My conclusions on “A variable expansion speed theory of grav

[charon]

Anyway, to me, there is no "miraculous" insight when using our brain to "think" instead of "memorizing".

Yes, Andre, your point is good. But there's also the subtle underlying suggestion that only you know how to think and the world's leading scientists are all caught in the memory trap. It's a generalisation.

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?

This is an argument about nothing. The universe is considered 'flat' as opposed to other shapes, that's all. You asked how it could be flat and simultaneously be warped. Correct?

Why shouldn't it be? My duvet isn't spherical nor a horseshoe shape, it lies flat on the bed. But it has numerous bumps and wrinkles in it. There's no contradiction.

Why have you suddenly introduced flatness? What has it to do with kinetic energy, the basis of your theory?

[Andrex]

But there's also the subtle underlying suggestion that only you know how to think and the world's leading scientists are all caught in the memory trap.

I certainly hope not; but one thing is certain, the main influence in science is not touching any "established" concept. I don't see any different opinions on those basic illogical concept. Because of that I had to take a different approach.

The universe is considered 'flat' as opposed to other shapes, that's all.

As I told you already, the "flatness of the universe doesn't relates to its "shape"; it relates to the "intrinsic geometry" of "space". The shape of the universe could be of any "form" but "inside it" parallel lines, whatever their trajectory, never touch one another. That's what this "flatness" is about.

Scientists don't go out of the universe to take a picture of that "saddle". They first "interpreted" their notion of "expansion" combating (opposed to) "gravitation" that was (and still is) in their minds because of that notion of "force" that they can't get rid of, which needs a "counter-force" (you push a wall and it pushes back).

But that isn't the case; there's no "forces" at all. "Space" expands everywhere (a kinetic energy effect) except were you have a "gravitational field" in which "space" doesn't expand because the gravitational topology send everything towards the center of gravity.

Measurements and calculation says that "everywhere, "space" is flat; even in "gravitational fields". Do you see the problem that scientists have in front of that measured "flatness" of "space"?

Why have you suddenly introduced flatness? What has it to do with kinetic energy, the basis of your theory?

We were talking about Einstein's GR and I was saying that "space" is flat so there was only the Time factor to produce curved trajectories. But we got stuck in a bump of "flat space" and I couldn't get to that "time factor". :-)

[charon]

As I told you already, the "flatness of the universe doesn't relates to its "shape"; it relates to the "intrinsic geometry" of "space". The shape of the universe could be of any "form" but "inside it" parallel lines, whatever their trajectory, never touch one another. That's what this "flatness" is about.

I know, I'm just trying to keep it simple. Of course they haven't been outside the universe to see it, it's been worked out mathematically.

We can't separate time from anything else. Nothing is static, the universe is motion, and motion means time.

Why are we so interested in the universe?

[Andrex]

Nothing is static, the universe is motion, and motion means time.

Exactly; but we have to "think" about the implications of this very important phrase.

A)

1) "The universe is motion".

2) "Motion" is the "work" (product or consequence) of kinetic energy.

Conclusions:

a) The universe (space-time) is the product (result) of kinetic energy. In other words, the universe is an "effect" of kinetic energy.

b) An "effect" has to follow (come after) its "cause"; in other words, the kinetic energy has to precede "space-time".

c) Time has to start at "zero" and so does "energy".

d) Space cannot start at "zero" since there is no energy to "produce" it. So "time" started before "space". And since there never was more energy produced since the Big-bang, we have to conclude that the "kinetic" energy, responsible for "space-time", at the Big-bang, was at its maximum.

e) A maximum of "kinetic" energy produces a maximum "speed motion"; and we know that this speed is lightspeed. Nothing can go faster since there is no added kinetic energy available to make it go faster. This also tells us that the "motion" of the universe is animated at "lightspeed" and this "motion" is its "expansion".

B)

1) The universe is "space-time".

2) Space is proven "flat"; which means its geometry is not altered whatsoever.

3) Consequently, the geometry of "space" is not warped (deformed) as Einstein thought it was; but we also know that gravity is not a "force". So Einstein had to be partially right.

4) Consequently, we have to find a "slightly" different explanation for curved trajectories inside "gravitational fields".

5) If the "space" portion of "space-time" is not responsible for curved trajectories, then the responsibility has to be in the "time" portion.

Note: There is no way we can digress for this line of deduction without "cheating" one way or another. So we have to accept and "work" from these "facts".

Do you have the feeling that you need to be a physicist in order to find these indisputable "facts"?

[charon]

"Motion" is the "work" (product or consequence) of kinetic energy.

No, it's the energy it has because of its motion. Therefore...

The universe (space-time) is the product (result) of kinetic energy. In other words, the universe is an "effect" of kinetic energy

... this statement is wrong.

[Andrex]

No, it's the energy it has because of its motion. Therefore...

I guess that you believe that your statement is right.

So what you're saying is that motion produces energy; but what produces the motion?

[charon]

what produces the motion?

Anything. A push, the wind, a machine, anything you like. Or, in the case of sentient beings, their own volition. That's why there's no perpetual motion.

But what's interesting about energy is that nothing started it. It's just there.

[Andrex]

Anything. A push, the wind, a machine, anything you like.

So a "push" produces motion (distances) in the universe (making it a volume) which produces "energy". Did the "push" have energy?

[charon]

Are you testing me? I thought you were the expert!

'Everything in the Universe is in motion because forces exist in the Universe. The gravitational force and the electromagnetic force ensure large objects are in motion while the weak and strong nuclear forces ensure the quantum world is constantly in motion. If there were no forces, there would be no motion.

The question of why there are forces in the Universe is currently unanswerable by science. They appear to be fundamental and demonstrable facts but there may not be an ultimate reason for their existence, just as there may not be a root cause for the existence of the Universe itself.'

https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/why- ... in-motion/

[Andrex]

Are you testing me? I thought you were the expert!

Why would I test you? I'm simply asking you a question. Does it cause you any problem? Furthermore, you're assuming something wrong; I'm no expert; I'm trying to simply use my brain.

'Everything in the Universe is in motion because forces exist in the Universe.

No. It's because "absolute immobility" cannot and do not exist. There is no referential whatsoever that is absolutely "motionless".

Furthermore, the existing of "forces" still has to be "proven". Until today, it is nothing more than an "interpretation" of the observation of "motion". In other words: it's a "free" assumption.

The gravitational force and the electromagnetic force ensure large objects are in motion while the weak and strong nuclear forces ensure the quantum world is constantly in motion.

In other words, all "forces" do the same thing which is: "insure motion". The only problem is that one of those "forces" is proven not to be a "force" (gravitation) but a "consequence" of something else. And if you add the "fact" that the "force concept" is a simple "assumption" without any previous source, taking this statement as the reality (or exact) is quite a demonstration of "blind faith".

If there were no forces, there would be no motion.

Once again, one of those forces doesn't exist; which rends the existence of the others suspicious at the least.

On the other hand, we "OBSERVE" that by adding "trust" to the trend of a motion by the mean of energy, it accelerates (pressing the gas pedal of a car sends more gas to the combustion chamber transforming it into an explosion of "energy" that pushes the pistons of the motor, accelerating them).

Then again, we "OBSERVE" that by adding "trust" against the trend of a motion by the same mean of energy, it decelerates (landing of the Moon shuttle).

So energy is something to be added in order to influence whatever motion. This tells us that "motion" is the result of energy. In other words: Energy is the CAUSE of motion and energy is something "behind" (or before) the motion; not the motion itself.

The question of why there are forces in the Universe is currently unanswerable by science.

But logic can give the answer: It's simply because science adopted a non-factual "interpretation" to justify "motions" way before the "energy concept" appeared through calculations. Since the adoption of the "energy concept", forces are not needed anymore for explanations.

just as there may not be a root cause for the existence of the Universe itself.'

What "may" or "may not be" doesn't take place in science. Science is "what is"; all the rest is "allegations". And it's very important to separate the first from the others; otherwise your entering "fantasy".

But you didn't answer my question: "Did the "push" have energy?"

[charon]

"absolute immobility" cannot and does not exist

We are agreed on that.

the existing of "forces" still has to be "proven". Until today, it is nothing more than an "interpretation" of the observation of "motion". In other words: it's a "free" assumption

It's not the existence of forces that is unproven, it's why they exist at all since they appear to have no cause.

The only problem is that one of those "forces" is proven not to be a "force" (gravitation) but a "consequence" of something else.

The 'something else' is the force, not the gravitational effect.

So energy is something to be added in order to influence whatever motion

No, it's not added, it's there as potential energy which becomes kinetic energy when motion takes place.

Since the adoption of the "energy concept", forces are not needed anymore for explanations.

Not at all. Force is required to set a body in motion whereupon potential energy becomes kinetic energy.

What "may" or "may not be" doesn't take place in science.

They're allowed to consider issues, just as we all are. But they can't be considered as fact.

you didn't answer my question: "Did the "push" have energy?"

I didn't answer it because I didn't just say 'push', I said 'anything you like' - in other words anything which produces motion. It's what you quoted.

'Anything. A push, the wind, a machine, anything you like.'

**********************

And may I ask you a favour? Could you not embellish your posts with bolds, quote marks and underlinings, etc? It's a bit of an onslaught on the brain and makes them hard to read. Thanks. Less is more!

[Andrex]

It's not the existence of forces that is unproven, it's why they exist at all since they appear to have no cause.

Having no cause and one of them not existing, make me say none of them exists.

The 'something else' is the force, not the gravitational effect.

This "something else", we know what it is: it's the alteration of space-time geometry which is not a "force" but a "state".

No, it's not added, it's there as potential energy which becomes kinetic energy when motion takes place.

Be logical. Nothing is immobile; so everything is "moving". Which means that motion is already taking place. To accelerate this motion you have to add to this existing motion, "whatever does this work"; which is called energy. So you have to add energy.

Potential energy is another "blurred concept" that is used inadequately most of the time. "Potentiality" is something that exists but isn't manifested because the "environment" isn't adequate. It manifests itself when the situation permits it. Acceleration of motion is not related to potentiality.

I didn't answer it because I didn't just say 'push', I said 'anything you like' - in other words anything which produces motion.

OK; so does whatever you meant or "anything you like" has energy?

And may I ask you a favour? Could you not embellish your posts with bolds, quote marks and underlinings, etc? It's a bit of an onslaught on the brain and makes them hard to read.

Jeezzz! No wonder you don't follow; I don't do that for "embellishment", but to indicate to you which word or which concept is important in the "reasoning" of the problem or the solution. It replaces ma facial expressions if we where talking face to face. You want to read "prose" with definite answers, while I want you to understand a path for "reasoning".

I'll try as you suggest in this post and see if its better.

[charon]

I'm not going to answer most of that because you're denying established science. It's not a question of heresy, it's simply unrealistic.

does whatever you meant or "anything you like" has energy?

Obviously. There's nothing without energy.

I'll try as you suggest in this post and see if its better.

Much better, thanks, nice and clear now :-)

[Andrex]

I'm not going to answer most of that because you're denying established science.

This is where the real problem lies. "Established science" doesn't exists; all there is are "adopted hypothesis". Because "science" is a "research" for explanation. So there is never any "opinion" established as "facts" except what is "OBSERVED".

Your answer to my previous question is

Obviously. There's nothing without energy.

which by-pass the concept "cause - effect".

Kinetic energy, for example, causes "work", meaning an "effect", observed as "motion". But you say "motion" is the "effect" AND the "cause". I don't know how to make you understand the difference between a "cause" and its "effect". It's too obvious to be explained with words.

[charon]

This is where the real problem lies. "Established science" doesn't exists; all there is are "adopted hypothesis". Because "science" is a "research" for explanation. So there is never any "opinion" established as "facts" except what is "OBSERVED".

Theoretically, you're absolutely right. Theoretically, red is only theoretically red and snow is only theoretically white. We're only theoretically here at all and theoretically could be in a stupid vat somewhere.

I can't say I'm interested.

which by-pass the concept "cause - effect".

Energy is the stuff of life. It has nothing to do with cause-effect.

This is becoming a non-discussion. I'm not very good at them, to be honest.

[Andrex]

I guess you're right. Now, energy is the "stiff" of life. Which one: kinetic, hydrolic, thermal...?

[Andrex]

Since "theoretically" I'm absolutely right, I'll keep on with my "theoretical" theory.

Let us get a little more forward in time.

But, this is when “entropy” kicks in the drawing (and in the universal evolution):



Things to note:

In A:

The reproduction of all “basic size” space volumes decreases the density of the “kinetic effect”; but does not change its “intensity” (kinetic power). The “intensity” is an “invariant” because both, kinetic energy (in Planck era) and the total universe are “frozen” (by lightspeed) at the same “constant present moment” in Time.

In B:

1) The Top quark decays into a Bottom quark + a W boson; and the AntiTop quark decays into an AntiBottom quark and a W boson. The life span of W bosons (10^-25 sec) is shorter than Bottom quarks (10^-12 sec) because of their greater mass density in a decreasing environmental density (expanding space).

2) The reason why the Top quark decays, is the decreasing environmental “density” which becomes too “thin” compared to the Top quark’s “density”. It, then, releases some “mass density” by emitting a W boson, which leaves a less dense quark that we observe as a Bottom quark. The same process occurs with the AntiTop quark.

In general:

1) The universal “density” is responsible for the decaying process of massive particles.

2) This increase of the “centripetal” affected volume, cause by decaying particles, is completely independent from the “universal expansion” (space reproduction).

3) The decaying “process” of all subsequent massive particles is responsible for the “inflation period”.

4) A-The far less Bottom quark’s density will permit it to “live” quite a bit longer, in its environment, than the Top quark was able to. This is observed, in collider experiments, as a traveling distance made by the Bottom quark while the Top quark does not travel any distance at all.

B-The events are related to the “Time factor”. The Top quark lasts only one “present moment” while the Bottom quark last longer.

From now on, we will have to consider several simultaneous factors occurring during the following events:

A) The universal “kinetic effect’s density” decreasing because of the space production (universal expansion).

B) The quantity of particles produced by each decaying process, increasing the “inflation process” of the universe.

C) The “mass density” of each massive particle determining their “life span” in the gradual decreasing universal density.

D) The increasing size of the “centripetal” affected space volume that started at 10^-15 meter with the Gluon 2D particle.

These information should give us the possibility to “pin-point” the time schedule of each events as for:

a) The appearance of each massive particles,

b) Their transformation into other less massive particles,

c) The exact moment when Down and Up quarks appeared, which will tell us when the production of Protons could have been possible.

[charon]

That's why this has been put into Odds and Ends, you see. New posts don't show up on the New Posts link. They've given us a room where we can play tiddlywinks for the rest of eternity and bother no one :-)

[Andrex]

Bof! With 900 "clicks" in 3 weeks, some people must find it interesting, I guess.

But we now have all we need to understand the evolution of the universe. The events that will follow will take place strictly inside "gravitational fields" (almost 30% of the universe). The residual 70% of space will just keep on reproducing (expanding).

So I'll put a drawing showing our "flat space" universe during the time span from the Big-bang until the 7th "present moment", with the decreasing energy effect density.



We must remember that "space is flat" where ever you have space; even in "gravitational fields".

We must also be conscious that space is an "effect" of the preexisting kinetic energy accumulated during the Plank era, and that, it is this "kinetic "effect" that decreases in density while the universe is expanding.

Lest's consider this drawing of space-time as a "gravitational space volume" (gravitational field).

What we observe is a gradual density kinetic effect towards the center of this "gravitational field. And it is obvious that this gradual effect is caused by the expansion of the "flat space" during this time lapse (seven present moments).

Now this expanding space was the environment of fundamental particles which were also decaying because of the decreasing density effect.

The result was a succession of space volumes, occupied at the center by gradually less massive particles, decaying one inside the other.

The final density decreasing space volume, that became a "gravitational field", had the same structure as the expanding space of our drawing.

Now if an object travels through this "gravitational field", he will go through different densities of the "kinetic effect". The more the density is important (dense) the more "kinetic effect" he will be subjected to; which will increase its velocity towards the center of the field.

If is "entry speed" is not fast enough, it will fall to the center of gravity.

If its "entry speed" is barely enough, it will place itself in an elliptical orbit, falling around the center of gravity, increasing speed every time it approach that center and reducing speed while receding from it (like the planets do).

And if the "entry speed" is more than enough, it will exit the "gravitational field", but at a different angle from its "entry".

[Andrex]

But we are now missing one important ingredient to produce atoms, which are electrons.

It is this situation of “gravitational field” around massive particles that will supply the explanation for the appearance of the electronic particles.

The first electrons that appeared where “Tau particles”; and they appeared in our universe while the Bottom quarks, having a longer life, were traveling their distance in space.

Tau particles are simply “heavy electrons” (electrons with more “mass-density”).

Scientists found out, in their accelerators, that when two gamma rays collide, they produce an “electron + an Anti-electron (a positron).

Here is a drawing of gamma rays going at lightspeed (their normal speed) while Bottom quarks are traveling a lot slower:



Naturally, since the motion trajectories around the Bottom quarks were coming from all around them, the collisions occurred also all around them. So there were a lot more electronic particles produced than there was Bottom quarks existing.

I suspect that Tau particles were produced near the Bottom quark, Muon particles à little firther out and electrons at the verge of its "gravitational field". But I'm far from certain, because it's an isea that came to me while making the drawing. So I didn't study it at all yet.

From that moment on, all ingredients to produce atoms where “traveling” through space.

And there was nothing else needed since the "gravitational fields" of that epoch were extraordinarily more "effective" in their "dense environment", than they are today in the universal diluted density.

You are now ready to "manufacture" the universe as you observe it today.

[Andrex]

I must add that scientists have difficulties analyzing what occurs in accelerators, around a Bottom quark, since there is a proliferation of events (particles) surrounding them. Bottom quarks are hard to "reach" in order to study them.

[Andrex]

It seems that what I'm writing in my posts is not considered as having any "scientific implications".

And since it cannot be categorized as "philosophy", "religion" or "superstition", a new qualification was invented which is called "Odds and Ends".

I've tried to find its meaning, but couldn't find any.

The conclusion could be that what I say has a great possibility to be almost exact, and has to be "side-stepped" from current science consideration.

One thing is certain: I don't repeat blindly what accepted science considers as "indisputable facts". I don't disrespect those facts, but I try to understand if they "fit" together logically; which they don't at all.

Nobody should be surprised by my attempts to define a logical explanation to the evolution of our universe based on "observed "facts" instead of accepted "interpretations".

My approach is different from the historical approach of science.

Instead of starting with the very first "discoveries" made by scientists 300 years ago, I start with the very last discoveries made by them, on the assumption that these discoveries possess more precision and are liable to be more "accurate" observations which have to produce more "exact" interpretations.

Too bad, any discussion on the subject is avoided.

[Andrex]

If some of you want me to continue the "story" of the universe evolution (where we could find additional explanations), you'll have to ask for it.

I'm sorry to expect this; but my previous discussion was "closed" because of a lack of "acting" participants, even though there was more than 400,000 clicks to it. I'd rather stop posting than having this discussion closed because of fallacious reasons.