not insight but blindsight.

Not only your counter-example is model dependent and based upon imaginary constructs but it stretches credulity.

The simple answer (preferred by Occam's Razor) is that if there are no boundaries, there are no standing modes. If the boundary is at infinity, the standing mode has an infinite wavelength and infinite period (nonsensical mode).

Either the Universe is embedded or it was a sphere, with us at the center of the Universe and that sphere was held still for the duration of the 36 recurrences of the mode.

That requires God, so if you suggest me that, I will pray with you.

Item number (2) has been somehow not confirmed by Dr. Nicolis.

2) I also said that a lightspeed hyperspherical expansion is not consistent with Einstein's Equations

It is puzzling why?

Just watch this nice video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aRz2o55MO0

and pay attention to what David Buttler tells us that within Newtonian and Friedmann Model (GR), the acceleration of the radius of the Universe is only zero if there is no mass.

This means that the Universe expanding at constant increase in its radius is not a solution to Einstein's equations (never mind that the velocity is the speed of light).

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

Dr. Nicolis insisted that the 3D galaxy density of the Current Universe wasn't something relevant to Cosmology:

""If one produces plots without a theory, the plots don't affect any discussion. They're irrelevant. The claim that these plots do correspond to their captions doesn't make sense.

Acoustic modes mean something completely different and don't have anything to do with galaxies. They make sense way before galaxies were formed: ""

Needless to say, Dr. Nicolis seems not to understand that I am speaking of the seeding process of galaxies. That happens way before the galaxies are formed.

In fact, the seeds were created when the Universe was a soup of Neutron (with a Neutron star density). Due to the topology, Gravitation played just a small role on the elasticity of the Universe.

So, being half-correct just means that you are wrong and not paying attention to what i am saying.

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

Dr. Nicolis also inject his bias:

"While many people wonder about extra dimensions, the spacetime that is of relevance to cosmology is four-dimensional, not five-dimensional.""

when it is clear that the addition of an extra spatial dimension, the resulting hyperspherical shape of the Universe, the lightspeed Nature of the expansion refutes everything he knows so well....:)

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

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

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

That said, I am extremely thankful to Dr. Nicolis for his bravery and lack of wisdom on his answers. This helps me to use them as examples of how not to think.

For instance, one cannot not follow logic. Answering yes to item(2) would mean that there is a condition where Einstein's Equations fails. If item (1) is proven correct, one cannot prove item (1) wrong using General Relativity. One has to resort to data, observations and not references to de-Sitter model or Friedmann Model. That is a Logical Failure.

So, I will use this dialog as an example of all that is wrong about academia.

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

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

That said, I would expect that Dr. Nicolis would be intelligent to realize that I know something he doesn't know.

I certainly know he knows stuff that I don't know and could help finish the theory.

The missing steps are in Particle Physics and Dr. Nicolis masters that field.

That said, a collaboration has to have the attitude of finding out what can be salvaged and tossing alway what cannot be salvaged.

This requires certain abandonment, emotional detachment to the theories we currently have.

Dr. Nicolis, if you think you can do it, just reach out and I will be more than happy to have your collaboration. We need to finish this up.

Here is a more convenient link to the data analysis

https://showcase.dropbox.com/doc/The-Hypergeometrical-Universe-Theory--AdnFrJbCVwvA8xk~gtvdV1TnAQ-J0vIT6EenofXf7QAd7heF

It is my first google showcase. It had a hiccup.

It is my first dropbox showcase. It had a hiccup.

Please let me know if you have any trouble with the link or downloading data.

My conclusion about my SDSS claim. I was wrong about the data. The data hasn't been collected in such way as to provide information about galaxy distribution along distance.

This is symptomatic of the bias. Why wouldn't they keep the same CMASS standard along distance (corrected using z to get the model dependent Absolute Luminous mass).

So, it seems that SDSS collected a random distribution of NZ and that make my analysis flawed and impossible.

I momentarily give up this claim because the data is poor and the SDSS experiment seems to have been designed with a self-fulfilling bias. There is only angular modulation and because of that we will not collect relevant radial information.

Thanks for Paul and George for their criticism. As I mentioned, I approach this problem with intellectual honesty and will publicly accept failure.

That said, the SDSS is only one of three possibly supporting astronomical evidence. The Planck CMB and the Supernova Projects still support the topology.

I looked around and it doesn't seem that it is possible to collect CMASS galaxies along R. On the other hand, It might be possible to query randomized data and derive some information. The issue is that randomized data might not be easily comparable. It is possible that my claim (of radial modulation of galaxy density) will only be solved in a future SDSS measurement.

While that doesn't happen, thanks.

Here is the newest article:

Preprint The Optical Path of Ancient Photons and the Supernova Project

I added a posting showing that my theory is Lorentz invariant and explained where Einstein made his mistakes.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/498863/why-all-theories-are-lorentz-invariant/499333#499333

Please visit the posting and upvote it. This is necessary because members of Einstein's Cult will just downvote what they don't want to read or see or think about...:)

This means that instead of presenting an argument against the idea, they will just try to bury, place it where nobody can see it.

Shameful people.

Here a list of 5 corrections to relativity. Links are to the files.

1, The first link shows the difference the relations of mass to frequency in relativity and quantum mechanics.

2&3, The first 2 links show proofs and applications, that the axial Doppler shift changes all the observed things the transverse does. The axial Doppler shift exists and an error by Lorentz that was imported into relativity kept it out. They also show that it requires more than four dimensions to fix geometry on a fast moving body. Relativity uses Minkowski' four dimensional space-time which is another correction.

4, Link 3 is an application of the above.

5, link 4 shows the effect of experimental verification that gravity fields have mass (which is missing from the GTR) limits black holes.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ha24QHwfRzZAMV47_48Qt7Hs3LQVuDcb

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1u4nLUIav_TqifWPa_-ODXkM80PigLjoI

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kAoRybHCyq_v_x_IvPuFlZxw7Dg8HK_P

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1J4_5nGoZMiFo4Tdq3_tpzgPEO4DwYRmO

Samuel Reich

Why would I read about corrections to Relativity if I presented astronomical evidence that Einstein's equations are not obeyed?

MP

The equations that do not work perfectly fill needs so they must be corrected. Some those errors I pointed out are very big.

Bigger than Einstein's equations not describing the Universe?