Dr. Jackson did say that this is not a refutation or confirmation. ... Obvious questions to Dr. Jackson would be: .... Review of Dr. Peter A. Jackson's Review,.
REBUTTALL Dear Dr. Jackson, I would like to thank you for entertaining the idea of reviewing my discovery. I do value your expertise and thank you for your attention and expert advice. I will have to apologize for having to rebut your comments. This has nothing to do with my gratitude or lack thereof but it has to do with Science. If you provide a weak argument, it is my duty to forcefully refute it, for the sake of Science. Thanks, Marco Pereira
PS- THIS DOCUMENT NOW HAS THE CONVERSATION AT THE END. ############################################### Dr. Jackson did say that this is not a refutation or confirmation. That said, his stature lends credence to anything he says so I feel obliged to take his comments seriously. I will try to segment my response to address main points. ############################################### Dr. Jackson You are quite right about not having refuted anything. You didn't respond to my question if you bothered to run the scripts. It takes half-hour. Since you didn’t reply and replied here in this manner, I conclude you didn’t even run the scripts. "You ask "where can I get verification". For a significant fee some eminent open minded ..." If you are telling me that asking you for verification was a mistake, I feel so inadequate. I work in Science for free... No charges and for 13 years in this project. What am I doing? I suspect, if I were to think like you think, I should had created a startup on Free Energy... Grab some money and fold.... Why bother with the Truth or Science? In the next paragraphs, I will be showing that my theory provides parameterless predictions of all type 1a Supernovae Distances in Survey Union 2.1 and solve the Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve Conundrum.
1
Currently, they are all explained away with a fitting of unsupported Dark Matter and Dark Energy and a Blob of Dark Matter of undetermined size around Spiral Galaxies. Words are not sufficient to criticize the current state of Cosmology and given that I am providing a better solution, it is unconscionable that scientists and Dr. Jackson would allocate so little effort to the evaluation of these observations. I should provide two Hail-Mary exceptions to Dr. Jackson since he is not a scientist anymore after retirement and because he is still a scientist. He just does his own thing. I learned that Dr. Jackson is pretty much very active, challenging Relativity. My observation brings in one extra spatial dimension and brings down GR and SR. One would expect Dr. Jackson to pay keen attention to it. To some degree these prior paragraphs are like Dr. Jackson speaking about his tremendous career to support his opinions. In my case, since this is a postmortem, this is said to decry the Missed Opportunity. LET’S START Dr. Jackson comment about the flaws of using redshift to calculate distances "'z' has always been and remains problematic. i.e. some years ago now we found two galaxies at quite different redshifts physically interacting!" Trying to shoot down the underpinnings of distance measurement of all theories, including L-CDM since Dark Matter and Dark Energy comes from a fitting to SN1a distances, just to negate my observation is not scientific. Neither are using Anecdotes that are not related to the range of data under study. Obvious questions to Dr. Jackson would be: • Did the data under study (SDSS BOSS dataset) use anything other than redshifts? o Answer: No. SDSS BOSS dataset has 1.3 Million Objects. There are no information separating galaxies from quasars, or data columns that would allow for other methodologies. On the other hand, redshifts are available. • Do redshifts provide a reasonable estimate of distances for the range of z under study? a. Answer: Range is 4 Billion Light Years or z=0.4. Yes. Below is the proof.
2
•
Am I saying anything regarding longer distances? a. Answer: No. The data only covers 4 Billion Light Years.
By the way, the solid line in the plot refers to Predictions of my theory and not a Fitting. Anything can be fitted with meaningless parameters (Dark Matter and Dark Energy) or MOND. Possible Relevance of the Hypergeometrical Force to this Anecdote. Remember, I've just discovered a new force in Nature that explain orbits of Hydrogen gas around a spiral galaxy. I don't see a reason why the same force might not play a role on the co-orbiting of two galaxies. Here is M33 Galaxy Rotation Curve Results:
I called this a solution because prior “Solutions” are laughable. For example, ad hoc modification of Newtonian Dynamics and adding a Blob of Dark Matter of Unknown Proportions is not something to be proud of. Unknown proportions since the 21-line data stops suddenly for no good reason at 50,000 lyr. Notice that my theory predicts the Hypergeometrical Force as an acceleration or constraint’s force. This means that standard reasoning does not apply. It is something new, that Dr. Jackson never saw in his illustrious career, given it is correct. If it is wrong, then Dr. Jackson saw it before. Feel free to ask questions or read the article, Dr. Jackson. 3
Missed Opportunity Current methods (Stellar Candles Hypothesis) to measure distance are even more problematic. They led to Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation Theory. Any scientist should jump at the opportunity to review a theory or observations that point towards how to avoid those shortcomings. The items: 1. In the SDSS BOSS dataset, there is information on the cross-section of the Galaxy Density Map that indicates SPHERICAL SEEDING OF GALAXIES (SSG). The request was to recognize that galaxies with similar z would map (in general, statistically) to galaxies with similar distances from us. Remember, we have 1.3 million galaxies, plenty of statistics, so there is no need for anecdotes. The second part of this exercise would be to look at this globe, review the plotting routine and conclude the existence of spherical region of higher galaxy concentration and that given their distinct behavior, they should had been seeded by a Cosmological Scale Process (as opposed to something affecting filaments) since the radius is 4 Billion Light Years. Hence, the White Ring does not depend upon any mapping or even my theory. Any functional form would project similar z to similar distances. Hubble Law would require keeping the Celestial Coordinates intact. Here is the video and what Dr. Jackson failed to acknowledge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytuEctnD334
Here are some stills:
4
Summary: There are 1.3 Million galaxies. Anomalies like the one Dr. Jackson alluded to, should not make a difference or challenge this statement “Galaxies with equal or similar Z should be at similar distances from us” Dr. Jackson resorted to try to map these colossal features (4 Billion Light Years wide) to phenomena that happens in filaments (40 times smaller scale), he also resorted to anecdote (statistically meaningless) to debase redshifts as means to calculate distances, even though the only requirement was that similar redshifts z would fall at similar distances from us – a very low bar, for this item to pass.
2. SSG distribution coalesce into 36 clusters (exact number is irrelevant, as long as it is more than 1). This item refers to recognizing that the act of summing all galaxy sizes over one celestial (DEC or RA) coordinate and plotting all points disregarding the other celestial coordinate – and doing so for both SDSS BOSS datasets (North and South) resulted in clustering. Notice that there is no data manipulation or fitting. Conclusions don’t depend upon interval of confidence, as incorrectly suggested by Dr. Jackson in prior communications. Below are the Galaxy Density Distribution with clustered lines: 5
Again, Dr. Jackson alluded again to spiral structures within filamentary structure. Filaments are smaller (100 – 280 million light years long). The pitch of these spirals should be smaller than that. My theory associates these small structures to frozen plasma instabilities. They do not surprise me. Hence, Dr. Jackson was implying that the clustering was due to hidden spiral or otherwise structures inside the Globe. I mentioned that they are not visible in slices and provided a marginal distribution. https://youtu.be/GHXMO6uPVvc This 2D Marginal Distribution only shows the High-z dataset, missing the closer lines. Here are is a still of a slice of the whole 2D marginal distribution:
6
This is a slice that just uses the DEC [30,35] and [40,41] degrees range. This means that Dr. Jackson suggestion that clustering was related to internal spiral dynamics taking place in filaments is easily disproven, UNLESS, that is what is happens every place and the Universe is just a never-ending spiral. If Dr. Jackson considers that to be the case, I can test that also. Lost in his view, is the fact that this clustering is about Galaxy density. This is not a cross-section of Spiraling Galaxies positions. That wouldn’t convey the galaxy density clustering we see. That is a logical flaw. These plots clearly show that clustering is homogeneous, they occur for all values of Declination. A similar plot can be made for Right Ascension and both are consistent with the 1D marginal distributions. Summary: Dr. Jackson demonstrated that a careless peer-review is a disservice to Science. Despite of that I would like to thank him for his efforts and for allowing me to create this seemingly harsh, but scientifically sound rebuttal. Science made me do it.
7
Dr. Jackson comments: 1. Comment – Linkedin Group 2. Comment Researchgate
8
ResearchGate
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Review of Dr. Peter A. Jackson’s Review, Dr. Jackson didn’t surprise me. He provided the minimal amount of attention a reviewer could allocate to any idea that is not his. He provided guidance using his work, Planck CMB, Galaxies of different z interacting. That said, that wouldn’t be of any value if the Universe had an extra dimension. To find out if that was the case, he just needed to confirm that this plot correctly shows galaxy density: Item 1 – Do we have an spherical high density region around us at 4 Billion Light Years away?
Creating the plot comprises picking up the SDSS BOSS dataset, bin it in 0.001 R0 cubic side, where R0=13.58 GLY and plotting it using a Hubble Flow projection into the present. The Hubble Flow Projection keeps Declination and Right Ascension intact and maps R. I posit that ANY map would create a spherical distribution. That in itself, would result in the Universe having a 4th Spatial Dimension. Dr. Jackson failed to acknowledge this fact. I would welcome alternative explanations on why one would have galaxies in excess there. Dr. Jackson misdirect the conversation towards “seeding – his expertise”, “use of redshift z”, “spherically around where (Earth, of course)”. He never came around and confirm the existence of an spherical distribution of galaxies peaking somewhere at or beyond 4 Billion Light Years (L-CDM stretches space and thus it would place the ring further away -around 10 billion light years).
16
Item 2. Do we have homogeneous clustering in the radial mass distribution? Dr. Jackson proposed the spiral structures would result in clustering in the Marginal Mass density. I counter that by showing different regions of the Universe showing the same clustering:
I failed to understand how spirals would create a marginal mass density distribution with the same clustering in all directions and everywhere. I can see how a homogenous density acoustic waves could SEED galaxies everywhere in the same way. There is a simple reason. Spirals are created by distinct processes in different regions. They cannot be coordinated. An acoustic wave is a single event. I don’t understand why Dr. Jackson cannot see this, after all he is the expert, I am just an amateur.
17
Lack of Interest: I would be a horrendous ungrateful fellow if I didn’t qualify this statement. I just would expect a tremendous, gigantic amount of interest from a scientist offered evidence of an extra spatial dimension. 1. Dr. Jackson did not run the software, didn’t inspect binning, didn’t inspect how to project into the current hypersphere. Running the software would allow him to respond to my question if I am using the right dataset, columns. This is something his expertise would be extremely helpful. I certainly don’t want to be analyzing the wrong data. I don’t have anyone to ask that simple question. I asked SDSS (that is their data) with no avail. It really feels like they want to keep strict control of the narrative. Errors: 1. Dr. Jackson misunderstood what I did and stated that my data was just some result of arbitrarily defined clustering and easily manipulated by confidence intervals. That was wrong. The data was simply aggregated and plotted. 2. Dr. Jackson may or may not understood that I am proposing that the Universe is a hyperspherical hypersurface. He stated that I was trying to prove that the Universe was 2D! 3. It is not relevant for concluding the existence of a spherical region of high galaxy density what d(z) one uses. Similar z will always land in similar distances. 4. He did not state the current Cosmology does not have the means to estimate where matter is currently. Misdirections:
18
Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3091009/3091009-6375344037842419714
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
