A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

[Andrex]

Imagine the universe would contain only one galaxy. Would its light travel away from it in empty space the way it actually does for galaxies?

I can't see why not. That's exactly what it's doing right now.

Point four is not a fact. You're even discussing it here below.

Point four is a fact observed by Planck satellite (the "radiating" epoch); what I "stipulate" below is the implications of that fact with explanations.

Moving with regard to what? To itself?

In regard to the intensity of the kinetic energy present, which gives it light-speed. Light-speed is an "invariant" and it's not relativistic; so its speed is "in regard" with nothing else.

what if the universe had started with a big particle 13 billion light years in diameter,

That's what it is "right now"; but it's a big "massless particle" called a photon and it as been expanding since the beginning; so it couldn't start at this "size". On the other hand, being a photon means that it travels at light-speed. In that sense the universe has no "size" and is always at the "present". In fact in the same "state" it was in "zero motion" = time zero. Observable universe becomes then, only what travels at less than light-speed. So "motion" is the only "basic" thing that really exists; and that "less than light speed" motion has a beginning which is time = non null (zero plus) at the beginning of Planck's era; which lasted until 10^-43 sec after time zero. Pretty simple; isn't it?.

then started to divide into smaller and smaller parts with time. This way, the stars would have been big parts some time ago, and the planets smaller parts, and both would have continue to divide into smaller parts until these parts become the atoms.

Put your video on "forward"; it's on "reverse".

All right, it doesn't make sense either, but it shows what our imagination can do when it tries to imagine the beginning of things.

Not of "things"; but beginning of "space". And what you want to say happens only when the premisses to guide imagination, are not based on "facts". That's why they're so important to specify.

If you don't find it, your theory stands on nothing.

It only stands on the idea that light moves independently from bodies, and that it takes time to go from one body to the other. That's simple, but that's enough. Einstein added its relativity principle to the equation, but it was superfluous, and he did not realize that it did not work for light.

So we have been discussing for absolutely nothing. What I remark is that you take care not to follow or discuss the logic of my proposition; where you might find what you're looking for. So it's no use to continue.

You don't like the Higgs as an explanation for inertial mass, but you did not replace it.

You didn't read the 5 first pages of this discussion because you would have found a far more simple explanation for mass than the Higgs particle. So you're talking only for "conversation". The problem is that you're making affirmation without checking. No use discussing this way. You don't even follow my proposition where I just mentioned that "we are going to find later the reason that mass energy has to have "volume". I never wanted to discuss with Jeannette Bertrand who was "talking for talking". :-)

I understand your choice, but why did those neutrinos have to be massless at the beginning,

I've explaine that they DID NOT have to be massive at the biginning; thay had to be MASSLESS. And they don't even have to be massive today.

Couldn't a massive particle have begun separating in halves the way you describe it in your book?

That's the "decaying" process; nothing new there. You present it as a biology process which is not the same but similar (not identical) because more "evolved". Decaying couldn't happens during the "radiating epoch". Decaying started at 10^-36 sec.

Two massive particles separated by a distance also define space, no?

No!!! It defines a "distance". There is "space" between particles but it's the same space that is all around them. So particles don't define "space"!; they define "distances". The distance between two particles is only "one single distance" of all the "distances" that define "space".

[Andrex]

Sorry; looks like I wasn't focused on what you wrote :-(

You mentioned "massless particle" and I read "massive particle"; so neutrinos are "massless particles". In fact they are Majonara particles and they don't get mass; specially since we don't really know what mass is. Higgs describes mass as a resistance to density of a Higgs field. But how can a Higgs field be more dense than the universe itself at its beginning? Not very logical, I think.

[Inchworm]

Imagine the universe would contain only one galaxy. Would its light travel away from it in empty space the way it actually does for galaxies?

I can't see why not. That's exactly what it's doing right now.

OK, then it means that the universe is a lot bigger than what we can observe, because we cannot observe a light that is getting away from us at the speed of light since billions of years.

Point four is not a fact. You're even discussing it here below.

Point four is a fact observed by Planck satellite (the "radiating" epoch); what I "stipulate" below is the implications of that fact with explanations.

Here is that point:

"4) Since this epoch of the early universe is a period of strictly "manifested motion", we have to accept that the energy it disposed of was strictly "kinetic"."

What Plank observes is radiation, not motion. The fact is the radiation, not its interpretation.

Moving with regard to what? To itself?

In regard to the intensity of the kinetic energy present, which gives it light-speed. Light-speed is an "invariant" and it's not relativistic; so its speed is "in regard" with nothing else.

Your wording is misleading, kinetic energy is about massive particles, and you're using it for light. Let's admit that there was a neutrino, and try to convince me it has divided in two until mass came in.

On the other hand, being a photon means that it travels at light-speed.

I think you mean that it is traveling away from its center at light speed, but it has never been clear before. A wave does that, but it is not how the photons are considered to be traveling, at least it is not what I thought. Maybe you should give more importance to that description in the beginning.

In that sense the universe has no "size" and is always at the "present". In fact in the same "state" it was in "zero motion" = time zero. Observable universe becomes then, only what travels at less than light-speed. So "motion" is the only "basic" thing that really exists; and that "less than light speed" motion has a beginning which is time = non null (zero plus) at the beginning of Planck's era; which lasted until 10^-43 sec after time zero. Pretty simple; isn't it?

To me, time is due to two things: cyclic motion of bodies, and light carrying that information to other bodies. If light was there before bodies, then it had no information to carry. What was its purpose? And how did it find a way to become massive?

What I remark is that you take care not to follow or discuss the logic of my proposition

We all have this feeling, so it is useless to point it out. If ever we succeed to build a common idea, it will necessary be by chance. Chance increases with time and with diversity.

You don't like the Higgs as an explanation for inertial mass, but you did not replace it.

You didn't read the 5 first pages of this discussion because you would have found a far more simple explanation for mass than the Higgs particle. So you're talking only for "conversation".

I'm not conversing, I'm only trying to progress. The first thing I said to you was that I liked your paper on the Higgs, which was more about discarding it than finding a better solution to mass. Here is what you say about mass in your book:

"57) La masse produit une déformation de la géométrie de l’espace dans l’intensité énergétique ambiante… celle contenant un quark Top devient la plus puissante des déformations de géométrie de l’espace reliée aux particules; c’est-à-dire la plus grande puissance gravitationnelle autour d’une particule. Ça doit «coller» en joualvert!"

It may stick as a greenhorse as far as the attractive principle of mass is concerned, but it doesn't explain its repulsive part, the one that we call inertial. What prevents massive particles to interpenetrate themselves as non-massive ones do?

The problem is that you're making affirmation without checking.

I'm not making affirmations, I'm only discussing.

Couldn't a massive particle have begun separating in halves the way you describe it in your book?

That's the "decaying" process; nothing new there.

What's new is your idea that massless particles decay the same way massive ones do, and once they have separated in two, they get bigger the same way our cells do. Let's get to the transformation from non-massive to massive particles. How do you explain it?

[Andrex]

OK, then it means that the universe is a lot bigger than what we can observe, because we cannot observe a light that is getting away from us at the speed of light since billions of years.

We haven't been here since billions of years and we don't seem to emit light very much. But if something goes at light-speed, you cannot reach it that's for sure. In my next post I'll make you a drawing of the universe how it is today.

What Plank observes is radiation, not motion.

"radiating" is not the same as "radiation". Radiation is a "noun"; "radiating" is an action. So what "radiating" represents is a "motion".

Your wording is misleading, kinetic energy needs massive particles to be observed, and you're using it for light. Let's admit that there was a neutrino, and try to convince me it has divided in two until mass came in.

Your "understanding" is "misslead". Kinetic energy provoke motions whatever moves. We are not talking of what kinetic energy "needs"; we're talking of it's "function" (what it does). And light-speed has to be the "function" of kinetic energy, since it is the speed of a movement. Why would I have to convince you that a neutrino has divided in two? It didn't because it couldn't (it's an elementary quanta of energy); so don't ask for "miracles".

I think you mean that it is traveling away from its center at light speed,

The universe has no center. If the universe is a photon, it's "inner motion" starts everywhere; not at a non existing "center". Please don't think what I mean; just understand it.

A wave does that,

Right; and if you go back to your image of a photon, the "inner part of it" is motion; light-speed motion.

To me, time is due to two things: cyclic motion of bodies, and light carrying that information to other bodies.

That's the thinking of a "clock". Mind, though, is usually aware that time is a "distance" from one moment to the other; and that ditance is perceivable a lot before a cycle is terminated whatever the lenght of it. Time is not related to bodies; time is ralated to movement because it is a "distance".

If light was there before bodies, then it had no information to carry. What was its purpose? And how did it find a way to become massive?

What in tarnation are you talking about??? The shortess lightwave possible is 10^-14 meter and we are talking of a universe with the size of 10^-33 meter. Keep focus! And stop jumping all around in the 13 billion years of the universe. I already told you: ONE STEP AT THE TIME. Furthermore, when have you ever seen "massive" time? Is your name : Jeannette?

We all have this feeling, so it is useless to point it out.

Ok. So if you want me to explain what a "distance" is, here goes; it"s pretty simple: A "distance" is what is made by a Boeing 747 from Montreal to Paris. Since hummingbirds, and a lot of other birds, don't fly to Paris, hummingbirds, and a lot of other birds, don't make "distances". Consequently, if hummingbirds and many other birds, don't make "distances" and bodies do, hummingbirds and a lot of birds, cannot be considered as "bodies". CQFD.

Chance increases with time and with diversity

I hope that what I've just explained is "diversified" enough (a lot of birds); I ask you though, how long it will take before we have the chance of agreeing?

I'm not conversing, I'm only trying to progress.

You seem to "progress" in jumping around everywhere. Stay in place, and move forward steadily from one fact to the next one (which is always a consequence of the previous), without preventing it with non existing objections in the situation we are considering "step by step".

Here is what you say about mass in your book: "...bla, bla, bla..." It may stick as a greenhorse as far as the attractive principle of mass is concerned, but it doesn't explain its repulsive part,

First of all, "mass" is not "attractive" at all. You've got to put that in your head once and for all. Then, tell me: since when has "mass" been "repulsive"? Put one ball beside another ball and see if they will "repulse" each other.

the one that we call inertial

The two balls have inertial mass and they don't "repulse" each other. Look at the "facts"; not inadequate dumb interpretations.

What prevents massive particles to interpenetrate themselves as non-massive ones do?

What are you talking about once again. The difference between bosons and fermions??? All we have yet is a fermion called: neutrino. Can't you wait untill we meet the problem? As for now, neutrinos are moving creating observable space. Nothing else is happening. What are your objections? Yourself say that particles have to move to create distances. That's what the elemantary neutrinos are doing. Where is your problem?

I'm not making affirmation, I'm only discussing.

So to you, "discussing" is affirming things without checking first. I call that "conversing to get nowhere".

That's the "decaying" process; nothing new there.

What's new is that massless particles decay the same way massive ones do, and once they have separated in two, they get bigger the same way our cells do.

How can you say that when you cannot explain what "mass" is? What is a "massless" particle? What is a "mass" particle? What is "mass" and what is "mass energy". Answer just one of those questions. And if you can't, let's keep on the discussion gradually getting from one point to the other without "anticipating". We could find those answers. It should be possible to someone that is logic.

Let's get to the transformation from non-massive to massive particles. How do you explain it?

If you accept to start discussing LOGICALLY in respect to the chronology of the evolution of the universe, we should get to the transformation you ask about. One step at the time, please.

[Andrex]

This is the drawing of the actual “whole” universe, if its expansion has been at light-speed ever since its beginning. The observable part of the universe is caused by less than light-speed motion.



The top right written part is:

"Portion of the universe where light-speed is the only manifestation. This portion is not observable because at light-speed distances are null. In other word this part of the universe is “nothing”.

On the other hand, light-speed “freezes” time. Which mean that “time” exists but strictly in an “always present” moment. So we cannot say that this part of the universe is strictly “nothing”; it’s a continuous “present moment”.

Evidently, further “outside” this “present moment” provoke by light-speed, is “nothingness”. It doesn’t exist in any way possible. It’s the “negation of existence”."

The bottom right written part is:

"Volumes of space where the geometry (topology) was “altered” meaning that the “space expansion” of its center of gravity was stopped at some moment in the history of the universe.

Blocking the expansion of that center point to one specific “metric” of space expansion, slowed down the environment metrics until distance from the center permitted to gradually regain the normal expansion “rate”.

The result was a gradually “collapsing” metric toward the center of the volumes. This “geometry”, in fact, topology is responsible of the consequence called “gravitation”.

As for the part written inside the drawing, it's:

Observable universe and

Flat space topology = motions are
straight whatever the direction.

[Inchworm]

So what "radiating" represents is a "motion".

I got it, but it took time because I'm used to the idea that motion is the result of the small steps, and that light only carries the information to execute them.

Your "understanding" is "mislead". Kinetic energy provokes motions whatever moves.

Kinetic energy is usually relative, and light is not, so maybe you should use a more specific term. I prefer to consider that light is a carrier of information, but I guess you can't do that.

so don't ask for "miracles".

Oh no! Not god again? He should do like some of his believers and explode himself! Good riddance! :0)

I think you mean that it is traveling away from its center at light speed,

The universe has no center. If the universe is a photon, it's "inner motion" starts everywhere; not at a non existing "center".

Waves have a center, a center where everything started.

Please don't think what I mean; just understand it.

I'm god, its you who have to understand me, and if ever you succeed, you're going to burn in hell for the rest of your life. :0)

A wave does that,

Right; and if you go back to your image of a photon, the "inner part of it" is motion; light-speed motion.

Too late, I already got it. I'm faster than your shadow! :0)

To me, time is due to two things: cyclic motion of bodies, and light carrying that information to other bodies.

That's the thinking of a "clock". Mind, though, is usually aware that time is a "distance" from one moment to the other; and that distance is perceivable a lot before a cycle is terminated whatever the length of it. Time is not related to bodies; time is related to movement because it is a "distance".

There is no cyclic motion in your moments, thus no time to observe, either for us or for particles.

What information are you talking about??? The shortest light wave possible is 10^-14 meter and we are talking of a universe with the size of 10^-33 meter.

So there was no information in the beginning of times. Who decided that? You? You're not allowed! There is only one god and its me! :0)

A "distance" is what is made by a Boeing 747 from Montreal to Paris.

A distance cannot be measured by the time it takes to cover it unless we have constant cyclic motions to measure it.

I hope that what I've just explained is "diversified" enough (a lot of birds); I ask you though, how long it will take before we have the chance of agreeing?

Not sure that kind of probability can be calculated.

You seem to "progress" in jumping around everywhere. Stay in place, and move forward steadily from one fact to the next one (which is always a consequence of the previous), without preventing it with non existing objections in the situation we are considering "step by step".

Look in the mirror, you're doing the same thing with my own theory.

Put one ball beside another ball and see if they will "repulse" each other.

Push them one towards the other just to see what will happen.

The two balls have inertial mass and they don't "repulse" each other. Look at the "facts"; not inadequate dumb interpretations.

Idem.

As for now, neutrinos are moving creating observable space. Nothing else is happening. What are your objections? Yourself say that particles have to move to create distances. That's what the elementary neutrinos are doing. Where is your problem?

OK, the first neutrino is expanding away from its center as waves do, so what's happening next? It splits in two and both continue expanding? How are their centers going to behave? Are they going to get away from one another at the speed of light to prevent their waves from intersecting each other?

So to you, "discussing" is affirming things without checking first. I call that "conversing to get nowhere".

I could say the same thing when you discuss my theory, but what's the use?

How can you say that when you cannot explain what "mass" is? What is a "massless" particle? What is a "mass" particle? What is "mass" and what is "mass energy". Answer just one of those questions. And if you can't, let's keep on the discussion gradually getting from one point to the other without "anticipating". We could find those answers. It should be possible to someone that is logic.

You know my own theory on mass. Explain yours again so that we can compare progressively.

[Andrex]

So what "radiating" represents is a "motion"
.
I got it

Good. So you're aware that nothing else than neutrinos in motion, with straight trajectories, existed during that "radiating" period?

Kinetic energy is usually relative, and light is not, so maybe you should use a more specific term. I prefer to consider that light is a carrier of information, but I guess you can't do that.

I can't do that, only because we are talking of "kinetic energy" and not "light". "Light" doesn't produce motion it is subjected to motion; in other words: subjected to kinetic energy.

The universe has no center. If the universe is a photon, it's "inner motion" starts everywhere; not at a non existing "center".

Waves have a center, a center where everything started.

A "starting point" is not a "center"; it can be anywhere beside at a center. If waves needed "centers", there wouldn't be any waves in the universe, since it doesn't have a center. Furthermore, whatever started at 10^-43 sec didn't have any center. It was the smallest length possible; so you cannot have a center smaller than the most smallest possible length. Don't you think? it was also all that existed, and, think about it: it still is.

Right; and if you go back to your image of a photon, the "inner part of it" is motion; light-speed motion.

Too late, I already got it. I'm faster than your shadow!

The important part is that you realise that it's full of motion whitout any starting "center".

There is no cyclic motion in your moments, thus no time to observe, either for us or for particles.

Wrong; even in a cycle, the whole cyle is seperated by successive small "distances" (moments) that totalize the "cycle". Flowing time is made of "distances"; nothing else. Frozen time is the static "present".

So there was no information in the beginning of times.

Sorry; but no "light" doesn't mean "no informations". Just like "no ice" doesn't mean "no water". Having water doesn't mean having ice; just like having "informations" doesn't mean having "light". Where do you get those equivalence relations?

Look in the mirror, you're doing the same thing with my own theory.

Couldn't do better, I was following you. And I tried by going to read your presentation on your discussion. You were still jumping to and fro over there.

Put one ball beside another ball and see if they will "repulse" each other.

Push them one towards the other just to see what will happen.

I didn't say, as you did, that mass had a "repulsive part" by itself. If I push one of them, I'm responsible of their "reaction"; not their own "repulsive mass" (which doesn't exist more than their "attraction").

OK, the first neutrino is expanding away from its center as waves do, so what's happening next?

There's no "first neutrino"; there is a "bunch" of neutrinos going in all directions in a straight trajectory whitout any starting "center"; just like inside the drawing of your photon except that they are not "waves". How could the motion be "wavy" in a "flat" topology? it's impossible.

It splits in two and both continue expanding? How are their centers going to behave?

Neutrinos don't expand. Where did you get that idea?They don't split either, and they don't have a definite center; that is why their "half spin" is not an "half rotation"; just as "full spin" is not "full rotation". Things are not that "defined" at that epoch yet. Those neutrinos are "traveling probabilities"; not even "possibilities" yet.

Are they going to get away from one another at the speed of light

They "produce" successive distances of 10^-33 meter everywhere and in all directions because they travel a bit less than the speed of light. The cumulation of those distances are the observable "space in expansion".

So to you, "discussing" is affirming things without checking first. I call that "conversing to get nowhere".

I could say the same thing when you discuss my theory, but what's the use?

Maybe; but ususally, I check before affirming something.

You know my own theory on mass.

Sorry; I don't recall that you explained anywhere what mass was.

Explain yours again so that we can compare progressively.

"Progressively" is the right word. We're not there yet. There was no "mass" at the beginning of the universe during that "radiating" period.

So is it now clear in you mind about what existed between 10^-43 sec and 10^-36 sec? Whitout that condition we cannot go further. So if you have other questions that are related to that period, just ask them.

[Andrex]

Going back through our "exchanges", This is what we agreed with since we started:

1) by Inchworm on January 7th, 2017, 11:02 am page 7
but what I am discussing is the motion of light, so it is useless to take bodies as examples

2) Inchworm on January 9th, 2017, 3:59 pm page 7
I call matter any particle that carries a mass, which is equivalent to energy, so I think that we are talking of the same thing.

3) Inchworm on January 9th, 2017, 3:59 pm page 7
photons don’t get any “longer” by expansion; wavelength does.
That's what I meant too.

4) Inchworm on January 9th, 2017, 3:59 pm page 7
Whatever subject you can find in the universe, including itself, is history.
Agreed!

5) Inchworm on January 11th, 2017, 6:45 pm
At the end of all decays" you get a structure of "russian dols" (one inside others). Just like deformed space around the Earth is "inside" deformed space around the earth.
OK! We can also consider that smaller orbital motions are part of larger ones.

6) Inchworm on January 12th, 2017, 2:34 pm page 8
And then it's recycled"; they don't disappear, they're energy and energy never disappear.
OK.

7) Inchworm on January 14th, 2017, 2:59 pm page 8
Your steps are not related to the components; they are related to a "distance" (travel in space).
Of course,

8) Inchworm on January 14th, 2017, 2:59 pm page 8
A step is effectively kinetic energy,

9) Inchworm on January 17th, 2017, 9:19 am page 8
I always agreed with your evolutive universe,

10) Inchworm on January 21st, 2017, 4:42 pm page 8
Light source sends light at 360o (all around them).
Of course, why not?

11) Inchworm on January 30th, 2017, 5:01 pm page 9
As you can "see", the wavelenght diminishes while drawing away from the source.
You're right,

12) Inchworm on January 31st, 2017, 1:34 pm page 9
I think your mistaking. The kinetic energy is not carried by the steps but by your particles. They are the ones that "move"; the steps do not.
You are right,

13) Inchworm on February 2nd, 2017, 11:07 am page 9
Everything in a flat universe is "straight" without any possibility of "curving".
Fine!

14) Inchworm on February 2nd, 2017, 11:07 am page 9
That "metric" has a length of 10^-33 meter. This is where we start and that's according to your own specifications.
OK!

15) Inchworm on February 3rd, 2017, 2:35 pm page 9
Not at all. What we see happened a while before; that's all.
That's what I said.

16) Inchworm on February 4th, 2017, 6:11 pm page 10
So what "radiating" represents is a "motion".
I got it,

17) Inchworm on February 4th, 2017, 6:11 pm page 10
Right; and if you go back to your image of a photon, the "inner part of it" is motion; light-speed motion.
Too late, I already got it.

Do you confirm?

[Inchworm]

Good. So you're aware that nothing else than neutrinos in motion, with straight trajectories, existed during that "radiating" period?

I'm afraid I just had the illusion I got it, but never mind, let's admit there were only neutrinos moving like photons but at a lower speed.

so you cannot have a center smaller than the most smallest possible length. Don't you think? it was also all that existed, and, think about it: it still is.

If it started from there and neutrinos were going in all directions, then observing those neutrinos now, that point should still look as the center of the expansion. That's what happens when we look at an explosion: we do not see the photons that are going away from us, we only see those who hit our eyes.

The important part is that you realize that it's full of motion without any starting "center".

Photons have a direction, so I assume that what they are made of has the same direction.

There is no cyclic motion in your moments, thus no time to observe, either for us or for particles.

Wrong; even in a cycle, the whole cycle is separated by successive small "distances" (moments) that totalize the "cycle". Flowing time is made of "distances"; nothing else. Frozen time is the static "present".

To account for the flowing of time, your small distances have to be made of cyclic motions. We invented clocks to account for cycles smaller than the one between two sunsets. If there had been no cycle anywhere, we wouldn't even have been able to measure the time it takes to travel a distance, what we call speed. And if light had to keep a constant speed without its cyclic waves, it could not because it could not measure its speed to begin with.

So there was no information in the beginning of times.

Sorry; but no "light" doesn't mean "no informations"....Where do you get those equivalence relations?

Information has to be cyclic, for instance the one our computers use is made of zeros and ones.

Look in the mirror, you're doing the same thing with my own theory.

Couldn't do better, I was following you.

Me too, and I also think my way is better, but I don't say it, I know it's simply no use.

Put one ball beside another ball and see if they will "repulse" each other.

Push them one towards the other just to see what will happen.

I didn't say, as you did, that mass had a "repulsive part" by itself. If I push one of them, I'm responsible of their "reaction"; not their own "repulsive mass" (which doesn't exist more than their "attraction").

You're eluding the question. We know that molecules hit each other in a gaz, that they thus don't behave like photons, and we know that it is so because they carry a mass and that photons don't.

How could the motion be "wavy" in a "flat" topology? it's impossible.

Why?

Those neutrinos are "traveling probabilities"; not even "possibilities" yet.

They can be considered as a possibility for future events, but not for what was happening to them at that time. For instance, a particular mutation is a possibility for a future specie, but for the individual that carries it, it's reality.

They "produce" successive distances of 10^-33 meter everywhere and in all directions because they travel a bit less than the speed of light. The cumulation of those distances are the observable "space in expansion".

OK!

ususally, I check before affirming something.

I think you can stop thinking I'm affirming things. I can't write "I think" each time I write a word, but that's what I think.

You know my own theory on mass.

Sorry; I don't recall that you explained anywhere what mass was.

I said mass was the result of the small steps resisting to change direction or speed, which is length in their case.

So is it now clear in you mind about what existed between 10^-43 sec and 10^-36 sec? Without that condition we cannot go further. So if you have other questions that are related to that period, just ask them.

Too bad we cannot see those neutrinos with our own eyes, because then, (I think) we could see that moment with a telescope, and (I think) it should look as a brilliant spot in the night sky.

[Inchworm]

Do you confirm?
.....
11) Inchworm on January 30th, 2017, 5:01 pm page 9
As you can "see", the wavelenght diminishes while drawing away from the source.
You're right,

This one at least is not exact, because what I said was that:

"You're right, it doesn't work exactly the same for water waves because of dispersion, because then, shorter waves travel more slowly than longer ones, so we would need a constant vibration to observe the phenomenon on water."

Which means that I still believe that your idea about the frequency of light diminishing with distance is wrong. By the way, do you want to use that idea to justify the redshift?

[Andrex]

If it started from there and neutrinos were going in all directions, then observing those neutrinos now, that point should still look as the center of the expansion. That's what happens when we look at an explosion:

And that is why the image of an explosion isn't adequate. Expansion is an "explosion" from "everywhere" at the same moment. You can consider the first small volume of space with a diameter of 10^-33 meter as a "center". But it's that "center" that exploses; so : no more "center" for the universe. And don't forget that; today, we are still inside that "explosion" without anymore "center".

The important part is that you realize that it's full of motion without any starting "center".

Photons have a direction, so I assume that what they are made of has the same direction.

I don't see the point? The photon is an "entity" by itself; what it's made of doesn't have a center, but that doesn't change the fact that the "entity" has a direction.

To account for the flowing of time, your small distances have to be made of cyclic motions.

Not at all. If it was so, "flat topology" couldn't exist (and it is observed) since a "cycle", as a whole, is "curved motion". Time flows in straight distances except where the space topology is "altered". In those conditions time is curved into a "cycle" following the trajectory also adopted by matter. So time trajectory is related to space topology, same as matter. Consequently, time has "orbits". For exemple: time is different depending of the "hight" over the earth.
Where matter has "flat" trajectory (moving in "flat" space topology), time flows in a straight trajectory following the "flat" topology; they both depend on the environment's topology. If time moves in "altered" space geometry, it follows the trajectory of the "altere" geometry's topology, the same as matter that "orbits".

If there had been no cycle anywhere, we wouldn't even have been able to measure the time it takes to travel a distance,

In order to have no cycle anywhere, you have to eliminate "altered" topology. So you wouldn't have "gravitation" which means you wouldn't have "mass". Having no "mass" you would have a universal "motion" (expansion) exclusively with a "flat" trajectory. And time would be measured (observed) as the distance of 10^-33 meter traveled by "almost light speed", without any "curves" alias: cycles.

Information has to be cyclic, for instance the one our computers use is made of zeros and ones.

Those are not cycles; they are "complementary oppositions". I wonder if we could have a zero if we didn't have a one? I guess zero wouldn't have any meaning then. That zero would be "nothingness". Which brings us back to the difference between "nothing" (real zero) and "nothingness" (absence of any zero).

You're eluding the question. We know that molecules hit each other in a gaz, that they thus don't behave like photons, and we know that it is so because they carry a mass and that photons don't.

So what does that has to do with "repulsion" (rebounds) caused by "collisions"? Forget "forces" you'll be easier off to understand things. For exemple, your explaining comparison is wrong. Tell me what happens when colliders make photons hit each others"? They "repulse" even if they don't have mass (photons don't "rebound" because they're always at maximum speed; so they "splash"). Oranges, molécules or photon react the same way when collided; if the collision is strong enough, they "spash"; if not they "rebound". There's no force involved repulsine or whatever. The only "repulsion" known is in regard to the electric charges; and that is another thing we will have to explain properly eventually. Furthermore, when atoms (with their elctronic envelope) collide hard enough, they "splash" like anything else.

How could the motion be "wavy" in a "flat" topology? it's impossible.

Why?

Because waves are composed of "curved trajectories" and curves are not possible in "flat space topology".

They can be considered as a possibility for future events,

"Probabilities" can become future "possibilities" if they prove "viable" for a better lenght of time. So "probabilities" are not "possibilities" while "possibilities" are former "probabilities. Like "water" and "ice".

but for the individual that carries it, it's reality.

Your "reality" is "relativistic"; the reality of evolution is a "static state" at the end of evolution. We must not mix them for one another; they are not "equivalent".

I can't say "I think" each time I write a word, but that's what I think.

Can I ask you to check if what you think is right before affirming it?

I said mass was the result of the small steps resisting to change direction or speed, which is length in their case.

That doesn't say what mass is; it says what reaction permits to know it exists.

Too bad we cannot see those neutrinos with our own eyes, because then, (I think) we could see that moment with a telescope, and (I think) it should look as a brilliant spot in the night sky.

1) You can only "see" neutrinos when they react to matter (which is awfully seldom).
2) You cannot see with a telescope further back than 380,000 years after BB; there'a a "light wall" expressing itself at that moment. So no way you can see the original event in "live TV".
3) Neutrinos are not photons; so you wouldn't "see" any brillant spot in the night sky. So we have to do with what we have at our disposition.

[Andrex]

11) Inchworm on January 30th, 2017, 5:01 pm page 9
As you can "see", the wavelenght diminishes while drawing away from the source.
You're right,

This one at least is not exact, ...Which means that I still believe that your idea about the frequency of light diminishing with distance is wrong. By the way, do you want to use that idea to justify the redshift?

What we were discussing is what you had said previously: "we can see the height of the waves diminishing with distance, and we can also see that their length stays the same, which means that their frequency doesn't change."

You agreed that the wavelength was diminishing. So the agreement on the subject is exact.

Which means that I still believe that your idea about the frequency of light diminishing with distance is wrong.

The frequency is the amount of "bounces" per a fixed period. So if you have more "space" to "move" (energy), you have a longer lap of time (longer period) between "bounces"; which diminishes the "frequency of the bounces" while keeping the same "energy" that is "diluted" in the added space.

I explained that "redshift" was a "tendancy" toward blueish or redish.

[Inchworm]

If it started from there and neutrinos were going in all directions, then observing those neutrinos now, that point should still look as the center of the expansion. That's what happens when we look at an explosion:

And that is why the image of an explosion isn't adequate. Expansion is an "explosion" from "everywhere" at the same moment. You can consider the first small volume of space with a diameter of 10^-33 meter as a "center". But it's that "center" that explodes; so : no more "center" for the universe. And don't forget that; today, we are still inside that "explosion" without anymore "center".

You imagine space expanding between particles, and I am still imagining particles exploding. Nevertheless, I think that the analogy still holds, so I think that I was wrong: if we explode a bunch of metal chunks, the distance between them should increase the same way it would if it was space that was expanding. But it also means that we do not absolutely need the idea that space expands to explain the observations.

To account for the flowing of time, your small distances have to be made of cyclic motions.

Not at all. If it was so, "flat topology" couldn't exist (and it is observed) since a "cycle", as a whole, is "curved motion".

Orbital cycles or atomic cycles do not prevent galaxies from expanding straight ahead, and the fact that light is composed of cycles does not prevent it from going straight ahead either.

Where matter has "flat" trajectory (moving in "flat" space topology), time flows in a straight trajectory following the "flat" topology; they both depend on the environment's topology. If time moves in "altered" space geometry, it follows the trajectory of the "altered" geometry's topology, the same as matter that "orbits".

Time may flow at a constant pace or not, but it necessarily has to be made of cyclic motions to be measured.

In order to have no cycle anywhere, you have to eliminate "altered" topology. So you wouldn't have "gravitation" which means you wouldn't have "mass". Having no "mass" you would have a universal "motion" (expansion) exclusively with a "flat" trajectory. And time would be measured (observed) as the distance of 10^-33 meter traveled by "almost light speed", without any "curves" alias: cycles.

You again need that something we usually measure out of other things carries properties of its own. It's like when you tell me what to do just because you think you are right. :0)

For example, your explaining comparison is wrong. Tell me what happens when colliders make photons hit each others"?

It's Feinman that developed that theory to explain some reactions, and I told you that I found it weird. If gamma photons could collide, then the other ones should collide too, and they don't.

The only "repulsion" known is in regard to the electric charges; and that is another thing we will have to explain properly eventually.

The equivalence principle means that there is two kinds of mass, and you are eluding one. If the mass that is responsible for the curving appeared at a certain time, then the one that is responsible for collisions had to appear at the same time.

How could the motion be "wavy" in a "flat" topology? it's impossible.

Why?

Because waves are composed of "curved trajectories" and curves are not possible in "flat space topology".

Light is a wave, and waves are curved by definition. What is expanding in flat space are galaxies, and galaxies are curved by observation.

"Probabilities" can become future "possibilities" if they prove "viable" for a better lenght of time. So "probabilities" are not "possibilities" while "possibilities" are former "probabilities. Like "water" and "ice".

You're mixing reality with ideas. A mutant is a reality, but the probability that that particular mutation could happen at that moment is only a calculation.

but for the individual that carries it, it's reality.

Your "reality" is "relativistic"; the reality of evolution is a "static state" at the end of evolution. We must not mix them for one another; they are not "equivalent".

During the evolution of species, there is two kinds of reality that happen at two different scales: the reality of an individual and the reality of a specie. A mutant is a reality during his life, but it is a only possibility for the future specie. During the life of a mutant, the reality of its specie is the life of the individuals that are normal. For instance, the reality of physics is the theories that are considered normal by the mainstream, and we are the mutants. :0)

I can't say "I think" each time I write a word, but that's what I think.

Can I ask you to check if what you think is right before affirming it?

I repeat, I don't affirm things, and I add that I automatically consult wiki if I'm not sure about a concept.

I said mass was the result of the small steps resisting to change direction or speed, which is length in their case.

That doesn't say what mass is; it says what reaction permits to know it exists.

The small steps is a mechanism that shows what is happening between atoms when we try to accelerate them, thus when we push them away, but you want to show that it is space that does the job, that there is no force between them and us, so you can't study the steps, and you can't provide a mechanism for their kind of mass either because you want to prove that there is no need for it.

[Andrex]

To make things clear, let's look at the "amplitude" of waves (it wasn't clear in my mind):



On this image we see water waves having their energy distributed in the lake “underneath” the wave. That’s what flattens the wave.

On the other hand, light waves are immersed in space; so the energy, being the same as the environment, cannot be distributed, and has to conserve the same “height” (amplitude). Like shown on the next drawing:



As you can see, the "height" (amplitude) of the lightwave stays uniform and constant because the density of energy in the environment is always the same as "inside" the wave. In reality there's no "inside" in a light-wave; it's always "open" to it's environment.

So how can we say that a light-wave posess energy? It cannot, since all the energy present is in the environment itself.

So what produces the electromagnetic waves?

Actually [b]electromagnetic radiation[/b] refers to the waves (or their quanta: photons) of the electromagnetic field, propagating (radiating) through space carrying electromagnetic radiant energy.

We agree that the whole universe is an electromagnetic field;then what is "radiant energy"?

Radiant energy is the energy of electromagnetic radiation. Which doesn't say what produces electromagnetic waves (radiation) which it refers to. We're facting "thinking in circles".

What we know is that electromagnetic waves are emitted by "matter". Space doesn't emit electromagnetic waves even though space is electromagnetic. We also know that waves are produced by a disturbance that is called "vibration". But what disturbance does "matter" produce?

We will have to keep this subject in mind while reviewing the history of the universe and see how we can find the "reason" for electromagnetic waves manifestations.

This is a drawing describing electromagnetic waves:



What I see is that there are two "vibrations" that produce waves. One perpendicular to the other. One is "magnetic" the other is electronic. Those two different "energies" compose the electromagnetism of the universe; but it does not explain why it "vibrates" creating waves.

I'll check if we have an answer with "black body radiation" and see what happens if we consider "density of energy" instead of "temperature".

[Andrex]

You imagine space expanding between particles, and I am still imagining particles exploding. Nevertheless,

There was no explosion of "matter" or particles at the BB. It was an explosion of "space". This is an additional fact that we agree on.

Orbital cycles or atomic cycles do not prevent galaxies from expanding straight ahead,

Once again, galaxies don't expand; but they move straight ahead because they move in "flat" space. But whatever is inside a galaxy doesn't move straight ahead; it's subjected to the altered geometry of the environment.

and the fact that light is composed of cycles does not prevent it from going straight ahead either.

What you call the "cycle" of light is a "fluctuation" and not a "cycle" (it doesn't close on itself); and it goes straight ahead except when passing through a volume of altered geometry space. Then it's trajectory "curves".

Time may flow at a constant pace or not, but it necessarily has to be made of cyclic motions to be measured.

Your arm can be measured and it isn't a cycle. A distance is not a "cycle" and can be measured. "Cycles" are made of distances though; but in a flat topology, you cannot have cycles.

You again need that something we usually measure out of other things carries properties of its own.

Sorry I don't understand that bunch of words.

It's like when you tell me what to do just because you think you are right.

You're probably projecting; I never tell anybody what to do. :-)

[Andrex]

So whatever we agreed in the last 5 pages of discussion, we are still at the stage when the universe was expanding with a topological "flatness" at the speed a bit less than lightspeed. The "particles" that were expressing this "motion" were the left-handed neutrinos that appeared at 10^-43 sec after time equals zero. The "volume" (space) that appeared at that moment had a diameter of 10^-33 meter and was expanding,

Like I noted previously, if nothing else happens, the universe will continue expanding without any changes. But since we observe a lot of diversity in our actual universe, something must have happened.

In fact, we know that inflation happened at 10^-36 sec. So at that moment, the universe had expanded during the period from 10^-43 sec to 10^-36 sec at "almost" lightspeed. The size of the universe had then attain about 10^-15 meter.

Let's see what we can find relating to those "facts".



This is one single gamma wavelength of 10^-14 meter. The time is 10^-36 sec. Its frequency is related to the energy density of its environment. It appeared while expansion was proceeding normally; i.e space was expanding. So the following happened:



Wavelength expanded and kept on expanding



But at the same moment, space was invaded by “surface” massless gluons (two dimensional) with a diameter of 10^-33 meter (just like neutrinos; the smallest size possible to appear in our universe). This event started the beginning of inflation. But that brings a problem which is: How come the gamma wavelengths didn’t “inflate” at the rate of inflation, and kept on expanding normally? Because that is what we observe in the gradual expansion of the electromagnetic wavelength.



We detect no “burst” of expansion anywhere along the wave’s progression. So how could this be?
There can be only two explanations:

1) Inflation never occurred, or
2) Inflation didn’t affect “flat” space that was expending.

The first explanation is of real no importance, since inflation is needed to explain other later “facts”.

So the second explanation is the one to be considered with attention. Let’s see:

a) The appearance of the surface gluon couldn’t affect greatly the expansion of the previous existing space, since it was “added surface”, not expanding, that appeared (gluons don't have expanding energy as we will see when we describe their caracteristics).

b) The inflation would then have been started by an immersion of gluons in our universe. But if that was the only event, being “surfaces”, gluons wouldn’t have a great impact on “inflation”. So there had to be something else added to the event to make inflation so important.

c) We know that gluons are “massless”; but they decay, in 75% of cases, in one top quark, plus one anti-top quark. Furthermore, those are the most “massive” quarks that can exist.

So; what happens when a “massless” gluons decays in two “massive” quarks?

Mass being related to the density of energy in its environment doesn’t affect inflation which is relate to the global geometry of space. But adding “mass” to the previous “surface” gluon, needs giving “volume” to the produced quark particles. And adding “volume” in the existing volume of the universe certainly affects its global geometry (size). Archimedes jumping in his bathtub affected the "volume" of water it contained.

The inflation period started at 10^-36 sec and ended at 10^-32 sec. During that period, gluons decayed in top/anti-top quarks (75% of the time), which respectively decayed in strange/anti-strange and bottom/anti-bottom quarks which, in turn, decayed in up/anti-Up quarks and Down/anti-Down quarks (this is not exactly what happened, it was slightly more complex; but this shows a minimum of "added volumes" in the universe within that inflation period). So there was at least 8 added “volumes” of quarks added to the volume of the universe at the time (funny that 8 quarks makes me think of the needed 8 kind of gluons to valid chromodynamics). We have to agree that this logical and normal process can explain the inflation “event”.

But another “event” happened simultaneously when gluons were introduced in the universe. Gluon being a “surface”, same as was the neutrino expanding the universe, they joined “perpendicularly” to neutrinos when they appeared. Gluon having a “surface” of 10^-33 meter (same as neutrinos) appeared in a universe that had already expanded a lot more from that original size. But a gluon is a “boson” which can cumulate in the same “ quantum state”, while neutrino, being a fermion, cannot. So the “active field” of a gluon became 10^-15 meter (the size of the universe when it appeared in it). Gluons were then able to influence all neutrinos existing and joined themselves to them. Gluon have an "active field" but we mustn't be misinformed; because gluons don't have energy. All they have is a "topology" "imprinted" on their "surface"..

The joining of gluons with neutrons produced an electromagnetic universe (gluon were “magnetic” and neutrino were “electronic”). But an electromagnetic field (universe) isn’t a “wavelength”. A wavelength appears only when a vibration is produced in an electromagnetic field. So what caused the gamma ray with the wavelength of 10^-14 meter; the first light-waves, to appeared in the universe?

The answer is rather simple; these wavelengths were produced by the “perturbation” provoked by the decaying of gluons into quarks in “expanding space”. The perturbation manifested itself in emitting energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. Perturbation, manifested in a “vibration”, is represented by an electromagnetic wavelength. When decaying started, the quarks continued to evolve in an electromagnetic universe, but their evolution was limited inside the former "surface" of the gluon that had a different "topology" (we'll see this next); in other words, the evolution of "massive matter" was completely independant of expanding "flat" universe.

Consequently, the expansion of the universe is the expansion of its electromagnetic field that has a “flat” space topology. The “altered” topology field around the “massive” particles are limited to a certain volume, containing the said particles; the rest of the universe is “massless”.

[Inchworm]

What you call the "cycle" of light is a "fluctuation" and not a "cycle" (it doesn't close on itself)

The earth cycle around the sun doesn't close on itself either, the solar system travels through the galaxy while the cycle is being executed, and the galaxy travels on its own too. Light carries the information from cycles happening at particles' scale: it goes straight line in flat space, but it carries information from curved trajectories (not curved space).

Your arm can be measured and it isn't a cycle. A distance is not a "cycle" and can be measured. "Cycles" are made of distances though; but in a flat topology, you cannot have cycles.

There is two ways to measure a length: compare it to a known length, or measure the time it takes to travel that length at a known speed, a time that is also made of the length of a cycle. Can't get out of it, time and distance is the same thing. Time has only one direction only because bodies cannot travel in two directions at a time, and it is so because light cannot travel in two directions at a time either. Do you need that I remember you the link between light and the motion of particles? :0)

[Andrex]

The earth cycle around the sun doesn't close on itself either, the solar system travels through the galaxy while the cycle is being executed,

The stage level of the galaxy is not the same stage level as of the solar system. So in the "level" of the solar system, cycles close on themselves; just as all other more precise (smaller) levels.

a time that is also made of the length of a cycle.

How can you mesure the length of a cycle if it does start, but never ends anywhere? A cycle has to "close on itself" in order to define its length, time wise or distance wise. Like you said: "Can't get out of it; time and distance is the same thing!"

Do you need that I remember you the link between light and the motion of particles?

There's no real link; light is a vibration cause by "perturbations" in the electromagnetic field called the universe (see my previous message); particles are independant entities that travel at different speeds in that universe. But you don't want to search with me in order that we find out; you just want to correlate whatever was filled in your mind by others. So I cannot do much than run around with you and your "random" chosen objections. But I try to move ahead the more I can, anyway, for the people reading us.

On the other hand, your making me run around, pushes me to define more precisely the events I think made the universe as it is today, and I find new things. So keep up the good work!

Any questions about my previous post?

[Inchworm]

I read your post many times, and it is still not yet imprinted in my mind. There is too many speculative elements, and too many different types of particles involved. That's precisely why the standard model was putting me off. It wouldn't be that bad if you were staying there, but I know you will add to it. It's hard to tell what you want to prove exactly. The standard model already contains an explanation for inflation and expansion, remember me in a few words what you think is wrong with it exactly. A few words, not a full page.

[Andrex]

Here is the explanation I promise:

Electromagnetic field

“We wish now to speak of electric and magnetic fields at a point even when there is no charge present. We are saying, in effect, that since there are forces “acting on” the charge, there is still “something” there when the charge is removed” (Feynman).

A “field” is any physical quantity which takes on different values at different points in space; but the whole universe is also a “field” which takes a value.

We can also attempt to get a mental picture of the field by drawing vectors (arrows) at many points in space, each of which gives the field strength and direction at that point.

So the universe being an electromagnetic “field” in expansion could be drawn like this:



This is the “flat topology” universe, expanding in all directions of its sphere, before and after becoming an electromagnetic field. When “magnetic” bosons appeared, all the “electric” neutrons and “magnetic” gluons joined and the universe became an “electromagnetic field” (a big photon or, a monochromatic wave pacquet if your prefer). Expansion was continued, just as before, with the new representants of its motion: electronic field joined to a magnetic field.



There’s a surprising “fact” about an electromagnetic field. Inside this field develops the principles of electrodynamics which its deepest principle is the “superposition principle”. It is surprising because “superposition” is a caracteristic of a boson particle; in this case: a gluon.
But then, gluons also decayed into “massive particles” which made the universe look like this:



Those gluons where “surfaces”; so all they had was a “front” and a “back”, one being the “mirror picture” of the other. Their “active field” were 10^-15 meter. Their decaying “process” was a bit unusual. What hapenned is that expansion teared apart the front from the back of those surfaces.

As those parts were seperated, immersed in energy going toward everywhere, the surrounding energy of those “fronts” and “backs” (of surfaces) responded to each their topology and was directed to the center of those ½ surfaces.

Instantly, because missing one of their sides, they recoiled on themselves and became volumes (balls) enclosing and thus, emprisonning part of their surrounding energy. All the emprisoned energy, getting to the center of the new volume, put “pressure” on that center point (now called of gravity), stopping that point of the universe in its “expansing montion”. Mass particles where then created.

We can now understand that "mass energy" is the same "kinetic energy" provoking the expansion of the universe; but since part of it is redirected to a “center of gravity”, it slows, stops or backs up on its previous expanding tracks, the center of gravity it puts pressure on. The “effect” depens on the intensity of the pressure (amount of kinetic energy) put to that “center point”. The "strech" of a volume of "altered" space geometry, related to a center of gravity, depens of the intensity of pressure on that center point of gravity.

[Andrex]

I read your post many times, and it is still not yet imprinted in my mind.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to ask explanations with questions instead of "counter-affirmations"? I'm waiting for questions and will be glad to answer them. But don't print the words in your mind; just the idea and its progression.

There is too many speculative elements, and too many different types of particles involved.

Enumerate those "speculative elements" please.
As for "too many different types of particles", if you read attentively, up until now, there is only ONE particle involved: the neutrino. The next one will be the gluon and afterward, each other particle will "present themselves" in due time; "so stay on line, I'll be right back!"

That's precisely why the standard model was putting me off.

The standard model is mainly the description of particles; the Big bang model is the description of the history of the universe. This last subject is the one we are talking about. Forget all the particles for now; they will appear one at the time, while we proceed STEP BY STEP through the history of the universe. Be "zen" about it :-)

As a matter of fact, one of the many questions regarding the standard model is: What is the cause of the origin and the reason for de different amount of "mass energy" in each massive particles? I am pretty sure that we will find that answer soon. So stay tune!

It wouldn't be that bad if you were staying there, but I know you will add to it.

Staying where? I'm relating a "story". I can't stay at "Once upon a time..." I've got to add to it; just listen to the story and ask questions on what you don't understand. A kid can do it easely; so why not you?

It's hard to tell what you want to prove exactly.

How can it be that you think I want to prove something? What makes you think that I want to prove anything? Don't you get the idea that we're looking for NEW informations related to that story of the universe?
Are you convinced that someone, somewhere, know everything of this story? If so, no wonder you're looking for that person to give you the story whitout any pain for searching for it. But that person doesn't exist and the story of the universe is not complete. So if you want to know it, I guess you'll have to work to find it.
I'm proposing my help to find it, by initiating this discussion. I'm not revealing the "thrue" story of..."; I'm trying to find help to discover it. So, believe me, I'm not trying to "prove" anything to anybody. That's is not my way of thinking.

The standard model already contains an explanation for inflation and expansion,

Wiki: "The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions, as well as classifying all the elementary particles known."

It use to be a theory about the four fondamental "forces" that seperated gradually from the original "superforce" (in the actual descriptions of "interactions", we still find this "out of date" concept). Since gravitation is "no more" a force or even an "interaction" (it doesn't act), the only acceptable part of the standard model is the part describing elementary particles. The rest is bs. So forget it.

remember me in a few words what you think is wrong with it exactly. A few words, not a full page.

I guess I just did. But to make it even "shorter": "The "forces" or "interaction" concept is bulls....

Now, to explain this "affirmation", I'll add: It's based on "belief" in magic coming from "out of the blues", exclusively. Not a single one of those "interactions" are physically explained. All that is done is that: each different "power" involved is simply attributed to a specified particle without any physically logical explanation.

Does THAT answer clearly your question?

[Andrex]

Since we already saw that nothing else is going to happen in the portion of space that has a "flat" topology except that it will keep on expanding, let's have a look at what happens in "altered" space volumes.

So how can a massive particle forms itself in that situation where our gluon had is front seperated from its back?

Fabrication of a massive particle:

Here is one front (or one back) of a "surface" gluon virtual particle seen at 45o with its imprinted topology toward its center, immersed in “flat” expanding (toward everywhere) space topology:



The larger circle with dotted lines represents a portion volume of “flat” space.

The energy follows the topology present. So, a part of the kinetic energy of the “flat” universe, follows the topology imprinted on the “front without back” gluon virtual particle; which then has to recoil because it has no “back” to oppose the pressure of kinetic energy on its front part. The event shows like this:



And end like this when the recoil closes up due to the "active field" of the gluon which cannot exceed 10^-15 meter:



… and we get a “massive” particle, which forms a Top quark, while the back part (mirror image of the front part) of the gluon forms an anti-top quark. But the proces is so rapid that in our colliders it seems like this:



The reason why the gluon is represented this "funny" way instead of as other virtual particles (like the top quarks here), is that, for "officials", the gluon represents an "interaction" (force) so they give it "energetic power" to "act" as they wish. In reality, forces don't exist (gravitational or others) and the gluon doesn't need to "act", which means: doesn't need "power" to glue "things". Its topology manipulates the power of the universe: kinetic energy, to keep everything, within its "active field" of 10^-15 meter, glued together.

And it works pretty weel, since the size of the nucleus of an atom is 10^-15 meter in diameter.

[Inchworm]

I agree that the interactions are not really explained, but I disagree that gravitation is. To me, curved space is not a physical mechanism, and it has the same magical properties that you condemn. You think that forces don't exist, so how do you explain the way people force other people to do what they want? Are those people only following curved space due to the mass of their ideas?

[Andrex]

I agree that the interactions are not really explained,

Thank you.

but I disagree that gravitation is. To me, curved space is not a physical mechanism, and it has the same magical properties that you condemn.

Your right; it's not a mechanism at all. It's the "state" of a situation you cannot "oppose" in some "volumes" of the universe; just like when you follow a "one way street" in a few places in town; you cannot go in the counter direction. There's no magic in that "fact" at all. As a matter of fact, it would be "magical" if you could evade it.

You think that forces don't exist,

I don't "think" it; I just explained the inexistence of the gravitational "force" (Einstein did it before me) and I'll explain the non existence of the other so-called "elementary forces".

so how do you explain the way people force other people to do what they want?

That is irrelevant; but you can try with me if you want. Anyway, you're not talking of "elementary force"; sorry.

Are those people only following curved space due to the mass of their ideas?

Please Jeannet; stop that kind of kid "deduction"!

[Inchworm]

It's no girl talk, its about real men things. When two men fight, how do you call the way they hit each other? Secondary effect of their curved fists' trajectory?

[Andrex]

When two men fight, how do you call the way they hit each other?

I call it a lot of things; but if you refer to the punch itself, it is due to kinetic energy produced by the arm of the "puncher" who had a good dinner to deploy that energy. There's no gravity "force", no strong or weak nuclear "force" or no "electromagnetic "force" involved.

Secondary effect of their curved fists' trajectory?

Is that "curved" trajectory of the fist due to "gravitational force"? Be serious. Physics is a lot more interesting than what you're talking about right now. I'll show you in my next post; if you give me the time to post it.

[Andrex]

Now let have an idea of what was the importance of each components of this event of the appearance of quarks. We’ll use the following chessboard to give us an idea. The diameter is doubled at every consecutive square.



First the expansion of space:

We know that at 10^-43 sec, the diameter of space was 10^-33 meter (first square). We also know that at 10^-36 sec the same diameter had expanded to 10^-15 meter (19th square). Which gives (^-16) meter during (^-7) sec.

If we use the idea of the chessboard to calculate the expansion by doubling every square, when we get to the size of 10^-15 meter, the universe had expanded by 262,144 times its original diameter in a (^-7) sec period for (^-16) meter.

That gives us about (^-8) meter for the next (^-4) sec which brings us to 10^-32 sec at the end of inflation. Note that the “impact” of inflation is not at all considered in this expansion. Inflation was added to this event.

So when inflation stopped, the universe, only by expanding, was 6,710,886 times its original size; that is 6, 7 million times more than 10^-33 meter.

Secondly, electromagnetic waves:

When the first gamma ray appeared, the universe was 10^-14 meter. It had expanded 524,288 times its original size. We easily understand that the density of energy in that universe had “diluted” quite a bit when each Top and anti-Top quarks decayed in other less massive quarks. But we also understand that to transform into “less massive” quarks, it had to “release” mass energy.

We already found that mass energy is normal kinetic energy that has been “reoriented” toward a center of gravity. So what the Top quarks had to “release” in its environment, was simply "kinetic energy"; whatever we call it when observed.

This release of energy was the cause of a “perturbation” in the now electromagnetic universe. So the energy released was electromagnetic energy; and provoked a “vibration” in the electromagnetic universe. That "vibration" was expressed in an electromagnetic wave. The energy released gave a wavelength of 10^-14 to the vibration, which was the size of the universe at that moment. Expansion kept on expanding that wavelength until today. In fact it was "reproducing" it; just as expansion "reproduces" the basic metric of 10^-33 meter.

Info on top quarks: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 02/069/pdf

"Unlike other quarks, the mass and width of the top quark are such that it emits radiation and decays before hadronization occurs" .Which means: before another quark appears.

Note that a Top quark decays to a W boson and, either a bottom quark (most frequently), a strange quark, or, on the rarest of occasions, a down quark. Furthermore, Top quarks don't "combine" with other quarks like those do.

To "see" how much energy was release by each quark to transform into another kind of quarks, check the differences between each quark masses.

What is the difference in “mass energy between each quarks?

Top quark = 173.07 GeV

Bottom quark = 4.18 GeV

Charm quark = 1.275 GeV¸

Strange quark = 95 MeV

Down quark = 4.8 MeV

Up quark = 2.3 MeV

And since we can say that those transformations where done in order to "adapt" to the continuously deluting density of the universe, we can observe the density of the universe at each appearence of a definite quark.

Note that the Higgs boson mass is 125 GeV; which is less than the Top quarks mass. So Higgs boson could hardly give mass to the Top quark.

[Andrex]

At the end of inflation, our universe was an electromagnetic field, "habited" by quarks which in transforming produced gamma wavelength. We don't see any electrons yet; so when could have they appeared? In fact, I tried to find if there was emission of an electron during the decay of a Top quark, and I couldn't find any, so they must have appeared afterward.

The answer is quite easy; because we know that the collision of two gamma rays produces a pair of electron-positron; but those collisions where possible only after the decay of Top quarks producing gamma rays. In fact the collision has to produce a tau (negative)-antiTau (positive) pair of lepton particles; which are the most massive electrons. All of those associate with a neutrino.

The tau is the only lepton that can decay into hadrons – the other leptons do not have the necessary mass (Tau mass of 1.77682 GeV. Between Bottom and Charm quarks). In total, the tau lepton will decay hadronically (in a pion particle = quark + antiquark) approximately 64.79% of the time.
Is leptonic decay is:
17.82% for decay into a tau neutrino, electron and electron antineutrino;
17.39% for decay into a tau neutrino, muon and muon antineutrino.

As for the Muon, its decay almost always produces at least three particles, which must include an electron of the same charge as the muon and two neutrinos of different types.

So now, at the end of inflation, we have all necessary particles to produce all we can observe today in our universe.

[Andrex]

So if our description of the evolution of the universe is acceptable, let's see now the so-called deficiencies of the Standard Model, such as:

The origin of mass,
Rep: We explained it very simply; it’s a “geometrical” phenomena introduced by the topology of the gluon virtual particle.

The strong CP problem,
Rep:This problem doesn’t exist if there’s no “forces/interactions” that exist; and we've seen that there's no forces needed to explain the development of the universe we reached up to now in our description.

Neutrino oscillations,
Rep: if it’s only a “chameleonized effect” attached to Tau, muon and electron the neutrino doesn’t have mass; so no problem. It follows the “oscillation of Tau, muon and electron.

Matter–antimatter asymmetry,
Rep: there was CP violations observed in many “mesons” decay. So it becomes normal that there was more matter than antimatter during the annihilation period.

dark matter
Rep: Doesn’t exist.

dark energy.
Rep: Badly explained; it would mean that the hubble constant would be increasing steadily.


Now what about the Phenomena not explained:

Gravity. The standard model does not explain gravity. The approach of simply adding a "graviton" (whose properties are the subject of considerable consensus among physicists if it exists) to the Standard Model does not recreate what is observed experimentally.
Rep: But we explained it clearly by “altered” geometry of space.

And General physics like:

Entropy (arrow of time). Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past, resulting in the distinction between past and future?
Rep: Because the universe is evolving from simplicity to complexity (which gives the arrow of time) while determining its possibilities of reality.

Fine-tuned Universe. What explains why the fundamental physical constants are set in the narrow range that is necessary to support carbon-based life?
Rep: Because choosing according to their “viability” and recycling what doesn’t “fit” leaves the only possibilities “viable” through which the “viability” process keeps on selecting until the only “viable” possibility is defined. So what is today, could not have been anything else than what it is.

Cosmic inflation. Is the theory of cosmic inflation correct, and, if so, what are the details of this epoch? What is the hypothetical inflaton field giving rise to inflation? (
Rep: We explained inflation in a very simple way that doesn’t need any “imaginary “inflaton” particle or “inflaton field”. Archimedes jumping in is bathtub is quite explicit.

Shape of the Universe.
Rep: The universe is simply a sphere produced by expansion in all directions, with an “inner” flat geometrical topology.

Gravity. Why is gravity such a weak force? It becomes strong for particles only at the Planck scale, around 10^19 GeV.
Rep: Gravity is not a “force” and its potentiality is relative to the energy density of the space where we find it. The more the density, the more its potentiality intensify.

Generations of matter. Why are there three generations of quarks and leptons? Is there a theory that can explain the masses of particular quarks and leptons in particular generations?
Rep: In fact there are three families of three generations of particles; and they each generation of families appeared when their “mass energy” was compatible to their environment.

So, I guess we're not to badly equipped for now.

I'll let you digest all of this before coming back.

[Inchworm]

When two men fight, how do you call the way they hit each other?

I call it a lot of things; but if you refer to the punch itself, it is due to kinetic energy produced by the arm of the "puncher" who had a good dinner to deploy that energy.

And how is that kinetic energy transferred to the other man's head? How does its head resist to the punch, and how does it move away from it.

Secondary effect of their curved fists' trajectory?

Is that "curved" trajectory of the fist due to "gravitational force"? Be serious.

I'm serious. You only rely on gravitation to explain all the forces, and my small steps explain differently inertial force, so I ask you to explain that one. I think you can't because it's a repulsive force, and the only repulsive force that you have in hand is expansion. Is it so?