My conclusions on “A variable expansion speed theory of grav

[Andrex]

With almost 400,000 “clicks” on my “personal theory”, I think some concluding points might provoke some questioning on which it might be interesting to exchange if you're interested.

Subjects:

1)Fact: Nobody knows what “Energy” is. All we know is its “effects”.

Conclusion: Our universe isn’t “energy”; but simply an “effect” of energy.

2)Facts:

a- Our universe is a “space volume”.
b- A “space volume is made of “distances”.
c- A “distance” is a trajectory from one point to another.
d- A trajectory is a “motion”.

Conclusion: Our universe is “motion”.

3) Fact: A “motion” is the result of “kinetic energy”.

Conclusion: Our universe is an “effect” of “kinetic energy”.

4) Facts:

a- Everything started at “Zero”; which means “zero energy”.
b- The Big bang was the manifestation of the maximum kinetic energy that ever existed which never augmented or diminished since.

Conclusion: The Big bang was (or is) an “effect” of the maximum kinetic energy that ever existed, which means that our universe has been “animated” by an “effect” of the maximum kinetic energy that ever existed.

5)Facts:

a-The maximum kinetic energy produces a “motion” that has the “speed of light”.
b-Light-speed "motion" travels 10^-35 meter in 10^-43 second.

1st conclusion: The initial “space volume” that appeared had a diameter of 10^-35 meter since all the existing energy had already attained its maximum.

2nd conclusion: The “time length” of a “present moment” is “frozen” by lightspeed at 10^-43 second.

3rd conclusion: “Time” started at “zero”, which means: 10^-43 second before the Big bang was manifested.

The bar is opened.

André Lefebvre

[Andrex]

It seems that when the "facts" are exact and the conclusions are based on "reason", it becomes hard to discuss the results. :-(

[Andrex]

My conclusions 2

OK. The first message doesn’t work; so, I’ll try to find a subject of discussion further on in time. Otherwise, I guess Mr TheVat will close this post for lack of participants.

We are now at the appearance of the third “present moment” (3 X 10^-43 sec) of the Big-bang, after the first space volume “expansion” had appeared (in fact re-production).

Here is a drawing that shows these events:



Up until this moment, only “motion” existed, producing “distances” in all direction, which is what “space” consists of.

While “Time” kept going, each now existing 13 “space volumes” multiplied themselves by 12 (3D), which 7 (2D) are shown here:



At the 5th “present moment” (5 X (10^-43 sec)), each previous space volumes multiplied by 12, leaving “space volumes” in several places that where not directly affected by the general motion “effect”, even though those spaces possessed a “distance”, meaning the kinetic "side effect”, as we will see in the next drawing. Fortunately, gluons also appeared at the same moment and occupied those empty places.

In this universe, the only existing “thing” was a “toward everywhere” motion, which was the “effect” of kinetic energy.

Gluons were 2 dimension “particles” possessing a “centripetal effect” (which is why it “glues” everything together); so when they appeared, they naturally installed themselves where the “centrifugal effect” was out of the universal “general motion’s path”.

Let us see the situation inside those “off track” spaces:



The Top quarks appeared at the 7th "present moment" (7 X (10^-43 sec)) after the Big-Bang.

1) Are there any objections regarding the logic of all this?
2) Are there any observations against the possibility of these events?

[charon]

Our universe isn’t “energy”; but simply an “effect” of energy.

Everything IS energy/matter, not an effect of it. It's a material universe and energy is a property of matter.

Whiteness is a property of snow, snow isn't an effect of whiteness. You're putting the cart before the horse.

[Andrex]

It's a material universe and energy is a property of matter.

The universe cannot be "material" if it is composed of 5% of "matter".

Whiteness is a property of snow

"a property of..." means "belongs to...". My house belongs to me; am I a house?

Matter is said the same as energy; but the reality is that matter can be transformed in energy (H bomb). If matter as to be "transformed" to be energy, it means that it cannot be the result of the transformation (energy).

Snow and Ice are a transformation of water; which means that they are not water anymore even if you can bring them back to their "water state".

Water -> snow -> water

Energy -> matter -> energy

Space = distances

Distances = Length of a motion

Motion = effect of kinetic energy

Conclusion: Space = effect of kinetic energy

In my point of view, energy stands at the the "frontier" of Planck era and the appearance of 3D "space".

We actually observe it as "vacuum energy"

But I could be wrong.

[charon]

...

1a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property

"a property of..." means "belongs to...".

That is one meaning but that's not the meaning here. Here it means 'having a quality of'. Heat is a quality of the sun but the sun isn't an effect of heat.

Only 4 - 5% of the universe is visible matter. They don't know about the rest.

[Andrex]

Heat is a quality of the sun but the sun isn't an effect of heat.

But Heat is an effect of the Sun. The Sun isn't Heat.

The Sun is the result of the transformation of "matter" into "energy".

Only 4% of the universe is visible matter. They don't know about the rest.

By the looks of it (observation) the rest is "space".

In fact, the whole universe is "space" of of which about 30% has a centripetal topology (gravitational fields) that contains "matter" at its center and 70% which has a "towards everywhere" topology (universal expansion).

This is what we observe. Nothing else.

[charon]

You're confused.

You said the universe was an effect of energy. It's not, any more than the sun is an effect of heat or lead is the effect of weight.

They don't call the rest 'space', they call it dark matter and dark energy. So they still think it is matter and energy.

[Andrex]

You said the universe was an effect of energy. It's not,

Ok, but "why not?"

They don't call the rest 'space',

But that is what you and me OBSERVE. And science is based on OBSERVATION.

they call it dark matter

Nobody never OBSERVED it and "they" don't even know what it is.

and dark energy

Dark energy is an wrong explanation of the "universal expansion" because they consider the "speed" (km per second) of this expansion. But "expansion" doesn't have a "speed"; it has a "ratio" (67.8km per 1 megaparsec per second). The farther you observe an object the faster it "seems" to travel. If you transport yourself at 100 megaparsec from the Earth, you'll see our galaxy moving 678 km per second faster than it does in reality and there is no need of "dark energy" to make you see it.

So they still think it is matter and energy.

Now your saying that matter is one thing and energy is another (matter AND energy). I agree with you: somebody is confused.

[charon]

...

Now your saying that matter is one thing and energy is another (matter AND energy)

I didn't say that. I was quoting scientists who say that.

"Everything in the Universe is made up of matter and energy."

"Dark matter refers to material that can’t be detected by their emitted radiation but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter, like stars and galaxies. Dark energy, or negative energy, is the energy found in space."

https://kidskonnect.com/science/matter-energy/

"ordinary, or baryonic, matter makes up less than 5 percent of the mass of the universe."

The rest of the universe appears to be made of a mysterious, invisible substance called dark matter (25 percent) and a force that repels gravity known as dark energy (70 percent)."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... rk-matter/

[Andrex]

I didn't say that. I was quoting scientists who say that.

Are you saying now that they are the ones who are "confused"?

Dark energy is "illogical" and "unnecessary" to explain universal expansion's so called acceleration which doesn't occur.

As for "Dark matter", the reasoning behind it is identical as behind what is observed by a kid at the base of the tree on Christmas morning, which makes him believe in Santa Claus.

a mysterious, invisible substance called dark matter (25 percent) and a force that repels gravity known as dark energy

Dark matter = Mysterious and INVISIBLE; a "Godlike" explanation.

Dark energy = a "FORCE" repelling GRAVITY. Which means a gravitational "counter-force".

And everybody knows, since a 100 years ago, that gravity IS NOT A FORCE; so how could it have a counter-force?

[charon]

So what is your point?

[Andrex]

There are 3 points which are questions:

1st point: Who is confused?

2nd point: Is my proposition up to the 7th "present moment" logical (which would make it acceptable)?

3rd point: If so, can "energy" stand at the "frontier" between Planck era and the appearance of 3D space volume plausible (Big-bang)? Which, then, we could observe as "vacuum energy)

What would be the scientific observations (not opinions) against any of these 3 points?

[TheVat]

MODERATOR NOTE:

Several postings here make inaccurate statements about current astrophysics and cosmology. Some do not fit with recent research and now well-established facts based on observational data. I do not have time to go through all these statements individually. This thread does not meet our guidelines for science forums, so will be moved to the Odds and Ends Forum in the PCF section of the website.

[Andrex]

I've had it. Thank you. I don't like any untouchable "religious dogmas".

Close this discussion please.

André Lefebvre

[charon]

Who is confused?

André - A en juger par votre nom, il semble que vous venez de France, alors je vais vous parler en français. Ce ne sera pas aussi bon que votre anglais.

J'ai dit que vous étiez confus parce que vous avez dit que vous pensiez que l'univers était un effet de matière / énergie. J'ai dit que ce n'était pas vrai parce que l'univers EST matière / énergie. C'est de quoi il est fait. Retirez la matière / l'énergie et il n'y a pas d'univers. L'universe n'est donc pas un effet et la matière / énergie n'est pas la cause de l'univers. Si vous ne voyez pas cela, tant pis, bien que ce soit des connaissances scientifiques très basiques.

Je sais que la plupart des articles scientifiques disent que la matière / énergie noire est mystérieuse mais cela n'implique pas un élément surnaturel, seulement qu'ils ne savent pas tout à ce sujet.

Si votre théorie contredit ce que les plus grands scientifiques du monde disent à ce sujet, soit vous êtes un génie secret, soit vous allez très bientôt gagner le prix Nobel!

J'espère que vous tenez compte de ce que Vat a dit au sujet des inexactitudes scientifiques. Je ne suis pas de mèche avec les modérateurs, mais c'est ce que je voulais dire.

Mais je vous souhaite bonne chance avec votre théorie.

[charon]

English translation:

André - Judging by your name, it looks like you're from France, so I'm going to speak to you in French. It won't be as good as your English.

I said you were confused because you said you thought the universe was an effect of matter/energy. I said that was not true because the universe IS matter/energy. This is what it is made of. Remove matter/energy and there is no universe. The universe is therefore not an effect and matter/energy is not the cause of the universe. If you don't see this, too bad, although it's very basic science.

I know most science papers say dark matter/energy is mysterious but it doesn't involve a supernatural element, only that they don't know everything about it.

If your theory contradicts what the world's greatest scientists are saying about it, either you are a secret genius or you will very soon win the Nobel Prize!

I hope you take heed of what Vat said about scientific inaccuracies. I'm not in cahoots with the moderators, but that's what I meant.

But I wish you good luck with your theory.

[Andrex]

Here is a few updates:

1) I'm not from France; sorry. I'm a French-canadian from Quebec.

2)

I said you were confused because you said you thought the universe was an effect of matter/energy. I said that was not true because the universe IS matter/energy. This is what it is made of. Remove matter/energy and there is no universe. The universe is therefore not an effect and matter/energy is not the cause of the universe. If you don't see this, too bad, although it's very basic science.

I go a little bit further than that basic science.

Since there is a bit more than 4% of matter OBSERVED in the universe and the rest is observed as "space", we have to accept this fact before filling all that "space" with NON-OBSERVABLE "matter".

What we observe is that, "space" contains "matter"; or more precisely, "matter" occupies "space". Which means that even the 4% of matter represents "space".
This is an "observable fact".

This fact tells us that the whole universe is simply "space" and that "matter" is something added to it.

Now 28% of that space possesses a "gravitational effect" at the center of which "matter is found" (the ratio becomes 28 - 4); the rest is "expanding space".

This is a lot more "basic" than whatever you can find in "basic science". If you cannot see this, like you said: Too bad.

To be more specific on what I said, it was :

"Our universe is an "effect" of kinetic energy (which is not "of matter"). I started by stating that "nobody knows what "energy is"; all we know about "energy" is its "effect" (heat - motion - etc).

Thank you but I don't need any luck at all with my theory; it only permits me to better understand the evolution of our universe. Which is a very personal topic. This scientific forum permitted me to find new answers on the subject. My "theory" started, in this forum, with the description of a black hole and progressed from there until all questions were answered.

I have to thank this forum for the opportunity and also thank the participants in the discussion we had.

André Lefebvre

[charon]

I'm not a scientist and I haven't got a laboratory. I only read stuff. I don't like taking things on authority when I can't see it myself but I don't think science is lying to us. What they know, they know, and what they don't know, they don't.

So I have to ask whether you're in any better position than this. Are you?

[Andrex]

Maybe so, maybe not. I don't know.

But one thing is certain, I don't believe what I'm told until I find logic in it.

For example:

100 years ago Einstein told us that "gravitation" was not a "force" but a consequence of an alteration of the space's geometry.

But even today, a 100 years later, you are still told about the "gravitational force" because it is essential to the existence of the other 3 fundamental forces without which all official explanation collapses. There are 4 of them which were supposed to be "unified" at the beginning forming a "Super-force". Now if one doesn't exists, all other 3 "forces" dissapear with that "Super-force".

I was then oblige to either prove Einstein wrong or Newton wrong. Einstein won.

And I don't accept the "force" concept in any explanation, because whatever "force" I hear about comes out of nowhere without any "causal" explanation.

[charon]

Maybe so, maybe not. I don't know.

Oh, I think you'd know. No pretence, please, no ego.

Re. gravity, it depends how you use the word force. Most dictionaries say force. Check and see.

You didn't answer my question before, by the way. Are you contradicting what all the world's scientists are saying? If you are, on what basis? I mean, anyone can get some crazy ideas, can't they?

[Andrex]

Oh, I think you'd know. No pretence, please, no ego.

:-) It looks like you're the one who "knows" me more than myself. How marvelous! But you should consider the possibility that I might say what I exactly think. It would be less "marvelous" from you, I agree, but a lot more "natural" from me. After all at 77 I'm not a "kid" anymore and don't care much of what people think of me.

There is something interesting about "knowing". And it's applicable to everything, even science.

You can "know" something without understanding anything about it; all you have to do is "memorize" and repeat what you've "learned". This is what is mainly asked in our schools. You have to "memorize" whatever "other previous people" interpreted as the "reality". So we all must do it to get "grades".

This started a long time ago, when a "sage" explained that thunder and lightning was the expression of the wrath of an invisible "super-being". The explanation looked acceptable at the time, so it was thought to people and they memorized it, adopting the habit of accepting everything these "sages" affirmed. They didn't have to "think" by themselves anymore.

Much later on, a "Genius" came with the explanation regarding the cosmos. He was an alchemist but a real "genius". He proposed that "all masses attracted themselves" and that this "force" of "attraction" was universal. Each masses was attracting every other masses even if they were at the end of the universe. But this "force" diminished proportionally to the square of the distance between masses.

He, himself, wasn't convince of a "force" acting through space without any material support, but, like he said: "It works so...". And this explanation was thought in our schools for 300 years. We learned it without questions because our "teachers knew" and this "knowledge" was originating from a "genius". So who could have the nerve to oppose this explanation.

200 years later, one such person came along and explained that this "force" didn't exist. The "reality" was that the "space" around a massive object was geometrically deformed which sent all trajectories towards the center of this deformed space volume depending of the speed of an object traveling through it.

Today, this is thought in schools but without replacing the original 300 years old explanation. But people aren't use to "think" against the trend so we learn both explanations without confronting them. Logically, both cannot be "reality" simultaneously.

This explains the questions you're asking me today. You're not considering what I proposed with you intellectual faculties; you're simply comparing the genius of actual "scientists" to my ordinary intellectual aptitude. Which is not the subject at all. This is exactly what I meant by "religious dogmas" previously.

You are trying to defend, in a somewhat dishonest way, what you "believe" because you accepted "in good faith" without questions, and not what you could "understand" if you had questioned that "knowledge".

I'm not devaluing what you're doing; I'm just underlying an habit that everyone has adopted naturally.

You said:

I mean, anyone can get some crazy ideas, can't they?

And you are right. Our individual job is to sort out the craziest ones from the others.

Have another look at my explanation without prejudice. Maybe it will come out differently.

[charon]

you should consider the possibility that I might say what I exactly think.

I'm sure that you do. I wish more people would!

You can "know" something without understanding anything about it; all you have to do is "memorize" and repeat what you've "learned".

Absolutely.

This explains the questions you're asking me today.

But I'm not asking you, I already aware of this stuff. What I did was query the logic of some of your statements.

You are trying to defend, in a somewhat dishonest way, what you "believe" because you accepted "in good faith" without questions, and not what you could "understand" if you had questioned that "knowledge".

Not at all. I said I didn't merely accept what science says because they say it. On the other hand, I'm not a scientist, I don't work at it. But, since they do, and tend to agree mostly, I'm happy to listen. I don't think it's a hoax (!).

When it comes to Newton vs. Einstein vs. the latest quantum theories, again I listen. They are plainly divided and can't really agree on it.

So actually I haven't the slightest idea. As I say, every dictionary I've looked at (about 15 so far) uses the word force. Only some science articles begin with the dismissal of gravity as a force and quote the spacetime warp as the real explanation. Others switch to the quantum explanations...

... and you have another one, although you tend to prefer Einstein. Not a bad choice, but can you say with any certainty it's definitely the right one? I notice you haven't mentioned quantum gravity yet.

[Andrex]

What I did was query the logic of some of your statements.

Then I'm really confused; sorry I didn't read any "queries". It must be because I'm a francophone.

I'm happy to listen. I don't think it's a hoax

I've been happy to listen to all scientists for 60 years and still am. I don't think its a hoax either. I'm just signaling that they accept illogical interpretations that they "memorized" which blocks their understanding of events.

On the other hand, I'm not a scientist, I don't work at it.

I understand that; but you possess the same tool they use in their work: your brain. All they do is to "interpret" what they observe. Which you can décide if it's logical or not. I agree that when they "interpret" what they don't observe, you might have a problem; but science is based on "observation" nor "interpretation"; which seems to be forgotten sometimes.

When it comes to Newton vs. Einstein vs. the latest quantum theories, again I listen. They are plainly divided and can't really agree on it.

Newton and Einstein cannot be reconciliated. As for Einstein and the latest quantum theories, I don't see any problems.

and you have another one, although you tend to prefer Einstein. Not a bad choice, but can you say with any certainty it's definitely the right one? I notice you haven't mentioned quantum gravity yet.

I prefer Einstein's approach even though he didn't improve it after 1919. So it is incomplete and says a lot more than what Einstein came out with.

As for quantum gravitation, it is the same as GR gravitation; the only problem researchers meet is their lack of involving the environment density in the concept. The more density you have the more "powerful" is gravitation.

In other words, the gravitational "effect" is directly proportional to the environment density. When the universe was very young the environment's density was enormous and the gravitational effect was proportional to it; so there was no need of any other kind of "so-called forces".

Have you ever counted the number of "forces" involved in actual science? Try it; you'll begin to understand what they are serving for in scientific explanations. Newton made almost untouchable the "force concept". The reason "because it works" isn't a good enough reason since Einstein's concept proved to be more precise.

[charon]

sorry I didn't read any "queries"

I queried your statement 'Our universe isn’t “energy” but simply an “effect” of energy' and other things. I know you qualified that with kinetic energy although I'm not sure that makes any difference. Energy is energy.

I'm just signaling that they accept illogical interpretations that they "memorized" which blocks their understanding of events.

I know, it's what the dull, traditional mind does. But it's also a sweeping generalisation. I'm sure there are scientists who are far too canny to be caught like that, thank god. Whether the establishment listens to them is another matter (no pun intended).

Which you can décide if it's logical or not.

You must have a French keyboard :-)

Up to a point only. There are plenty of scientific utterances that, without specialised knowledge, I wouldn't be able to say were logical or not.

For example, it's perfectly logical to say the sun goes round the earth because I see it come up on one side, travel across, and go down on the other. Totally logical and based thoroughly on observation.

Newton and Einstein cannot be reconciliated.

On the face of it, no, although I have seen a few articles that mention both without apparent contradiction. Something to the effect that the spacetime warp produces the effect of a force even if there isn't one.

I don't think the average person, having just dropped their most precious vase on the floor, would really grasp it had something to do with the warp-effect of the spacetime continuum.

Have you ever counted the number of "forces" involved in actual science? Try it; you'll begin to understand what they are serving for in scientific explanations. Newton made almost untouchable the "force concept". The reason "because it works" isn't a good enough reason since Einstein's concept proved to be more precise.

Have any other recognised scientists picked up on this? Or just you?

[Andrex]

Something to the effect that the spacetime warp produces the effect of a force even if there isn't one.

There is something illogical in that statement when you confront it at the proven "fact" that "space" is flat. How can it be warped if it is flat?

The answer is in the name "space-time"; space is flat we have to accept it; which leaves only the time factor for the "warping effect". 2 minus one equals one. We can't refuse it. But then we have to find an explanation for the whole event.

As a matter of fact, space being flat changes the Einstein concept related to alteration of the geometry of space. So we have to "see" another factor producing curved trajectories inside gravitational fields. That's what I did and it works.

Have any other recognised scientists picked up on this? Or just you?

Should I wait for the permission from scientists to count the number of "forces" in all their "interpretations"? :-)

[charon]

There is something illogical in that statement when you confront it at the proven "fact" that "space" is flat. How can it be warped if it is flat?

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-r ... f-spacece/

Have any other recognised scientists picked up on this? Or just you?

Should I wait for the permission from scientists to count the number of "forces" in all their "interpretations"? :-)

You haven't answered my question. Who else, if anybody, has said what you are saying?

[Andrex]

Sorry but closed or open universe has nothing to do with the "flatness" of space.

In flat space all trajectories are strictly in a straight line; which means that parallel trajectories never get closer to each other. Nothing else. It doesn't have anything to do with the "shape" of the universal volume

You haven't answered my question. Who else, if anybody, has said what you are saying?

I don't know. I never heard anybody saying so. Why? Is it essential that I condemn myself in exclusively repeating what somebody else said? I don't see the meaning of your question.

[charon]

...

Why are you introducing this flat universe idea? I didn't bring it up.

Einstein talked about warping - produced by large objects in the fabric of the universe - which creates gravity. You brought that up and preferred it to the Newtonian explanation. Now you're saying it can't be true if space is flat (as opposed to open or closed) which also appears to be an idea accepted by science.

As far as I know there can still be bumps and wrinkles in something essentially flat. Apparently it's more akin to a piece of cloth than a sheet of granite.

I don't see the meaning of your question.

That's fairly obvious. Unless you have some sort of miraculous insight you can't possibly be the only one to have thought of your idea. If it has any merit, that is.

Where are we going with this?

[Andrex]

That's fairly obvious. Unless you have some sort of miraculous insight you can't possibly be the only one to have thought of your idea. If it has any merit, that is.

Are you more convince of this principle than the faculties of your intellect? That's where my answer is.

Anyway, to me, there is no "miraculous" insight when using our brain to "think" instead of "memorizing". But you might be right since it's not very popular to do so.

If you have to make flat space "bumpy" to accept its flatness you have a problem with the actual calculation of that flatness. By the way, which scientist came out with that idea of a "bumpy" flatness? Is it from you?