Riccardo uses Gemini (a lower-grade LLM) to garner praise for his crackpot papers and then sends them to me for no apparent reason.
Here are my personal objections:
- The Hubble Constant is the inverse of the universe's age. In the same way, you cannot derive my age from first principles; you cannot derive H0 from first principles. It is fitted to the short-distance supernova data.
- CMB temperature is defined by the Saha equation if you consider an equilibrium ansatz.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saha_ionization_equation
- In other words, the TEMPERATURE at the Surface of Last Scattering depends upon density and the energy gap (between the ground state and ionization).
- "vacuum/graviton" phenomena, ZPT (a discredited idea - known as the biggest mistake in Physics), is just postulating reality. Self-delusional people and charlatans are the ones who do that kind of thing. There is nothing wrong with proposing a hypothesis or even creating a postulate. That said, some testable prediction has to come from it.
- By the way, ZPT as the origin of Dark Energy is not ORIGINAL. This was the first idea proposed to explain the expansion of galaxies. IT was discarded. I suppose that since Riccardo retrieved it from the trash can, that is not plagiarism.
- Planck Particle Universe ...ahahaha
Please, feel free to let me know what else is horrible about this paper.
########################################
Here is a critical analysis of the article titled “The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (A)” by Riccardo C. Storti, as presented at the Australian Institute of Physics in 2008.
🔍 Summary of the Paper’s Claims
The author presents a speculative cosmological model called Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) that:
- Claims to derive the Hubble constant H₀ and the CMB temperature T₀ from first principles,
- Uses analogies between the early Universe and the Milky Way as Planck-scale “particles”,
- Rejects the need for dark matter and dark energy, replacing them with vacuum/graviton phenomena,
- Proposes that cosmological expansion and acceleration arise from Zero-Point Field (ZPF) effects,
- Argues that the CMBR temperature is derivable from a harmonic scaling model using the Milky Way.
🧠 Scientific Evaluation and Errors
1. Use of Nonstandard Concepts
- Terms like “Galactic Reference Particle (GRP)”, “Planck Particle Universe”, and “Polarisable Vacuum (PV)” are not defined in mainstream physics.
- The analogy between the Milky Way and a Planck-scale particle is unjustified and physically meaningless. There's no basis for treating a galaxy as a quantum harmonic oscillator or "particle" in this context.
2. Misuse of Zero-Point Energy
- The author attributes cosmic expansion to Casimir-like Zero-Point Field (ZPF) pressures.
- ZPF and Casimir effects are real in QED, but they cannot be trivially upscaled to explain cosmological expansion without a rigorous quantum field theory on curved spacetime.
- Claims like ZPF pressure “< -0.252 mJ/km³” being the cause of accelerated expansion lack support from either observational cosmology or quantum gravity.
3. Incorrect or Misleading Derivations
- The derivation of H₀ from R₀ (Milky Way radius) and M_G (Galactic Mass) is circular and violates known scaling laws.
- Cosmic expansion arises from general relativistic solutions (e.g., FLRW metric), not from galaxy-scale analogies.
- Claiming “Big Bang Temperature = 0 K” (Table 1) is incorrect. The Big Bang was a high-temperature event; 0 K implies no radiation, contradicting the CMB’s existence.
4. Lack of Empirical Support
- The values for H₀ (67.0843 km/s/Mpc) and T₀ (2.7248 K) match known observations only because they are used as inputs, not because they are truly predicted.
- The derived cosmic contents (94.4% gravitons,
You should present a single addition at a time if you want to have a conversation. Focus on one of my points. Conversation is a two-way street.
I know, you postulate, pontificate... nonsense.
That said, who is going to read 10 comments without my rebuttal?
As a courtesy, I have corrected the mistake I made with your name.
If you want a conversation, delete the crap you posted and write a single and short reply. I will be happy to have a conversation with you here.
I consider this work to be crap. Read the pdf to understand the reasons.
Here is the discussion:
https://chatgpt.com/share/687b971e-d300-8010-acd1-7f5f7d077a94
Am I wrong that your moronic model is based on an imaginary particle that gets diluted to form the Milky Way.
From that dilution coefficient, you "predict the Hubble Constant and the temperature of the CMB"?
I told you that this means that in Andromeda, your theory would yield a different CMB temperature and a different Hubble Constant!
Did I miss anything? Isn't that the gist of your derivation?
The derivation of the Hubble constant (H₀) and the dilution factor in The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (C) can be found across a few connected steps. Here is a structured summary of where and how they appear in the document:
📍 Where is the Hubble Constant Derived?
The derivation begins with a dimensionless ratio of angular frequencies:
$$ N = \frac{\omega_G}{\omega_{PL}} = \sqrt{\frac{G M_G}{R_o^3}} \cdot \frac{1}{\omega_{PL}} $$
where:
- $$M_G$$ is the galactic mass of the Milky Way
- $$R_o$$ is the Sun's distance from the galactic center
- $$\omega_{PL} = \sqrt{\frac{c^5}{\hbar G}} $$ is a Planck-scale frequency
This results in:
N≈5.55×10−61
Taking the inverse cube root:
$$ \left(\frac{1}{N}\right)^{1/3} \approx 3.82 \times 10^{20} $$
is defined as the dilution factor — interpreted as a spatial scaling between Planck-length universe and present-day scales .
Then the Hubble constant is estimated as:
$$ H_0 = \frac{c}{D} $$
where $$ D = \text{dilution length} = \left( \frac{1}{N} \right)^{1/3} \cdot l_{PL} \approx 1.62 \times 10^{26} \, \text{m} $$
Giving:
$$ H_0 \approx \frac{3.00 \times 10^8}{1.62 \times 10^{26}} \approx 67.0843 \, \text{km/s/Mpc} $$
🧊 Where is the CMB Temperature Derived?
Using:
$$ T_0 = \frac{T_{PL}}{\left( \frac{1}{N} \right)^{1/3}} = \frac{1.416784 \times 10^{32}}{3.82 \times 10^{20}} \approx 2.725 \, \text{K} $$
This matches the observed CMB temperature — but, as before, it is tuned by construction, not predicted from dynamics .
🧨 Critical Flaw
These results are not derived from data, but instead rely on:
- Assumed Milky Way parameters (mass and radius)
- Theoretical Planck units
- A dimensionless ratio defined purely by dimensional analysis
This derivation would give different results for observers in other galaxies (with different MM and RR), violating cosmological isotropy. No observational datasets like supernovae or CMB power spectra are referenced or used.
The author shows a clear lack of understanding of basic reasoning.
Yep. This is idiotic. Cannot survive the simplest objection: What if the calculation used Andromeda instead of the Milky Way?
Storti. You give crackpots a bad name.
Not only do the Hubble Constant and the CMB temperature depend upon which galaxy you choose to model, but they also depend upon the distance from the center of the galaxy!!!
Do you use local values (Mass of the Milky Way, distance r from Earth to the center) in you calculation of H0 and T_CMB?
It is irrelevant if you "derived equations based on imaginary particles". Any crackpot can do that.
The question is whether those equations are correct.
Do you use local values (Mass of the Milky Way, distance r from Earth to the center) in your calculation of H0 and T_CMB?
Is facing reality breaking your brain? You seem to repeat jibberish?
You have been reported. I hope ResearchGate will take steps to maintain a de minimis standard of scientific inquiry.
Does it make sense you asking me to explain your prophecy...:)
Am I a telepath? Do I have an Ouija board?
I am sorry, I cannot explain the Prophets...:)
- Badges
- Science topic