A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

[Watson]

The universe was born at time zero +. Right at the beginning of Planck’s epoch, 10^-43 sec before Big bang. I consider the period of 10^-43 sec being the gestation period of our universe.

Don't you mean 10 x -43 sec after the BB. And this point in time is a function of scientific knowledge and abilities at this time. Science will no doubt be able to look more deeply back in the history of the Universe at some point. I don't expect there is any more importance need be given that particular period of time, other than we can't say what happened prior to that point in time.

[Andrex]

Don't you mean 10 x -43 sec after the BB

No. I mean 10^-43 sec BEFORE Big bang since the Big bang was at 10^-43 sec after time = zero.

The Big bang was the birth of our tridimensional space-time. And it's impossible to go smaller than Planck's length (10^-35 meter) which was at Planck's time 10^-43 sec after time = zero. So Planck's length is the smallest diameter that can have a "volume" and our universe is a "volume".

For example, the string theories try to explain what happened during Planck's epoch; which is the period I'm talking about.

[Watson]

Before? OK, but it is a swan dive off the cliff of credibility for anyone that has even a little knowledge on the subject. Keep thinking, but also keep learning. The standard model seems to have a grasp of things, up to the point you mentioned.

[Andrex]

Before? OK, but it is a swan dive off the cliff of credibility for anyone that has even a little knowledge on the subject.

You're right. Anyone has to have more knowledge than a little bit.

Like what I've already posted in previous messages. There's a lot to know in there. And that's a lot more than what is usually known.

[Watson]

So stay interested in learning more.

[Andrex]

I don't even think that you read the posts from the start. Wondering if I was talking of the Big bang at time = zero is a good indication.

Thank you for your scientific arguments.

[Watson]

Scary observant. Yes I read some initial comments and then popped in today at the end. No I didn't read much in between, but your recent comment made me think, how you got there may be wrong. I look forward to you showing me wrong. Changing science, or adding to it is a big thing.

[Andrex]

I'm not the one to show you if your wrong. All I can do is explain was I think; and that's what I did. The rest is up to you.

Changing science is nothing. The main thing is to think while you learn.

Have a nice evening.

[Watson]

I'm not the one to show you if your wrong.

Not yet, but I was leaving open the possibility for something in the future.

[Andrex]

Like I said it's up to you. I don't remember ever saying to somebody he was wrong. Although I can say that someone could interpret facts or observations wrongly from my point of view.

Simply because I know that each of us lives in a universe that he builds with his personal information, comprehension and opinion. So how could I say that somebody else is wrong? All this is personal territory. All we can do is explain ourselves to exchange info and maybe add to our personal knowledge.

[Andrex]

And if you want to know what I think, I guess you'll have to read what I wrote.

[Phaedras]

Andrex, I liked your post very much. I would like to suggest that instead of thinking of a bowling ball on a mattress think more of a bowling ball immersed in honey and then spun. The honey, because of it's viscosity "follows" the spin of the ball -- the same thing space does over time with any object but especially so of black holes.

You should read a little about gravity probe b and it's results -- very interesting stuff. I think you'll enjoy that very much.

[Andrex]

Thank you Phaedras. I'll look into it.

I just had a fast look and you're right. That machine was fantastic. I'm anxious to analyse the results. At first glance the frame dragging effect confirms the existence of a "fabric" of the universe.

[Andrex]

What have we seen since the beginning of this “Personal theory”?

1) Curvature of space-time extends down to the center of gravity of the space-time curvature.

2) Quantity of matter occupies space-time; it doesn’t replace it.

3) Quantity of matter doesn’t curve space-time; mass energy does

4) Since space-time is deformable, it has to have a “fabric”.

5) The deformation is not in a “downward” direction, but in a “backward” direction in space-time metric.

6) A black hole is not a “hole” it’s a “ball” (volume). If it’s rotating, it has the form of a football; if not, the form of a basketball.

7) Expansion is the gradual growth of space-time metric.

8) A black hole is a collapsing of space-time metric.

9) To prompt collapsing you have to add mass energy to a deformation. The only way to do it is add matter particles that contains mass energy, on the surface of the object you want to collapse.

10) Quantity of matter is not mass energy. The total of each is not identical.

11) Gravity supply a direction toward a definite point; expansion supply a direction toward every points. These directions are exactly contrary from one another.

12) Our universe is definitively flat; confirmed by Planck’s satellite.

13) Space-time deformation occurs when mass energy stops a point from keeping expanding; so surrounding points gradually recover expansion “ratio” depending of their distance from the “blocked point”.

14) The two contrary movements are identical as the centrifugal and centripetal effects from rotation. But our universe doesn’t rotate. So gravity and expansion comes from before the birth of our universe “volume”.

15) Gravity zero at the center of a sphere is on a “fictional point” because pressure from all sides equalizes itself. Space-time points are not fictional; so the pressure on a centered point of gravity is far from zero. It feels the total pressure from all sides.

16) Weight is the difference of velocity between two objects that joins centers of gravity. It determine the pressure made by the less mass energy object on the surface of the biggest mass energy object.

17) Matter is only a “passenger” of the volume of a space-time deformation. It’s not a “main player” in cosmological events. The fact is that it counts for 4, 7% of the universe. But matter contains a great quantity of kinetic energy imprisoned in it which we call “mass energy”.

18) Left handed massless neutrinos are responsible of the perception of distances (space) and time (space-time) because their helicity slows them from light speed. They originated from Planck’s epoch and were propelled in all direction at the Big bang, thus giving depth to the previous surface.

19) At the Big bang, gluons being too small to manifest themselves, stayed in Planck’s epoch rotating continuing to gain size. It acquired the size of 10-35 meter when space-time had expanded to 10-15 meter. That’s when it appeared in our universe. The time was 10-36 sec after time = zero and it naturally adopted a “field of action” of 10-15 meter. Which is the size of a nucleus.

20) The appearance of the gluon in our space-time, rapidly followed by its disintegration (decay) into successive mass particles caused what we call the inflation. It lasted from 10-36 sec until 10-32 sec during which period, all mass particles were created by successive decays.

21) Different moment of appearance of neutrino and gluon separated the “effect” of each from one another. The topology of the “fabric” of expanding space-time was contrary to the topology of gluon’s “action field” (space-time). Inflation was something different from expansion; even though both have almost identical “effect” on the volume of the universe. They are not identical events.

22) Mass particles appeared during inflation period; but they appeared successively proportionally to the density of energy of their environment. Which means that even during inflation, expansion was still diluting the density of energy. The mass particles (quarks) adopted gradually less mass energy to get equilibrium with their “outside world”. They finally got this equilibrium in reuniting three by three in the “action field” of the former gluon. This tells us that “entropy” is the result of a universe that tries to acquire equilibrium; not aiming at chaos.

23) This also tells us that the “action field” of the gluon stayed imprinted in the fabric of this “action field” even after the disintegration of the gluon. It also means that the “intensity” of mass energy of succeeding mass particles where also imprinted on top of the pervious prints. Giving a kind of Russian dolls structure to those impressions.

24) Space-time deformation’s effects, of that period of early universe, had to be proportional to the ambient density of energy. So its effect on events of that time was naturally proportionally equivalent to its effect of today’s events. Which means that gravity of that far back period had the same effect as today’s gravity. This is a natural “fact” deduction; not a deduced hypothesis from “tools” used for interpretations.

25) Expansion pulled the two front and back faces of the surface gluon from one another; creating two “sides of surfaces” mirror of each other.

26) Mass energy particles have kinetic energy imprisoned in its volume of space-time where topology is contrary to expansion. It acquired this kinetic energy when being only a “one side surface”. Kinetic energy responding to its topology pushed on the point topology was targeting and made the “one side surface” particle curl up and trap that kinetic energy inside its newly made volume.

27) Strong nuclear force doesn’t exist as a “force”; it’s a consequence of the topology inside the field action of a gluon. The notion of “force coming out of nowhere” doesn’t have its place in physics; regardless of the quantity of “explanations” you add to cover its unknown origin.

28) The rotation of cosmological objects starts when the first two particles that merges their center of gravity and tries to occupy that center of gravity. Pushing one another results in both revolving around their common center of gravity. Added particles increased the speed and the pressure on centered particles increasing mass energy and increasing the “action field” of its space-time deformation.

29) Chemical bonding could be a consequence of “tidal effect” of two deformations of atoms where the valence shell electronic cloud of both atoms are pulled toward each other until the energy of both valence shells stabilizes. Which eliminates another “mysterious force”.

30) To explain the origin of our tri-dimensional universe, we have to consider the two-dimensional of Planck’s epoch. Composed of unidimensional points, based on the fact, now proven, that our universe is Euclidian. An initial point of 0+ energy “virtualised” itself by starting to rotate. Centrifugal effect obliged it to duplicate. The following points always arose from where the initial point had appeared; adding 0+ kinetic energy every time, which compensated for the farther points increasing speed. At a certain tension of the stress on the surface, it separated in two, projecting one part in all directions and the other part in a bundle that reversed it rotation. The “all directions” projected particles gave depth to half of the original surface creating our tri-dimensional universe.

I think that this is just about everything we’ve seen up until now. We can say that it simplifies physics and astrophysics quite a bit. The question is: “Is it acceptable as a structure for the “facts” known regarding our universe?”

Which noted number is or could not be "facts" acceptable in tour opinion?

[Andrex]

There doesn't seem to be very much objections.

[Phaedras]

Andrex, I disagree with you characterization of space-time as having to have a "fabric". I think it's more like a fluid -- I really think that's a much better analogy.

[Andrex]

Even a fluid as to have space-time to occupy. A fluid occupy space-time. Quark gluon plasma is more "fluid" than "gas"; and it's not a "fabric"; it's something that occupies space-time. If there wasn't space-time to "contain" quarks gluon plasma it couldn't exist.

[Andrex]

Furthermore, saying that GR defines space-time by the interactions of its components is not exact. GR describes events in space-time. If this space-time didn't exist regardless of GR, it wouldn't describe anything.

[Andrex]

The other factor is that distances and time are "created" by the movement slower than light speed; kinetic energy of neutrinos.

If everything was moving at light speed, there wouldn't be any space or time. So space is "something" created by movement and not by different velocities.

All velocities slower than light speed give a different curved trajectory but it's the fastest speed that gives space-time its "flatness" which is a null curvature.

Furthermore, the trajectories are given by informations imprinted in space-time (topology) in regard of the velocity. And it's the direction of the movement toward everywhere or toward a definite point that gives its geodesic.

So space-time is not a "visual effect"; it has to be a "fabric" of some sort.

[Faradave]

I find no reason to question the local observation that the continuum is untouchable. It provides the potential for separation and as a consequence, well-defined degrees of freedom.

As much as I admire relativity, I think it was a mistake to suggest an actual curvature of spacetime. That's when everyone began to treat it as alterable (e.g. rubber sheet analogy).

The continuum does not need to change at all in order for observers in different reference frames to differently map coordinates on to it (and to experience those maps). The same for observers traversing multiple frames (i.e. accelerating).

If everything was moving at light speed, there wouldn't be any space or time.

I'm impressed by your knowledge and dexterity but I think this is a common example of overreaching. If anything could move at speed limit c (I don't believe anything does), it would experience no length in the direction of motion (and thus, experience no aging in crossing it). That does not deny sub-light observers from attributing real separation to the same path. The universally-popular photon model (of special relativity) allows that, while a photon does not age, it does indeed arrive in the future in traveling from emitter to absorber. Thus, time and distance did not disappear (or alter in any way). They were, in my view, simply bypassed.

[Andrex]

while a photon does not age, it does indeed arrive in the future in traveling from emitter to absorber.

That is exactly the point Faradave.

If photons don't experience distances nor time, it means that they are "everywhere" at a "present" moment.

So they do not travel; they simply manifest themselves where needed (to install energetic equilibrium to a particle) and trough entropy of space-time.

On the other hand, their "instantaneity" has a characteristic called "wavelength" which can be observed. But let's observe the photons coming from CMB like Planck satellite did:

We can see a photon coming from that space-time in different wavelenth (in fact in all the wavelength) and it's always the same photon we are talking about (what we are observing is the constant "present" of the photon). There are not different photons for different wavelengths. The differences seem to be the choice of the observer who chooses the energy intensity he wants to see of that photon. In fact what is observable is the entropy of a photon which would be his wavelength.

At least this is what it looks like. This approach would have to be pursued farther if corroborated.

As much as I admire relativity, I think it was a mistake to suggest an actual curvature of spacetime. That's when everyone began to treat it as alterable (e.g. rubber sheet analogy).

I think that it was the only way the visualised it. Even today, very few accepts to see space-time deformation as a gradual decreasing of its metric that can reach collapsing. Even though it' the simplest way to see it. But then it's not as simple to visualise trajectory through it.

[Andrex]

.And furthermore, it seems they don't have the right "tools" to calculate it. There "formulas where created in late 19th century and first quater of 20th century; so "they search their car keys where they have a lamppost"

[Faradave]

If photons don't experience distances nor time, it means that they are "everywhere" at a "present" moment.

I don't quite understand "everywhere". We might say a photon is everywhere along its path but that path (a lightlike interval) is defined to have zero length. Thus, I interpret a photon as a pinhole (particle-interaction wormhole) bypassing spacetime but that's a personal theory (so far).

So they do not travel; they simply manifest themselves where needed (to install energetic equilibrium to a particle) and trough entropy of space-time.

Photons are correctly attributed real spatial and temporal components, which in conventional spacetime geometry (the interval formula, ∆interval² = ∆space² - ∆time²) counter each other.

On the other hand, their "instantaneity" has a characteristic called "wavelength" which can be observed.

I account for this another way but I like your audacity. There's a lot more to be said about "instantaneity". I'm glad you're thinking about it.

There are not different photons for different wavelengths. The differences seem to be the choice of the observer who chooses the energy intensity he wants to see of that photon. In fact what is observable is the entropy of a photon which would be his wavelength.

I think you're recognizing that energy is relative. Different observers see light of different energy, consistent with Doppler (and other) energy shifting mechanisms.

Furthermore, it seems they don't have the right "tools" to calculate it.

Our personal theories differ, but we are similarly motivated. I find the interval formula to indicate an unquestioned presumption that Galilean (and much earlier) notions of space and time are the coordinates of our continuum. This is easily remedied with a different system (map). There's no rush but on a slow day you might take a look at CU@T2. If not, don't worry, I tend to repeat its themes.

[Andrex]

I don't quite understand "everywhere".

Imagine being a photon moving at light speed. Saying that you won't perceive distance and time only along your path would mean that you wouldn't see anything in front of you and would see everything each side of you.

This would be equivalent as, when driving a car, you would see your destination coming to you while each side of you would be "static (not moving). The mouvement all around your car is relative to you being the "frame of reference" (everything move while your immobile) so everything around you as the same speed.

The same thing apply to our moving photon. In is "frame of reference" everything is moving at light speed so there's no distances or time that it can perceive. Thus he is everywhere at the same time. From where photons get their "instantaneity". (I'm not sure if "frame of reference" is the term appropriate; maybe I should have said "referential"?

I think you're recognizing that energy is relative.

I'm not so sure of that. This applies only for the photon because of the fact that he's "constantly" "everywhere" and has entropy in his wavelength. Entropy in his wavelength means different frequencies which also means different energy.

Photons are correctly attributed real spatial and temporal components

I agree but then you are not talking of a "universal" photon ("everywhere" at the "present) but you are talking about a quanta of the "universal photon". Our universe is electromagnetic.

This is quite a subject to think about!!!

[Andrex]

A few more indications from Planck satellite photo.




Since Planck satellite photos are the latest “facts” (and not theories) we have on the early universe, I feel that I have to concentrate on everything it can tell me. So I came back to it and this is what I went through:

Planck scientists told us that where the temperature was higher (red spots), there was a movement of “focalization” that we can interpret as an “effect of gravity”, and where were the colder spots (blue), there was an “effect of dispersion” which is the movement of the expansion.

So I choose a section of the photo where we have a maximum of both “effects” and I draw arrows to show the respective movement in each spots.

Finally, the majority of space-time (big bubbles) is "flat" since the beginning. And the small volumes of deformed space-time is deformed since 10^-32 sec (end of inflation).

One thing is quite surprising. Even if the movements are contrary to each other, the “structure” of both types of temperature, is the same. Both figures show more intensity in the middle of their “form”.

This is perfectly understandable since where you have the focussing effect, the red middle increases in density and where you have dispersion effect, the blue middle dilutes its intensity starting from the center.

The problem appears when you start thinking of what is actually the opinion of scientists who say that the “gravity” manifests itself in the whole of space-time. Which means that in the blue spot that dilutes its density, there is a hidden manifestation of the red spot and behind the red spot there is a manifestation of the blue spot. Mathematic equations explain this as a possibility and scientists consider it as a “fact”.

But what we seen here is not the case at all. What we see is that the blue spot is completely independent from the red spot and vice-versa. If we consider each spot as having their own metric of space-time, we have the red spots showing a decreasing metric and the blue spot showing an increasing metric. And it’s impossible to have decreasing and increasing metrics in the same volume of space-time.

If we really had a competition between those two “effects” in the metric of a volume of space-time, it would mean that those effects appeared in the universe before its metric appeared; which is completely nonsense. The only explanation that makes sense is that gravity in the red spots has no effect whatsoever on the expansion of the blue spots. In other words, gravity is not “universal” just as expansion is not “universal”. Where we have gravity we don’t have expansion and where we have expansion, we don’t have gravity. So gravity is “local” and, so is expansion.

This also brings another information. The red spots appeared in our universe after the blue spots, since at the big bang there was only a manifestation of radiative movement without any matter; so without any gravity; which means without any space-time deformations. It also state that when gravitation appeared, it did it bringing its own volume of space-time that was added to the actual space-time in expansion. Which resulted in the inflation period caused by that “added” volume at 10^-36 sec and explains why inflation didn’t disturb expansion; it didn’t apply to the same volume of space-time.

The result however is that where there’s expansion, that volume of space-time will expand exponentially faster than where there is gravity. Which will end by distributing matter, on a picture after 13 billion years of expansion, in filaments in regard of the big “bubbles” of space-time expanding where there’s no gravity. Consequently, matter distribution in filaments is not a consequence of “gravity disturbances” but a consequence of the more rapid expansion of the volumes of “empty” space-time. And the regrouping of galaxies in clusters and super clusters is a consequence of the distribution of galaxies in filaments. Filaments are subjected to expansion but only from the level of galaxies cluster inclusively. From the level of galaxy down to the level of atom, expansion is absent. So, because the volume of space-time in filaments subjected to expansion is so small, in the overall picture, the rapidity of expansion of “empty” space-time, makes them appear as not expanding at all and even seem “collapsing”. But that is evidently a kind of optical illusion.

[Andrex]

Meanwhile here is what happens when an object travels through the metric of a space-time deformation with speed superior to escape velocity:



Naturally, if the topology (I just learned exactly what was geodesic and topology; unbelievable! The topology is the whole drawing; the geodesic is the trajectory of the object) of the deformation has a metric of 10^-35 meter, the trajectory of the object will be a curve trajectory.

If you think about it, while the object is going through decreasing metric, it seems to increase velocity and time seems to slow down; while passing through increasing metric, it seems to decrease velocity and time speeds up; but in fact, the object always keep the same "proper" velocity and comes out at the same speed as when he entered the space-time deformation. Which is what we observe.

So no wonder I can't present mathematics to explain this; the velocity of the object doesn't change. All the mathematics does is calculate an illusion that prevents to understand the real facts of the event. Because the metric of the universe cannot be other than 10^-35 meter. It's the basic size of our space-time universe.

Note 1: To increase velocity of a spacecraft, you have to enter deformation behind a planet's trajectory so that the velocity of the planet is added to the speed of the spacecraft; if you meet the planet coming to you, the velocity of the planet will be subtracted to the speed of your spacecraft and you will lose speed.

Note 2: The main problem with this suggestion is that the density increases with the decreasing of the metric; so how can the object keep the same speed? I'll have to think about it a little bit more.

[Andrex]

Our total universe



Just by thinking a few minutes about the standard model, which gives a beginning to our universe, we can understand and describe the following phases of its history starting from time = zero to (Who knows when everything will have light-speed, if ever):

1) Universe before movement (Potentiality state condition) Unidimensional universe



2) Universe between time = 0 and 10^-43 second (motion) Two-dimensional universe



3) Universe between 1rst translation and light-speed (movement) three dimensional universe



4) Universe span time is conditioned by light-speed (Realized state condition)



The word “State” here means: The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure. So the word “condition” in the definition means “situation of… at the time of…”.

We see that number 1 is in a “state” of no movement, thus no space and no time.

While number 4 has the maximum velocity (light speed) that also results in no space and no time for that “level” of universe. The “states” are the same for the universe in both situations.

Number 2 is the embryonic phase of universes “life”, when particles where “probabilities” of “translations”; which limits them to “motion” without translation. We can consider here the motion of “rotation” or “vibration”. But a “rotating phase of that universe” is more exact because it results in defining two “things” important for the next phase of evolution, being: centripetal (which will become gravitation) and centrifugal (which will become expansion) “effects”. They are mirrors particles and what affects one effects the other contrarily. The motion of that universe produces time in both directions: past and future. That is why its issued particles are entangled. The rotation is also vibrating like we saw previously in "How the universe was born".

The “present” was introduced only at the Big bang when past and future were ripped from one another giving the opportunity to the “present” to install itself between the two. This last event was what gave a single direction to the time arrow; toward the future.

Number 3 is the “living” phase of the universe. “Translation” governs that period; it produces distances and directs the time arrow toward the future. We call it “space-time”. This is the phase where we live today.

So these are the 4 basic phases of the structure for the story and the description of the total universe. To my point of view that is. I could be wrong evidently.

[Andrex]

I just realised, that when I was talking about metric, I should have mentioned that there are three kinds of metrics that can be visualised.

I mean that we have to consider one kind of metric for each three components of dimensions.

A) You have a metric for the distance; which metric orients itself in one double direction (to and fro).
B) This same single metric double direction applies also to a surface but in two double directions (left/right, up/down). And finally,

C) you have a three double directions metric that applies to a volume (left/right, up/down and forward/backward).

So when you talk of the metric of the universe, you are talking of the metric applying to a volume. For example: the expansion of the universe is produced on a volume of universe (sphere) of one Megaparsec of diameter.

Is there actually an existing way to identify each of them, I wonder.

[Andrex]

I also realised that the former description is not based on the "standard model" like I said but on the "Big bang model". The standard model is the description of the fundamental particles; sorry.

But it doesn't really matter since I get no reactions. :-)

[Faradave]

The problem appears when you start thinking... “gravity” manifests itself in the whole of space-time. Which means that in the blue spot that dilutes its density, there is a hidden manifestation of the red spot and behind the red spot there is a manifestation of the blue spot...

...not the case at all... the blue spot is completely independent from the red spot and vice-versa. If we consider each spot as having their own metric of space-time, we have the red spots showing a decreasing metric and the blue spot showing an increasing metric. And it’s impossible to have decreasing and increasing metrics in the same volume of space-time.

This is one of several places we differ fundamentally. Suppose you have a thick sheet of rubber that you want to stretch to make a drum. It's so tough you can hardly stretch it at all, unless you heat it. Then it becomes easy to stretch, so you hold it while someone places a ring around the edge to clamp it in place.



While the hot rubber is uniformly stretched, you mark a square grid on it with a pen. Then suppose you set a piece of ice on the hot rubber? It will contract locally, while causing increased stretching further away. Both contraction and expansion are mediated from one influence. It's like what they try to show on this grid but without depression (downward bending).