THE SPIRAL GALAXY CONUNDRUM COVER-UP - Lesson 1

The Spiral Galaxy is one of the few observations that support Dark Matter.

Historically, we also have the Coma Cluster observation by Dr Fritz Zwicky, the Supernova Cosmology Project (Type 1a Supernovae or SN1a observations of Apparent Luminosities and Redshifts) by Dr. Adam Riess's team.

To a lesser extent, we also have the Weak Gravitational Lensing observation. I say "to a lesser extent" because, in that observation, one cannot determine if it is Dark Matter or just gas and dust. The situation would be different if one could detect a "Halo" around a galaxy. This is an essential feature of modeling galaxies, yet there is no Halo observation. All observations are from intergalactic or intra-cluster weak gravitational lensing.

The Coma Cluster observation suffers from the same problem. Dr. Fritz Zwicky detected something, and that something could be dust and gas.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH THE CURRENT MODELING OF GALAXIES?

Currently, scientists assume the existence of a Conundrum because the Rotation Curve (tangential velocity of stars and gas versus distance from the galaxy center) has a flat top or a positive slope.

That is different from what one would expect from Newtonian Dynamics. That statement has to be characterized. Currently, one extracts the Luminous Mass Distribution from light measurements across the radial direction. That suffers from the fact that the closest galaxy is Andromeda, which is 2.5 million light-years away. The measurement is hampered by gas, dust, and stars blocking other stars light. That is not reliable. The other problem is the measurement of the gas cloud distribution. Not all gas has been incorporated into stars. The gas cloud density is small but adds up when considered over vast volumes.

Every other day, we discover something new in our own galaxy, and we are only 25,000 light-years from the center (1% of the distance to Andromeda).

In the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU), instead of using "observed luminous mass" and sticking it into a Poisson equation, I started with the initial conditions - spinning gas clouds. The support for this simple model is that the initial conditions were simple: a spinning cloud of gas.

Here is the Poisson Equation:

I also considered G (Newton's Gravitational Constant) to be inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe. Since that is proportional to the age of the Universe, one can use the epoch as a proxy. Hence, when the Universe was 100 million years old, G was 14.04 billion years/100 million years or 140.04 times larger than the current G.

Instead, I integrated Newton's Dynamics using an ansatz gas distribution (double exponential for gas and stars or triple exponential for Central Black Hole, gas and stars). The star formation times were obtained by integrating Newton's laws at each time point while keeping angular momentum conserved in all layers. This is supported by the relatively short time associated with galaxy formation.

You can see the M33 galaxy evolution as a function of z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3buediDHUU

As you look farther and farther in time (considering that the galaxy already exists), one can see that the galaxy shrinks (because of stronger G) and rotates faster. The surface brightness increases brutally. That explains the galaxies with 600 times higher surface brightness seen by JWST.

In other words, what JWST sees is just shrunk galaxies due to stronger Gravitation. When they are in the process of flattening (galaxies start as cylindrical gas clouds that become flat as time goes by), they look like the puzzling (to current scientists) cylindrical galaxies...:)

In other words, what is puzzling scientists right now is something that HU predicted a long time ago.

This is my competition. At Los Alamos Archives, there are 44,024 articles containing Dark Matter in the title.

If you count the number of articles that use Relativity, I am sure that number would go to millions...

So, it is "understandable" that all those interests would block any publication that is disagreeable. That said, that is not how Science should work.

HOW DOES THE M33 ROTATION CURVE LOOK LIKE?

Galaxies are idiosyncratic. They come in all shapes and forms, and their rotation curves have flat tops and ascending and descending slopes.

The other parameter (initial thickness of the gas cloud) has to do with Cylindrical Galaxys being observed. Stars will be formed during the flattening of the galaxy, and that intermediary phase would make the galaxies look like cigars (actually observed).

The community decided that the Flat Top curve was the puzzling one. M33 has an ascending slope (the rotation velocity increases with distance from the center of the galaxy). In other words, M33 should be even more puzzling...:)

That said, here is the modeled M33 rotation curve:

Below is the fitted Galaxy Formation time versus epoch. Since the epoch is related to redshift by epoch= 14.04/(1+z) one can readily use this plot to understand what you observe at the JWST telescope.

For epoch=1 billion years, the time for galaxy formation was 0.49*1**1.76-0.01=0.48 billion years.

When the Universe was 0.5 billion years, the time for galaxy formation was 0.49*0.5**1.76-0.01=0.134 billion years.

L-CDM has a miscalibrated Cosmic Distance Ladder. In other words, the mapping from redshift z to distance or epoch is incorrect.

For example, GLASS-z13, now called GLASS-z12 has a redshift z=12.4

The epoch (according to HU) is given by 14.04/(1+12.4)=1.047 billion years.

That is not surprising since a galaxy that started when the universe was 0.5 billion years old would be complete by 0.634 billion years, with 400 million years to spare before this observation. No sweat!!! It is totally consistent with HU despite breaking L-CDM, the Big Bang.

The numbers are different in L-CDM because their Cosmic Distance Ladder is calibrated using a totally unsupported hypothesis (The Stellar Candles Hypothesis). That is equivalent to having a Constant G forever.

JWST proves them wrong!

HEY, WHAT ABOUT THE SUPERNOVA COSMOLOGY PROJECT?

I used HU prediction of a variable G (inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe) and corrected the Supernova Absolute Luminosity.

I derived the G-dependence of the Supernova Absolute Luminosity from a formula (equations 2 and 3) created by Dr. David Arnett.

As G varies, the radius of the White Dwarf changes with G^{-1/2), and its mass changes with G^{-3/2}. That is the prediction by Dr. Chandrasekhar. Since the radius and the mass change in this way, the density across the star does not. The increase in G causes the shrinkage to occur without changing the conditions for nuclear fusion. In other words, varying G is like shooting stars with a shrinking gun... The surface brightness remains the same while the surface shrinks with G. I call that Cosmological Covariance. As G varies, everything adjusts itself to accommodate it.

The derivation below shows one of the limiting G-dependence G^{-3}. The other limit is G^{-3.5}. The observed G-dependence is G^{-3.33}, right in the middle. For that reason, I call this a prediction in a two-parameter model. The other parameter is the 4D radius (and age) of the Universe. The fitting yields 14.04 billion light-years.

Here are the results of the fitting:

As you might know, Science is guided by Occam's Razor. This philosophical principle dictates that if two models explain the same data, the BETTER MODEL is the one with fewer unsupported parameters.

My parameters are supported. That said, the competition L-CDM has SEVEN parameters:

So, L-CDM is not really a competition to my work.

IN SUMMARY

There is a cover-up. There is no other explanation for the censorship of my work and the lack of a single objection (if the work is lacking) by any astronomer, astrophysicist, or cosmologist.

This is a statement I make after 18 years under censorship. So, I do have some data to support this statement.

The implications are tremendous. There are billions of dollars in Dark Energy and Dark Matter research. Science would benefit from a countervailing point of view.

HU's advantages are many. It simplifies Physics, and more straightforward Physics is less overparameterized Physics - more capable of predictions.

Quantum Chromodynamics, Cosmology, Astronomy, and Physics would benefit from it. Also on the line is Mankind's survival. Science is serious business in the sense that we are always under the threat of extinction. Science should improve fast.

My theory provides the means for interstellar travel, energy production, and Killer Asteroid Protection. It is not chopped liver.