A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

[Inchworm]

Gluons are not "particles" as you imagine them; they are a "surface" with a gravitational topology exclusively.

That gravitational topology (altered space by collapse of its metric) is what you "see" as dark matter.

Do you mean that the deformed space produced by the gluon can take any kind of shape? Can it take the shape of a rabbit getting out of a hat? :0)

[Andrex]

Sorry to have made you loose your time.

[Inchworm]

As long as you don't make me lose my head! :0)
Here is the same question, with other words: how do you explain that the gluon gravity deformation can have two kinds of shapes: one towards a center, and one towards a halo?

[Andrex]

As long as you don't make me lose my head!

It wouldn't be a big loss; you don't seem to use it very much. :-)

how do you explain that the gluon gravity deformation can have two kinds of shapes: one towards a center, and one towards a halo?

This is the proof of what I was saying just now. What do you mean by : "towards the halo"? From where... towards the halo? Furthermore, how can a difference "toward whatever" inside a shape produce different shapes?

1) Gluons are massless so they do not deform space; but their "proper" topology is "toward" their center. Top quarks where the first to deform space.

2) A volume of deformed space has only one shape; which is a "bubble" or, if you prefer: a "balloon" shape.

The volume of that "balloon" surrounding matter (star, planet, baseball, atom, proton or quark) is the halo we're talking about. It's nor "radiating; it's only a passive volume of "altered" space; and it doesn't have any "effect" on the speed of stars around the center of galaxy. Those stars orbit where their "speed" makes them orbit inside the deformation.

Dark matter doesn't exist. It's a chimera provoked by the notion of "mass attraction" from Newton; this "mass attraction" doesn't exist so why still use it to explain speed of stars in a galaxy?

[Inchworm]

It wouldn't be a big loss; you don't seem to use it very much. :-)

Thinking everybody but ourself is dumb is an illusion everybody has. Knowing it's an illusion is the more intelligent we can get. :0)

I agree that dark matter is hard to believe, but I still do not get your deformed space. You say it is related to the top quarks, but those are part of visible matter, not dark matter, so they should explain normal orbital speeds, not the ones we attribute to dark matter.

[Andrex]

Thinking everybody but ourself is dumb is an illusion everybody has.

I agree; but then, you have to think; not just prove it.

I agree that dark matter is hard to believe,

Not that hard; since "believing" is the only way to agree it exists.

but I still do not get your deformed space

Then you cannot imagine a "bubble" of air inside a volume of water. It's hopeless, I guess.

You say it is related to the top quarks

Because Top and antiTop quarks where the first massive particle to appear. The same applies to planets and stars; they all are "contained" inside a "bubble" of deformed space.; and so is a galaxy.

but those are part of visible matter, not dark matter, so they should explain normal orbital speeds, not the ones we attribute to dark matter.

So, you attribute the orbital speed of stars to matter and dark matter, and not to the volume of space deformation of the galaxy. Which means that you don't accept that an orbit is determined strictly by the speed of an object, even though we experiment it every time we send a satellite in space. Watch yourself; an apple might fall on your head.

Even if dark matter is "hard to believe", I guess your "strong" enough to do it.

[Inchworm]

I don't believe in Relativity, so I don't believe more in dark matter, than in dark energy, than in curved space for the moment. But it doesn't mean that I can't understand the principles, and for the moment, I don't understand how your dark deformed space works.

you attribute the orbital speed of stars to matter and dark matter, and not to the volume of space deformation of the galaxy.

Wrong! For the needs of the discussion, I attribute the normal orbital speeds of stars to the same normal deformed space that you attribute to quarks, but that normal deformed space cannot be responsible for their abnormal speeds, which has to come from some other massive particles otherwise it would come from nothing but space itself.

[Andrex]

...and for the moment, I don't understand how your dark deformed space works.

There's no such thing as "dark deformed space". Where did you get that dumb notion from?

I attribute the normal orbital speeds of stars to the same normal deformed space that you attribute to quarks, but that normal deformed space cannot be responsible for their abnormal speeds,

There's no such thing as "abnormal speeds" in nature; the abnormality comes from "our way of interpreting gravitation". Once and for all accept that gravitation is not a "force"; it's only a local space geometry deformation.

The stars orbiting around a galaxy are not making "mistakes" in having the wrong speed. That is an insane way to look at it. Only one thing is obvious which is: Gravitational "force" doesn't diminish according to the "inverse-square law"; for the simple reason that this law only applies when a "force" is involved. And gravitation is not a "force"; it's simply a volume of passive deformed space. And that "inverse-square law" is the only reason we observe what we feel as a "wrong speed" for orbiting stars. Zwicky didn't understand at all Einstein gravitation in 1930.

which has to come from some other massive particles otherwise it would come from nothing but space itself.

Your "otherwise" is the exact answer. It simply comes from the geometry of space itself.

If you jump in a lake, you get all wet and that doesn't depend of the inverse square law. It's the same thing with an object that gets in a "space deformation". When that happens, its orbit is decided by its proper speed; nothing else.

The same goes for whatever is produced in that deformed volume of space. But there are at least four volumes of deformed space one inside the others in the macrocosm where galaxies -> stars -> planets -> moons were produced. The same as in the microcosm where atoms -> nucleus -> protons -> quarks were also produced.

What do you need to know more to understand the universe? Isn't it not enough obvious for you?

[Inchworm]

Your "otherwise" is the exact answer. It simply comes from the geometry of space itself.

OK! Then it means that your deformed space changes its action all by itself on its way through a galaxy. But if it can do so, why do you need the quarks to explain part of it? Why not separate its origin completely from matter? You could suggest that it is due to some kind of space vortexes created during the expansion of space for example. This way, matter would only be trapped in them, and it could even be entrained by them, thus explaining orbital motions. It would work for spiral galaxies, but I don't see how it could work for elliptic ones though.

[Andrex]

OK! Then it means that your deformed space changes its action all by itself on its way through a galaxy.

What the h... are you talking about?

A galaxy is contained inside a space deformation. Each stars are themselves contained in each their own smaller deformation which are contained inside the galaxy's. Inside the smaller deformations containing a star, even smaller deformations contains planets. What is that "change of action" you are talking about?

But if it can do so, why do you need the quarks to explain part of it?

There's no need for quarks except to understand that they also deform a certain volume of space; just as any other massive object.

Why not separate its origin completely from matter?

Because the only place we observe gravitation is where we find mass energy.

You could suggest that it is due to some kind of space vortexes created during the expansion of space for example.

Expansion of space cannot and do not create vortex.

This way, matter would only be trapped in them, and it could even be entrained by them, thus explaining orbital motions.

That is insane thinking. Matter has its origin in the gluon and so has mass energy.

It would work for spiral galaxies, but I don't see how it could work for elliptic ones though.

It's completely insane.

[Inchworm]

There's no need for quarks except to understand that they also deform a certain volume of space; just as any other massive object.

Are you saying that the quarks are responsible for the abnormal speeds that we observe?

[Andrex]

Are you saying that the quarks are responsible for the abnormal speeds that we observe?

No I'm saying that they're responsible you get wet when jumping in a lake.

[Inchworm]

But the quarks belong to visible matter, and visible matter cannot explain the abnormal speeds, so the quarks cannot either.

[Andrex]

Good!

Keep on thinking that the stars orbiting around a galaxy have "abnormal speed" and don't even think that it's not the speed that you want them to have that is abnormal. That denotes quite a bit of "lucidity".

[Inchworm]

I don't necessarily consider that they have abnormal speeds, but the speed they have must come from deformed space, and you just said that deformed space must come from quarks, which are part of visible stars, so explain to me how the stars that we see in a galaxy can deform the space differently in that galaxy than our own sun deforms the space in our solar system for instance.

[Andrex]

I don't necessarily consider that they have abnormal speeds, but the speed they have must come from deformed space,

Then stop saying it.

No; the speed they have is their proper speed; and their motion comes from kinetic energy.

and you just said that deformed space must come from quarks,

I said that deformed space is the result of mass energy; not quarks.

so explain to me how the stars that we see in a galaxy can deform the space differently in that galaxy than our own sun deforms the space in our solar system for instance.

It doesn't. A galaxy's deformed space has the same structure as an atom. Gravitation is gravitation there is not different kinds of it.

[Inchworm]

so explain to me how the stars that we see in a galaxy can deform the space differently in that galaxy than our own sun deforms the space in our solar system for instance.

It doesn't. A galaxy's deformed space has the same structure as an atom. Gravitation is gravitation there is not different kinds of it.

If so, then how come the planets' speeds follow Newton's law and stars in spiral galaxies don't?

[Andrex]

If so, then how come the planets' speeds follow Newton's law and stars in spiral galaxies don't?

Because planets are a lot closer to the center of gravity of our solar system than stars orbiting around a galaxy's center are.

The topology of "deformed space" is not uniformly "gradual"; starting from a certain distance of the center, it proceeds by "levels" or "platforms". You can easily see them on a photo of M 31. Most of the planets around the Sun reside in the first "level" of gravitation; further out objects orbiting around the Sun should not follow Newton's law.

You find the same "levels" or "platforms" around a nucleus and each "platforms" have different energy levels where electrons orbit.

There are not hundreds of laws controlling the universe; there is only one which applies to "motion". Because the only thing the universe is, it's "motion".

[Inchworm]

OK! But it means that the space deformation stays the same with distance, or in Newton's terms, that gravitational force doesn't weaken with distance. If I take the flexible surface to represent what I mean, the deformed shape would look like a cone, or even like a concave surface, so that the speeds of the balls would stay the same no matter the distance. It works geometrically, but since that kind of deformed space must depend on the quarks (or on their mass energy), it also depends on their distribution, an they are less present in the arms than in the middle of the galaxies, so to me, your special kind of deformed space still has no cause.

[Andrex]

You're making your own scenario that doesn't fit anything.

Space deformation is produced by stopping in its track the expansion of one single point of space while the surrounding points recover their "speed" of expansion gradually according to the distance from that center point. Which means that gravitation weakens with distance. After a certain distance, the geometry of space recovers its "flatness".

If I take the flexible surface to represent what I mean, the deformed shape would look like a cone, or even like a concave surface,

Not at all; so don't use the flexible surface, it doesn't fit. The deformation that is involving the geometry of space is its metric; so the deformation lasts until the distance from the center reaches the same metric as the "flat" space. It forms neither a cone or a concave surface. Its end looking like a volume (a ball) of collapse metric.

but since that kind of deformed space must depend on the quarks (or on their mass energy), it also depends on their distribution, an they are less present in the arms than in the middle of the galaxies,

It depends of the mass energy applied to the center of the galaxy. So whatever the distribution of matter orbiting in a galaxy, it doesn't change the "pressure" of mass energy applied to the center of the galaxy. Orbiting objects don't apply pressure on the center of a galaxy; that is Newton's concept and it's wrong. Forget the quarks; you don't even understand what they are.

You imagine arguments and objections with what ever comes to your mind whitout even trying to "see" the picture of what I describe. I hope you're having fun.

[Inchworm]

Of course I'm having fun, but I still do not understand your point. You say that the distribution of matter doesn't change the form of the deformed space, but you don't say why. If matter has something to do with deformed space, then it has necessarily an influence on its shape. I may not understand the quarks the way you do, but you explained they were the first massive particles, so it means that they belong to matter. Their mass-energy deforms space, and it is the addition of their small deformations that produces the big deformation that holds galaxies together. Since there are more quarks where there is more matter, there is necessarily more quarks in the middle of galaxies, thus the deformation of space is supposed to be more important there, and you kind of say that it is no more important than the one situated in the arms since you say that it can explain the speeds that we observe there. To produce the same orbital speeds, those quarks should probably be situated where dark matter is supposed to be situated, not inside stars.

[Andrex]

You say that the distribution of matter doesn't change the form of the deformed space, but you don't say why.

I don't even know what this phrase means.

I may not understand the quarks the way you do, but you explained they were the first massive particles, so it means that they belong to matter.

They are the elementary particles that forms nucleus; so, in that sense, they "belong" to matter; yes.

Their mass-energy deforms space, and it is the addition of their small deformations that produces the big deformation that holds galaxies together.

Not exactly. It's mass energy that deforms space and it's the addition of mass energy that produces bigger deformations. My fingers write my phrases but it doesn't mean that they think what they write.

Since there are more quarks where there is more matter, there is necessarily more quarks in the middle of galaxies,

Wrong. In the middle of a galaxy there's a black hole and there's no quarks or matter in a black hole. There's only mass energy.

thus the deformation of space is supposed to be more important there, and you kind of say that it is no more important than the one situated in the arms since you say that it can explain the speeds that we observe there.

So according to you, there's more "speed" in the arms of a galaxy than between the arms? You don't make sense at all. What does this phrase mean exactly?

To produce the same orbital speeds, those quarks should probably be situated where dark matter is supposed to be situated, not inside stars.

All those stars are installed in the greater space deformation of the galaxy. Each of those stars have their own space deformation around them, which orbit inside the great galaxy space deformation. And around these stars, orbit planets surrounded by their own space deformations that travels inside the bigger star deformation.

All those space deformations are produced by the pressure of each object's mass energy on each their center of gravity. Only matter in contact with the object can add pressure to the center of gravity in order to deform more space around the object. There's no relations between independent space deformations of each levels; but the levels are contained one inside the other from the smallest level to the greatest level (nucleus -> atoms -> molecules -> organisms -> moons -> planets -> stars -> galaxies. They are all surrounded by a "halo" (balloon) of deformed space.

That is the only "halo" existing around matter; and it's not "dark matter". It's only "deformed space"; and it doesn't has any effect on the speed of whatever is orbiting inside any deformed space. The orbit of an object is decided by the speed of the object and it travels where its speed corresponds to the orbit depending of the distance from the center.

These are "facts"; so whatever doesn't corresponds to our formula only means that the formula is not exact or could even be all wrong; not the "facts".

[Inchworm]

Wrong. In the middle of a galaxy there's a black hole and there's no quarks or matter in a black hole. There's only mass energy.

Black holes are supposed to be the result of collapsing stars, so they certainly contain some kind of massive particles. But if you consider that they do not, then you have two different kinds of deformed space to explain, one that belongs to matter and one that doesn't. Now I understand better what you mean though: you mean that the stars do not participate to the deformed space of a galaxy, while their own deformed space forces the planets to orbit around them. Two explanations for the same mechanism. Do you hide a third one in your hat in case you would need it?

thus the deformation of space is supposed to be more important there, and you kind of say that it is no more important than the one situated in the arms since you say that it can explain the speeds that we observe there.

So according to you, there's more "speed" in the arms of a galaxy than between the arms? You don't make sense at all. What does this phrase mean exactly?

I was comparing the speed of the stars that orbit in the arms to the speed of the stars that orbit near the bulge: these speeds should be a lot more different than they are when we compare them to the differences in the speeds of different planets.

All those stars are installed in the greater space deformation of the galaxy. Each of those stars have their own space deformation around them, which orbit inside the great galaxy space deformation. And around these stars, orbit planets surrounded by their own space deformations that travels inside the bigger star deformation.
........
These are "facts"; so whatever doesn't corresponds to our formula only means that the formula is not exact or could even be all wrong; not the "facts".

It is also a fact that all the orbital speeds observed around massive bodies follow Newton's formula, whereas the orbital speeds of stars around the middle of a galaxy don't. How do you explain the difference in the shape of the deformed space around your super massive black hole?

[Andrex]

Black holes are supposed to be the result of collapsing stars, so they certainly contain some kind of massive particles. But if you consider that they do not, then you have two different kinds of deformed space to explain, one that belongs to matter and one that doesn't.

Yeah; like for a black eye; there's one for the eye and another for the fist that made it. How can you be that ...

Now I understand better what you mean though: you mean that the stars do not participate to the deformed space of a galaxy,

It's about time, I'd say.

while their own deformed space forces the planets to orbit around them. Two explanations for the same mechanism.

No; one mechanism that explains two and even three events.

I was comparing the speed of the stars that orbit in the arms to the speed of the stars that orbit near the bulge: these speeds should be a lot more different than they are when we compare them to the differences in the speeds of different planets.

What are you talking about once again? The deformation around a black hole expands a lot farther than around a star or a planet.

It is also a fact that all the orbital speeds observed around massive bodies follow Newton's formula, whereas the orbital speeds of stars around the middle of a galaxy don't.

Oh! Now you agree that the black hole at the center of a galaxy is not a massive body. Furthermore stars near the middle of a galaxy do follow Newton's formula it's the one further away than the center that don't.

How do you explain the difference in the shape of the deformed space around your super massive black hole?

What shape?

[Inchworm]

It is also a fact that all the orbital speeds observed around massive bodies follow Newton's formula, whereas the orbital speeds of stars around the middle of a galaxy don't.

Oh! Now you agree that the black hole at the center of a galaxy is not a massive body.

No I don't! I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

Furthermore stars near the middle of a galaxy do follow Newton's formula, it's the one further away than the center that don't.

I know, I'm just asking you to explain why they don't. If that deformation of space was the same as the one for planets, they would.

[Andrex]

I know, I'm just asking you to explain why they don't. If that deformation of space was the same as the one for planets, they would.

They don't because the distance between the sun and Jupiter, for example, is far less than between all those stars that have too much "speed" and the center of their galaxy.

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

This is not "reasoning"; these are "facts".

[Inchworm]

Deformed space is a theory, not a fact. Saying that its shape changes with distance does not tell us why. It's as if you said that the law of gravitation changes with distance: you have to show a mechanism, not just say it. The problem is that Einstein himself did not provide any mechanism for his curved space, he only declared that space was curved by the presence of massive bodies. You are just adding a declaration over another while saying that deformed space does not need massive bodies to get deformed. Tell us where your super massive black hole comes from if it doesn't contain any matter?

[Andrex]

Deformed space is a theory, not a fact.

Like I already told you, your 350 years old notions are out dated by about 100 years. GR is a fact.

Saying that its shape changes with distance does not tell us why.

That's why I never said that gravitation changed shape with distance; you're the one that keeps saying it. The main reason why gravitation doesn't change shape is that, gravitation has no shape. Shapes are attributed to matter and gravitation is a simple consequence; it's not matter.

you have to show a mechanism, not just say it.

Drawings show things; they don't talk. Look and study them; don't listen to them.

The problem is that Einstein himself did not provide any mechanism for his curved space, he only declared that space was curved by the presence of massive bodies.

Exactly; Einstein didn't realize that the geometry he was talking about was simply the metric of space. He though that space had a "shape" and that the shape was "deformed" by mass of matter. He didn't even suspect all the implications of is notion of gravity. Furthermore he had to explain it with maths and the only maths that existed was based on elucubrations from Newton's notion. The task was mathematically impossible.

You are just adding a declaration over another while saying that deformed space does not need massive bodies to get deformed.

I never said that, but you keep on repeating it yourself. I said that the metric of space is affected by mass energy. That is the only thing I always said.

Tell us where your super massive black hole comes from if it doesn't contain any matter?

I won't have to tell you anything if you just decide to start "thinking".

You have a super massive star that collapses on itself to the point that it disappears. So, where is the matter gone?
Look at the notion behind the Chandrasekhar limit. You'll find the answer yourself and stop asking others to supply it freely to you so you have nothing else to do than ask silly questions. Put your neurons at work on something worthwhile for a change. Then you'll be able to discuss; not only "converse".

Glad to be of some help.

[Inchworm]

You have a super massive star that collapses on itself to the point that it disappears. So, where is the matter gone?

If the matter is no more there, then what is keeping the space deformed?

[Andrex]

If the matter is no more there, then what is keeping the space deformed?

That's a question to ask to yourself, not to me. The "fact" is that; if you don't see the matter of a star, after collapsing in a black hole, it's because it isn't there anynore, isn't it?

So where is it?

The real problem is that you still see a black hole.

I told you: go study the notion of Chandrasekhar limit; you should find out if you use your brain.

Just a "hint": "The universe started at 10^-33 meter".