How Springer Nature Publishing Controls Science

Carl Sagan used to say that "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence". That is correct most of the time.

The only time Extraordinary Evidence is not sufficient is when one challenges Einstein's work.

My theory shows that everything Einstein said after the word "Relativity" is incorrect. The reason is simple - Natural Laws can only be written on an Absolute Reference Frame - with Absolute Time and Absolute Radial Direction (perpendicular to our 3D universe at every point of our 3D space).

To make things worse, my theory also replaces the Concept of the Photon as the Quantum Object with a 4D Metric Wave. So, the quantization of energy is still there but the object that contains it is spread over a 4D spatial manifold. That explains Photon Entanglement since both photons are part of the same 4D wave and not two independent objects.

In other words, HU returns Light to the Wave Domain without losing quantization and localization.

In the past, if you conjure up a force that replicated Mercury Perihelion Precession Rate success, you would have a seat on the table and your theory would be part of the discussion.

Here is the code:

Here we calculate the ansatz elliptical trajectory and derivatives.  The ansatz trajectory is an ellipse with a variable period to allow for precession.  The derivatives is just calculated for transparency.  The derivation itself is not part of the calculation. Some of the derivatives are used in the calculation of HU acceleration or force.
_________________________

from sympy import symbols, cos, sin, diff, Function, simplify

# Define symbols
theta = symbols('theta')
k, e, h, GM, sigma = symbols('k e h GM sigma')

# Define r(theta)
r = (h ** 2 / GM) / (1 + e * cos(theta *sigma))

# Calculate dr/dtheta
dr_dtheta = diff(r, theta)

# Define omega(theta) = dtheta/dt
omega = h / r**2

# Calculate d^2r/dtheta^2
d2r_dtheta2 = diff(dr_dtheta, theta)

# Calculate domega/dtheta
domega_dtheta = diff(omega, theta)

dr_dt = diff(r,theta)*omega
# Calculate d^2r/dt^2 using chain rule
d2r_dt2 = simplify(d2r_dtheta2 * omega**2 + dr_dtheta * domega_dtheta * omega)

# Calculate d^2theta/dt^2
# Differentiate omega(theta)
d2theta_dt2 = simplify(domega_dtheta * omega)

# Display the results

eq1 = f"r= {r}".replace("cos", "np.cos").replace("sin", "np.sin")
eq2 = f"theta_dot= h/r**2".replace("cos", "np.cos").replace("sin", "np.sin")
eq3 = f"dr_dtheta = {dr_dtheta}".replace("cos", "np.cos").replace("sin", "np.sin")
eq4 = f"d2r_dtheta2 = {d2r_dtheta2}".replace("cos", "np.cos").replace("sin", "np.sin")
eq5 = f"domega_dtheta = {domega_dtheta}".replace("cos", "np.cos").replace("sin", "np.sin")
eq6 = f"d2r_dt2 = {d2r_dt2}".replace("cos", "np.cos").replace("sin", "np.sin")
eq7 = f"d2theta_dt2 = {d2theta_dt2}".replace("cos", "np.cos").replace("sin", "np.sin")
eq8 = f"dr_dt = {dr_dt}".replace("cos", "np.cos").replace("sin", "np.sin")

print(eq1)
print(eq2)
# print(eq3)
# print(eq4)
# print(eq5)
print(eq6)
# print(eq7)
print(eq8)
__________________________
Here we calculate everything:
# import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from scipy.optimize import minimize
from scipy.integrate import quad
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from astropy import constants as cc, units as uu
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit

# Constants
G = cc.G  # gravitational constant in m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
M = cc.M_sun  # mass of the Sun in kg
c = cc.c.si.value  # speed of light in m/s
GM = (G*M).si.value # gravitational parameter for the Sun in m^3/s^2

def r_derivatives(theta, h, e, GM, x):
    sigma = x[0]
    # Expression for r, r_dot, and r_double_dot
    r= h**2/(GM*(e*np.cos(sigma*theta) + 1))
    theta_dot= h/r**2
    dr_dtheta = e*h**2*sigma*np.sin(sigma*theta)/(GM*(e*np.cos(sigma*theta) + 1)**2)
    d2r_dt2 = GM**3*e*sigma**2*(e*np.cos(sigma*theta) + 1)**2*np.cos(sigma*theta)/h**4
    dr_dt = GM*e*sigma*np.sin(sigma*theta)/h
    return r, dr_dt, d2r_dt2, theta_dot


def error_functionHU(x, h, e, GM):
    sigma = x[0]
    def integrand(theta):
        r, r_dot, r_double_dot,theta_dot = r_derivatives(theta, h, e, GM, x)
        a_theoretical = HU_Accel(GM, r, r_dot, theta_dot)
        a_numerical = r_double_dot - r * theta_dot ** 2  # Assuming r_double_dot is defined 
                                                         # to calculate \ddot{r}
        return (a_theoretical - a_numerical)**2

    sigma = x[0]
    integral_error, _ = quad(integrand, 0, 2*np.pi/sigma, epsabs=1e-16, epsrel=1e-16)
    return 100*integral_error


def HU_Accel(GM, r, r_dot, theta_dot):
    v1 = np.sqrt(r_dot**2 + r**2 * theta_dot**2)
    gamma_v1 = 1 / np.sqrt(1 - v1**2 / c**2)
    P2_hat = np.sqrt(1 + v1**2/c**2 - 2*r_dot/c)
    a_theoretical = -GM /r**2*(P2_hat * gamma_v1 **(-3)/( (gamma_v1 - 1)*(r_dot/v1)**2 +1 ) )
    return a_theoretical

def calculatePrecession(errorf, a, e, T):
    h = np.sqrt(GM * a * (1 - e ** 2))
    # Initial guess for sigma
    initial_x = [0.95]
    result = minimize(errorf, initial_x, method='Nelder-Mead', args=(h,e,GM) ,tol=1E-15)
    optimized_sigma = result.x  # The optimized value for sigma
    if( not result.success):
        print(result)
    days_in_century = 36525  # Number of days in a century

    # Calculation of precession per orbit in radians
    delta_phi_per_orbit = 2 * np.pi * (optimized_sigma-1)
    delta_phi_per_orbit_GR = (6 * np.pi * GM) / (a * (1 - e ** 2) * c ** 2)

    # Calculate the number of orbits per century
    orbits_per_century = days_in_century / T

    # Precession per century in arcseconds
    delta_phi_per_century = delta_phi_per_orbit * orbits_per_century * (
                180 / np.pi) * 3600  # Convert radians to arcseconds
    delta_phi_per_century_GR = delta_phi_per_orbit_GR * orbits_per_century * (
                180 / np.pi) * 3600  # Convert radians to arcseconds


    return delta_phi_per_century[0], delta_phi_per_century_GR


# https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html
# https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
# https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
# https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html
# https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/saturnfact.html
# https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uranusfact.html
# https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html

# https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newton/node115.html#e13.126

a_ = [57.909E9, 108.210E9, 149.598E9, 227.956E9, 778.479E9, 1432.041E9,  2867.043E9,   4514.953E9]
e_ = [0.2056,   0.0068,    0.0167,    0.0935,    0.0487,    0.0520,       0.0469,      0.0097]
T_ = [87.969,   224.701,   365.256,   686.980,   4332.589, 10759.22,    30685.4,      60189]


Planet = ["Mercury", "Venus", "Earth", "Mars", "Jupiter", "Saturn", "Uranus", "Neptune"]

df = pd.DataFrame(index=Planet, columns=['Planet', 'delta_HU', "delta_GR"])
df["Planet"] = Planet
for i, (a, e, T, name) in enumerate(zip(a_, e_, T_, Planet)):
    df.loc[name, ['delta_HU', "delta_GR"]] = calculatePrecession(error_functionHU, a, e, T)


ax = df.plot.scatter(x="Planet", y="delta_GR", label='GR Data', color='red')
df.plot(x="Planet", y="delta_HU", label='HU Data', color='blue', ax=ax)

ax.set_ylabel('Perihelion Precession (arcseconds/century)')
ax.legend()
# ax.set_yscale("log")

plt.tight_layout()
plt.savefig("./Drawing_For_Publications/HU_GR_Comparison.png")
plt.show()        

This is the result of the calculation:

Notice that the calculation is given by minimizing the error bar on

HU_ Acceleration should be equal to d^2r/dt^2 - r w**2

So, minimizing the quadratic difference enforces Newtonian Dynamics with the Non-Newtonian Force or Acceleration.

SIMPLE AND CLEAR.

The derivation of Natural Laws is provided in another notebook:

https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU/blob/master/AAA_Final_Derivation_of_Laws-3D_4_Body_1.ipynb

Every Extraordinary Claim is supported by transparent derivations, and astronomical and Quantum Mechanical Observations (HU replicates the Anomalous Electron/Muon Magnetic Moment calculation by Quantum Electrodynamics). So, HU is the most successful and the most precise theory ever produced.

IT IS EXTRAORDINARY BUT I PROVIDE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

Nowadays, that is a bygone era... Currently, you can write a paper about Multiverse... Dark Matter as Superfluid this or that and be published as long as you are part of a certain group - determined by the Gods of Publishing..:) a.k.a. Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and MDPI AG... to mention a few.

You cannot avoid them even when you try foreign journals... They are everywhere... and will arbitrarily block your work and your work only, from publication without any defensible reason.

This is the correspondence I sent to Erika Kessler and Sneezy Rosame at the Nature Publishing Conglomerate.

This is not the first time they censored my work while giving nonsensical reasons.

I showed you that my work is not pure theoretical work and I showed that crappy theoretical work from academia and crackpots are posted there.

Here is an example:

Hence, the question is what distinguishes my work from the others?

The reason is that my work challenges Relativity, L-CDM, Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy and those are the interests Nature Publishing is devoted to and that is the butter in their bread.

Nature Publishing controls journals everywhere. This submission was to the Journal of the Korean Physics Society!!! all the way on the other side of the world and yet, I am blocked by the same people using the same scheme.

I made my argument. Please, support my work if you agree.

MY SUBMISSION TO THE JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN PHYSICS SOCIETY

In the past, I submitted work "Is the Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve really a Conundrum?" to Nature.

In that article, I explained that the Spiral Rotation Curve is explained by standard modeling of galaxy components. In garden-variety (not my creation) models, the Luminous mass and the Gas Cloud are construed as Cylindrical Density Distributions (Radially Exponential Density Distributions).

I explained that one can use Gauss Gravitation (Gravitation under cylindrical symmetry) to predict the exponents for both luminous mass and gas cloud that would replicate the M33 Galaxy Rotation Curve, thus eliminating the Conundrum (thus the title of the article).

M33 is a typical example of a galaxy where DARK MATTER has to be there in the form of a Dark Matter Halo.

Here are the RESULTS of my numerical simulation. I initially used Gauss Gravitation and later I redid using a full numerical simulation. That is what is presented here. NO DARK MATTER IS REQUIRED. JUST THE RADIALLY, EXPONENTIAL MASS DISTRIBUTIONS ARE ENOUGH TO REPLICATE THE ROTATION CURVE.

Since in HU, G is epoch-dependent, I had to simulate the galaxy at distinct redshifts z:

I also created the video showcasing the evolution of M33 across time:

Here is the Python Package.

https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_GalaxyPackage

In other words, my work is not pure mental masturbation. I provided results. If you disagree with the results, you can say that. That is called peer review and that is what Research Square claims to offer to scientists (without discrimination, that is, without them parsing what they like and what they don't like).

THIS IS THE LETTER

THIS IS THE ARTICLE THAT NATURE PUBLISHING CLAIMS NOT TO BE A THEORETICAL ARTICLE! THAT IS CLEARLY WRONG.

THEY ALSO CLAIM THAT MY WORK IS A THEORETICAL ARTICLE. THAT IS UTTERLY WRONG.

BY THAT MEASURE, DR. ADAM RIESS WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUBLISH HIS RESULTS IN RESEARCH-SQUARE, DESPITE FITTING HIS DATA TO FLRW.

THIS IS ONE ARTICLE. YOU JUST HAVE TO SEARCH DARK MATTER OR ANYTHING TO FIND THEORETICAL PAPERS (CRACKPOTTERY) AT RESEARCHSQUARE.COM

Nobody can disagree with the claim that spacetime is a superfluid because that doesn't mean anything.

Here is another article. Purely theoretical and not supported by anything.

Now consider my work. I derived these laws of nature from first principles. I shared the derivation in a Sympy notebook:

https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU/blob/master/AAA_Final_Derivation_of_Laws-3D_4_Body_1.ipynb

These laws passed all tests - including reproducing the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of Electron and Muon to the same level of precision as QED.

They also pass all Relativity Tests and all Cosmological Tests a Cosmological Theory should pass (Tully-Fisher, Tolman, Kapahi tests) -- Relativity does not pass them.

THE HYPERGEOMETRICAL UNIVERSE THEORY

My article?calculates a new law of Gravitation instead of an equation for a Gravitomagnetic field. Here is my new law of Gravitation:

You can see the four components.? The Gravitomagnetic part is the Biot-Savart component.

Here is the law for Electromagnetism where I corrected Lienard Wichiert Potential and brought in a new component of Electromagnetism, the same one that produces the Mercury Perihelion Precession.??

I provided the derivation of that law here in a Sympy Notebook: https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU/blob/master/AAA_Final_Derivation_of_Laws-3D_4_Body_1.ipynb

All my calculations and plots are provided in GitHub Repositories.? Anyone can reproduce them.

HERE ARE THE PREDICTIONS FOR PERIHELION PRECESSION

These are results that should be shared and prove that my work is not just a theoretical, abstract paper without any foundation or connection to reality.

Unlike this offending paper, I provided the application of my law of Gravitation to the Mercury Perihelion Precession Rate prediction:

I also provided simulations for galaxy formation:

No other theory can do this. These results explains?JWST observations.

I created a Python Package called HU_Galaxy that does the simulation of spiral galaxy formation and fits the time of formation according to the epoch in which the gas clouds collide.? This is done using HU epoch-dependent Gravitation.

I solved the Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve Conundrum using simple initial conditions and angular momentum conservation.

This simulation is how one shows that a model actually explains something. The data comes from M33.

These are new results that contradict the need for Dark Matter.

The Python Package is part of the references

https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_GalaxyPackage

So, I am sharing results that are extremely important.? They challenge the whole of Physics.

Of course, my theory - unlike General Relativity or the Superfluid Spacetime paper - passes all Cosmological Theory tests.

Tolman Test

Tully-Fisher

https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU/blob/master/AAA_Final_TullyFisher.ipynb

Kapahi Test (median angular size of galaxies scaling with 1/z)

https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU/blob/master/AAA_Final_Kapahi_NED.ipynb

COMPARE THIS WITH EINSTEIN'S PREDICTIONS FOR THE SAME QUANTITY (ANGULAR SIZE VERSUS Z):

Einstein predicted that the angular size would diminish up to z=1.7 and then grow, which is debunked by JWST astronomical observations:

Supernova SN1a Distance Ladder Calibration with a two-parameter?model (Using both the Supernova Cosmology Project data and the Pantheon Survey)

I derived the G-dependence of the Absolute Luminosity of Supernova, eliminating the need for the Stellar Candles Hypothesis.

Here is the fitting of a 2-parameter model for the Supernova Cosmology Project data.

NO DARK MATTER OR DARK ENERGY IS REQUIRED. JUST THE EPOCH-DEPENDENT G, THE OPTICAL PATH OF ANCIENT PHOTONS, THE LIGHTSPEED EXPANDING HYPERSPHERICAL UNIVERSE TOPOLOGY, AND THE NEW MODEL FOR LIGHT ARE ENOUGH TO REPLICATE THE SUPERNOVA DATA.

THE MODEL HAS ONLY TWO PARAMETERS INSTEAD OF THE SEVEN USED BY L-CDM.

HU eliminates the Hubble Tension, provides a new model for Cosmogenesis, replaces Particle-Wave Dualism?with the Quantum Trinity, provides a new model for matter to replace the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

IN SUMMARY

The policy rejecting theoretical papers is not been applied consistently and should not be applied to my work.? My work is not just an theoretical article.? I showed the observational and experimental data to support it. I predicted Supernova Distances from their redshifts without Dark Matter, Dark Energy or space stretching.

No other theory can do that.? Here is the notebook: https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU/blob/master/AAA_Final_SN1a.ipynb

My theory, unlike the one with Superfluid Spacetime, is shown to be supported by DATA (Supernova Data, NED data, SDSS data, Mercury Perihelion, and all Physics).

I rebutted your explanation and I hope you will reconsider both the summary rejection of my paper without a peer review and the blocking of it in the Research Square site.

Dr. Marco Pereira