A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on November 2nd, 2017, 10:57 am 

I know; I'm also having fun here. But, at least, I'm not appearing on TV to present all this, as some do to present dark matter and dark energy. :-) :-)

Anything else?

Well, maybe.

Let’s see if we can gather additional more precise information about the universe when we consider the overall space volume drawing we used previously.

-First, by changing the basic space volume we use. Here we will choose a basic space metric within 11 and 1 hour of the previous chosen basic metric volume of the original drawing.

-Second, we will install a gluon, followed by the three generations of fundamental hadronic particles (blue) and antiparticles (red) issued by decay, where and when we have space, in the area between 7 and 5 hour.


Considering the first option, we discover that whichever basic space metric we use, each possesses the Universal Time flow because each is a center of the universe. But we’ve seen this already. On the other hand, this could mean that the space metrics Time flows are relativistic to each other even if Time has an “absolute” flow.

As for the second option, we now clearly understand that:

a) Secondary time flows, even if they seem to install themselves on top (or over) the already existing Universal Time flow, since the volumes of the fundamental hadrons are “added” space volumes to the existing expanding space volume (by jumping in the already existing universe), we clearly appreciate why secondary time flows are completely independent from the universal time flow. This “inflation” event of “overall space” is not shown on the drawing

b) Unequal time laps are shown between the possibility for each fundamental particle (generations) to transform (decay) into less massive articles. These time laps cannot be shorter than the number of basic time laps (metrics) shown on the drawing (but have to be longer as we will see).

And now, it’s essential to be aware that the white “dot” representing a gluon doesn’t have a diameter of 10^-35 meter as do have basic space metrics; it has a diameter of 10^-15 meter. So we are viewing an event completely independent from the original expanding space volume represented by the original drawing; thus confirming the independence of “birth dates”.

And we realise that the time laps between decays have to be longer that the number of duplicating “expanding” basic space metrics between the events, because the production of the each needed volumes for hadrons cannot exceed light speed. This simple fact could explain why we can observe “matter” more easily than “space”, since it takes more time to cover 10^-15 meter at light speed than it needs to cover 10^-35 meter.

This “hadronic” part of the drawing represents the evolution of the “inflating” space portion of our universe and this “inflation” occurred “within” the original expanding space volume.

As for the “time laps” between generations, it would be important to find if volumes of basic “gluon effect” (10^-15 meter) has to duplicate itself to define those time laps between decays (generations).

The “life span” of each hadronic particles should give that answer.

I’ll think about it.
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on November 3rd, 2017, 12:40 pm 

Three generations of “time flows”.

Just to confirm that the universe always develops the process that is needed at the next evolution step (in fact, evolution simply follows the “viability steps” trajectory), there was three generations of time flows produced just before (and the same process was repeated for) the appearance of the three generations of fundamental particles; which were also related to the times flows as seen in the previous post.

Making abstraction of space production (except for the angles of flows), the Time flow is an excellent track to follow, thus understand, the universe’s evolution.

1-The Universal space time flows are issued from the Planck’s epoch single Time flow.

2-The inflation space time flows appeared with the gluon and

3-all particle time flows are issued from the “added” space inflating time flow (in fact from the gluon’s time flow); so those last flows are completely independent from the original Universal space time flows; just as inflation is completely independent from expansion.

The following drawing shows all Times flows that developed starting from Time = zero to the production of the Top and AntiTop quarks during inflation, which started at the gluon appearance just after the Big bang’s radiating period.

Note: Time flows are always installed at the angles defined by basic space metrics production: 1 – 3 – 5- 7 – 9 – 11 hrs, on in the Universal Time flows which defines the "birth dates".


This drawing also explains where the defining process of six fundamental quark particles comes from. The six inflation times flows is the process that the universe will use to define the successive number of quarks "viable": six quarks and six antiquarks. Which suggest that leptons are related strictly to the six angles of the Universal flows.

I'll have to look deeper at this last suggestion.

André Lefebvre
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on November 7th, 2017, 6:21 pm 

Was there asymmetry between particles at the beginning?

While writing my latest book, to be edited soon, I met a problem that I didn’t solve completely.

The problem was regarding the asymmetry we assume existed between elementary particles since, after the annihilation period, all antiparticles had disappear.

In my mind, it’s not possible that an asymmetry existed; because there’s no way that you could have had more front surfaces than back surfaces of gluons to produce quarks and antiquarks. So there has to be another explanation.

The only logical explanation I can see relies in the successive steps tried to finally attain equilibrium by “joining” three quarks or three antiquarks.

First step has to be Mesons that tries joining simultaneous quark – antiquark production; and mesons revealed unstable.

All other steps had to be tried until a stable association was obtained. One of those steps could have been “Pentaquarks” made of five quarks (but there are others that I didn't check yet).

Theory does not forbid the existence of a short-lived five-quark particle, and scientists have looked for them in the debris of particle-smasher experiments for decades. Having turned up nothing, they were beginning to think they had missed some rule of nature that bans Pentaquarks from forming.

Science has recently discover, at LHC, that exotic particles were effectively tried in the evolution of the universe. One of those exotic particles which proved to have existed, is the Charmonium-Pentaquark composed of a Proton (uud quarks) united to a Charm meson (C + anti-C quarks). The discovery of Pentaquarks was described as an "accident" and "something we’ve stumbled across" by a CERN spokesperson. And since their asymmetry research was made with, in mind, the "strong "interaction" notion, the "accident" didn't mean too much.

Nevertheless, since I don't believe in the strong "interaction", let’s consider a “Proton - C meson” Pentaquark exotic particle with its anti-Pentaquark particle.

There are two ways to look at a Pentaquark:

1)As a “whole particle”



2) As a Meson-baryon “molecule”. Which, by the way, will be the process used, a bit later, by evolution to assemble particles into molecules.


Whatever way those associations where made BEFORE "three quarks stable equilibrium" was attained, we must accept that if annihilation started while these associations existed, the question becomes:

Were those quarks protected from annihilation inside Pentaquarks?

To find the answer, we have to discover if an Anti-Pentaquark could have existed. So let’s check it out:


At first glance there’s no objection to their existence. But let’s check a bit further and put in the electric charges of each quarks.


We, then, get the following charge values:

Pentaquark = (-1/3) + (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-2/3) + (+2/3) = 3/3 which is a Proton.

Anti-Pentaquark = (+1/3) + (-2/3) + (-2/3) + (-2/3) + (+2/3) = -3/3 which is an Anti-Proton.

The result is that those Protons and Anti-Protons annihilates and I'm still stuck with my initial question. :-(

BUT...If there was more Pentaquarks then anti-Pentaquarks produced, then, Protons would have predominated. Added to this that if a Pentaquark can be made of a Neutron + a Charm meson, we then get a surplus of Neutrons. Whatever the surplus of Pentaquarks, it does solve our problem.

And this could be the explanation of finding, exclusively, particles in our actual universe without having any asymmetry between particles and anti-particles at the beginning.

The d…. question will keep bothering me for a while; at least, until I find out if Pentaquarks were made in surplus of Anti-Pentaquarks. But that would only depend of the ratio of "colliding" elementary particles; so how on Earth can I find that?

Bof! You can't win them all; can't you?

I'll keep on looking.
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on November 10th, 2017, 1:27 pm 

The electron mystery.

This mystery has bothered me for decades. I think I finally understand it.

Experience's results tell us that electron are produced by colliding gamma rays. And since gamma rays are the most energetic rays, we can assume that they were the first rays to appear in our universe. They would, then, be the origin of electrons.

But before going further, let’s remind ourselves that we are talking of a universe that is composed of two sorts of “space”:

1)-"expanding space" with still projected neutrinos (towards everywhere kinetic energy) and "added"

2) "inflating space" with decaying quarks (toward a center point oriented kinetic energy) that has become, today, stopped "inflated space".

So let’s have another look at the electron production.


Here we have our gamma-rays on a crash course. Both rays are traveling at light-speed; so when they hit, both their trajectory will be stopped. But they both are composed of up and down motion which are their waves. Let’s see what happens:


Since gamma-rays are exclusively up and down motion, traveling at light-speed, when light-speed is blocked, all that is left are the up and down motions. And since an up motion cannot join with a down motion when the trajectory motion is stopped, they are side-tracked; one goes up, the other one goes down.

So, what did actually happen? The logical question is: What can those up and down motions do when their trajectories are blocked, and they are side-tracked?

The only thing I can imagine is that they each become a small quantum of energy and transform their up or down movements into rotating motions, one contrary to the other. One becomes negative (electron) while the other one becomes positive (positron). Those two quantum of energy become simply small “balls” of energy motion, rotating, and they both are projected away from each other because the energy of their blocked wave translation cannot just disappear.

Their rotation gives them a minimal amount of mass energy which is not directed toward their center but is swirling around in a "blurred" volume with a non-defined center. This non-defined center makes them non-solid particles, a kind of ghost-like particles.

Now we have to remember that the origin of those electrons is a gamma ray which is produced by neutrinos traveling at almost light speed. This fact means that they are not related to gluons. Which then means that they do not integrate a motion toward a center; meaning they don’t have a center of gravity. So they do have a bit of “mass energy” (confined kinetic energy) which defines a “density of energy” in the electromagnetism of the universe, but are, in reality, related to the “flat space” portion of the universe which attach them to the Universal time flow (neutrino flow). Their “energy density” has to be considered as a “pressure” just as the overall decreasing “pressure” of expanding energy on the basic space production “acceleration”. But the “pressure” of an electron is “confined” in a “blurred” volume of space. Furthermore, we can assume that the "density pressure" is related to electromagnetism. Which we will have to study a bit more carefully in a future post.

In other words, Taus, Muons, and electrons (leptons) are particles related to “expansion space”, while quarks are particles related to “inflation space”. As for Bosons, being quanta of energy, they are simply related to the "kinetic energy" of our universe.

Here is a drawing of an electron. You’ll agree that saying it is a cloud, is an excellent analogy.


It is a “blurred” particle because it doesn’t have a defined center of gravity. But it has a bit of mass energy (pressure) since it is “confined kinetic energy”.

Naturally, it’s the density of equilibrated energy inside that cloud, which decides whether the quanta of energy is a Tau, a Muon or an electron. And we already know that energy "density" is related to "time flows".

Now if we install the electrons on their corresponding Time flow, which is the Big bang’s on the next drawing, we finally can “see” the superposition of different particles “Time flows” situating universe's both spaces composition: the "expanding space" versus "inflation space". It would be fun to compare the status of electrons related to the Big bang's time flow with the "flavor" characteristic of the "weak force", and the quarks related to the "Gluon's time flow" with the "color" characteristic of the "strong force". But I don't believe in forces so I won't loose time on it.


And we can also assume that we will find “free electrons” in “expanding space”.

I think that we are getting quite an improved "overall" comprehension of our universe to what is actually available; don't you?

André Lefebvre
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on November 11th, 2017, 10:53 am 

Looking back at my last drawing, I just realized that electrons, being on the Universal Time flow, it becomes inevitable that they are always joined (or coupled) with neutrinos which are the "expression" of that flow (I should have draw neutrinos on the same red flows as electrons).

And it is just as normal that the neutrino adopts the characteristic of the electron, muon or tau involved.

In fact, it doesn't "adopt" anything; it always depends of the environment's energy density. In other words, it follows the Time factor. Taus, muons and electrons don't "live" at the same epoch (density).

I'll continue to scrutinize that drawing for a while.
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on November 14th, 2017, 1:44 pm 

By the way, ti whom it may interest, my new book "The birth and the life of...our universe is online (free) at:

https://fondationlitterairefleurdelysli ... press.com/

Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on November 18th, 2017, 3:38 pm 

I don't know if this post will clear things more, but we have to go through it anyway.

Energy or duplication?

We have seen that:

-The duplication of the primary space metrics characterizes the expansion of the universe.

-This expansion of the universe accelerates because of the gradual diluting energy density in the environment; which decelerates the flow of the Universal Time. This happens because speed has a limit which is light speed.

But is this the reality?

Because, we have to ask ourselves if dilution of energy in the overall universe, is an “effective” asset to the expansion of the universe since, simple increase of basic metrics duplication is quite enough to explain this acceleration.

Let’s see the implications:

1) Energy provokes the basic metrics to duplicate. So energy should be the real cause of existing space in which it dilutes.

2) Or, energy simply dilutes along the Time flow trajectory. So, then, energy would solely be the cause for Time’s expression.

Number 1) isn’t acceptable anymore, since energy started producing “Time” BEFORE space appeared. So the energy’s “effect” is on the "Time flow" and not on the “space production”. Which eliminates no 1) as a diluting factor and supports no 2).

We know that the result (the “work”) of energy is “motion”. The first motion ever produced was a “Time motion” (before even space appeared) rather than a “space motion”. In fact, space itself doesn’t have any “proper motion” because the overall space is the result of duplication of its basic metric (in this sense we join the scientists who say that “expansion” isn’t a “motion”).

Which “basic metric” is produced by the “total energy’s motion” (light speed) applied to a “Time length” of 10^-43 sec, which simply becomes the “birth date” of “space”, and of the "present state" of Time itself. Which would mean that before the Big bang, Time increased speed until reaching "light speed" that "froze" it in a "present state".

The fact is that basic “Time” is uni-dimensional; which means that it doesn’t have any “length”. So the notion of “Time length” relates exclusively to the “space basic metric” and not to “Time” itself; since the real nature of Time is “spaceless nor distenceless”. This would mean that the energy’s dilution is not related to “space production” but to uni-dimensional Time diffusion, meaning “Time flow”.

So dilution of energy is related to “Time flow” and not at all to “space expansion”. This “fact” would explain that energy density differs at different “moments” on the Time flow, while being equilibrated at each of those different “moments”, in the overall space of the universe. Then the density of energy, when related to “motion”, becomes a “Time factor” instead of a “space factor”. And this confirms that “gravitation” is related to the “Time factor” as well, since density augments as you approach, on its “Time flow”, the “birth date” of an “event”.

All this tells us that to understand “energy”, we have to consider it on the “time factor” rather than on the “space factor”.

Finally, all the “dynamic” of the universe is concentrated in the “Time flows”.

So we must now understand how all this relates to space?

The answer is that the “Universal Time flow” doesn’t relate to space in any way, because the Universal Time flow is manifested at light speed; which means that it belongs to a constant “present state” of the universe (to which, energy wise, belongs the photon).

The “past” itself appeared strictly when “less than light speed” was manifested. And we have dated this moment at 10^-43 sec after Time = Zero. This event resulted in the “appearance” of “space” which, then, started its personal “Time flow”.

So now, what we have is a “no length” Time flow manifested before the Big bang, and a “basic length” Time flow afterward. It is important to “grasp” that this last Time flow is related to Universal “space-time” and not to Universal Time itself. Once more we have to “see” a difference between “space” and “Time”.

And then, appeared “mass energy” (produced by gluons) that blocked the “flowing of time” at a certain “moment”, giving a “birth date” to this “blocked moment”, when its personal “time” started “flowing”.

All those “birth dates” appeared at certain moments on the “Time arrow” which, all, started different “Time flows”.

And each “birth date” was related to a specific event, whether it was a “phase transition”, a quantum of energy or a “mass energy volume”.

In this regard, Time becomes the only possible thread we can follow to clearly understand our universe; because, not only does it separate Time from space, but it also isolates “located mass-energy” from “universal kinetic energy”

Unfortunately, scientists don’t agree on “Time’s existence”; or at least, don't consider its importance.
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on November 20th, 2017, 7:13 pm 

Decay process.

I’ve amused myself in drawing a chronological overall view of the results we know about the decaying process.
I had a few surprises.


As you see, I’ve differentiate neutrinos, gluons, bosons, Gamma rays, electrons and quarks particle from each other; because, in my mind, quite a few of them, in fact all of them beside quarks, aren’t even “particles”. Some can be considered as “pre-particles” even though they’ll never become particles and remain "fields". In my field notion, only the gluon field contains "particles". Photons and electrons are electromagnetic and kinetic fields respectively. Neutrinos are basic space metric components fields. These descriptions can easily be understood by those who read my book "The birth and the life of our universe".

We know that the “strangeness” of a Strange quark is that it cannot decay due to the strong force, meaning “gravitation” in my option, or electromagnetic force, still “gravitation” in my option. They decay by “weak force”. Which means that, since the weak force is imaginary, they decay as everything else does, by adapting to their density environment; and that explanation makes disappear their “strangeness”. I have to insist on the "fact" that nothing "strange" occurs in the universe; whatever "strangeness" we find, has to be in our "understanding" of events; simply because whatever happens in the universe is, indisputably, "normal", "logical" and "natural".

Besides the strange quark production process that we see in the drawing, Strange quarks are also produced by “gluon fusion” (collision) which results in one Strange + one anti-Strange quarks. This “gluon fusion” process occurs 10 times faster than the quark process; which is, once again, quite normal since gluons move at light speed and quarks don’t. The important factor here would be to define the “ratio” of events.

Note that Strange quarks can also bind with the heavier charm and bottom quarks which also like to bind with each other (which, again, is normal since they have bigger “deformed” time volumes (gravitation). Thus, in the presence of a large number of these quarks (at a certain epoch), quite unusually abundant exotic particles can be produced; some of these have never been observed yet in experiments. As we’ve already seen, there’s a possibility that “matter components” were “secured” this way from annihilation. The, undefined yet, asymmetry would then be at the exotic particles level. Which possibility, must I say, does become "logical" and "natural".

A lot of things can be seen by this overall view of the decay process. One of them is the “fact” that Down quarks are issued through the anti-Top quarks decay chronology. This seems to show another discrepancy in the "overall" picture.

A question arises also regarding the Gamma ray observed here, since it is sometimes replaced by the appearance of a Z boson. This known fact brings the following question: Which one of those "possible" fields decays into an electron/positron couple or a Charm/AntiCharm couple? This relation should be clarified. Researches are being done actually on the Z boson, without comparing to Gamma rays though. It would seem to me that the Z boson, just as do the W bosons, should transforms into a "particle" while gamma rays issues strictly in "fields". But I can't explain the process for now. On the other hand, this would suggest that even if the Z boson is being related to the electromagnetic photon, it could be previously linked to the gluon. Specially since the Z boson isn't involved in the absorption or emission of electrons and positrons "fields" like the W bosons are.

Another question comes to my mind:

How can a W+ boson become a Bottom quark particle that decays into an Up and AntiDown "particles", while the W- boson decays into an AntiBottom particle which decays into a neutrino and a positron "fields"? Isn’t this a break in “symmetry”? And if I add what we've just seen about the Z boson, it comes out that the + and zero electric charges are related to "particles" while the - (minus) relates to "fields". This is another "path" to follow.

Another intuition comes up when I look at this drawing: Up and Down quarks seem to issue mainly from the Strange – AntiStrange quarks. I’ll put more attention to this; it could lead to something.

After taking 7 hours to prepare this post, I guess I'm getting tired; so I'll stop for now.
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on November 21st, 2017, 4:57 pm 

The “funny” Bottom quark decay.

After a collision, a Bottom quark becomes a “messy” object. It surrounds itself with one anti-quark and a lot of other quarks, anti-quarks and gluons. The “messy” part is called a Bottom hadron. It might be a “B meson” or a “B baryon”; the latter is like a proton or neutron but with one down quark replaced with a Bottom quark. Inside this “messy” part, occurs many mini-collisions of mostly quark-quark and quark-gluon; while quark-antiquark collisions are relatively rare. Why? We don’t know; but the reason could probably answer the asymmetry problem.


After traveling some distance, the Bottom quark decays into a Charm quark and a W+ boson. And the “messy” Bottom hadron fragments into many lighter hadrons.

Let’s note that, as we saw, a Bottom hadron can be a B meson or a B baryon. In theory, both B mesons and B baryons should have approximately the same lifetime. But the fact is that all previous experiments measured a systematically shorter lifetime for B baryons than for B mesons. In other words, B mesons were more “stable”; or, as I see it, B baryons had more “urge” to adapt to their environment. 20 years of adjusting measures finally equalized (almost) the lifetimes and saved the theory.

And now for the “funny” part:

The funny part is that the “messy” Bottom hadron doesn’t decay at the same moment, or same place, as the Bottom quark.

The hadrons in most jets (drawing at the left) will all originate at the collision point. But in a jet from a Bottom quark (at the right) the “messy” Bottom hadron will travel farther away before it starts to decay. After producing a Charm quark and a W+ boson, the rest of the “messy” part keeps on going further before decaying. As you can see on the right drawing, a significant number of the hadrons in this jet came, not from the collision point, but from a point further out where the Bottom hadron decayed.

So it’s evident that the Bottom quark adapts to it environment faster than the “messy” Bottom hadron. The question is: Why?

Up until today, there is no explanation yet for the “gap” between the collision point and the “messy hadron decay point. So we'll have to check all this with what we have found ourselves.

The Bottom quark stands in a space volume, and it has its proper “Time flow”. And it’s evident that whatever hadrons come out of the decay, they have to occupy space just as much.

So here is the drawing of the event:


As we know hadrons are “composed particles”; which means that it has at least two quarks. And we can clearly see on the drawing that the first “space” available to contain two quarks are the two red circles which are part of the secondary “Time flow” of the initial center of the “messy” Bottom hadron occupied by the Bottom quark. And those two circles are quite far away leaving a “gap” from the Bottom quark.

The two green circles in front of the Bottom quark represent its immediate decay into a Charm quark and a W+ boson.

This would explain the “gap” between the Bottom quark and the decay of its “surrounding” hadron.

You don’t get that kind of “gap” with other particles because they don’t “surround” themselves “messily” when decaying.
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on November 24th, 2017, 10:40 pm 

Bottom quark decay #2

My previous drawing for Bottom quark decay wasn’t perfectly precise, and complete, to my taste; so I decided to make another one:


And this more precise drawing gives a lot more explanations.

The green circle is the starting gluon that separates in two surfaces which become a Top and an antiTop quarks.

Let’s first follow the antiTop. It decays into an antiBottom (follow its Time flow) and a W- Boson. Note that the W- Boson is slightly farther away than the quark from the starting center; so the energy density of its space environment is more diluted giving it less mass than the quark (remember that the Gluons installed themselves perpendicular to neutrinos which means "Time flow").

This W- Boson decays into a Muon and a Neutrino. What is not shown here, is that this last pair will acquire energy from the Universal Time flow (in yellow) through the produced Neutrino, and make, in the 3D volume, a Bottom quark with the Muon while the re-stabilized neutrino joins the Universal Time flow.

Now let’s see the Top quark. It decays into a Bottom quark and a W+ Boson. This W+ Boson will transform (not shown here) into a Bottom quark (by what process?) which will decay into an Up and AntiDown quarks.

The Bottom quark will decay right away in a Charm and an AntiUp quarks. The “messy” Bottom hadron won’t decay at the same moment. When it does, the Charm transforms in a Strange quark.

If you follow the Bottom quark decay, it produces a Charm quark and “something else” I don’t know about and couldn’t find in experiment results. But we see clearly that this “something else” prevents the “Messy” Bottom hadron to produce a lighter hadron because there’s only space enough left for two particles; which become a Meson. We can see that this is not the case for the antiBottom decay process.

Furthermore, the “Messy” characteristic seems to be caused by the “overlapping” of the Top/antiTop environment; and we still have our “gap” between the “moments” of their decay.

There also seem to exist an even smaller "gap" between Top and Bottom quarks decays. Could this be a "prediction" or is it an error in the space metric production representation? If there's no "gap", the Bottom quark goes beside the Top quark with the W+ Boson at the top, and the antiBottom quark goes beside the antiTop quark while the W- Boson decays, in the 3D portion of space not shown, in a Muon (electronic in the Time flow) and a Neutrino. This last possibility seems more accurate to me.

There are probably more information here that I didn't "see" yet.
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on November 28th, 2017, 2:37 pm 

Top decay #2

Let’s see more precisely the Top decay process.

As I’ve suggested in my last post, let’s eliminate the “gap” between the Top quark and Bottom quark and look at what comes out of it; maybe we will find the process that we were asking about.

The double lines joining particles indicates production in 3D not shown in 2D:


Note that there are “electronic particles”, not shown here, produced in these decays. For example: Bottom quark (least mass 4 Gev) produces a Charm quark (least mass 1 Gev) + AntiUp quark (least mass 1, 5 Gev) which leaves 1, 5 GeV of mass energy, but could be more or less depending which particles are more massive.

This would mean that some “mass energy” could be transformed into electronic particles (Tau 1,777GeV, Muon 105, 66 MeV, or Electron 511 MeV). This "mass energy" can also transform into kinetic energy releasing Neutrinos. Those electronic particles have specific “mass energy” while the previous produced particles have variable “mass energy”.

Why? Probably because there is a margin where particles can stay “stable” (in equilibrium with its environment), which permits them to “resist” decaying. During that small “period”, other similar particles appear having less “mass energy” because the energy density doesn't stop diluting.

On the other hand, it’s obvious that this “remain” of “mass energy” composes what is called the “Messy Bottom hadron” surrounding the Bottom quark. For example a Charm quark has 1, 15 GeV of “mass energy” which still leaves 350 MeV for a Strange quark or two, even three (80 to 130 MeV each).

As for the AntiBottom quark, it produces an AntiCharm quark and an “unknown particle” that can use around 2, 8 GeV of mass energy; which is quite enough to represent the “messy Bottom hadron” around an AntiBottom quark if this “mess” is also observed in its decay; if not, we have a most interesting problem.

On the other hand, something different happens in our Top quark decay.

Since the “mass energy” of particles are defined by their “birth dates”, and since we know that a “particle” was observed at 125 GeV, this particle has to be produced between the Top quark and the advent of the Bottom quark. That particle, which was called the Higgs Boson, is represented here as the “rosy” particle coming from the Top quark. Its “birth date”, perpendicular to the Universal Time flow, corresponding to its “mass energy” of 125 GeV. Mind you, it could always come from the electromagnetic energy of the universe (W and Z Bosons).

So if that Higgs Boson comes from the Top quark, it would leave around 48 GeV of mass energy from the Top quark, not accounted for; quite more than enough to produce a Bottom quark and a "Messy Bottom hadron".

What was observed in the Higgs decay was the production of two W Bosons (total = 160, 5 Gev), a Tau-AntiTau pair (= 3, 554 Gev), two Z Boson (= 182, 334 GeV), or Two Photons. These last two productions being massless quanta of electromagnetic energy (so kinetic energy) simply leave the “particle process” Time flow and join the "present state" of the Universe. Other particle pair productions are also predicted but not yet observed.

The fact is that the Boson pair production sums to more than the mass energy of the Higgs particle; so the mass energy remain of 48 GeV has to be implicated in those Boson productions of the Higgs. 48 GeV is sufficient to produce the W Boson pair, but misses 9, 334 GeV to produce the observed Z boson pair; the question becomes: Where else can that missing “mass energy” come from to produce that Z Boson pair?

The actual explanation of the Standard model involves “colour”, “Flavor”, “spin”, etc. but none of those characteristics can ever justify the “missing mass energy” to produce a particle. We still do not “master” explicitly the particle production process; and if we do, it’s not well explained.

Now the quark production succession would be the following:


So this is what I have to work with. At first glance we have a surplus of AntiDown and AntiUp quarks. So there has to be missing productions? I’ll have to re-check; but right now, I’m tired.

Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on November 30th, 2017, 6:06 pm 

The wonderful field notion:

We will start considering the whole universe as a field composed of, or more accurately, containing other fields. But our fields will be a lot easier to describe than the Quantum theory fields, even though they are the same. So let’s define our fields.

The following drawing is a “field”; which means a space “surface” defined as different from the surrounding surface. It is a gray surface on a white surface.


It could represent a “Baseball field”, a “Football field”, a “grazing field” or whatever portion of surface that is designated from the rest of a surface.

This next drawing is also a field; but it is a space “volume”, different from its surrounding space.


It could be the volume of a ball, a house etc. It’s whatever “volume” however defined from its 3D surrounding.

From this definition we can say that the existing universe is a “field” defined, by its “existence”, from its “non-existing surroundings”. Which make the universe infinite (all that exist) while having a definite volume.

And since everything that exists is “energy”, we can also say that the universe is defined, by its energy, from its non-energical surrounding.

The energy of the universe is what makes it “dynamic”; and its dynamism is expressed by its expansion. No other energy than “kinetic-energy” can express itself this way; because expansion is a “motion” towards everywhere, from everywhere.

Presented this way, we understand that the universe is a “kinetic-energy field” that expands into a “non-energetic field”. In this regard, expansion is simply a “creation” of space by the “motion” issued from the "Universal kinetic-energy field".

And the same "field notion" applies in physics, where fields become “volumes” different from their surroundings.

For example, a quark is an “energy field” different from its surrounding energy. So in order to identify quarks energy from its surrounding energy, since they have “mass”, we will say that a quark is a “mass-energy field”.

Whatever the field considered, it has “borders”; otherwise it couldn’t be differentiated from its environment. So quarks have “borders”, which means that their “mass-energy” characteristic is limited to a certain “volume”. This also means that its energy doesn’t spread “infinitely” contrary to the “kinetic-energy field” called the Universe.

“Kinetic-energy fields” are different than “mass-energy fields”; otherwise we couldn’t differentiate quarks from its universal environment. But both “kinetic” and “mass” are energies; so what difference could they have toward one another?

We can find the answer by analysing a Proton which, also, has “mass-energy”. The mass-energy of a Proton is composed of 1% of its quarks mass-energy and 99% of its “inner” kinetic-energy. So if 99% of the Proton’s “mass energy” is “kinetic-energy”, we can surmise that the quarks mass-energy is also kinetic-energy. But if they are both kinetic-energy, then how can their fields be differentiated from one another?

The difference between a “Proton field” and the “Universe field” is that the Universe field doesn’t have a center while the Proton field has one. The universe doesn’t have a center because the motion produced by its kinetic-energy is oriented from everywhere, towards everywhere; which makes it impossible to define a center of origin.

This means that, if a center is defined inside a proton, it as to be because of a difference in orientation. In fact, the “inner” motion of “mass-energy” is always oriented from everywhere, inside the proton, towards its center. This is why it is called: a center of gravity; which, definitely, relates “gravitation” to “mass-energy”.

So the only difference possible between “kinetic” and “mass” energy has to be the “motion” orientation. “Kinetic-energy” is oriented towards “everywhere”, while “mass-energy” is oriented toward “a definite center point”. And the field’s volume is defined where these orientations differs.

Mass-energy is what defines the center of gravity because it is oriented towards it. Being energy, when it reaches that center of gravity, it has to “act” upon it, and there has to be a consequence to its “action”.

Einstein already gave us the answer to this question in is definition of gravitation: “Gravitation is a consequence of a space-time deformation”. And since a “space-time deformation” has to have a “volume”, we can say that a “gravitational field” is a defined “deformed space-time volume” consequent to the “action” of “mass-energy” on its defined center of gravity.

This way, we just have designed “all mass-energy fields” as being “gravitational fields”. Which means that all massive fundamental particles that have defined centers, are "gravitational fields”.

Now we have to verify, just in case, if there wouldn’t be any fundamental “mass-energy fields” that do not have a defined center, keeping them from being "gravitational fields".

Let’s check each of them:

Gluons and Photons don’t have mass; but they are quanta of energy.

Neutrinos seem to have mass but where’re not sure since we cannot quantify it exactly; they also are quanta of energy.

Electrons have a bit of mass; but an electron is a “blurred” particle; which means that its center is not defined. This means that its “mass-energy” is not oriented toward a defined center; but its “motion” is limited to a “blurred space-time volume” or a "blurred mass-energy field". Muons and Taus are the same particles as electrons but have more mass-energy. So they are just as “blurred mass-energy fields” without defined centers. These three particles are, then, “mass-energy fields” without being “gravitational fields”. Electrons don’t “merge” to one another since they cannot “unify” their “non-defined centers”.

Quarks are defined volumes; which means that they possess a define center of gravity. So quarks are “gravitational fields”.

Finally, the “Universal field” is a “kinetic-energy field” containing “mass-energy fields” and “gravitational fields”. But what about the quanta of energies? What are they exactly?

For a start, we know that a Photon is a quantum of "electromagnetic energy". But what is that new kind of energy we didn’t meet yet?

Electromagnetism is the result of the junction of a “repellent field” to an “attracting field” perpendicular to each other. So before the “junction” occurred, each fields where separated.

Now, which fundamental fields do we know, that possesses those two characteristics?

Asked this way, the answer becomes easy:

The “repellent field” is related to the motion towards everywhere, and the “attracting field” is related to the motion toward a defined point.

The “toward everywhere” quantum of energy is the Neutrino; it doesn’t interact with anything.

Which leaves us with the “toward a defined center” quantum of energy as being the Gluon; it “glues” things together.

So Electromagnetism becomes the junction of “Neutrino fields” to “Gluon fields”; in other words, Electromagnetism is the junction of a “kinetic-energy field” to a “mass-energy field”. Which is a far more precise description than saying it is a “force” that comes out from nowhere.

So we have designed all existing fields composing the “Universal field”.

Furthermore, this field description shows the simplicity of the nature of everything that composes our universe, which has the same nature as space-time itself, meaning: “Kinetic-energy”.

We, then, have to accept that the basic component of everything is “Kinetic-energy”; which, we know, never disappears but can transform itself into other kinds of energy depending of the environment conditions. The main environment condition of the "Universal field" is its continuous decreasing energy density because of its expansion.

Don’t you feel we aren’t very far from a “Unified theory of everything”?

I must admit that I do.
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 1st, 2017, 12:13 am 


In fact, if you let those different "fields" do what they are able to, you end up with what we observe today.

Naturally, conditions evolve along the way; but nothing happens that is not logically and "naturally" explainable like it is in my book "The birth ans the life of our universe", free on line at:

https://fondationlitterairefleurdelysli ... press.com/

Mind you, I don't use the "field notion" in the book. You'll have to adjust that notion to explanations.
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 4th, 2017, 12:08 pm 

Evolution stages of our universe in picture:

Before our universe appeared, was Planck’s epoch; which ended at Planck’s Time. That is when started our 3D universe with a minimal diameter of 10^-35 meter. Then …

# 1-


In reality, it had to duplicate itself since it couldn’t “grow” by half of its size, which is an impossible distance to exist.

# 2- The gluon appeared at 10^-36 sec, perpendicular to the "radiance" of the universe, making it electromagnetic and starts "inflation". The universal diameter had previously expanded to 10^-15 meter.


# 3- “Expansion-energy”, in fact kinetic-energy, separates the gluon’s front from its back surface; which both, started spinning each defining its “field of influence”.


# 4- Spinning Front and back surfaces of gluon define an “active field” then both recoil, each confining their “proper” energy, which produces massive Top quark particles. That is the first moment for significant manifestation of the inflation period.


From this point on, nothing else happens with the overall expanding “universal field”, with one exception: the advent of electronic “pre-particles”. Everything else that follows, occurs inside the “active fields” of all Gluons, floating in the “universal field”, in accordance with the decay process we already saw. The results are gradual less dense “fields” incorporated one inside the others according to their “birth” dates and the continually environment decreasing density of "universal energy".

Meanwhile occurs the exception I was talking about: "Electromagnetic-energy-rays" (waves), issued from around Bottom quarks, collide to produce electronic particles (Taus-Muons-Electrons) that spreads everywhere in the electromagnetic “universal field”. Those particles don’t have centers of gravity even if they have small “mass-energy”; in fact, it is not exactly “mass-energy”; we can more precisely consider their “mass” as the “weight” of their confined “spinning kinetic-energy” volume (field). This "weight" would be the difference between their velocity and the velocity of the "universal radiance field".

Decays of quarks also release either kinetic-energy (Neutrinos), mass-energy (W & Z Bosons) or electromagnetic-energy (Photons) quanta. They are quanta of energy (energy eruptions/bursts) different than massive particles because they, also, do not possess a center of gravity.


When, finally, Up and Down quarks appear, inflation stops. The “instant” on the “Time flow” is 10^-32 sec after the start of the “Time flow” at 0 sec (beginning of Planck’s epoch).

Starting from the appearance of the Bottom quark and its antiparticle, gravitational fields of massive particles provoke all events happening along the “Time flow”, while particles try to equilibrate with the continually decreasing energy density of the expanding “Universal field”.

The equilibrium is attained, by Up and Down quarks, after trying all combination possibilities (mesons and exotic particles), by uniting in group of three joining their centers of gravity into one. This equilibrium situation results in the appearance of “matter” particles in the “universal field”. They are called Protons and Neutrons.

# 6


Both of those composite particles inherits an extended “gravitational field” from the accumulating “effect” of the “gravitational fields” junction of their components.

# 7


This extended “gravitational field” will, then, capture a low massive “blurred” electron floating in the “universal field” which mass-energy (confined spinning kinetic energy) will “disperse” throughout the “gravitational field”, because the electron doesn’t have a center of gravity to fix itself at the proton’s center of gravity. The "dispersion" of the electron's energy through the "gravitational field" will define the energy density of the electronic shell.

With the new electron component, the proton’s “gravitational field” becomes an “element” called Hydrogen. Into which “gravitational field”, one or two neutrons can “fall” to the center where the proton stands. This accretion of neutrons produces two “isotopes”: one added neutron makes a Deuterium, while two added neutrons results in a Tritium.

These two “isotopes” represent the transition phases between the Hydrogen element and later produced elements. But, even if Hydrogen exists at this “moment” on the “Time flow”, stars cannot start being “created” by “accretion of Hydrogen yet; they will have to wait until Helium and even Lithium appears.

I will explain the reason soon, I hope.
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 4th, 2017, 9:16 pm 

There's not much hope involved because here is the explanation:

When were stars “created”?

Instead of trying to find if anybody ever solved the problem decades ago, let’s use our brain a bit and proceed with the actual physics and chemical knowledge we have.

And one knowledge we mustn’t forget is that a “gravitational effect” is not a “pulling effect”; it’s a “falling effect”.

First of all, stars are produced by “accretion” of particles, mainly hydrogen. The problem is that the “accretion process” must be continuous; and to be continuous, the “gravitational effect” in the “field” surrounding the “accreted particles” has to augment continuously. Otherwise “accretion” stops, since “accretion” is a result of the “gravitational effect”.

So if you start with two “accreting” hydrogen atoms, this will create a “molecule” by covalence; and “covalence”, at the border of atoms, doesn’t augment the “gravitational effect” of the “field” produced, because the particles do not join centers of gravity. Which means that there’s no “accretion”.

So in order to have an augmented gravitational effect of the overall “field”, you have to start with an helium atom that has a “full” valence shell, and four times more “mass-energy” than hydrogen. The helium atom can, then, “capture” hydrogen atoms in its “field” without giving them the “covalence” opportunity. The result is that each centers of gravity of each hydrogen atoms merge with the helium’s center of gravity increasing automatically the “gravitational effect” around the “accreted particles”. As you can see there’s no “magical” force needed to obtain that result; gravitational “effect” is quite enough.

This increased volume of “gravitational effect” captures even more hydrogen atoms that “falls” toward the center of gravity, still increasing the “gravitational effect”, but now, also starts to increase “pressure” on the helium core and the first row of hydrogen atoms surrounding it; of which the energy density of their valence shell is increased by the pressure, and prevents “covalence” with the arriving hydrogen atoms; which also, join their center of gravity to the “bulk’s” center of gravity.

Gradually and continuously, hydrogen atoms accrete to the growing “bulk” of hydrogen, increasing progressively the “gravitational effect” of the overall “field” and the “pressure” produced by “falling” atoms towards the center of gravity.

When enough massive hydrogen atoms “accrete”, the “falling process” pressure becomes sufficient to provoke fusion at the center of gravity and a star is born.

The complete explanation can be found in my book: “The birth and the life of our universe”, free on line at:

Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 13th, 2017, 12:48 pm 

Official Dark matter clumping and Galaxy birth.


Let’s see the latest official information.

Dan Marrone, an associate professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona in Tucson and lead author of the new paper, said in a statement: “With these exquisite ALMA observations, astronomers are seeing the most massive galaxy known in the first billion years of the universe in the process of assembling itself," (See: By Hanneke Weitering, Space.com Staff Writer | December 7, 2017 06:31am ET).

This was when the universe was only 780 million years old, at an epoch called “reionization” where “space was saturated with an opaque fog of cold hydrogen gas”.

In fact, here, “cold” doesn’t really mean as “cold” as it sounds; it means “less hot than previously”; because the energy density in space had been decreasing since the beginning and was still decreasing because of continual expansion. Consequently, the "foggy" situation was quite “normal” since space was saturated with denser than today hydrogen gas; so space was occupied by a “fog” of hydrogen gas.

But again, this cannot be an exact description of “space” at that epoch. Because ever since 380,000 years after Bb, the “space” of the universe was composed of small “hot focusing” and small “colder dispersing” volumes as we “see” it on MWB photos. So the “reality” becomes that some portions of “space of that epoch” was saturated with hydrogen gas, forming portions of “foggy volumes”, while other “portions” of space was a lot less dense or, if you prefer: a lot less “foggy”. There can be no arguments against this fact.

And, quite naturally, it is in those hydrogen “foggy volumes” that stars started to form by “accretion”.

Dan Marrone continues saying: “Mounting observational evidence with ALMA, however, has helped to reshape that story and continues to push back the time at which truly massive galaxies first emerged in the universe."

So after mentioning “volumes of hydrogen” where we saw stars started to form, Mr. Marrone jumps to the formation of “galaxies”. Even for one single lonely neuron, it’s pretty evident that the galaxies where, at that epoch, already present as “foggy volumes of hydrogen”; so those hydrogen volumes are exactly what he is talking about: Galaxies. And they had not “emerge” in the universe; they had been gravitationally forming since the beginning of “matter” particles even before the MWB photos.

The article, at this point, makes another insignificant “jump”: “Around that same time in the ancient universe, dark matter — a mysterious, invisible form of matter that accounts for about a quarter of the universe's mass — also began to form clumps. As gravity pulled together clumps of both visible matter and dark matter, galaxies were born inside "halos" of dark matter. In a way, dark matter acts as scaffolding for young galaxies as they form by providing the gravity needed to pull mass together.

And this 25% of the universe’s invisibility makes my skin crawl; because:

1) A volume of dense hydrogen gas doesn’t need “dark matter” to produce stars. The center of gravity of the “gas volume” is enough to provoke “accretion” of hydrogen atoms by simply "falling" at the center of that volume. Which becomes, then, the center of a “galaxy.

2) Furthermore, inside those “foggy hydrogen clouds”, we know that are present “helium atoms” which possess 4 times more voluminous “gravitational fields” than hydrogen, that can “accrete” hydrogen atoms keeping them from producing “molecules”; because helium and hydrogen cannot “covalence”. Which is a basic condition permitting those helium atoms to accumulate "pressure" able to “create stars” (this might even eliminate the need for the reionization period).

3) Since that the “gravitational field’s” (containing the “galactically” assemble fog of hydrogen) accretion process at its center point of gravity will accumulate hydrogen atoms far faster than any helium atoms (elsewhere in the cloud), the result will be that a “black hole” will appear at the center of that “galaxy” without preventing stars to continue forming elsewhere in that galaxy with an helium atom at their centers, also helped by naturally Lagrangian points formations.

4) As for “Galaxies being born inside halos of dark matter”, that is pure fiction; because there’s no “explanation”, whatsoever, justifying the existence of those “dark matter halos”, since all matter particles accumulation where produced by a successive decaying process, constantly occurring “inside a gluon field”; which "field" is a quite sufficient explanation to supply a “halo” containing a galaxy.

To sum up, this article proceeds in introducing “non-explainable”, “not discernable”, and “not needed”, dark matter inside the formation of stars and galaxies without any objectivity; and that is really exasperating.

Furthermore, we can start thinking that whatever observation of "halos" around a galaxy could simply be a "deformed volume of space-time" instead of a "dark matter volume". And when two clusters of galaxies collide, those "halos" could be disturbed quite a bit. This is just a suggestion; but a "meaningful" suggestion.
Posts: 497
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests