Marco Pereira In response to your invitation I will first set down my views about dark matter and dark energy.

I do think that the evidence for dark matter is strong not just from galaxy rotation curves but also from gravitational lensing. My view is that dark matter is formed as a bound pair of neutrons in a galaxy formation event. Around 85% of the neutrons thus formed pair immediately into dark matter. The remaining single neutrons decay to form protons and neutrons and then hydrogen. These spherical regions of hydrogen and dark matter then subsequently form galaxies.

Dark energy does not exist and the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. The concept of dark energy is based on a false interpretation of the recession velocity of distant galaxies. Galaxy recession velocity is made up of the expansion of space and the movement of the galaxy through space. All galaxies experience gravitational acceleration towards the centre of mass of all galaxies.

Of more significance for spiral galaxies is the angular momentum problem. This was mentioned by Fred Hoyle in his book. The question is “where does the angular momentum of spiral galaxies come from?”

Presentation The Formation of Spiral Galaxies

Richard

Richard Lewis

Thank you for your comment. Let me challenge your position:

a) My article shows that in the M33 galaxy, the amount of gas that is gravitationally attached to the galaxy is 185% of the luminous mass. This is in line with the expectations between the ratio of Dark Matter and Baryonic Matter.

In other words, my article shows that garden-variety gravitation is enough to drag the amount of gas that people currently attribute as Dark Matter.

In other words, my theory does not deny weak-gravitational mapping of gas...Observations are King. I don't challenge observations. I challenge interpretation.

b) No neutron dimer has been created or if they were created in experiments, their lifetime doesn't support your hypothesis. In addition, it is unnecessary since hydrogen gas is already a better solution to the problem.

None of this has any support in observations:

Dark energy does not exist and the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. The concept of dark energy is based on a false interpretation of the recession velocity of distant galaxies. Galaxy recession velocity is made up of the expansion of space and the movement of the galaxy through space. All galaxies experience gravitational acceleration towards the centre of mass of all galaxies.

There is no support for a center of mass for all galaxies...:)

My theory derived an epoch-dependent law of Gravitation that show that the Cosmic Distance Ladder has a bias.

I corrected the bias and parameterless predicted the SN1a data.

Fred Hoyle question is silly: “where does the angular momentum of spiral galaxies come from?”

The total angular momentum of the Universe is zero. That is enough explanation.

By the way, where is your comment about my article?

Thanks,

Marco Pereira This paper refers to M33 and suggests it is consistent with the presence of dark matter:

Article Dark matter and visible baryons in M33

I found the link on Google but ResearchGate cleverly substituted it with a link to a ResearchGate article. I hope it works.

I can’t argue the specifics of your findings relating to M33 but I do think that dark matter exists.

Richard

Richard Lewis

Papers consistent with Dark Matter are all the others.

The specifics of my work is Gauss' Theory of Gravitation. It is High School Physics.

I didn't do anything special in the article.

You should be able to understand the subject.

That said, thanks for the link.

I will take a look at it.

Feel free to ask questions. By the way, I provided the Jupyter Notebook. You can see the calculation and run it in your computer.

One cannot use the Virial Theorem in a flat disk mass distribution. The article says: The M33 virialized dark halo is at least 50 times more massive than the visible baryons and its size is comparable with the M33-M31 separation

So, right on the abstract one can see the error.

Why would anyone look for a model full of incorrect hypotheses when there is a solution at hand?

The Quasi Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) (book: `` A different approach to Cosmology'' Hoyle, Burbidge, & Narlikar) offers an different modle of rotation curves. Another, the STOE (

Hodge,~J.\,C. 2006c. {\it{Scalar potential model of spiral galaxy HI rotation curves and rotation curve asymmetry}}.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611029 )offers a source at the center of galaxies.

Approximately 10% of spiral galaxies are low surface brightness galaxies with LESS mass than average galaxies - their rotation curves are RISING. The dark matter hypothesis suggest a high mass content which is not observed - they are falsifiers of the dark matter hypothesis. But they fit in well with the QSSC and STOE.

Dear John Hodge

As much as I welcome inventive, creative new approaches to gravitation, I believe one shouldn't reinvent the wheel that was invented by Gauss 200 years ago.

Gauss's approach to Gravitation is just fine. That is what I used. It is 100% correct. In other words, there is no reason to create an ad hoc ansatz for this problem.

Not to mention that the observation is explained without the arbitrary introduction of undetermined "sink galaxies" (external influences).

If the "closed solution" to this problem doesn't require external influences, then it is likely there is not need to include them in the problem solution.

The different profiles your work fitted are the result of idiosyncratic mass distributions. In my model of M33, it is clear that a sinusoidal wave modulated the density (or temperature) distribution.

That is idiosyncratic.

In other words, one can extract these anomalous distributions from the data in my model, in the same way, you were able to do in yours.

That said, my model is more general, and simpler.

It also demonstrates that a diluted gas cloud, gravitationally attached to the galaxy is enough to explain Dark Matter.

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

John Hodge

You said: Approximately 10% of spiral galaxies are low surface brightness galaxies with LESS mass than average galaxies - their rotation curves are RISING. The dark matter hypothesis suggests a high mass content which is not observed - they are falsifiers of the dark matter hypothesis. But they fit in well with the QSSC and STOE.

I showed that a RISING rotation curve is consistent with an exponentially decaying density that is not decaying fast enough (consistent with extra matter).

In the M33 case (RISING ROTATION CURVE), the extra gas cloud's total mass was 185% of the Luminous Mass.

There is no need to call it Dark Matter. It doesn't have the prescribed Halo shape.

In addition, the anomalous behavior of the rotation curve starts around 3-4 thousand light-years from the center of the galaxy, within the luminous mass.

So, M33 would have to have Dark Matter inside the luminous mass.

We know that there is gas there. There is no need to conjure up imaginary particles.

How do you explain asymmetric rotation curves. Also, you did only 1 galaxy - what about the others with data/

John Hodge

The issue is if M33 can be explained with just Newtonian Gravitation and idiosyncratic mass distribution. It can.

Current science cannot do that.

Your work adds arbitrary external actors to explain the observation.

I have no reason to believe that simple modifications of the mass distribution or temperature profile would NOT recover observations.

If by asymmetric rotation curves, you mean, curves where diametrically opposing gas or stars are rotating at distinct velocities, that would require a non-azimuthally-symmetric distribution. That would be a system that is out of equilibrium (a transient).

Of course, if there is a companion galaxy that we know about and want to add to the problem, that could be used as a part of the solution. So, I am not excluding the possibility of external actors.

The focus of my work is lone spiral galaxies, in equilibrium.

That would require a more elaborate (one cannot use Gauss Gravitation Theory directly) simulation.

The point is that the shape of the mass distribution matters.

This was not considered in the past. All reasonings used Newton's Shell Theorem and simple-minded conclusions.

In other words, any observation can be explained given that you pay attention to what you are observing.

I only want to refute the basis for Dark Matter. My work is extensive and I need to work on several areas.

Cheers,

Marco

ps - if you could provide me with as many rotation curves as you might have, I will write down a simple fitting routing that should explain them all.

John Hodge

Please consider endorsing my work at Los Alamos Archives.

[email protected] 3:57 PM (0 minutes ago) to me 0:26 (Marco A Pereira should forward this email to someone who's registered as an endorser for the astro-ph.GA (Astrophysics of Galaxies) subject class of arXiv.) Marco A Pereira requests your endorsement to submit an article to the astro-ph.GA section of arXiv. To tell us that you would (or would not) like to endorse this person, please visit the following URL: https://arxiv.org/auth/endorse?x=9IOAI8 If that URL does not work for you, please visit http://arxiv.org/auth/endorse.php and enter the following six-digit alphanumeric string: Endorsement Code: 9IOAI8

Thanks,

Marco Pereira

John Hodge

In your equation (3), it is implicit that you are considering the galaxy to be a spherical distribution of mass.

That is what I am trying to object.

Please endorse my work such that my objection can be part of the discussion.

Thanks,

Marco Pereira

Dear Marco Pereira,

I appreciate your concern for the "Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve Conundrum" and for highlighting this issue. I agree with you that 'One cannot use Newton's Shell Theorem' for 'a flat distribution of matter' in galactic discs. However, there is an error in your proposed solution.

With reference to your paper "IS THERE A SPIRAL GALAXY ROTATION CURVE CONUNDRUM?" you have made an error in using "The Gaussian Formulation of Newtonian Gravitation". In Gaussian Formulation the surface integral is over the hole closed surface enclosing the mass m. In your equation (2) you have only accounted for the peripheral (cylindrical) surface area of the thick galactic disc and not accounted for the upper and lower surfaces of the huge galactic disc. After equation (4) you have written "Where the integral is a surface integral on the surface of the cylinder. Notice that vertical accelerations cancel each other at the galaxy plane." Actually, there is always a non-zero inward acceleration field (g) at upper and lower surfaces of the thick galactic disc, which should have been properly accounted for. Your observation "Notice that vertical accelerations cancel each other at the galaxy plane." is wrong and has introduced a fatal error in your solution.

Once we find that Newton's Shell Theorem cannot be used for a flat distribution of matter in galactic discs, a credible alternative is to divide the gravitating mass m into a large number of finite elements and numerically add up their contributions to the gravitation field at the desired point. By doing so I have found that for a large uniform disc the assumption of a point mass m located at the center of the disc does give a significantly wrong result in comparison with the finite element numerical method. However, for a tapered disc with a significant bulge at the center, the two methods give almost comparable results.

Therefore, for true solution to the "Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve Conundrum" we have to explore other options.

Best Regards

Gurcharn S. Sandhu

Dear Gurcharn Singh Sandhu

You said: In your equation (2) you have only accounted for the peripheral (cylindrical) surface area of the thick galactic disc and not accounted for the upper and lower surfaces of the huge galactic disc.

I explained that those two contributions cancel each other at the plane of the galaxy and that is where I am calculating the acceleration

In addition, I explained that the Huge Cylinder is the Initial Conditions of the Initial Cloud (the one that resulted in the galaxy).

In other words, that is prior to the coalescing of the gas into stars and the vertical shrinkage of the cylinder.

I assume that the vertical coalescing would occur without changing the effective gravitational field

You said: After equation (4) you have written "Where the integral is a surface integral on the surface of the cylinder. Notice that vertical accelerations cancel each other at the galaxy plane." Actually, there is always a non-zero inward acceleration field (g) at upper and lower surfaces of the thick galactic disc,

That is incorrect at the plane of the galaxy. Obviously, the vertical accelerations are responsible for the central bulge luminous mass coalescing. Outside the luminous mass, density is not enough to coalesce into stars.

You are not telling me anything that would affect the model.

Obviously, once I presented my model and the evidence that all current models are incorrect, one can use any shape and Gauss Gravitation Theory. As they say, 20/20 vision is easy in retrospect.

By the way, could you provide a link to the already published work you are referring to?

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

Marco Pereira

Yes. Perhaps, I should have more expansive in creating a equation 2a, 2b which would have made the \rho from mass and Sources inside and outside the radius obey the spherical principle which then leads to the forces on matter. The disc shape then is by additional forces.

Does the spherical principle apply to gravity from bodies? If so, then the distribution of matter inside the spherical matters little except for quadratic and higher effects. But the higher order effects of a disc won't be felt in the disc.

Have you applied your model for other spiral galaxies.

OH, the Sink thing: There are many differences between spiral galaxies and elliptical (including radio sources) galaxies. These should be accounted in models. Further, there are other observations where the Sink concept contributes.

John Hodge

You asked: Does the spherical principle apply to gravity from bodies?

It changes the acceleration dependence with distance from inverse distance squared to inverse distance. That is not a higher-order effect.

In other words, trying to use a spherical mass distribution (and thus concentrating all the mass at a core) is a gross mistake. That is what my work is telling you.

You asked: Have you applied your model for other spiral galaxies?

No. If you provided me with a link for the galaxy's rotation curves, I can easily apply my model. By the way, this is my article. The model is Gauss Gravitation Theory.

To ask that is equivalent to asking if using Newton's Law of Gravitation in our Solar System Celestial Dynamics was my idea.

It is not my idea. It is the correct idea. My contribution is noticing the error and letting people know.

My work is censored in Los Alamos Archives. You seem to be able to endorse work there.

I would be happy if my contribution would be just debunking Dark Matter in the Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve Conundrum.

I have other stuff to publish that is more important.

As I mentioned, I am sure there are interacting galaxies where Sink is a relevant concept.

Would you mind endorsing my work such that my article can be seen or not?

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

Dear Marco Pereira,

In my last message I had written,

With reference to your paper "IS THERE A SPIRAL GALAXY ROTATION CURVE CONUNDRUM?" you have made an error in using "The Gaussian Formulation of Newtonian Gravitation". In Gaussian Formulation the surface integral is over the whole closed surface enclosing the mass m. In your equation (2) you have only accounted for the peripheral (cylindrical) surface area of the thick galactic disc and not accounted for the upper and lower surfaces of the huge galactic disc. After equation (4) you have written "Where the integral is a surface integral on the surface of the cylinder. Notice that vertical accelerations cancel each other at the galaxy plane." Actually, there is always a non-zero inward acceleration field (g) at upper and lower surfaces of the thick galactic disc, which should have been properly accounted for. Your observation "Notice that vertical accelerations cancel each other at the galaxy plane." is wrong and has introduced a fatal error in your solution.

I am surprised to note that from the above explanation you could not understand your mistake. Let me make another attempt.

In your equation (2), you have considered a uniform thick disc of radius r, thickness h and mass m. Let us consider a cylindrical coordinate system (r,θ,z) centered at the center of the disc with z-axis aligned along the disc axis. Now the Gaussian closed surface that encloses the mass m, will consist of three distinct surfaces as,

1. Cylindrical curved surface at radius r with area A1=2πrh

2. Plane upper surface of the disc at z=h/2 with area A2=πr2

3. Plane lower surface of the disc at z=-h/2 with area A3=πr2

Let the magnitude of the gravitation field at the cylindrical surface A1 be gr pointing radially inwards. Since the normal to the surface A1 points opposite to the direction of gravitation field gr, the integral of gr with bounding surface A1 will be equal to -grA1.

Let the magnitude of the gravitation field at the upper plane surface A2 be gz pointing vertically downwards. Since the normal to the surface A2 points upwards, opposite to the direction of gravitation field gz, the integral of gz with bounding surface A2 will be equal to -gzA2.

Let the magnitude of the gravitation field at the lower plane surface A3 be gz pointing vertically upwards. Since the normal to the surface A3 points downwards, opposite to the direction of gravitation field gz, the integral of gz with bounding surface A3 will be equal to -gzA3.

Therefore, using Gaussian Formulation the surface integral over the whole closed surface enclosing the mass m will take the form,

- grA1 - gzA2 - gzA3 = - 4πG.m

Or 2πrh.gr + 2πr2.gz = 4πG.m

Instead of this correct formulation of the Gaussian surface integral, your equation (2) includes only the first term of the L.H.S and wrongly omits the second and third terms involving areas A2 and A3. As such your equations (3) and (4) are wrong due to which you have obtained a wrong and misleading result.

Your assertion, " Notice that vertical accelerations cancel each other at the galaxy plane." is wrong since the galaxy plane does not constitute any of the Gaussian surfaces.

For further elaboration please refer to your reference: http://www.pgccphy.net/ref/gravity.pdf Gauss’s Law for Gravity

Read the section 'The Gaussian Formulation of Newtonian Gravity' carefully.

Your equation (2) matches the equation number (15) of this reference which is derived for an infinitely long line of mass, having linear mass density.

Next study equations (19) and (20) of this reference which are derived for an infinite plane of mass, having area mass density.

However, in your study the galactic disc is neither an infinitely long line of mass nor an infinite plane of mass.

If you are still not convinced of your error, then it is your pleasure. I have nothing more to add.

Best Regards

Gurcharn

Dear Gurcharn Singh Sandhu

You said: 2πrh.gr + 2πr2.gz = 4πG.m

I agree. My mistake.

I will correct that.

That said the reason the analysis was approximately correct is the shape of the mass distribution which makes gz(r)

Marco Pereira

My paper list the data sources. You can go there.

My ability to endorse arXiv was removed in2010 with the publication of the Pioneer Anomaly paper.

Dear John Hodge

I will take a look. That is not a priority since I have a few other papers to submit.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu show me a mistake in my analysis. I should had take into consideration gz(r).

It turns out that this is a simple mistake that does not invalidate the analysis but makes it approximate (gz is small outside the region of the luminous mass) and can be neglected.

Since then, I did a little more thinking and made the approximation better.

I will post the new version as soon as it is done.

Would you happen to know a person that could endorse my work? The reason I say that is because this is a small fraction of a work that challenges the current view and people loathe having to learn new things. It is even worse if the person that created the idea is not part of the club.

Please waste a few minutes of your time to understand the scope of my effort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK-Lyb7NfM

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w-5u1WAp6o

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

My goal is just to place my work where people can find it. I am not interested in a career in academia (being there, done that) and want to do other things.

That said, it is my duty to present these ideas since they are better than what we have right now.

Any help would be welcomed.

Thanks,

Marco Pereira

Dear John Hodge

Are you talking about Leda database

http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/

when you said, the source of spiral galaxy rotation curves?

Thanks,

Marco

Marco Pereira

My video on the TOE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlJGdTvuTU

As you may note I'm heavy on the observation comparison.

Also some problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nkeV2dbWA

I'm 80 years old. I had the same problem you're facing. I publish where the paper may be easily searched by title or keyword, and where paper records are kept. I've decided to not devote much effort seeking academic recognition as that is a waste of time - data and explaining observations means little when (as Wikipedia does) consistency with accepted models trumps observation.

Good luck.

Marco Pereira

that is some, more is in fig.1 (NED database) and Fig. 2 shows the references for the rotation curve data.

Dear John Hodge

When you say source galaxies and steady state, are you really saying that hydrogen is being created out of nothing in source galaxies (such as to keep a stable universe)?

Marco

Dear John Hodge

Do you have a typical query to be used with LEDA

By the way, somehow I have an excel spreadsheet with spiral galaxy data (I don't remember where did I get it from ).

It refers to something called RAMEN matter

I have no idea where it came from and so I cannot even reference the source.

That said, maybe you are familiar with the work. It seems that is trying to use time dilation to explain the rotation curve conundrum. That said, I can use the rotation and mass distribution information in my calculations.

Radius (Kpc) Radius (m)

Observed Rotation Velocity (km/s)

Observed Rotation Velocity (m/s)

Observed Mass per Rotation Velocity

Schwartzchild Radius

Static F.o.R.

Time Dilation

Orbiting F.o.R.Time Dilation

Sphere R Volume

Spherical Shell Volume

Time Dilated Spherical Shell Volume

Integrated Volume

Time Differential

Accumulated Volumen

Average Path Distance

Accumulation Distance

Accumulation Days

Spherical Layer Area R

Accumulated Volume

Calculated RAMEN Mass

Calculated Baryonic Mass

RAMEN/Baryonic

RAMEN Only RotarionVelocity

Baryonic Only Rotarion Velocity

Total Density Kg/m^3

RAMEN Density Kg/km^3

Baryonic Density Kg/m^3

Observed Centripetal Acceleration

Baryonic Only Centripetal Acceleration

Log(g observed)

Log(g bar)

Marco Pereira

Historically, the ``Steady State'' model of Hoyle & others competed with the Big Bang model. Both used General Relativity for the math. The CMB favored the Big Bang, Hoyle & others then changed their model slightly to have their ``creation field'' (Big C in their equations) of the stuff of our universe (subatomic particles which the become hydrogen and the typical matter evolution - outward from the center of spiral galaxies) moved from the intergalactic regions to the center of galaxies. This added explanations for the observed atomic abundances and the clouds of shocked, outflowing hydrogen from the center of spiral galaxies.

The ``steady state'' part was to explain the apparent expansion of the universe. That is constant creation of the stuff of the universe to keep the density of the universe constant/steady. The STOE (addition of Sinks) then kept the universe nearly constant size (no expansion - a tired light model was proposed) but with oscillation in size corresponding to slight variation in the CMB.

Sorry for the long answer, but the words mean something:

see:

Article Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small...

Dear John Hodge

There are many problems with this picture:

a) Continuous creation of matter in the center of the galaxy. That is not supported by any observation or experiment

b) The idea that gas originated in the core of the galaxy somehow acquires the galaxy's escape velocity and travels to other galaxies (millions or billions of years away). Just consider that the escape velocity in our Milky Way is 650 km/s. Andromeda, which is already touching the Milky Way, is 2.5 million light-years (2.400187e+19km) away. That would take 2.4E19 seconds, which is 761 billion years - longer than the age of the Universe.

So, even if the gas were to travel outside the Milky way, it would take 761 billion years to reach the galaxy that is touching our galaxy. The addition of sink galaxies does not solve this problem.

Obviously, generating hydrogen at the center of the galaxy doesn't do anything to explain the ever-increasing distances between galaxies (since the center of the mass is what is receding).

You said: That is the constant creation of the stuff of the universe to keep the density of the universe constant/steady.

We know the density of the gas (universe) at the recombination event.

That is way above the critical density (if you use GR). It doesn't make any sense.

The addition of sink galaxies does not solve the problem. A sink galaxy would seem Matter disappearing at the center???? That doesn't make sense. The gas wouldn't reach the galaxy and the galaxy wouldn't cease to exist after a short time.

Tired Photon does not explain the observations. In other words, exponential wavelength decay is not consistent with the Supernova Cosmology Data.

Outflowing hydrogen clouds are normally seen in active galaxy nuclei, where there is a Supermassive Black Hole.

I don't think we see that in the Milky Way, for example. If we do, does that gas has escape velocity? Please, let me know.

I offered a much simpler universe. One without obvious inconsistencies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK-Lyb7NfM

I made matter directly from deformed space. There is no need for Dark Matter, Dark Energy.. all particles surf the inner dilation layer (negative energy layer).

It is very simple and satisfying. Feel free to ask questions and criticism (as I did).

Best regards,

Marco Pereira

Marco Pereira

Thanks for your questions. I view your questions very basic to the STOE and philosophy of science. I want to answer them completely, but find myself thinking about very fundamental issue. So, I'm going to do at least 2 answers on this thread.

The first is to reference my paper which is a basic overview wherein the general development of the model is given.

SUMMARY

Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton's model

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414

The thinking behind the model are some very fundamental postulates/assumptions. Whether we like it or not, every model has fundamental assumptions from which the model is developed. The support of the postulates is the observations that are explained by the postulates. And the model must be self consistent. Thus, the STOE as published is very observation heavy and focused and I've applied it to observations over a broad spectrum (Cosmology, classical, and quantum).

This is somewhat unusual in current physics as most models start with math and many times the explanatory character is not clear. The second thing that happens is that many observations are ignored or not addressed. That is, Following T. Kuhn, the STOE is a new paradigm starting with new postulates.

As shown in the video, many of those observation explained by the STOE are not explained by standard models such as asymmetric RC, periodic (discrete) galaxy redshifts, 9 of the 10 Pioneer Anomalies. Further, the STOE reduces to the 2 main standard models (GR and QM) by explaining observations. O course, there is much more to do, which is why the video ``Musing'' was done.

So, the creation of the universe being the Big Bang is NOT a starting point. So, the STOE has its own creation myth (following the QSSC).

I note in your model you start (your creation myth) from a Big Bang concept (``big pop'') and suggest the creation (1 time) of `space' with a property of ``FD''. The it seems you get electrons and protons with vague properties (or perhaps I didn't get the physical emergence of these). What are photons? What is gravity? What about the other 3 forces (from whence)?

I suggest the entry into Quantum realm is the use either a wave model to explain the many particle light experiment such as the photoelectric effect OR to use a particle model (my photon) to explain the 5 main interference experiments:

IMO: The model for the small (quantum) is to have 1 model to explain 5 experiments that amateurs can do (low cost). With these 5 I also get Spectrgraphic behavior.

1) light from a candle/lightbulb thru a slit/pin hole impinging on a screen at a few meters distance. It is NOT a diffraction image and may be an image of the light source depending the setup (a pinhole camera).

2) the light from 1) thru another slit , or light from a distant source such as a star(Sun) or light from a laser thru a slit is a diffraction image. The difference between 1) and 2) is the light is called ``coherent''. So, the model is one of ``What is coherence?'' How does light transition from incoherence to coherence? Saying Fraunhofer does NOT do this. Coherence is thought to be a wave phenomena - but then there is 3) and 4) also. Then there are the particle experiments such as the photoelectric effect.

Explaining coherence starts to address entanglement . The STOE suggests photons become coherent thru an entanglement mechanism.

3) Coherent light thru 2 slits (Young's experiment). Then very low intensity light (1 photon in the experiment at a time) The issue is from whence the pilot wave. If the pilot wave is from the photon, then how does the pilot wave from the photon when the photon is beyond the mask (mask is behind the photon) affect the only photon in the experiment. So how does the photon sense the 2nd slit?)

4) the Afshar experiment - a problem for wave models which draws some heated (and false) comments from QM advocates.

5) The Hodge experiment (transparent mask experiment) which rejects wave models and asks the photon model to explain an interference (2 slit) image without the photons going thru the 2nd slit.

I created a toy computer simulation of the hod-photon-plenum interaction. It duplicated th screen observations with only the mask descriptions changed.

The next level is atoms and molecules. So, I've started looking into Fizeau experiment, Michelson-Morley experiment, particle Doppler effect, and the Special Relativity experiments to examine reflection and refraction of light/photons as particles.

The latter I addressed in the paper and video: "Replacing Special Relativity"

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2554

So, the postulates of the STOE yield the observations which other models, including the current standard models, fail to explain. IMO, your model must do the same.

I'd like to study your descriptions of data comparisons.

Marco Pereira

There are many problems with this picture:

a) Continuous creation of matter in the center of the galaxy. That is not supported by any observation or experiment

It is postulate like you ``Big Pop'' The support is that it results in explaining more, more simply than other current models. It has 2 components of the universe -plenum and hods which emerge to form everything. Where does your ``space'' and ``FD'' come from - also electrons and protons?

b) The idea that gas originated in the core of the galaxy somehow acquires the galaxy's escape velocity and travels to other galaxies (millions or billions of years away). Just consider that the escape velocity in our Milky Way is 650 km/s. Andromeda, which is already touching the Milky Way, is 2.5 million light-years (2.400187e+19km) away. That would take 2.4E19 seconds, which is 761 billion years - longer than the age of the Universe.

So, even if the gas were to travel outside the Milky way, it would take 761 billion years to reach the galaxy that is touching our galaxy. The addition of sink galaxies does not solve this problem.

NO, No you missed the the part of the model where here is a force (\nabla\rho) directed out of the center of the spiral galaxy which accounts for the ``dark matter'' observations, the "planet 9'', the CMB, and part of the Pioneer Anomaly observations. Your assumed high impulse is unnecessary.

The other problem of BIG bang or pop is how do galaxies form. The Big Bang has matter infalling into all galaxies - Yet data suggest matter is outfloing from Spiral galaxies and infalling into elliptical galaxies (Binney & Merrifield book)

Obviously, generating hydrogen at the center of the galaxy doesn't do anything to explain the ever-increasing distances between galaxies (since the center of the mass is what is receding).

``Obvious'' - ridiculous. ``..ever-increasing distance between galaxies'' according to standard (false and less explanatory ) models.

You said: That is the constant creation of the stuff of the universe to keep the density of the universe constant/steady.

We know the density of the gas (universe) at the recombination event.

Such an event is unobserved and totally model dependent. Because the Big bang type model leaves many observed problems, it needs to be replaced. Isn't that what you are doing? Why keep a deeply flawed single creation event?

That is way above the critical density (if you use GR). It doesn't make any sense.

QSSC uses GR and it explains the critical density better than the Big Bang. The Hoyle, et al Cosmlogy book describes this

The addition of sink galaxies does not solve the problem. A sink galaxy would seem Matter disappearing at the center???? That doesn't make sense. The gas wouldn't reach the galaxy and the galaxy wouldn't cease to exist after a short time.

False. Matter (rocks and hydrogen) have been observed infalling to elliptical galaxies see Binney & Merrifield's book. Part of the issue is the need to explain the measured temperature of the background radiation which the current models do NOT. That is the models do not calculate the theoretical value. The STOE does.

Tired Photon does not explain the observations. In other words, exponential wavelength decay is not consistent with the Supernova Cosmology Data.

See my paper on reshift and discrete redshift.

Hodge,\,J.\,C. 2006. {\it{Scalar potential model of redshift and discrete redshift}}. {{NewA}}, v.\,11\,(5), 344--358. https://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602344v1.pdf

It explains the data ( the DATA) much better than other models (85% correlation vs 66% or 70% of the Doppler effect model) AND it explains the discrete (periodic) redshift the are unexplained by any other model it's one of your challenges also.

Outflowing hydrogen clouds are normally seen in active galaxy nuclei, where there is a Supermassive Black Hole.

I don't think we see that in the Milky Way, for example. If we do, does that gas has escape velocity?

Wrong. The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole. It doesn't need to have a high impulse force, it merely needs to have an outgoing force constantly applied rather than an impulse which you assume. BTW this force acts on the surface area which accounts of atoms for the Z (atomic weight abundance vs radius) observations ( upper case Z not lower case z redshift).

Please, let me know.

I offered a much simpler universe. One without obvious inconsistencies.

The universe I suggest has 2 components - Yours has more the ``space'', the FD and multiple particles and their interaction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK-Lyb7NfM

saw the video.

I made matter directly from deformed space. There is no need for Dark Matter, Dark Energy.. all particles surf the inner dilation layer (negative energy layer).

Many assumptions. More than the STOE. You have a great many more observations to address.

How does your model address periodic redshift, asymmetric rotation curves, and many other observation I'vs mentioned. Perhaps you simply need more time. It took me nearly 20 years to develop the STOE to the point it is and still there are many more thing to address. see my video ``Musings''

Dear John Hodge

You said: It is postulate like you ``Big Pop''

You missed one step. I didn't postulate matter being created at the Big Pop. I hypothesized that Matter was made of coherence of deformation of space. The Big Pop is the recombination of a Heisenberg-Dictated Metric Fluctuation.

There is nothing postulated by me there. The Heisenberg Principle and the recombination of a Metric Fluctuation have a finite possibility of being partial.

So, the Big Pop has no postulate of mine.

You might say that Matter being a shapeshifting deformation of space is odd... but you have to compare that with the current view, where Matter is horrendously complicated (mass is given by interaction with a Higgs Field, it exists in massless form... it is transported by an Inflaton Field and drag around by Dark Energy).

In comparison to that, my definition of Matter is trivial and that is better.

Hence my objection to your postulate of Matter being created continues.

I mentioned the problem with Matter transport between sink and source. That should be enough to block this idea.

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

You said: Where do your ``space'' and ``FD'' come from - also electrons and protons?

I explained in the video that the Universe comes from a Heisenberg Dictated Hyperspherical Metric Fluctuation. The Metric Fluctuation contains Dilation in the Inner Layers and Contraction in the outer layers. After the Big Pop (partial Recombination), you are left with one Inner Dilation Layer and one Outermost Contraction Layer.

Since this is space we are talking about, it is smooth and infinitely divisible. Once the dilation layer pushes the contraction layer outwards it fragments into pieces. Obviously, these pieces are localized eigenstate coherence of deformation of space. The energy contained in all pieces is equal to the energy stored in the initial Contraction Layer.

The negative energy of the Universe is contained in the inner dilation layer and all particles surf that layer (like surfers on a hyperspherical pond wave).

I explained that Newton's Laws of Dynamics match perfectly this paradigm, where the surfboard is the 3D volume of deformation of this 4D construct (the Fundamental Dilator).

The initial State of the Universe corresponds to the Blackholium - a hyperspherical hypersuperficial Black Hole.

Further expansion leads to the Neutronium... and eventually, the Neutronium decays and releases free neutrons... which decay into hydrogen and antineutrinos.

So, there is no "energy coming from any place. All energy is accounted for. There is no magical continuous mass creation...

This was covered in the video.

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

Rebut to your assertions:

a) Tired photon does not explain the SN1a data.

It does not.

My epoch-dependent G parameterless predicts all SN1a distances. Epoch-dependent G means that the distances themselves are incorrect (they are being systematically overestimated by the effect of stronger G on SN1a Absolute Luminosity.

The corrected distances allow for all galaxies to be moving away from each other just by inertial motion in 4D (moving radially).

Inertial Motion beats any other explanation that requires Magical Dark Matter, Tired Photons...

Your paper covers redshifts up to 22E-3, whereas my work covers up to z=1050 (CMB) and 1.47 SN1a

In other words, you don't know that your tired model doesn't work because you didn't use the full data available.

Dear John Hodge

I refuted some but not all you said, just to avoid writing a too-long message.

I hope this shows that your claim of explaining universe expansion is not supported by the small range of the sample data.

If you realize that your model fails there, then you will be more receptive to my idea.

Just for comparison. I also have a plot for the linear region of the SN1a data. It is attached.

It covers a range 10 times larger than the range in your paper.

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

I do not claim universe expansion that is your thing. That is part of the Sink thought.

How do explain periodic redshift, asymmetric RCs, Mach's principle, spherical principle, etc.

So, where do the things you claim in your model come from? I read the big pop. How many things? space, FD, your HD fluctuation characteristic, 4 space dimension (also unobserved),

You misinterpret almost everything within the terms of your model or the current standard model.

The redshift paper derives the Hubble constant but not from Doppler assumption. Hence, all the data of larger redshift applies to the STOE.

Dear John Hodge

The SN1a data has two items - Photometrically Determined Distances (in fact, the Distance Modulus, which is interpreted as distance using the Stellar Candles Hypothesis) and the redshift.

In other words, there is a real distance (correct or not). Your model precludes expansion (so galaxies are floating in space with just idiosyncratic motion), so the redshift is explained by just photons getting tired by traveling large distances..

As I mentioned the model does not fit the data.

I don't see any periodic redshift in the SN1a data. If you have data that presents period redshifting.

If by spherical principle you mean the isotropic universe, that is obvious from a universe that starts as a homogeneous hyperspherical hypersuperficial Black Hole. In other words, if you start with a homogeneous mass distribution, you shouldn't be surprised if later the mass distribution continues homogeneous.

Asymmetric RC is trivially explained by an asymmetric mass distribution between luminous mass and gas cloud mass. In M33, the gas cloud is 184% of the luminous mass.

Mach Principle is a terrible principle since it does not allow you to derive anything or allow you to predict anything. In addition, it requires instantaneous interaction across the universe. It couldn't be more wrong.

You said: So, where do the things you claim in your model come from? I read the big pop. How many things? space, FD, your HD fluctuation characteristic, 4 space dimension (also unobserved),

I derived natural laws using the 4D spatial manifold. This means that any observation that is consistent with Physics supports the 4D spatial manifold.

Currently, all natural laws are empirical...

As I mentioned my universe has only space time and deformed space. As far as I can tell you are trying to ask me to explain where space or time come from.

That is kind of strange. I don't know any model that doesn't use space and time. As you can see, you don't need to ask me:

a) Where the energy came from?

b) Where the particles came from?

c) What was the size of the Universe at time zero (420 light-seconds 4D radius)?

d) How hot was the Universe at t=0 (0 Kelvin or zero degrees of freedom)?

e) When did the Universe get hot? (at the end of the first day when the Neutronium started decaying - that lasted three days).

f) What created the CMB features? The CMB features are due to two processes - the frozen hyperspherical harmonics acoustic oscillations triggered by the Blackholium-Neutronium phase transition and the decay of Neutronium.

I calculated the hyperspherical harmonic spectrum and predicted the galaxy density across the observable and unobservable universe

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

Here is a more complete source about the Big Pop and the expansion of the Universe.

Preprint THE BIG POP COSMOGENESIS EQUATION OF STATE

You said: The redshift paper derives the Hubble constant but not from the Doppler assumption. Hence, all the data of larger redshift applies to the STOE.

You had said that redshift was explained using the tired photon model. This has an exponential energy decay with traversed distance. That will not fit the data given the photometrically determined SN1a distances.

In other words, you look at redshifts between zero and 28E-3 and somehow concluded that your model explains the Universe. That is not right.

Your just not listening and your putting your model into mine.

Thsiis may last response to you.

The SN1a data has two items - Photometrically Determined Distances (in fact, the Distance Modulus, which is interpreted as distance using the Stellar Candles Hypothesis) and the redshift.

Sure.

In other words, there is a real distance (correct or not). Your model precludes expansion (so galaxies are floating in space with just idiosyncratic motion), so the redshift is explained by just photons getting tired by traveling large distances..

Again - your model galaxies ``floting'' with idiosyncratic moteing NOT IN THE STOE - That is your model. ``photons getting tired'' Your model again. Their energy is reduced and increased as the travel thru the plenum. Theredshift equation also explains ALL 10 of the Pioneer Anomalies - standard model only claim 1.

As I mentioned the model does not fit the data.

The papers show otherwise, so does the video.

I don't see any periodic redshift in the SN1a data. If you have data that presents period redshifting.

AGAIN- your model. That is not the data of the periodic redshift which has been confirmed by several authors. Wikipedia has something on it. STOE calculates the periods with the redshift equation.

If by spherical principle you mean the isotropic universe, that is obvious from a universe that starts as a homogeneous hyperspherical hypersuperficial Black Hole. In other words, if you start with a homogeneous mass distribution, you shouldn't be surprised if later the mass distribution continues homogeneous.

Again - your model. Look it up. ``Spherical principle'' is potential proportional to inverse distance. Force as a gradient of potential os inverse distance squared. Universe NOT isotropic or homogeneous (again your model) in the STOE.

Asymmetric RC is trivially explained by an asymmetric mass distribution between luminous mass and gas cloud mass. In M33, the gas cloud is 184% of the luminous mass.

Again your model- there have been several papers written along you line - all of them falsified by data. Indeed, standard science has dropped the investigations because all models have been found wanting. So, it not trivial.

Mach Principle is a terrible principle since it does not allow you to derive anything or allow you to predict anything. In addition, it requires instantaneous interaction across the universe. It couldn't be more wrong.

Yet, Einstein tried to have Mach's principle apply to GR and failed. Severl scientist have tried to use Mach's principle and failed. Occassionally another paper is written on the subject. It does not necessarily require instaneous action (again- that is your model).

You said: So, where do the things you claim in your model come from? I read the big pop. How many things? space, FD, your HD fluctuation characteristic, 4 space dimension (also unobserved),

I derived natural laws using the 4D spatial manifold. This means that any observation that is consistent with Physics supports the 4D spatial manifold. I used the same argument for Sources and you thought it ...

Currently, all natural laws are empirical...

As I mentioned my universe has only space time and deformed space. As far as I can tell you are trying to ask me to explain where space or time come from. Exactly.

That is kind of strange. I don't know any model that doesn't use space and time. As you can see, you don't need to ask me:

a) Where the energy came from? in the STOE

b) Where the particles came from? In the steo

c) What was the size of the Universe at time zero (420 light-seconds 4D radius)? zero

d) How hot was the Universe at t=0 (0 Kelvin or zero degrees of freedom)? hot meaning particles moving to produce heat?

e) When did the Universe get hot? (at the end of the first day when the Neutronium started decaying - that lasted three days). as it grew. In the CMB temperature paper.

f) What created the CMB features? The CMB features are due to two processes - the frozen hyperspherical harmonics acoustic oscillations triggered by the Blackholium-Neutronium phase transition and the decay of Neutronium.

Again- your model. Not the STOE

I calculated the hyperspherical harmonic spectrum and predicted the galaxy density across the observable and unobservable universe

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

Here is a more complete source about the Big Pop and the expansion of the Universe.

Preprint THE BIG POP COSMOGENESIS EQUATION OF STATE

You said: The redshift paper derives the Hubble constant but not from the Doppler assumption. Hence, all the data of larger redshift applies to the STOE.

You had said that redshift was explained using the tired photon model. This has an exponential energy decay with traversed distance. That will not fit the data given the photometrically determined SN1a distances.

Again- your model. NOT an exponential energy decay in th STOE.

In other words, you look at redshifts between zero and 28E-3 and somehow concluded that your model explains the Universe. That is not right.

Your misinterpretation.

Dear John Hodge

It seems I have been too lazy to understand your model properly. You corrected me many times.

Let me ask one question at a time. What is the formula you used to derive the value of redshift as a function of distance (I am supposing you use the photometrically derived distances using the Stellar Candles hypothesis)?

This is the data

https://supernova.lbl.gov/union/figures/SCPUnion2.1_mu_vs_z.txt

It is fundamentally wrong to assume the existence of fictitious Dark Matter for explaining the pattern of circular velocities of stellar objects in galactic spiral arms.

Let a stellar object of mass m, with circular velocity Vc and radial velocity Vr, be located within a spiral arm at a radial distance R from the galactic centre. Let Mr be the total baryonic mass within a sphere of radius R. Assuming approximate validity of the shell theorem for the galactic disc region and also assuming that the stellar object under consideration is moving solely under the influence of central force field of the galaxy, radial acceleration dVr/dt of the object will be given by,

dVr/dt = -GMr/R2 + Vc2/R

While justifying the necessity of dark matter, the radial acceleration dVr/dt is assumed to be zero and all trajectories of stellar objects are implicitly assumed to be circular, which is wrong. The circular or tangential velocities of stellar bodies are not directly produced by the radial acceleration field of the galaxy but depend on the initial angular momentum of the accreting matter with respect to the gravitating body. Conservation of angular momentum will ensure increase in circular velocity of stellar bodies as their distance from central gravitating body keeps decreasing. Let L be the angular momentum of the stellar object while entering the outer fringes of the galaxy which will remain constant throughout its motion within the central gravitational field. The circular velocity Vc of this object, at any distance from the center of the gravitating mass Mr, will be given by Vc = L/(m.R) and this does not depend upon mass Mr. That is, the increase in circular velocity Vc with decreasing R does not depend on the strength of central gravitation field or magnitude of Mr, but is solely governed by the conservation of angular momentum. Hence it is fundamentally wrong to assume the existence of fictitious Dark Matter for explaining the pattern of circular velocities of stellar objects in spiral arms.

There are other reasons for explaining the flatness of rotation curve but definitely not the assumption of higher mass Mr or Dark Matter. In reality stellar objects in spiral arms do not move solely under the influence of central gravitation field of the galaxy, their motion is also influenced by the local gravitation fields within the spiral arms. There are localized gravitating bodies existing within the spiral arms, which produce their own gravitation field in addition to the gravitational field of the central gravitating body.

Preprint Ionic Gravitation and Ionized Solid Iron Stellar Bodies

I Loved it !

But , unfortunatelly I still could not verify by my self,

but I am still trying to do it.

Thank you and congratullations again !

The paper you read contains the Gauss approximation. I also created the same argument using the full integration of Newtonian Dynamics.

All previous modeling of spiral galaxies used the Poisson equation as an input. That requires estimating the luminous mass radial distribution and the gas cloud radial distribution.

As you can imagine, nobody can estimate those in a galaxy that is millions (at the least) light-years away. We failed todo so in the Milky Way (we just discovered pillars of gas right in the middle of the galaxy).

I reversed the reasoning and started with two cylindrical distributions (one that would reduce to luminous mass and another that would remain as a gas cloud).

The support for that is that the initial gas cloud contained angular momentum. The coalescing of stars and the coalescing of the gas rotating column takes place along the z (axis of rotation) direction. That is how angular momentum is maintained while accretion takes place.

In other words, I made the assumption that the accretion process is mostly due to the flattening of the initial gas cloud.

This flattening should take place while keeping the radial distributions.

So, by doing that, I eliminate the need to use an unprecise estimation of gas and luminous mass densities.

So, this is the starting point. One calculates the density profiles at the initial gas cloud, and that profile should be preserved for the galaxy's life.

The estimate of the matter composition in the universe is 85% dark matter and 15% visible matter comes not just from galaxy rotation observations but also from gravitational lensing observations.

Conference Paper The Explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis

Gravitational Lensing Observations cannot distinguish between Dark Matter (whatever that is) and diluted hydrogen clouds. My theory shows that in the case of M33, there is 440% mass in the hydrogen cloud and 100% mass in the luminous mass. This means that the total mass of M33 is 5.4 times the luminous mass.

In other words, my work is consistent with Gravitational Lensing.

My theory also derived an epoch-dependent G (Newton's Constant of Gravitation) that is inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe. I showed that epoch-dependent G is consistent with our knowledge of star evolution and our own solar system evolution.

I also showed that epoch-dependent G produces epoch-dependent Type 1a Supernovae (SN1a) with Absolute Luminosity with a G^{-3.33} dependence.

Once one corrects the SN1a distances from the Supernova Cosmology Project to accommodate epoch-dependent G, my theory parameterless predicts the observations:

So, I explained:

a) Supernova Cosmology Project data without using DM and DE

b) Explained the Solar System under the influence of an epoch-dependent G

c) Explained the Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve without Dm

d) Explained the Coma Cluster with just plain hydrogen and Newtonian Gravitation

e) Explained the Bullet Cluster Observation

f) showed that my theory is consistent with the local predictions of General and Special Relativity

h) showed that General Relativity cannot explain the Universe (Cosmology)

i) provided Quantum Gravity, a new particle paradigm for matter.

j) derived the galaxy distribution within the Universe from the CMB observation....etc, etc, etc.

As they say, Occam's Razor doesn't support your explanation using DM and DE.

Marco

Richard Lewis

There is a theory that reproduces Einstein's successes and avoids Einstein's failures and that is Quantum Mechanical... It is called The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU).

Here is the link to the newsletter and the article:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/elephant-room-marco-pereira/

The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - replacement to the Big Bang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK-Lyb7NfM

HU Basics

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

Recasting Newton's Laws of Dynamics in the Space Stress Strain Paradigm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w-5u1WAp6o

Big Pop Article

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v1

Here I created a map for the observable and unobservable Universe and located Earth on it:

Marco Pereira's answer to According to the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU), where is our universe within the hyperspherical hypersurface? (https://www.quora.com/According-to-the-Hypergeometrical-Universe-Theory-HU-where-is-our-universe-within-the-hyperspherical-hypersurface/answer/Marco-Pereira-1?ch=2&srid=3aDA)

Here is how I created the map of the Hyperspherical Universe from the knowledge obtained by the Planck Satellite:

3D galaxy density map of the current universe:

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

and here is how I challenged Einstein's theory:

Marco Pereira's answer to How would anyone defend general relativity from Marco Pereira's HU challenge? (https://www.quora.com/How-would-anyone-defend-general-relativity-from-Marco-Pereiras-HU-challenge/answer/Marco-Pereira-1)

Here is my take on the Dark Stuff:

Marco Pereira's answer to What is the status (as of 2019) of the search for dark matter? (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-status-as-of-2019-of-the-search-for-dark-matter/answer/Marco-Pereira-1)

REFERENCES

Smarandache, F. (2007). Hadron Models and related New Energy issues. "Hadron models and related New Energy issues" by Florentin Smarandache

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/math_fsp/283/

Smarandache, F., & Christianto, V. (2007). Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Supersymmetry Supersymmetry. "Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Supersymmetry" by Florentin Smarandache and Victor Christianto

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/math_fsp/76/

Pereira, M. (2017). The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmogenesis, Cosmology and Standard Model. World Scientific News, 82, 1–96.

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WSN-82-2017-1-90.pdf

Pereira, M. (2018). The Case for a Fourth Spatial Dimension and the Hyperspherical Force. World Scientific News, 98, 127–139.

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

Pereira, M. (2018). The Hypergeometrical Force: The Coma Cluster without Dark Matter. World Scientific News, 101, 222–228.

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

Pereira, M. (2019). The Optical Path of Ancient Photons and the Supernova Project. World Scientific News, 130, 195–215.

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/WSN-130-2019-195-215.pdf

Pereira, M. (2017). The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmogenesis, Cosmology and Standard Model. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, 17(5).

https://globaljournals.org/GJSFR_Volume17/3-The-Hypergeometrical-Universe.pdf

Pereira, M. A. (2010). The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmology and Standard Model. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1316(1).

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3536448

Marco Pereira. The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - Equation of State, this article.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v1

Feel free to ask questions, Richard

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

Marco Pereira Hi Marco. I think that if you are going to use models based on a variation in the gravitational constant G over time then you would need to explain the cause of this variation.

Also you would need to think about the implications of this assumption on all sorts of other physical processes which we can observe in different era. For example gravitational waves from black hole mergers.

Richard

Richard Lewis

I mentioned that I derived Natural Laws from first principles, and G came out as epoch-dependent (inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe).

I already provided the video (10 minutes long) explaining why G is epoch-dependent.

Hypergeometrical Universe Theory 101 - Lecture 1 - YouTube

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

One might say: If you think you will explain Cosmology using Dark Matter, then you must show me what that is.

In other words, you are using a distinct grading scale when evaluating my work. That said, I explained why G is epoch-dependent.

You said: For example, gravitational waves from black hole mergers.

Obviously, the LIGO results are not gravitational waves. They are just retarded potentials resulting from collisional dynamics. Since the dynamics are dependent upon G*M as opposed to just G, there is an interplay between G and M.

In other words, one cannot use black hole mergers to detect the effects of epoch-dependent G.

So, you are not correct in indicating Black Hole mergers as a test for epoch-dependent G.

I already provided a test for epoch-dependent G (The SN1a distance prediction using my theory and redshifts).

Please, feel free to ask questions.

Marco Pereira

Marco Pereira Hi Marco. I read your profile and like you I think the lambda CDM model is wrong. I agree with you on this.

I came at the problem from a different perspective when I did some analysis on galaxy position data (using NASA database NED) some 15 years ago. It was quite clear to me then that the Big Bang theory must be wrong.

I looked for an alternative and found that there are 3 false assumptions underlying the Big Bang theory.

1. The cosmological principle

2. The assumption that all matter formed at the same time

3. The explanation for the cause of the CMB

If you get rid of these assumptions and start with a uniform spherical region of empty space you get a much simpler explanation for the evolution of the universe.

This model does not require any variation in the laws of physics, or physical constants or extra dimensions. Take a look at the video in my previous post or you can find it on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/muCa08hlIDc

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis

You said:

1. The cosmological principle

2. The assumption that all matter formed at the same time

3. The explanation for the cause of the CMB

If you get rid of these assumptions and start with a uniform spherical region of empty space you get a much simpler explanation for the evolution of the universe.

The first thing to notice in your cosmology is that you don't start with the initial state you are proposing: " a uniform spherical region of empty space." You are really proposing a region of empty space that already have spacetime curvature since that is the source of matter in your recasting of Einstein's equations.

An spherical mass distribution with constant density is not a solution to Einstein's equations. It is stable. All the mass would coalesce where we are right now.

In other words, you are not providing an energy-free universe creation.

The second issue is that this model is inconsistent with the Supernova Cosmology Project measurements. They measured distances up to 46.1 billion light-years. There is no indication that distance is consistent with the proposed topology.

There is no evidence of matter appearing from "spacetime curvature" anywhere. Hence all the matter in the Universe arriving at a single time is fine.

I explained the cause of the CMB as just the decaying of a Neutronium Phase. This is standard physics supported by everything we know (0.78 MeV per neutron).

In other words, 0.78 MeV per neutron is enough to explain the CMB.

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

The other issue is this matter creation is not consistent with the early galaxy formation. Currently, all the baryonic matter PLUS extra Dark Matter cannot explain early galaxy formation. That is the reason it is called the Early Galaxy Formation Conundrum.

You said: The total mass of the Universe is proportional to the volume of the universe. Hence, in early times, smaller volume implied smaller density...:) That doesn't make sense and is refuted by the density associated with the CMB.

If you take the mass and Dark Matter, galaxies wouldn't have formed at all.

You said: This model does not require any variation in the laws of physics.

That is wrong. Your model has matter appearing out of nowhere from changes in "spacetime curvature." There is no law of physics that allow for that.

So, your model has a lot of problems.

Please provide us with your plot for the SN1a distances versus redshifts. Like this one.

Marco

Richard Lewis

Di-Neutrons were not detected anywhere, and if they were to exist, they would be sensitive to electromagnetism. Neutrons have magnetic moments.

In other words, simple inspection eliminates the possibility that your model might be right.

Compare your model (actually just a bunch of postulates) with my modeling of the Universe since the beginning:

Marco Pereira. The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - Equation of State, this article.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v1

I listened to your half-hour presentation before replying. Please watch my 10-minute presentation before replying.

The average density of the Universe is 3.8 atoms/m^3.

By the way, were you allowed to give a talk at this conference?

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

Marco Pereira Yes, I did give a talk at the conference but it was during COVID and all online. It was a small multi disciplinary group with no real cosmology specialists.

Richard

Marco Pereira Hi Marco. I took a look at your presentation and I was most impressed. It looks like a carefully constructed and thought through model. I think the biggest problem you are going to have is convincing everyone of the existence of a fourth space dimension without any direct physical evidence.

What we are agreed on is that the Big Bang theory and the standard model of particle physics do not represent reality.

My view about the fundamental nature of matter is explained in the Spacetime Wave theory here:

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

The application of the theory to the hydrogen molecule is presented here:

Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis

You told me that I would have trouble getting people to accept the existence of an extra dimension.

Scientists are a particular bunch... like members of a Cult. They don't believe their lying eyes.

The theory you based your model upon (General Relativity and Einstein's equations) has been refuted by observations since 1987 (work of Kapahi).

Kapahi's work shows that the average galaxy surface brightness decays accordingly to Euclidean geometry, as opposed to Riemannian Geometry with expansion).

JWS observation of GLASS-z12 and other galaxies blew up General Relativity like a Pinada ...

In other words, since 1987 (26 years already), everyone should know that Einstein failed to predict reality and to pass the Tolman Test (constant surface brilliance).

You are right. I am an outsider who knows what I am talking about. They will never listen..>:)

PS- I posted a lengthier explanation here

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Einstein-prove-that-there-is-no-absolute-space-in-the-theory-of-relativity/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

Dear Marco Pereira,

The medium of the electromagnetic field (earlier it was called ether) fills space in the form of galactic vortices. Dust and matter flow into these funnels and form galaxies. In the center of the vortex funnel, the pressure is less than at the edges. The pressure gradient of the environment arises outside the galaxy. This gradient creates a centripetal gravitational force towards the center of the vortex. The structure of the environment creates the effect of "Dark Matter". See my profile for more details:

Preprint What is Dark Matter

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Valeriy Pakulin

Do you know what a postulate is, Valeriy?

A postulate is something one states without proof. It is not different from dogma. A postulate in Physics only has value if you subsequently show data backing that postulates up or derive conclusions from the postulate, and there is data backing up those conclusions.

For instance, you talk about vortices of "ether," and yet, you don't present a single measurement of Ether or of the vortices.

It is all in your mind. You imagine it and firmly believe that that would explain observations.

That is true. It explains the observations....

If there was something called Ether and if for some reason Ether were to form vortices, those vortices could drag stars around in whatever rotation velocities you could imagine.

The reason why postulating Ether and Vortices without providing independent measurements of them has zero scientific value is that I could equally state that there are civilizations in charge of galaxies, and they direct the star traffic in the observed way.

If I don't provide evidence of those civilizations and the mechanism of how they held stars in those trajectories, my model has the same value as yours.

It is just a baseless postulation of reality.

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

Marco Pereira There is strong evidence for the correctness of the Einstein equations of General Relativity. I would say that any issues with measurement of the surface brightness of distant galaxies must have a different explanation to there being a problem with GR.

As mentioned earlier, I think that the cosmological principle is false and therefore the FLRW model cannot be used.

Here is the way that I would calculate the distance of remote objects at the time that light was emitted:

Presentation A calculation method for the distance of an object at the ti...

Then I would add that the size of a galaxy will be affected over time by the expansion of space. Also the overall brightness of a galaxy will be affected by the level of star formation going on during that era.

So my position is to discard the Big Bang theory but retain general relativity.

As a footnote I would add that a discussion of the rotation of spiral galaxies really ought to include an explanation for the cause of that rotation:

Presentation The Formation of Spiral Galaxies

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis

You said: There is strong evidence for the correctness of the Einstein equations of General Relativity.

If you look at Relativity with an unbiased eye, you will realize that all "strong evidence" comes from local observations, that is, the influence of a Gravitational Field on a probe (photon, Mercury).

That is explained with just Minkowsky Spacetime modified such that the ansatz metric replicated Keplerian Dynamics for weak gravitational field and nothing else in the universe.

In other words, simple, reasonable assumptions plus Minkowski (or Lorentz) spacetime as a starting point can be used to derive the Schwarzschild metric.

So, one can explain local observations without Einstein's equations.

My first claim is that Einstein's equations are wrong and don't describe the Universe. That is supported by the need for imaginary constructs (Dark Matter and Dark Energy) to explain the Supernova Cosmology Project (SN1a) data and by the failure to pass the Tolman Test.

My theory adds one extra spatial dimension and shows that, locally, the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe (LEHU topology) is consistent with Minkowski spacetime. See the attached figure.

As you can see, my epoch-dependent G (which is derived from the first principles) solves the SN1a data problem and the Tolman Effect.

From your description (galaxies shrink with space dilation), the Solar System was smaller when the Sun was born. That would burn Earth, and it is not consistent with temperature measurements. If space dilation affects orbits and stars, they would be all burned by now.

In other words, there is a reason why nobody says that space dilation affects galaxy dimensions. That is the reason.

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

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

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

Relativity talks about Time Dilation.

I derived the laws of nature and realized that forces depend on absolute velocity. Forces weaken as the absolute velocity increases towards the speed of light. The reason is that forces act through dilaton waves, which travel at c.

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

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

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

You said: As mentioned earlier, I think that the cosmological principle is false and therefore, the FLRW model cannot be used.

Well, that means that you should provide the SN1a predictions as I did and explain the rotation curves of spiral galaxies as I did.

Of course, if you keep di-neutrons as Dark Matter, you must prove that they exist and are stable. Otherwise, that hypothesis has no value.

Well... If you want to keep GR and DM, you must use FLRW.

You cannot say that di-neutrons are DM and that DE expands galaxies without FLRW. It is inconsistent since FLRW and SN1a are the only way to quantify space expansion.

You said: As a footnote, I would add that a discussion of the rotation of spiral galaxies really ought to include an explanation for the cause of that rotation.

Well. The explanation for the cause of the rotation of gas (the precursor of galaxies) is the same as the explanation for the rotation of gas under any conditions. As soon as one concludes that, at some point, the gas is hot and cooling down, the total angular momentum of the gas is maintained. Local angular momentum is not maintained. HENCE rotating gas and spiral galaxies are formed. There is no mystery here.

You said: So my position is to discard the Big Bang theory but retain general relativity.

You are incapable of supporting GR. You claimed to have thrown away FLRW and continued talking about DM while not showing how you predicted SN1a data.

I showed that epoch-dependent G explains:

• the fast formation of galaxies
• the size and brilliance of galaxies obeying the Tolman Test, including GLASS-z12, etc
• SN1a data. SN1a are G-dependent, and so the photometrically determined distances are overestimated. Once corrected, they are easily predicted by HU.

My theory also recovers the Tully-Fisher relationship, passing the Tolman Test and replacing the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

IN SUMMARY

I provided a simpler theory that explains everything you and GR cannot. Occam's Razor tells you to drop the bad model and accept the better one.

I have my own way of calculating the distance of objects in space:

d(z) = R0*z/(1+z)

I am sure your "explanation" is more complex than this one. So, Occam's Razor will tell you that you are wrong.

If you were impartial, you would agree with me.

Dear Richard Lewis

You cannot determine the time light travels from a distant source. So, your definition of the problem is incorrect.

We can determine the light's redshift, which is what is missing in your presentation. That explains why you cannot talk about the most important piece of data in Cosmology: The Supernova Cosmology Project SN1a data.

That data is used to calibrate FLRW Cosmic Distance Ladder. Without that, one cannot know how far things are.

If you define the problem incorrectly, nothing meaningful will come from the analysis.

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

Marco Pereira Actually the distance ladder is a measure of the time taken for the following reasons.

When we observe the brightness of an object the level of attenuation will depend on the time that the light travels through space.

When we observe redshift, the amount of redshift depends only on the time that the radiation has been passing through expanding space.

So the distance ladder should be called the look back time ladder.

When the JWST observes a galaxy with a look back time of 13 billion years, the galaxy was actually at a distance of 8.5 billion light years at the time that the light was emitted.

When the CMB is observed with a look back time of 13.8 billion years it is actually coming from a distance of 8.77 billion light years which is the location of the Schwarzschild event horizon at that time.

It would take just 28 billion galaxies to create such an event horizon and the CMB is radiation coming from matter prevented from crossing the event horizon.

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis

You said: When we observe the brightness of an object the level of attenuation will depend on the time that the light travels through space.

That is wrong. Everything you said is wrong because "Time of Travel" is not an observable.

The observables are Apparent Luminosity and Redshift.

Nothing else.

That is what you can see through a telescope. Any Cosmic Distance Ladder has to relate to those two variables. Period.

All the nonsense you wrote has no value because you don't pay attention to reality. You just postulate everything about a "Time of Travel" that cannot be measured.

In other words, your theory is nonsense unless you can create an equation simpler than the one I created:

d(z) = R_0*z/(1+z)

Time is not an observable.

Everything else is fluff, dogma, and postulate.

Marco Pereira

Dear Richard Lewis

You said: When we observe the brightness of an object the level of attenuation will depend on the time that the light travels through space.

So, you should provide the Apparent Luminosity as a function of the time of flight.

You said: When we observe redshift, the amount of redshift depends only on the time that the radiation has been passing through expanding space.

So, you should provide the redshift z as a function of the time of flight.

Then you should just solve this system of three variables and two equations to get a d(z).

Once you have the d(z), you should show that SN1a distances are predicted by that function.

That is basic.

You claimed that you know how to do it, so do it. If you cannot do it, then forget your model.

Cheers,

Marco