Substance of a body gives it objective reality and positive existence in space. In material world, existence of matter is nearest to absolute truth. Matter gives substance to all real entities. All real entities are made of matter. Since we have no reference to quantify matter-content of a body, we depend on certain attributes of material bodies, which we consider represent the equivalent of their 3D matter-contents.

Mathematical relation between an external force on a body and the body’s acceleration in the direction of force – mass - is often taken as to represent the equivalent of 3D matter-content of the body. In order to determine the mass of a body, it is necessary for an external force to act on the body and the body has to accelerate (change the rate of its motion) in the direction of the force.

Weight, the acceleration due to gravity towards earth (a central body), in terms of gravitational unit, is another attribute considered to represent the equivalent of 3D matter-content of a body near or on earth (large macro body).

As these actions, with respect to the universe, are beyond the scope of any theory, it is meaningless to talk about mass of the universe.

Nainan

So write a paper and submit it for publication. Put it on a server so that everyone can read it-and use it for something else. The page doesn't make clear what's assumed and what's deduced-what's the starting point and what's the conclusion.

Absence of parameters doesn't mean anything. The distance of a supernova is input to something else and there is a way to check that this is consistent.

Λ-CDM is but one model-there are many other models for cosmology. So what is necessary is what's the NEW thing that any model PREDICTS, that the others don't. By prediction, though, what's meant is the conclusion, not the assumption.

Dark matter is discretionary-there are, still, many ways, apparently, to take into account its gravitational effects; dark energy (in the form of the cosmological constant) isn't-it's as part of the description of spacetime as Newton's constant is. And it has been measured-so any model that starts by assuming it's absent is irrelevant for describing real experiments.

Dear Stam,

I am sure you don't understand the meaning of creating work on Cosmology while working on something else. You seem to think that just because I wrote an article, I will receive a fair shake (peer-review for instance).

Here is what Dr. Forveille told me:

I regret to inform you that your manuscript cannot be considered for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics because we do not publish articles that are not authored by members of astronomical research institutes.

Sincerely,

Thierry Forveille A&A Editor in Chief

other journals just withdraw the work from peer-review and Los-Alamos Archives just wrote INAPPROPRIATE...:)

So, as much as I am going to do exactly what you said, I should take the opportunity to educate you about censorship.

I have four articles that anyone of you could be reading already and that could have offered to endorse at the Arxives.

So, the reason why you don't have my work available and visible is that scientists didn't do their job and fought censorship.

Absence of parameters doesn't mean anything.

I beg to differ. The absence of parameters means that it is possible to explain the SN1a Cosmic Ladder without Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The fact that no other theory can do that means that they are lesser theories.

The page doesn't make clear what's assumed

The shinyapp at the link has three tabs. The third tab has my articles and other posting showing what was assumed. Just because you didn't read it doesn't mean that I didn't provide it.

By prediction, though, what's meant is the conclusion, not the assumption.

Well, I predicted the SN1a distances using the following assumptions: a) Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Topology, b) The epoch-dependent Law of Gravitation I derived using the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Topology as a hypothesis.

Hence, the SN1a distances are not an assumption..:)

And it has been measured-so any model that starts by assuming it's absent is irrelevant for describing real experiments.

This doesn't seem to be a scientific statement since Dark Energy wasn't measured. Observations were done (SN1a distances for example) that were explained using Dark Energy. My theory explains the same observation without Dark Energy.

So, there was no measurement of Dark Energy so your comment is not scientific and doesn't make sense.

By the way, science is not just 4D spacetime and I derived Newton's Gravitational Constant and it is not constant.

You have a knack to say things as a matter of fact when they are just model-dependent assumptions.

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

Since I have your attention, I would like to take the opportunity to say that in our prior debate (you were kind to entertain a long give-and-take), I was wrong. I made a mistake in my analysis of the SDSS Data. I didn't know about the CMASS protocol and that was the source of recurrences.

That said, HU topology had support from every other astronomical observation.

Unfortunately, you never raised that problem in our discussion, so I continued for several months pushing something that was wrong.

That said, I am sure you tried to correct me and for your effort, I am thankful.

Cheers,

Marco

Dear Dr. Stam Nicolis ,

Why don't you play the "idealistic scientist" and be my sponsor at the Los Alamos Archives?

If you doubt my work was peer-reviewed and published in the past, here is a link for you.

https://www.quora.com/Was-Dr-Marco-Pereiras-Hypergeometrical-Universe-Theory-HU-peer-reviewed-presented-in-conferences-book-chapters-and-journal-articles-Why-is-it-still-being-censored/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

I will be awaiting your response.

Thanks in advance,

Marco Pereira

have a look at

Preprint How does the quantum structure of electromagnetic waves desc...

Bahram Kalhor

Here are my predictions of the SN1a distances. Where are yours?

By the way, why did you stop at 12 GLY? According to L-CDM the universe is at least 48 GLY (96/2)

and what is the distance to the CMB region?

In my theory that is 13.8 GLY - 9.8 MLY, or the Universe became transparent when it was 9.8 million years old.

I fully disagree with the premise of your paper.

"Quantum redshift predicts the distance of the objects in the space. All electromagnetic waves have made of an equal number of quanta masses in each period. Losing the quanta masses along the traveling in the space is the reason for decreasing the frequency of the waves."

First, electromagnetic waves are not quantized (there are no boundary conditions for quantization).

The least you should have done was to extend the plot to z=1500 where the CMB is and tell us the history of energy decay from about 13.4 eV to 2.725 Kelvin and the distance to CMB.

That distance always makes me giggle..:)

By the way, please don't use light-years as the unit. Use GLY. The least you can do it to place comas on the numbers in your table. It is cumbersome to count zeros.