A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 25th, 2018, 5:52 pm 

In order not to get all mixed up in our head, I’m afraid the time has come to reconsider all what we’ve found yet.

Up until now…

What we’ve seen clearly is that:

1-Time started when zero second disappeared.

2-Kinetic energy originated from a rotating motion during Planck’s epoch, which cumulated its production

3-This rotating motion developed two contrary “effects”:
a) Centrifugal which appeared first.
b) Centripetal which was a consequence of Centrifugal.

4-Both “effects” increased their mutual energy “units” (defined by a complete rotation) exponentially; but so did their energetic intensity difference. Meanwhile, their mutual extending surface was also increasing proportionally to their energy intensity.

Those “energy units” where all equal, since a complete rotation took always the same “Time” to be performed; simply because the energy accumulation was directly related to the rotation velocity. So we’ve just discovered that an “energy unit” is, in fact, also a “Time unit”. Which means that “energy” could simply be “Time”. This would explains why it is as much impossible to “capture” and “store” energy as it is to “capture” and “store” “Time”. Energy “flows” in “space” just as Time “flows” in “space”. Note that storing “potential energy” is not storing energy. A lake at the top of a dam is not energy but does possess “potential energy” residing in the “gravitational effect”.

5-At 10^-43 sec after Time started “flowing”, centrifugal effect had cumulated enough “kinetic” energy to “rip” itself from the Centripetal “restraining” energy; and so, projected itself in all direction, on straights trajectories (this provoked the “radiating period” observed by Planck’s satellite). As for the centripetal effect, it recoiled on itself and stayed where it had always been, meaning in its “surface state” epoch, before the advent of the “surface rip”. The event of this moment on the Time flow is referred to as: the Big bang. This is what the event looked like:


6) Space kept expanding (radiating period) until it attained 10^-15 meter in diameter. But when the recoiled Centripetal effect had increase, by counterclockwise rotation, to the needed size of 10^-35 meter in order to “exist”, its appearance was made possible into our universe.

A centripetal “restraining effect” appearing in a centrifugal “expanding” universe, obliged it to join in a “contrary” position to the existing condition; so it naturally installed itself, perpendicularly to the expanding motion. This junction reconditioned the universe’s energy into “electromagnetic energy” which superposed itself on the already existing "radiating energy". The date was 10^-36 sec.

7) While “universal space” continued to expand, the gluon “space field” remained stable at 10^-15 meter in diameter. The reason why the “surface” gluon particle was influencing a space “volume” and not just a “surface”, was because the surface particle was spinning in “space”. Thus disappearing and reappearing twice every completed “spin”, making it a “virtual” particle. The diameter of the surface became the diameter of the “gluon space field”; which is 10^-15 meter.

8) The chronological successive appearances of centrifugal, then, centripetal energy installed two energetic “layers” in our universe:

a) First a propelling energy in all directions in space, which became the space “fabric” composed of reproducing “space” portions of 10^-35 meter in diameter. This fundamental volume of “space” couldn’t be decreased or increased because half this length was impossible to exist. Which is why it started reproducing, augmenting the overall space volume (universal space).

b) And then, a restraining energy toward a single point of space, which influenced a “space” volume of 10^-15 meter in diameter.

Both “layers” would develop differently but, being joined, they had to equalize constantly their “energy densities”. This basic condition would produce different quanta of energy:

9) The propelling energy of space immediately disjointed the front surface of the gluon from its back surface. So even if the gluon doesn’t have an antiparticle, the result of this event was that each surface portions recoiled on themselves (producing a particle/antiparticle) as their proper restraining energy, oriented toward their center, applied it “pressure” and “blocked” it’s drifting with the Time flow.

The recoiling event of both surfaces of the gluon field, produced two “space volume fields” containing, at their center, all their proper accumulated restraining energy we call “mass-energy”. On the other hand, both surfaces being the “mirror picture” of the other, their “volumes space field” where contrary to each other; their where designated as Top and antiTop quarks. But both possess the same “mass-energy intensity” at their center of gravity.

Note that the “quark notion” as being a “subparticle”, is strictly a needed mathematical notion. The reality is that, what occurs inside a “gluon field” is simply fluctuating “energy states”.

10) It would be this “mass-energy-pressure”, located at those center of gravity that would have to equalize their “energy density” with the surrounding “density of energy” of each their “gluon field”, which was the energy density of the continuously expanding universal “space”.

11) When the Top quark was “blocked” on the Time flow, its kinetic energy that permitted it to “drift” in “space” had to be expelled; thus then was manifested what is observed as a Z boson. This Z boson is simply the expelled energy of the Top quark’s blocked “momentum”.

12) Then the Top quark had to equalize its energy density to its environment. It ejected a quanta of “mass-energy” that we observe as a W+ boson, leaving a less-massive Top quark we catalog as a Bottom quark at the “gluon’s field” center of gravity.

13) The equalizing event made the Bottom quark acquire longer longevity which permit it to travel some distance at a specific “speed”, that was much slower than the surrounding electromagnetic energy "speed". So the electromagnetic energy, going in all directions, curved around Bottom quarks, colliding all around it. These collisions produced “vibrations” in the universe’s “fabric” all around the Bottom quark. And the “vibrations” started to expand, just as waves do after dropping a rock in a pound. Those first “vibrations” in the universe, we catalog them as Gamma rays. They adopted the wavelength equal to the then universal metric which was 10^-14 meter but they kept being effected by expansion.

14) Then occurred collisions between those “traveling” Gamma rays (waves) separating their upward frequencies from their downward frequencies because their equal propagation speed blocked their trajectory. Those, now separated, two different “frequency energies” started swirling in individual undefined “space volumes”.

Being two amounts of “confined” energy, they became small volumes of “mass-energy” (that had “weight”); but since they didn’t acquire a center of gravity, they were “blurred” energy volumes. They were called “Taus, Muons or Electrons (and antiparticles) depending of their “energy density” (weight).

15) From this moment on, changes would appear only inside the gluon fields. Universal “space” would simply continue to expand at the same rate. But since gluon fields didn’t expand, space between those fields expanded and eventually provoked a filament distribution of the gluon fields in universal space.

16) The rapidly successive decays of quarks in multiple volumes, which lasted between 10^-36 sec until 10^-32 sec, affected the overall volume of the universe; because, even though the original space volume of the gluon remained the same caused by its "spinning" motion, its "space" affected volume by gravitational "effect" expanded. This period is called the “inflation period”. The event was the same as if you jump in a bathtub thus augmenting the water volume.

Note that I might finish by eliminating this "inflation period" which, gradually, doesn't seem necessary to be as intense as it use to be; mainly because information through all of universal space can be explained by a fundamental characteristic of the light-speed expansion of the universe, instead of a major geometrical increase event. Even though, spinning gluon intrusions would definitively provoke an inflation of "universal space".

17) During the inflation period, all sorts of quarks started to try joining their center of gravity to augment their “viability”. First producing Mesons, then “exotic particles” composed of three or more different subparticles, they attained their objective when the joining of two Up quarks and one Down quark was tried. The “viability” of such a “reunion” would last around 10^34 years; which is much more than the age of the universe at the moment (13.8 billion years).

18) The production of “exotic particles” might be the explanation for the survival of “particles” over “antiparticles”; probably where odd numbers of quarks where involved.

19) When inflation stopped, because quarks had found a way to “stabilize” their energy density with their environment, the gluon field having a diameter of 10^-15 meter became a Proton; the very first particle of “matter”. And since all decays had occurred inside a gluon field, the “interior” of a Proton consisted of all results from those decays.

But instead of using the “chromodynamics-subatomic-particles-notion” to describe the interior of a Proton, it’s more logical to come back to the notion of “fluctuating energy states” which can be observed constantly “fluctuating” inside a Proton, while “decayed” subatomic particles has to have disappeared after “decaying”. Energy is very difficult, I’d even say impossible, to explain as “particles”.

20) Every time a quark joined its center of gravity to another quark’s center of gravity, the “pressure” on the new obtained center increased proportionally and so did the affected space volume around it.

21) So when the Proton finally appeared with a diameter of 10^-15 meter, the affected space volume surrounding it, was already greatly expanded and had adopted the gluon’s topology towards the Proton’s center of gravity.

22) Drifting through space in all directions, each Proton easily, and rapidly captured, in their “gravitational volume, one of those “blurred” massive swirling particles originating from gamma rays collisions. The captured “blurred” particle was then confined in the affected space volume around the Proton. The extension of this affected space volume was 10,000 times bigger than the size of the centered Proton itself. The result was the “creation” of the first hydrogen atom.

23) The space volume surrounding a proton, even if it had a gluon topology, was nevertheless, “space”. And as such, was electromagnetic just as the rest of all “space”. Since the capture “blurred” particle was “half” the frequency of an electromagnetic Gamma ray, its energy density distributed around the Proton, could accept an additional “half” energy density of another “blurred” particle (electron) to equalize its density with its electromagnetic environment’s density. This defined the exact energy density that could accumulate around a Proton; meaning the energy density possible inside the first electronic shell of an atom. Because of this “fact”, some hydrogen atoms captured a second electron producing anions (hydride ion).

24) The main result, regarding the “half” energy density of an electron around a Proton, was installing a new possibility to “reunite” particles, beside the “gravitational effect” of uniting centers of gravity. Since space around a Proton could be twice as more “denser” in energy, two hydrogen atoms could “merge” their surrounding “density”; which created a “bond” between both hydrogen atoms. This is called a “covalent bond” and it produces “molecules”.

25) The difference between a “covalent bond” and a “gravitational bond” is that the former produces “molecules” while the latter produces new elements (new kinds of atom). Water is the result of a covalent bond; helium is the result of a “gravitational bond”.

Funny that we didn’t need any involvement of whatever imagined “fundamental force” yet; isn’t it? Especially that “gravitation” isn’t a “force” but an “effect”; which makes this “passive effect” proportional to the energy density in place at any period. Even if “mass-energy”, is the reason that the “gravitational effect” exists, this energy is “active” strictly at the center of gravity where it accumulates; leaving the rest of the “gravitational field” as a “passive topological volume”.

26) So we’ve now acquired the production of hydrogen atoms. Next we have to find what will determine if these atoms will adopt “covalence bonding” or “gravitational bonding”?

The answer resides in the trajectory motions these atoms have in “space”. If they only “brush” against one another, they will adopt a “covalent bonding” and produce a molecule; if they collide “face to face”, they will bond “gravitationally”. Even though the covalent bonding event is obvious, the “gravitational bonding is a bit less obvious. So let’s explain it more clearly.

It is rather easy to understand, while taking note that when two “centers of gravity” crosses path, whatever their speed, they will merge and become a new, more energical center of gravity, and affected surrounding space will extend further its “gravitational effect”. The “speed” of those atoms gets involved only relatively to the angle a center of gravity “enters” in the approaching “gravitational space volume”. For example, if light is coming from behind a planet in direction of the center of that planet, it will not "curve" around the planet; it will collide with it. Only the oblique light trajectories will curve around the planet.

So the same goes with these centers of gravity; if the speed, at the entry angle, is not great enough to prevent it from “falling” to the other “center of gravity”, they will “merge” gravitationally and “create” a new element. If the “speed” is great enough to escape “falling”, they will adopt the “covalent bond” process, and produce a “molecule”. I don’t think that any atom as enough “speed” to pass through the “gravitational space volume” of another atom. At least the event was never observed.

27) So now we have two hydrogen atoms that “merge” together, adopting the “gravitational bond”, and both Protons “fall” toward each other. Proton are “positively charged” particles; so from a certain distance, they start to repel each other. And they keep on falling toward each other until the repulsion intensity of one Proton is equalized with the “merging” of the other’s repulsion intensity.

Since both intensity are equal, the “space” left between each proton is conditioned by the counter repulsion of each Proton. Which determines a “distance” between Protons equal to their proper diameter. This “space” distance between repulsing Proton represents a “space volume” which has a diameter equal to each Proton’s diameter. This volume is observe as being a “Neutron” into which “positive repulsion” is “neutralized”. Which would be the most logical and natural explanation for the Neutron’s production.

The rest of the evolution story of "matter" is “chemically” controlled.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 26th, 2018, 7:37 pm 

Since the “field notion” has many chances to make us understand more clearly our universe, we have to get the maximum clarity of such a notion.

What are “Fields” in reality?

The “fact” is that “fields” are simply “volumes of space”.

So to comprehend the structure of the universe, we have to consider the existence of four important essential “fields”:

1- The basic “space” field, that has diameter of 10^-15 meter, and appeared at the Big bang’s “instant, which was at 10^-43 second. This “field” has to be considered as a “center point volume” in itself. This basic field is animated by the total sum of kinetic energy accumulated during Planck’s epoch (before 10^-43 second). No other energy, of any kind, was ever created after Planck’s epoch. So this basic “space” field is, in fact, a simple quantum of energy. But the sum of kinetic energy inside this quantum is what decided for the velocity of light waves (meaning of all the electromagnetic quanta). The total kinetic energy inside this basic “space” field stipulates that it takes 10^-43 second to travel 10^-35 meter. Which means that the space volume of that basic metric is produced suddenly but not instantly (meaning that the traveled distance = null, and the Time spent = frozen).

Note that the Time spent is not “null” but is “frozen” to 10^-43 second. Which means that basic “space” fields appears out of “nothing” but takes “time” to produce. This makes the “frozen Time” a “Time unit” just as the basic “space field" becomes a “Space unit”. And then, it would also mean that it takes 10^-43 second before each successive "shells" appear "suddenly"; which would be the "speed" at which space expands. A drawing to represent this on the "Time flow" referential would be:


This would also explain why a neutrino, which is a quantum of kinetic energy defining a "space unit" travels at a bit less than light-speed permitting production of "space" to be "observed" (measured). Which, if we observe with the space referential we get the following image:


Since kinetic energy is simply manifested “motion”, it keeps on “traveling” after the basic “Space unit” is produced. Thus reproducing another basic “space” field. And since this kinetic energy “motion” is oriented toward “EVERYWHERE”, additional basic “space” fields are formed everywhere all around the first produced “Space unit”. The total sum of basic “space” fields created defines, together, another “field” containing all successive shells, called:

2- The “universal field”; that is simply the spatial “aspect” of the universe, which keeps on expanding under the “action” of the “invariant” kinetic energy from Planck’s epoch, reproducing continuously basic “space” fields. The result is that our expanding universe is composed of innumerable “center points” which condemn it to not having a definite center itself.

Added to all this, we find, inside of this expanding “universal field”, another field called:

3- The “gravitational field”; which is also composed of basic “space" fields, but doesn’t expand as the “universal field” does. The reason for not expanding is simple to understand. This “field” possesses a topology contrary to the universal field’s “toward EVERYWHERE” topology. The topology of this “gravitational field” is oriented “toward one single point”. Which results in a completely contrary “effect” than the producing “action” of the universal topology. This would mean that the energy contained inside each basic “space units” continue its “traveling” toward a definite point of this “gravitational field”. But how can the kinetic energy, contained inside a basic “space” field, determine which basic “space unit” is the point to be targeted by its “motion”?

The explanation becomes quite simple when we add the “Time” factor. The production of this “gravitational field” is due to a “surface” energy quantum coming from the Planck’s epoch; but it came in our universe only when the expanding “universal field” had already attained a volume of 10^-15 meter. The “Time” was 10^-36 second. And this newly appeared energy quanta was animated by a centripetal (toward the center) characteristic. This energy quantum is what we call a gluon and we catalog it as a “Boson”. The “fact” of being a Boson gives it certain characteristics that explains the topology given to a “gravitational field”.

Bosons can "condense", in an unlimited number, into the same energy state; and they don’t “interact” with each other. The idea of “unlimited number” isn’t relevant for our purpose but the “fact” of “plural” quanta in the same energy state is most important.

So when our gluon appeared in the universe at 10^-36 second, it had a definite “volume” of 10^-35 meter. But its Boson “plural-quanta-in-same-energy-state” characteristic, resulted in the “fact” that the gluon’s topology characteristic was distributed through all of the existing “universal field” of that date, which had a diameter of 10^-15 meter.

So the “volume” of a “gravitational field”, with a “toward the center topology” characteristic, was given to a space volume of 10^-15 meter, at that instant of the “Time flow” (10^-36 second).

And universal space kept on expanding with its “flat” topology.

But all this time, gluons, with their “surface” of 10^-35 meter, had been continuously spinning at the center of their “gravitational field”, defining:

4- The gluon field. This was outlining an affected gluon “space volume” even if the gluon's "surface", by spinning, was disappearing twice during every completed rotation. This “disappearing “act” made us catalog gluons as “virtual” sub-particles. But the “fact” remains that the gluon was controlling a “space volume” with a diameter of 10^-35 meter while affecting its whole “gravitational field”. This “gluon field” is, in fact, the “space unit” that stands as the “gravitational field’s” center of gravity.

Now, since Bosons don’t “interact” with each other, our “gravitational fields”, whatever their “size” and “distribution”, don’t “interact” with each other. With the exception of when they “collide”, where “joining” possibilities exists. Which means that the “gravitational effect” is not “universal” but is “local”.

I feel that this post clears up the “field” notion and does help quite a bit with more defined informations.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 27th, 2018, 3:28 pm 

I just realized that there’s a lot more of

What “fields” are telling us.

A) The former description of “The basic “space” field applies also and exactly to the “universal field”; which confirms us “the “invariant” intensity of energy in the universe whatever the “epoch” we consider.

B) The drawing using the Time” referential can reveal a bit more information.


Since, in the “Time referential, each “space units” are definite “objects” specified at different definite “Time units, they each possess a different “energy density, because of the decreasing energy density due to expansion.

On the other hand, in the “space” referential, density equalizes itself through “ALL” of space as it expands; so whatever the “epoch” we consider in this “space” referential, we always find a universe having a uniformed energy density in all of its “space units shells”.


This confirms that Time controls “acting motion” while “space” is only its “passive” result. Which confirms that the “gravitational effect” cause by “space-time” alteration is a simple “consequence” and not an “active power”. In other words, in the “Space-Time” notion, “Timeis “dynamic” and “Spaceis “passive”.

This also confirms that it is the “Time referential” that is “altered” and that no alteration is produce in the “space referential”. In other words, it’s not the deformation of the “geometry of space” that is responsible for the “gravitational effect”; but strictly, the “decreasing energy density through Time flow” that affect “motion in space”.

a) Where space has a constantly uniformed energy density while decreasing, motion adopts a straight trajectory in what is called a “flat universe topology”.

b) Where a certain “volume” of space that doesn’t expand, that we call a “gravitational field”, the Time flow referential possesses decreasing “energy density” starting from the center of gravity toward the exterior successive “space unit shells”. Any motion occurring inside such “gravitational fields” adopts a geodesic “curved” trajectory, by following the “path” of increasing energy density toward the center of gravity. It is the “velocity” of the “motion” that decides if the trajectory, either leads out of the “gravitational field”, installs in one of the different “space units shells” or “falls” toward the center of gravity. But either ways, the motion is always “deviated”.


Note that it is the center of gravity of an object that possesses the kinetic energy for the “object’s motion”. The “fact” is that: the object is simply “carried along” by its center of gravity.

Matter objects” don’t have any influence, whatsoever, in regard to “motions”. Kinetic energy is manifested strictly inside “space units”; either they be “free reproducing space units” (expansion) or single space unit “confined at a center of gravity” (in a gravitational field). The “matter’s” role relies solely in adding “mass-energy” (re-oriented kinetic energy), when its center of gravity merges with another material object’s center of gravity. Merging “centers of gravity” increases the “mass-energy” of the newly produced center of gravity and increase the “gravitational effect’s volume” around that center.

Another “fact” regarding the center of gravity:

A center of gravity is simply a “gluon field” created by a spinning gluon “surface”, which has the same diameter as a “space unit” (10^-35 meter or Planck’s length). This “Boson” gluon field controls a “space” volume that has a diameter of 10^-15 meter that we can “specify” as a “basic gravitational field” in which is “confined” all the “mass-energy” affecting the total “gravitational field”.

This obliges us to consider a difference in volume, between a “basic gravitational field” that we can now call a “nucleus field”, and whatever volume of a “gravitational field” created by the “effect” of the intensity of “mass-energy” confined in that “nucleus field”.

We then get this representation of a “gravitational field” including the gluon spinning surface that creates the “basic gravitational field (the “gluon field), the nucleus field, and the “Time flow”:


These information can "shake" a lot of people, including myself; but I still have to admit that things are improving in “clarity”.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 29th, 2018, 12:28 pm 

But what about the “repulsion” of a proton?

First we have to admit that “repulsion” is an “acting energetic event”; which means that it demands the implication of “energy”.

But we now know that “acting energy” is related to the “Time flow”. While “Space” is “passive energy”; it doesn’t “act”.

So how can a “nucleus field”, like a proton, “repel” another proton without the “help” of a “special” force?

The exact question becomes:

How can “Time flow”, the sole existing representative of “energy”, be implicated in the repulsing “act” of a Proton?

To find out we have to come back at the first observable manifestation of the Time flow in “space”, for which we already have a drawing representing the first shell around the first produced “space unit” occupying its center:


The center “space unit” releases the “energetic Time flow” and the following reproduced “space units” confirms the “active propagation” of this Time flow. Which are represented as “odd hour numbers” on a clock. There’s no “space” yet, that can represent the “even numbers” of a clock on that first shell drawing of “universal space”.

This means that the first “space units shell” around the first “space unit” is filled strictly with kinetic energy oriented toward the exterior; which explains expansion of space.

So let’s review, once again, while adding more “specific” information in regard to what we’ve just seen:

If we go back at the “instant” of the Big bang, the centrifugal “energy” was propelled in all directions at light-speed, while the centripetal “effect” recoiled, starting to rotate in a contrary direction also at light-speed. This centripetal portion of the former rotating surface, which had attained the Plank’s length diameter, now possessed "half" of the total surface diameter. So it couldn’t reappear in our universe before regaining a diameter equal to Planck’s length.

The whole solution now lies in the time it took, for this centripetal surface portion, to attain a diameter of 10^-35 meter. And since “half” that distance cannot exist, the centripetal “effect” had to start expanding its surface all over again; but this time doing it at “light-speed”.

We already know that, at light-speed, it takes 10^-43 second to “travel” 10^-35 meter (Planck’s length).

Now we can understand that there was an interval of one “Time unit” before the gluon appeared in our universe. During that “Time unit interval”, expansion’s kinetic energy was able to produce another layer of Time flowing “space units” all around the first produced “space unit”. So the gluon couldn’t appear in our universe, before the second “space shell”, surrounding the first “space shell”, was produced.

The drawing of the event’s result looks like the following:


And "even numbers", on the universal clock, had now "space units" to install themselves.

Note that gluons partly occupy “space” inside the first shell, which could affect the “Time structure”; but this is not a certainty and is irrelevant for now.

This last drawing gives us the structure of the “Time flow” within the first “space shell”. And we know that all “space units’ shells” always expel similarly their “Time flow” (age) from their center.

Now we must remember that, when the gluon appeared, it affected “topologically” the whole space it appeared into. And we’ve just seen that this whole space was equal to the volume of the first shell; which means that the “influence” of a gluon extends through all that first shell “space”.

And the diameter of that first shell, relating to our drawing, equals three times the diameter of one “space unit” (Planck’s length). Which means that the diameter would be of “three Planck’s length”. Which should measure very close to 10^-15 meter that we know being the size of a proton.


Now, if 10^-15 meter is not three times longer than 10^-35 meter, I’d like to know; because then, I’ve got a problem.

On the other hand the measurement of a proton is not scientifically definitive yet; scientists are not certain of it. So it would be very enlightening to know how long the equivalent of three Planck’s length is exactly. If anybody can do the mathematics, please give the result.

Never the less, in a hydrogen atom, we get a proton that emits “kinetic energy Time flow” (similar to “universal space”) all around its passive “space volume self”; which looks like so:


This energy emission can easily and naturally explains the unoccupied “space volume” in which contrary oriented equal energy intensity “neutralized” itself between protons. Unoccupied volumes that we call “neutrons”.

A lithium nucleus does show it perfectly:


So Time flow, joined to “space structure”, doesn’t need an imaginary “electromagnetic force”, nor Chromodynamics “sub-particles colored quarks”, to explain the so called “charge repulsive” characteristic of a proton; the simple existence of kinetic energy, originating from Planck’s epoch, explains it perfectly.

And neutrons can be “visualized” simply as volumes of “equal-contrary-oriented-energy-intensities”.

All this, also permits to understand that the “probability evolving period” of early universe, was an epoch of gradual adaptation of density’s “energy states”, with the continuously decreasing energy density of the universal environment.

There has to be more to find in this line of visualizing physics; we’ll see further on.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 2nd, 2018, 11:33 am 

Traveling centers of gravity

If the “notion” described, of particles decreasing “velocity” when traveling through a “Higgs field” is exact, Kinetic energy “intensity” is, then, “invariant” even in particles; just as in the whole of the universe. So their proper “speed depends entirely of the energy density of their environment:


And the energy density of their environment is the density of “space” at the date they each appeared in our universe; and that is what decided of their “velocity” in the “flat space” of that epoch. The denser was “energy”, the less velocity particles had; whatever was their “mass-energy”. We must remember that whatever the energy event, the cause is always the “Time flow energy” (kinetic). Space is always “passive”; it is strictly WHERE the event happens using their "Time flow" characteristics.

This is confirmed by the observed “fact” that a Top quark (the most massive) doesn’t travel while a Bottom quarks (less massive) travels quite a lot more. And the less quarks have mass-energy, the longer they “travel”. In fact, they travel a longer course, not because they have “more” kinetic energy; but because they last longer in their environment before decaying.

On the other hand, their “mass-energy” depends of the “inner” energy of the gluon’s field; which means that their “mass-energy” is not the same thing as their Kinetic energy. One is “intrinsic” (mass-energy) while the other one is exterior manifested. But then, the difference between “kinetic energy” and “mass-energy” is that the former “acts” everywhere while the other acts toward a center point which makes the “gravitational field” a “passive space volume”.

So the question is:

Do particles use the same amount of kinetic energy to travel longer distances because they “weight” less or because they “last longer”?

It’s obvious that the “mass-energy” is related to the distance traveled by particles. But “mass-energy” is not “weight”. In fact, the “length of traveling in space” is the Time needed for decreasing universal density energy to a point where the particle cannot support the difference with its own “inner” energy density. That’s what decides when a particle decays. So the more it lasts, the more it travels.

So a particle possesses “mass-energy”, and nothing proves that it does possess exterior manifested kinetic energy. Their “apparent” motion might only be the result of expanding space of their environment. We are talking here about a gravity center of a gravitational field; and we know that “space” around each “gravitational fields” keep on expanding. So when observing two gravitational fields, with expanding space in between, we can have the impression that they are traveling while they are not.

This would mean that, at the start, particles don’t have any “proper” kinetic energy that “propels” them.

But then, where can the “matter” object’s “proper speed”, that we observe, come from?

It has to come from events happening “later” than the baryogenesis epoch. The sooner, that “proper speed” can start to develop, is when protons appeared. The Time flow energy coming from the center of protons all around them, would be enough to repel and procure a “proper velocity” to each "free" protons. But the most source for proper velocity of the proton has to be the capture of an electron; which had very little of “mass-energy”, but a great deal of kinetic energy.

As for electrons and positrons, we know that they had “proper speed”, since they were the separated gamma frequency traveling at light-speed, which either had an up direction or a down direction; and each “blurred” particle acquired part of the two colliding gamma ray’s enormous kinetic energy (light-speed). The transfer of kinetic energy was similar to two colliding billiard balls. Each ball keep part of the kinetic energy while colliding and adopt contrary directions. So when a proton’s center of gravity “captured” an electron, it also appropriated the “kinetic energy” of that electron, besides confining its “mass-energy” in its “gravitational field”; which added to the proton’s “proper” kinetic energy.

If this is right, the relation between the numbers of protons versus of electrons would affect the “proper speed” of an atom. Does an atom that possesses one electron less than protons have a different “proper velocity” than the same atom having a surplus of electrons?

What we know to this regard is that an atom that possesses more electrons than protons is negatively charge (anion); and an atom that possesses more protons than electrons is positively charged (cation). Anions (negatively charged ions) are larger than the parent atom, as the excess electron(s) repel each other (because of their same rotating direction), and add to the physical size of the ion (unequal number of protons vs electrons), because its size is determined by its electron cloud. Cations and anions are measured by their ionic radius and they differ in relative size.

Repulsion process of same rotating direction is shown in the following drawing:


Note that the repulsion “effect” of rotating “blurred” energy states, is less intense than the gravitational “effect” around a proton; otherwise atoms of more than one electron wouldn’t exist. Furthermore, the “blurred” characteristic of electrons permits “covalence bonds” of energy density disregarding the rotating “effect” that manifests itself in the gaining of the maximum density in a shell volume.

But we’ve already seen that the positive charge of a proton, which repels them from each other, is caused by its “Time flow kinetic energy”; and we know that the negative charge of electrons is caused by its “rotating motion”. So particle charges wouldn’t relate at all to the “traveling” motion of proton’s gravity centers (electrons don’t have a gravity center); thus doesn’t involve in their “proper velocity”.

On the other hand, in experiments with a “proportional counter”, for example, it uses the different “proper speeds” between an inert gas atoms and one of its ionized atom to value alpha and beta particles, or accurate measurement of X-ray radiation dose. As the ionizing particle travels through the chamber it leaves a trail of ion pairs along its trajectory, the number of which is proportional to the kinetic energy of the particle. So ionized atoms do have different “velocity” than inert gas atoms.

The afterward differences in “speed” of objects is provoked by added “mass-energy” in the matter “accretion” process. This increase in “mass-energy” decreases the center of gravity’s “velocity” by pushing it further back in Time when and where energy density was greater; which slows them down. Meaning that there's no "weight" factor involved.

Another indication of different speed for atoms is that we find, in our galaxy, as low as 0.1 atom per cubic centimeter in the space between the spiral arms, and as high as 1000 atoms per cubic centimeter are known to exist near the galactic core. So since the “proper speed” decides of the orbit, atoms closer to the center of galaxy have more “proper velocity” than those farther out.

This also explain why centers of gravity, whatever their “mass-energy”, traveling through expanding “space” which decreases “energy density” evenly, gradually gains “velocity”. This “fact” explains why we observe an expansion that seems accelerating. Space production doesn’t accelerate; only “mass-energy” centers of gravity, going through it, augment their “velocity”.

So regarding these “facts”, the most massive planet of the Solar system would be the “slowest orbiting planet of the system. But this is not the case; the sixth orbital shell around the Sun, contains the most massive planet of the system and it’s the fourth slower orbiting planet.

Furthermore, the fourth orbital shell around the Sun, contains a less massive planet than the preceding two.
So does that infirm what we found about kinetic energy?

I don’t believe so; because the structure of “kinetic energy” we observe in shells around the sun has the same distribution as around a nucleus. Which means that the conditions for each electronic shells are the same as the conditions of each planetary orbits.

Let’s check around a nucleus:


The first four shells present a gradually increasing number of electrons with their protons (the “terrestrial” planets); with the fourth shell presenting the maximum electrons gaining an equalized “pressure” in its environment where the shell ends. In the solar system this fourth shell represents Mars orbit. And the shell of Mars orbit has to end before the shell of the asteroid belt (mainly composed of ice (water)); which ends before Jupiter’s shell (the starting point of gas planet shells).

Consequently, shells O, P, and Q represent gradually decreasing “energy pressures” (density). In the solar system, they would be the asteroid belt, Jupiter, and Saturn orbits. Uranus and Neptune would, then, be “out” of the electronic shell structure. But the “mass-energy” intensity at their center of gravity, gives them the possibility to join their gravity centers with the Sun’s; producing two additional orbit shells. But what could explain their “presence”, though?

Uranus’s shell orbit is the most elliptical of all planets; and it is the least massive of giant planets, but the second least dense planet (after Saturn). The bulk compositions of Uranus and Neptune are different from those of Jupiter and Saturn, with ice dominating over gases. Uranus's magnetic field is tilted at 59° from the axis of rotation. Neptune has a similarly displaced and tilted magnetic field. Recent simulations of planetary migration have suggested that both ice giants formed closer to the Sun than their present positions, and moved outwards after their formation. By the actual structure of the solar system, we can surmise that they formed inside the O shell (actually containing ice asteroids), before Jupiter’s shell. Which would explain that their joined center of gravity with the Sun’s, existed before their outward move, without enough energy to leave the Sun’s “gravitational effect” volume.

Furthermore, Jupiter gains two ranks in being the most massive and becomes the second slowest orbiting planet (instead of the fourth); thus nearing the conditions of the electron shells structures.

Note that the invariant electron proper energy defines the energy density around electronic shells. The farther from the nucleus, the more electron is needed to equalize the diluted energy density; while planets need more “speed” (kinetic energy) to orbit nearer the Sun. In “fact”, it is complementary conditions. It’s the density of energy at the Time flow level, determined by electrons, which defines the “velocity” in the different shells of atoms just as of planets. The nearer to the center of gravity, the denser is the energy in the compressed “space” shell; so the slower is the “motion”. As shells expand, density decreases and the number of electrons increases; which is translate, at the equalized density of the “solar system” level, as gradual slower “velocity” for planets.

Motion’s relativity with environment’s energy density, is not a notion very easy to grasp. And I’ll have to review all of this last post, even if I worked on it quite a long period. Right now I need to give a break to my lonely neuron.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 3rd, 2018, 2:13 pm 

Clarification needed

Since it is easier to grip a situation with a drawing than with words (or maths), here are two drawings that proves the identical decreasing energy density in electronic and orbital shells. This should aid understanding the previous post.

What can we observe?


1) Decreasing energy density of the “Time flow” is shown, in both drawings, by decreasing lighter colors. Density is greater when closer to the center of gravity; which means that the intensity of Time flow’s kinetic energy is also greater.

2) They both are “gravitational fields”.

3) In the electronic shells drawing, the number of small “swirling kinetic energy fields” (electrons) increases while the Time flow’s shell energy densities decreases; which means that the “space” inside the shells increases, since electrons of same “state” cannot occupy the same “space”. This confirms the expansion of “space” and the diluting kinetic energy intensity of the Time flow.

4) The increasing number of electrons (confined swirling kinetic energy) per shells doesn’t mean that each electron changes energy intensity; it simply means that the “invariant energy intensity” of electrons is distributed evenly in a larger space, where kinetic energy density of “Time flow” was diluted by added “space units” produced. So the “intensity” of energy is diluted while more electrons are needed to “fill” the “space”. Which makes us remember that electrons are related to "space units" while neutrinos (kinetic energy units) are related to "Time flow". Consequently, “resistance” to the Time flow’s kinetic energy “motion” is decreasing. We must consider here, two “levels” of kinetic energy; one which is “confined kinetic energy” (electrons) like "mass-energy" in a galaxy, and the other which is “free” kinetic energy” (Time flow's neutrinos) like in "overall space". Electron’s kinetic energy is “invariant” because it is “confined” in a volume of space; while the “Time flow’s kinetic energy density, meaning “local intensity”, decreases because it is “free” in an increasing space volume.

5) Particles traveling through “electronic shell fields” are Photons, W, and Z bosons; which all, have different “velocities”. Photons “speed” is not affected by the field, while W bosons, by starting traveling farther away from the center of gravity (having appeared later than the Z boson in the “density” diluting picture), are affected by the energy density of their environment. Which establishes their longer “life” than the Z boson’s (W are traveling through less dense environment), and their longer distance traveled. It also means that they possess “less intensity” of kinetic energy, since it had been “diluted”.

Nevertheless, the decreasing energy density of each successive shells is confirmed, which should mean more diluted kinetic energy intensity of “Time flow” in both drawings.

6) In the orbital shells drawing, we once again find this decreasing density’s “intensity” of the Time flow’s kinetic energy. Which means that each successive shells, starting from the center, should display decreasing “velocity” patterns. And this is exactly what we observe: each shell’s planet, starting from the Sun, possess less kinetic energy meaning a slower orbital “velocity”.

7) And we observe this “fact” whatever the mass, density or size of the planet (including Uranus and Neptune). Which confirms that “Time flow’s kinetic energy” applies exclusively to “centers of gravity” within a “gravitational field”.

Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 5th, 2018, 2:50 pm 

What if expansion…

What would be the difference in my drawings, if the reproduction of “space units” always originated at the center of preceding “space units” like we established long ago but I didn’t really take in consideration since?

Let’s start when the first “space shell” is produced:


In the first reproduction of “space units” there was no surprises. But when I made the drawing with the second production of “space units”, starting from the center of each existing “space units”, things changed quite a bit:


What we observe in this second drawing is that “space units” produced by the brownish “second units” production, being the third “space units” production, insert themselves between the original “space unit” and the second produced “space units”.

Even if the event produces two additional “space units”, it makes the “first space shell” radius expand only by one Planck’s length. Because four of each six “space units” (in red) newly produced “overlap” the Time flow units, as we can see on the drawing.

The event’s implication:

Each “Time flow units”, shown as red circles, keep their original intensity because each second shells’ space units have two of their produced “space units” overlap diluting “time units”, like shown in the yellow circles.

The consequence is that the “split in two” intensity obtained by reproduction of the “space units”, recovers its full” intensity on the “Time flow. Which, as we know, keeps constant the Time flow energy’s intensity, making it “invariant”.

But what happens afterward?

Afterward, the gluon appeared (in dark blue) and defined their “gluon field” (red dotted line) with the third “space shell”:


And, as usual, when we make a drawing with more defined events, we get new information or new confirmations.

Here we see that, when the gluon appeared in the universe at the time flow level, it didn’t extend its centripetal topology to the whole universe; it installed its influence only on its surrounding “space units”; which gave it a diameter of three Planck’s length as we have already seen previously, which, in a superficial observation at the space level can be "deduced" as the "whole universe" but is definitively not. Which was a surprise for me.

We can also observe that all its centripetal influence was distributed exclusively in “space units” that were not influenced, whatsoever, by the universal Time flow; which makes it “local” and independent of kinetic energy producing the “Time flow”. This, definitively, confirms three important “facts”:

1) The “gravitational effect” is not “universal” but is “local”.
2) The gluon, itself, is indisputably energetic.
3) But the “gravitational field” possesses no energy beside at the centered gluon.

So, in order to continue we have to limit ourselves to a “gluon field”; because, for now, it’s the only “space” where something will occur. First, while the “space units” were produced around the gluon, front and back surfaces of the gluon were ripped from each other, and they occupied, by spinning, each a newly produced “space unit” (in lighter blue):


But then, the production of the “space unit” process kept on and reproduced all “space units”. Which gave the following information result, when prolonged to the Bottom quark (dotted space units are for drawing purposes and red circles represent the Time flow). I've included the "time intervals production":


We’ve reached a decisive point in the evolution of the universe with the Bottom quarks appearance and we added new information while doing it with more precise implicated conditions.

In order to find further more precise information, I’ll have to decide to draw, once again, the decaying period of bottom quarks and W bosons. I’ll need a few days after I decide to put in the amount of work for it.

But knowing myself, I’m pretty sure I’ll do it; or at least, try it.

By the way, Z bosons appeared almost simultaneously with Top/antiTop quarks (a fraction later). They represented the “blocked” momentum of those quarks, which is related to their personal “Time flow”. I didn’t show them on the drawing because the “personal Time flows” are not shown.

Have a good day!
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 7th, 2018, 11:59 am 

So what’s next?

I know we’ve been repeatedly working on the same period of the universal’s “life”, and I apologise; but we cannot stop elaborating it until we’ve found all the information this period can supply. And this time, on the next drawing, I’ll put in all the information we’ve already gathered.

As for now, we’re getting a pretty clear information that all events that happened, depended on the constantly diluting density of the universal energy, which defined the active “intensity” of that energy.

The main “effect”, on this density, was performed by the expansion process still operating today.

The next “effect” was the one cause by the centripetal topology that appeared with the gluon surface particle.

We’ve already found out that each reproduction of the “space units”, having a diameter of 10^-35 meter, was made between continuous intervals of 10^-43 second, producing successive inclosing shells following each intervals. These intervals exist strictly at the “Time flow level”, and cannot be observed at the “space level”, even though its “effect” can be seen; because “motion in space” is the result of the “Time flow’s kinetic energy”. The “fact” is that these “intervals” define “Time shells” that imprints themselves on the “space shells” with their different energy intensity; which is what affects any motion in “space”.

Space production is made successively, even if the result is a homogeneous universal volume; while Time production goes on continuously and results in a constantly decreasing energy density volume.

Installing the progressive decaying process of sub-particles on the progressive process of “space” production permits to observe certain facts and to define, more precisely, residual questioning.

The following drawing shows all known decays of sub-particles at each their epoch (on the same progressing space line), with each, thus, adopting the energy density of their expanding surrounding space. The projected sub-particles outside the main “Time flow” drawing, represents events occurring in the “three-dimensional” portion of “space”, where I’ve placed their decay.

“Blank spots” around sub-particles, are either “intervals” or not affected “space units”. I eliminated most of them for the clearness of the picture.

I’ve also added the “Proton” particle at the end of the “stable space” production’s “moment” (bottom left), just to identify the now most important question regarding its “creation”; which is not explained by this drawing, but gives us a pretty good indication about it.

While we study this drawing, we also have to glance at the “Time flow level” when Bottom/antiBottom quarks appeared; because that is when “gamma rays” appeared in the universe, and started colliding, thus producing electrons and positrons that where propelled everywhere in “space”, including through the quarks fields. They are not shown because they get involved later, after the appearance of the Proton; except for one positron originating from an antiBottom quark (which confirms our proposition for the origin of electrons) that you can find, projected outside the main picture.

So here is the drawing; everything starts with the gluon particle, near the beginning of the V-shape made in red by the Time-flow. To analyse the drawing, all that is needed is to follow the black arrows and the “projecting” dotted black lines:


As you can see, all particles are situated in the space units developing process, according to the energy density of the gradual appearing space units; which defines each their own “mass-energy”.

We can observe, for the first time, that it is the stabilization of sub-particle’s energy density with universal’s decreasing energy density, producing a Proton, that will stop expansion of sub-particle’s fields. Which adds another logical explanation for the decaying process, since they need reproductions of new "space units" to decay in subsequent sub-particles.

You will see, inside the main part of the drawing, Charm and AntiCharm quarks partly decay in an unknown sub-particle; this is because I couldn’t find the answers in the decay scientific reports. But I assumed that they were "in-between" Charm and Strange sub-particles. I've presented them as dotted line “Strange” sub-particles.

The Bottom quark (projected outside), originating from the W+ sub-particle, and decaying directly into an Up and antiDown quarks is quite “odd and cannot be really explained by the drawing. In fact, it should evolve through a Charm-Strange decaying process.

And it’s even worse with the W- decay where we get Muons that transform into a neutrino plus a positron.

The “fact” remains that there are still unknown “factors” about the W particles. They should be discovered in the great quantity of Collider's experiments results that are not finished yet being analyzed.

For the first time, a drawing leaves us with a very important question that I wrote as: “How could this happen?”

The question refers to the appearance of the Proton.

To find the answer, we have to look at the Top quark’s “gravitational field” (the biggest black circle on the right).

Then we have to remember that all the succeeding decays of sub-particles occurred “inside” this Top quark’s field that kept expanding. And every time a sub-particle appeared, it always did so “inside” the preceding quark field. These successive events defined successive “fields” expanding into one another. And since there exist six basic “energy states” that we call quarks, the result was six successive incorporate “fields” that we call “shells”. Which explains the “shell” structure, inside a Proton, that scientists have found.

As for the production of the Proton itself, we have here a clear indication that such a particle couldn’t appear without going through the exotic particle process, which only can explain the “fact” that the “size” of a proton has a diameter worth three “space units” and can contain six “space units” around its centered space unit or, if you prefer: six sub-particles around a centered gluon field. The Proton would then be the volume of a "gravitational field" affected by the topology of a "gluon field".

We have to note that it was at the end of that exotic particle process that sub-particle fields stopped expanding; which ended the “inflation period”.

So, with these lasts more precise information, I guess we’ve been through the “probability period” of our universe completely, with the advent of the Proton. Event that transformed this “probability” period into a more defined “possibility” period.

And since we’ve already seen the production of electronic shells and the appearance of the Neutron as a volume of equalized Proton repulsion’s Time flow, followed by the production of new elements with atoms having a unique “real” center of gravity, we can now address the events regarding molecules.

Molecules, as we’ve seen, are produced by the “effect” of “covalence bounding”; which is the only “bounding process” that doesn’t involve imaginary “special forces”. The question will be to explain the different consequences resulting from this way of “uniting” atoms, compared to the “gravitational bounding” process.

I think I’ll put my mind to molecules very soon.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 8th, 2018, 1:56 pm 

Universe’s “probability” period.

I’m afraid that there’s still a problem related to the “probability period” of our universe.

While I started to work on molecules, I met an article that spoke of the Deuteron problem which is the nucleus of Deuterium.

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.c ... ntent-4-10

And it brought back to my mind that Deuterium couldn’t exist during the baryogenesis, since, in my proposition, its “neutron” particle didn’t appear before the advent of the helium atom.

Now this scientific article presented a problem regarding the neutron, via the Deuteron, that I wasn’t aware of.

1- Quantum Mechanics has been unable to reach an exact representation of the magnetic moment of the Deuteron

2- Quantum Mechanics has been unable to identify the Physical Origin of the attractive Force that binds together the Proton and the Neutron in the Deuteron.

3- Quantum Mechanics has also been unable to treat the “Deuteron Space Parity” in a way consistent with the rest of the theory.

Thus from above discussion” says the article, “we can infer that, after about one century of research, quantum mechanics has left unresolved fundamental problems even for the case of the smallest possible nucleus, the deuteron, with progressively increasing unresolved problems for heavier nuclei. Following these insufficiencies, any additional belief on the final character of quantum mechanics in nuclear physics is a sheer political posture in disrespect of the societal need to search for a more adequate mechanics.

Not only quantum mechanics is not exactly valid in nuclear physics, but the very assumption of neutrons as nuclear constituents is approximately valid since neutrons are composite particles. Therefore, the main objective of this chapter is the identification of stable, massive physical constituents of nuclei and their theoretical treatment that admits in first approximation the proton-neutron model, while permitting deeper advances.

The replacement of protons and neutrons with the hypothetical quark is mathematically significant, with the clarification that, in Santilli’s view, quarks cannot be physical particles because, as stresses several times by Santilli, quarks are purely mathematical representations of a purely mathematical symmetry realized in a purely mathematical internal unitary space without any possible formulation in our spacetime (because of the O’Rafearthaigh’s theorem).”

Even if I disagree in saying that quantum mechanics is “invalid”, I agree with the rest of the objection. Personally, the result I get from this article is that all the problems come from the “axiom” that Deuterium was present during baryogenesis; the “fact” is that nothing can prove this. Deuterium could well have been produced at the appearance of the helium-4 atoms; because, the volume of “equalized-repulsion” of Protons being defined at this moment, could have been ejected, as “free” Neutrons, by helium-4 when becoming helium-3 after collisions with electromagnetic rays.

Which would leave the only possibility for creating helium-4 to be the joining of two hydrogen atoms; which simplifies the baryogenesis quite a bit and gains in logic:


We must remember that Helium-4 makes up about one quarter of the ordinary matter in the universe by mass, with almost all of the rest being hydrogen. Implying that Deuterium and Tritium existed at this epoch is simple "assumption". Especially since Tritium decays into helium-3 through β− decay; which indicates that helium-3 preceded Tritium. And since helium-3 logically originates from helium-4 by a Neutron ejection provoked by the collision with an electromagnetic ray...Things start to "fall in place"; I must say.

Notes from The Institut Laue Langevin (ILL):

https://www.ill.eu/fileadmin/users_file ... se2003.pdf

New theories do require the neutron to be exactly neutral. And indeed, a high precision experiment carried out at the ILL, has proved this to be the case (up to 21 decimal places after the zero!)

A neutron is stable when bound in the nuclei of atoms, but when free, the lifetime of the neutron is about 15 minutes (or more precisely, 886 seconds instead of 900 for 15 minutes). It decays into a proton, an electron and a particle called an anti-neutrino (called beta decay)

But what is the logical explanation for this “fact”?

Let us see how this “decay” defines the Neutron?

We know that:

a- The event of ejecting an anti-neutrino is the same as injecting a neutrino (kinetic energy); and since the neutrino is its own antiparticle, we can just as well use the injection event.

b- An electron is an electromagnetic massive “energy state” (mass-energy) without a center of gravity.

c- A Proton is a gluon’s “gravitational field” containing three different massive “energy states” that joined centers of gravity in the centered gluon’s field.

So the difference between a Neutron and a Proton is that a Proton has less kinetic energy (injecting a neutrino needed to produce a Neutron), it also has less electromagnetic mass-energy since an electron is ejected to produce a Proton.

How can we explain the event logically?

The Neutron being the “equalized-repulsing-action” of Protons’ Time flow, which is kinetic energy, we can understand that by ejecting a quantum of kinetic energy (anti-neutrino), the repulsive action loses its “equalizing effect” and the whole “effect” (neutron) disappears (not being exactly neutral anymore), leaving only the expression of the source of the “repulsing action”: a Gravitational “field” (Proton).

Being a “Gravitational field”, it now, has to get rid of its “inner” electromagnetic energy that did belong to a normal “space unit” (volume of the Neutron), which wasn’t affected while being a volume of “space” where repulsion was simply equalized, but cannot be found inside a “gravitational field. So the “field” ejects that electromagnetic characteristic as an “electron” (swirling electromagnetic energy quantum), and become that “gravitational field” we call: a Proton.

So, as we can see, our proposition for the Neutron’s “creation” is even better supported.

The lightest elements, hydrogen, helium and lithium, are thought to have formed in the first three minutes after the Big Bang, and their predicted relative amounts compared with what is actually observed in the Universe is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the Big Bang model. The neutron lifetime influences significantly the abundances of the light elements. It is only in recent years that measurements of the lifetime have been sufficiently accurate to allow researchers to make reliable calculations”.

Even so, since the abundance of light elements are calculated strictly by analyzing quasars, the result can be objected as being a lot later than when the event actually happened; so the exact “date” of appearance of Deuterium (thus the Neutron) is far from defined “exactly”; and could well be after the helium-4 appeared.

Surprisingly (or not), there’s a problem, in science, with Deuterium:

If one assumes that all of the universe consists of protons and neutrons, the density of the universe is such, that much of the currently observed deuterium would have been burned into helium-4

if it had appeared “before” helium-4, that is; otherwise…"no problemo!"

Which means that our “date” proposition for the “production” of Neutrons eliminates this Deuterium problem, without the necessity to use “dark matter” as the solution actually proposed by scientists. This "dark matter" is actually, the "golden elixir" for a majority of scientists. We have to admit that the “dark matter” invention is used the same way as a succulent “French sauce”, which can makes you eat anything it is “coated” with.

But the real problem in science, is that scientists keep working with the temperature notion they inherited from “Alchemists”, instead of using the more precise and scientific notion of “density pressure” to perform their analysis.

By the way, Newton was, mainly, an Alchemist; but people don’t mention it very much. Which is understandable, mind you, even if he's still a genius.

There are more interesting notes to be discussed in this article from ILL, but less related to our actual subject; as, for example:

The Beta-asymmetry, "which presents a significant 1-per-cent deviation from the requisite zero-sum value for quark-mixing... But no-one believed them because of the complication of having to introduce corrections relating to nuclear structure".

I might come back to this; but for now, I’m too much submerged by the tsunami of information regarding molecules to relax enough for analyzing that subject.

Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 10th, 2018, 12:48 pm 

An additional question regarding Neutrons.

Re-reading my last post, I asked myself:

Why would the repulsion of Helium's Protons create two neutrons instead of one?


The answer is easy:

Energy cannot simply disappear. Which means that energy coming in one direction, from one Proton, cannot make disappear energy coming in the opposite direction from the other Proton. In other words, not only energy cannot be “annihilated”, but energy cannot even be "nullified".

So in this case of helium, the energy of one Proton, oriented in one direction, installs itself "beside" the energy of the other Proton, oriented in a contrary direction. Thus two spherical "space volumes" are defined between the two Protons.

And then, it defines a repulsive space volume.

This newly defined total space "volume" of two “repulsive energy” is a bit more than twice as big as a Proton because of its spherical shape (in fact, a "dumbbell" shape as seen in the last drawing); as we can see here:


And since there is more space to install the “repulsing” energy of both Protons, the energy density should be diluted. But we know that it is not the case; the energy density of a Neutron is even slightly greater than the density of a Proton.

How can this be explained?

Let’s see what’s happening inside that newly produced “space energy volume”.

As we can see, both, being “repulsive energy”, simply spread evenly inside the created space volume:


But now we get a particle, inside a nucleus, that is twice as big as a neutron, which doesn’t agree with what is observed or, at least, forecast by the Standard Model.

The reason for this, is that the “Neutron particle” itself isn’t defined yet. Because the event of a colliding electromagnetic ray hasn’t occurred. So what happens when it does?

The result we are looking for, is one from nuclear fission and more specifically: a binary fission. Meaning that our total volume of “repulsive energy” has to be separated in two equal volumes of “repulsive energy”. But this was never observed anywhere yet.

Which will bring me to the “r-process” which is thought to be a primary process because of observed universal abundance distribution. It is also the “inverse” process of what we are looking for. It is studied in the effect of neutron-capture (instead of emission) on light elements and the new reaction flow of He-4 (2n, γ), He-6 (α, n), and Be-9; which are Helium and Beryllium. Despite of decades of study, the “astrophysical site” for the r-process is still unknown.

So where are we going here?

First let’s say that with enough energy you can fission light elements, one can even separate a deuteron (Deuterium nucleus) by irradiating it with intense gamma radiation of sufficient energy. And there also is, effectively, a lighter nuclide known to undergo fission at the same epoch we are looking at. It’s called: Be-8. It fissions to two He-4 nuclei with a lifetime on the order of 10^−17s.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... rm-fission

We know that the fission process often produces free neutrons and gamma photons, and releases a very large amount of energy even by the energetic standards of radioactive decay.

We also know that the:

Proton mass is 1.6726 x 10-27 kg or 938.27231 MeV/c2

Neutron mass is 1.6749 x 10-27 kg or 939.5656 MeV/c2

So the difference in energy is 0.0023 x 10-27 kg or 1.29329 MeV/c2; which definitively involves a Gamma ray.

Now this difference in energy is in both neutrons of our last drawing; which means that in the drawing, the difference is doubled to 2.58658 MeV/c2; which is still in the Gamma ray energy range (the range goes up to 10 MeV).

Note that it is a bit greater than the “mass-energy” of an Up quark equal to 2.4 MeV/c2.

Just for comparison, a Neutron capture on protons (the inverse of what we are looking for here) yields a line at 2.223 MeV, predicted and commonly observed.

And we also know that a Gamma ray possesses the energy of 1.24 MeV at 300 EHz see:


So, in the energy range we are considering here, at 2.58658 MeV/c2, we are far way back into the ionizing radiation intensity epoch, which expels electrons from atoms.

It is very possible that, at this energy level, a gamma ray can expel a neutron from a Helium-4 nucleus.

Let’s have another drawing:


Note that the separated neutrons are darker than the preceding “repulsive energy volume”; that is because they gained energy density with the “incoming” of the 2.58658 MeV/c2 gamma ray which energy was divided in both Neutrons. Which also explains the difference in mass between Protons and Neutrons without the quarks "physical reality". All sub-particles simply being "energy states".

The former energy of the “repulsive volume” was twice the energy of a Proton; which adds to 1,876.54462 MeV/c2. If we add the gamma ray energy we get: 1,879.1312 MeV/c2 which doesn’t ring any bell to me.

But the possibility related here keeps me from throwing away my proposition regarding the formation of Neutron and the advent of “free” Neutrons.


Yeahl I know...Molecules. I'm working on it!
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 10th, 2018, 1:53 pm 

Beryllium-8 picked my curiosity:

So… I made a drawing.

Beryllium-8’s instability is easy to see on the drawing, since its two electrons, in the valence (outer) shell (from two successive captures of a hydrogen atom producing Lithium, then Beryllium), are attached to a Proton but not directly “attached” (like the first shell electrons of Helium-3) to the center of gravity of the atom; which is a Neutron.

Furthermore, if we look at the Lithium structure (by taking only one added Proton-Electron to Helium-3 in consideration), it's easy to comprehend why Lithium possesses the lowest binding energies per nucleon of all stable nuclides. Its electron, in the valence shell, is not "attached" to the atom's center of gravity.

And this "fact" explains a lot more logically the "cosmological lithium discrepancy" (older stars should have more Lithium) in the universe , than the low temperature needed in stars to "burn" them.

That is why, even though Beryllium-8 has six possibilities for “valence bounding”, it doesn’t have time to use them and decays rapidly, being “attacked” by traveling gamma rays (electromagnetic waves).


Adding to this, it’s easy to see that by capturing one “free” Neutron (dotted white circle) ejected from a previous Helium-4 atom, the nearby Proton (lowest in the drawing) falls “in a secure position”. And the Isotope B-9 becomes stable by anchoring the two "outside" electrons to the atom’s center of gravity, due to the alignment of their two respective Protons.

We can also observe that the structure of a “stable” Beryllium-9 atom resembles to two structures of “stable” Helium-3 atoms installed perpendicularly to one another.

Geometry definitively shows things that mathematics cannot.

That pleases me; I have to admit.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 12th, 2018, 1:26 pm 

Molecule formation:

Let’s see what I’ve gathered, until now, about molecule formation.

Once again, with this subject, we are faced with the most basic law of the universe which is: “Survival”.

This simply means that the fundamental target of the universe is to attain complete “stability” for everything it is made of. And since it is made of “energy”, it tries to “stabilize” all of its composing “energy states” densities, with its own universal energy density that constantly decreases by diluting in the continuous “space” production.

The first and most basic “energy state” is the “Universe field” itself. It has a freely-propelling-toward-everywhere “energy state” that produces “space units”.

The second basic “energy state” is the “Gluon field”. Its “energy state” possesses a contrary orientation to the universal-field “energy state”. It has the same size as a basic “space unit”.

Note that a “gravitational field” is not an “energy state”; it’s a topological “effect” produced on a stable “space” volume (not expanding), by the “Gluon field’s” energy state.

The succeeding basic “energy states” are what we describe as “quarks”, originating from the Gluon’s-field “energy state’s” decreasing density. It finally gains perfect “stability” (extra-long survival) by uniting the two less dense “energy states” (quarks) produced, in “bunch” of three. This “union” of those less dense “energy states” results in a stable “Protons” which, by capturing a “free” stable electron in its “gravitational field”, forms the first composed neutral atom called hydrogen.

Because, since the appearance of the Bottom quarks, the universe had been vibrating with electromagnetic waves that we call gamma rays, when electrons were formed by colliding gamma rays, they were in possession of only “half of the gamma ray’s energy intensity (energy state; meaning either the upward frequency or the downward frequency).

This event defined the number of electrons that was possible to be installed in the “space” of the “gravitational field” around a Proton. And since this “space” possessed a “full” electromagnetic energy density, just like the rest of universal “space”, only two “half” of the gamma ray’s energy density (two electrons/energy states) were able to install themselves inside a Proton’s “gravitational field” equalizing all densities involved. This is what decided of the number of electrons possible in any first atom’s shell.

This also eliminates the generally accepted opinion that it is the “electron cloud” that captures a Proton. This assumption is based on the “axiom” that Protons “travel” faster than electron (which, logically, cannot be the case) and that they get “caught” while going through an electron cloud. But, nevertheless, the “capturing power” of an electron cloud is absolutely null, since an “electron cloud” doesn’t possess a “center of gravity”; meaning that it cannot “capture” anything. In other words, it’s the Proton that does the “capturing”.

As for Neutron’s date of appearance, we’ve already dealt with that problem.

So when free hydrogen atom’s “electronic clouds” react with each other, they form neutral hydrogen molecules (H2) that is the most common molecular component of molecular clouds in interstellar space. Which will be the source of stars formation.

Then, consequently to this second assumption, since we’ve already seen that star formation uses the process of “particles accretion” which depends of the “gravitational effect”, molecules would be dependent of the same “gravitational effect”.

Formation of molecules can be viewed as complicated or simple; as one wishes. Sadly enough, the added gradual precision of discoveries in chemistry made it very complicated. So much so, that 60 years ago I sank a chemistry exam, which change my life (and wasn’t bad at all). I have to add that my teacher, at the time, loved more dissecting frogs than teaching chemistry.

But ever since, personally, I always preferred when things were simple. Which makes me a fan of “KISS”.

So let’s join two hydrogen atoms to produce a Hydrogen molecule by drawing it:


-Hey! You messed up! Go dissect a frog my friend; because what you’ve created here is a Helium-4 atom; not a Hydrogen molecule. So what happened???

-What happened is that I used the “gravitational effect”, like the first previous seen assumption, instead of the “covalence effect” to join the Hydrogen atoms. The result was a new element with the formation of the, already discussed, neutrally charged Neutron “fields”. It’s now obvious that I should have used the “covalent effect”. This rejects the assumption regarding “gravitational effect” versus “molecules"; they do not seem dependent of the “gravitational effect” (gravitation) at all.

-So do it right and show me what the difference is.

-OK! Here it is:


-It’s completely different. First it’s not “round”; it has a kind of “dumbbell” shape. Then the nuclei (protons) are farther apart and finally, it shows no Neutron production. So what happened?

-It’s pretty simple. The joining of those two hydrogen atoms was the result of equalizing the electronic cloud’s density with the electronic cloud environment’s density.

-But what of the “gravitational effect” of the nuclei?

-Well, even though each electronic shells occupy all of their proton’s “gravitational field”, each field is so large around the Proton that the nuclei can stay far apart, preventing their “fall” on one another by not “joining” their centers of gravity. Therefore we can understand that the only “effect” manifested is a “tidal effect”. The same “tidal effect” as the one we can observe between the Earth and the Moon. But here, the “tidal effect” makes the energy of each electronic clouds, flow into both “gravitational volumes” which equalizes the overall “energy density”.

But I have to admit, mind you, that with a “tidal effect”, we are back with a “gravitational effect” even though we can say that it is a “secondary” effect. Too bad for the "Forces fans", once again. The “fact” is that it is, simply, a less intense “falling effect”. So “covalence bounding” is a “gravitational effect” like all other events we’ve considered since the beginning. Looks like we can’t escape that non-energetic “space field”. Note that a “tidal effect” means the installation of a “barycenter”. This could become important.

-Ok; that’s pretty simple to grab. But it might get more complicated when more electronic shells are implicated.

-Let’s try with a Carbon atom which is the more prolific in bounding possibilities.


So we have a carbon atom that can make “covalence bounding” with other atom’s valence shells containing either one, two, three or four “energy density units” (electrons).

If we look closely to the drawing, a few information, that might eventually become important, comes up:

a) If we equilibrate the electric charge of electrons with the electric charge of the Protons, the “electron probabilities” install themselves on the “pair hour numbers” of the Carbon personal Time “clock”. This demands that one of each Proton’s Time flow “pair hour” is oriented towards the electron’s probability, installed on a “pair hour” of the Carbon atom, to equalize both “charges”. If either one was using an “odd hour”, it would be too energetic to “equalize”.

b) A carbon atom has to have a Proton at its center to produce six Neutrons by repulsion.

c) There’s only two more places where “electronic energy units” can be installed in the remaining two “odd hours” of the carbon’s atom Time flow. And this is attained by the Oxygen atom that has a valence shell missing two “electronic energy units”. Which means that an Oxygen atom, like the Carbon atom, has a Proton at its center.

d) It also means that to produce an Oxygen atom with a Carbon atom, the only possibility is to add two hydrogen atoms by “covalence bounding”.

Let’s see what an Oxygen atom looks like:


Now let’s put Oxygen beside Carbon with all information we have on each and see the conditions for covalence bounding”:


Since each “probabilities” to find an electron is directly related to the position of its “linked” Proton, and since the protons of each atoms don’t change location, because the “tidal effect” don’t involve them, the “probabilities” for electron “particles” don’t change position; even though the “energy density” inside the shell increases.

Naturally, we’re not talking about how to “describe” the way to write the theory structure “bounding” of these atoms; we are looking at the physical structure of their “bounding”. Which makes it easier for me to do my drawings, since I don’t have to include all Protons and Neutrons anymore.

On the other hand, since all atoms tend to attain complete energy density of their valence shell (like all neutral gases have), our carbon atom, to do so, has to make covalence bounding with two Oxygen atoms, and thus becomes Carbon dioxide.

This is what it looks like:


Note that all “Time flows” involved are “pair number” Time flows, meaning non-energetic; while the three elements (atoms) keep in line by merging their horizontal kinetic energy Time flow.

And, it is where these non-energetic “pair numbers” of each atom cross, that the “incoming” electron’s probability installs itself. That is only if you want to find the electron; otherwise, the energy density of the electronic shell simply increases.

We observe, also, that the Carbon atom attained “full” energy density with these bounds; but neither of the Oxygen atoms did. They still are missing two “electron energy units”. Which permits additional covalence bounding to produce longer molecules.

We’ll see what I can find next.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 13th, 2018, 2:57 pm 

I wanted to wait another day before posting, but it's hard for me to leave you with an unsolved problem. So here is the post:

Molecule formation:

Let’s look at the “bounding” possibilities of Oxygen atoms, composing our Carbon dioxide.

Since both oxygen atoms have the same possibilities, we’ll look at one oxygen atom of the molecule only.


As we can see, the oxygen atom misses one “electron-unit-energy-density” to “fill” its second shell (the valence shell). Which would mean that it can make “covalence bounding” with any atom that possesses one electronic unit in its valence shell; which would then make a longer molecule

The first one we think of, is the hydrogen atom. But we know that all “group one” elements of the periodic table, have a single electron in their valence shell. Those elements are Hydrogen, Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Francium. Which means that, normally, they all could “bind” with Carbon dioxide. But is this a “fact”?

Let’s verify.

In order to increase the length of the CO2 molecule, the bounding would have to occur on the left side of the oxygen atom of our previous drawing. But chemistry says that it cannot

“…because CO2 is a molecule and would not react with an element. Molecules react depending on their chemical properties. The negative and positive parts of atoms are attracted to each other. For example: When water molecules get close to each other, they stick together due to the partial negative charge of the oxygen atom and the partial positive charge of the hydrogen atom”.

Since our notion of positive Proton and negative electron doesn’t correspond exactly to the official notion, we cannot use this “attracting force” presented here.

So how can this bounding impossibility be explained by the information we have in our drawing?

The only probable explanation is regarding the Time flow of atoms. Meaning that to bind to a molecule, the “electron units” have to occur in accordance with the merging of Time flow of the molecule. Linear molecules would have to merge with the horizontal Time flow (9hr -> 3hr) while nonlinear molecules would be merging with all other “odd” number hours.

So let’s see what happens with a Hydrogen atom, where the “electron unit’s probability” lies in the 12hr -> 6hr position (perpendicular to the main Time flow because in electromagnetic, magnetic is perpendicular to electronic)?


It’s obvious that the electron unit cannot supply the need of either Oxygen atoms of the Carbon dioxide, because its “electronic-energy-unit-probability” position is not corresponding to “Time flow” position. The available electron is in 12hr -> 6 hr position while the needed electron is at the 8hr position.

So, since all single “electron units” are installed in the 12hr -> 6hr position line, none of the single electronic units valence shells of atoms, we named previously, can “bind” with our CO2 molecule. Which leaves to this molecule, the only possibility to bind with other molecules; like water for example.

But let’s check out this water possibility before accepting it.

The following is a water molecule according to our Time flow specifications:


And it doesn’t work out because the main Time flow of each Hydrogen atoms (red dotted line) doesn’t merge with the Oxygen atom’s main Time flow. So I have a great problem in regard to molecular geometry.

Not surprisingly, I am not the first one to meet this problem; scientists have also, since a long time. And they developed a lot of added successive explications to solve it.

Molecular geometries can be specified in terms of bond lengths, bond angles and torsional angles”. And these three terms are the beginning of a mind boggling explanation that you can start to follow with:


As for me, I’ll stick to my “KISS” process. And to make people accept my process, I’ll use the following “official” information:

X-ray crystallography, neutron diffraction and electron diffraction can give molecular structure for crystalline solids based on the distance between nuclei and concentration of electron density.

This “electron densityis what we’ve been considering all along. And this finally confirms that using “marbles” to represent an electron is child’s play.

The “fact” is that an electron exists exclusively as an electronic “energy state”. It doesn’t have a “physical” volume; all it has is strictly an “energy state volume”. So it’s no use to try finding a “physical” electron; all you can find is a more or less precise “spot”, where you’re liable to find the most intenseelectronic energetic state”.

But then again, it doesn’t correspond to the “reality” of the electronic energy notion which is diluted energy. Because the more you give precision to that “spot”, the more you’re taking energy from elsewhere, in the electronic shell you’re considering, in order to put it at your “probability point”. Which eliminates the equalized diluted energy density of the shell and cannot be accurate. Remember: You cannot “create” some other energy; so you have to use the one that’s in the shell.

This obliges us to definitively get rid of the "marble notion", and to start re-considering that “energy” just flows like “water” and that, “energy” really is the “Time flow” itself. So when energy does flow, all “energy states” related to it, are “affected.

We now have to admit that: starting at the “molecular stage” of evolution, we cannot use the “basic-fundamental-sub-particles-notion” (marbles) anymore. We have to apply the flowing notion of energy.

We could say that the more precise our comprehension of the universe becomes, the simpler notion we have to use. Which is logical since getting more precision is eliminating more “possibilities”.

So what is left to be considered in the “bounding” notion of molecules, when you eliminate the “marbles”?

The answer is easy; what is left is the “tidal effect” occurring at the “crossing” of the “odd” hours of the Time flow of each molecules or atoms.

Let’s have a drawing of that “tidal effect” at crossing “odd” hours; for example, 2hr crossing 10hr:


It’s easy to understand that both atoms (of involved molecules) merge their second shell energy because those shells have the same density (all shells of each levels of every atoms have the same energy density; radioactivity is something else that is not involved at all here).

But what happens when the valence shells involved don’t have the same density?

Here goes:


What happens is that the lower level of shells (closer to its center of gravity), has the energy of the higher level of shell (farther from its center of gravity), poured into itself (small black curved arrow), until its needed amount of energy, to “fill” its own shell’s energy density, is completed. And if there’s not enough energy in the supplying valence shell, the possibility for “covalence bounding” remains with the second “unfilled” shell valence.

This situation is the same we encountered during the element evolution. When the electronic energy of shells wasn’t sufficient to fill the element’s previous shell, another shell “opened” before the said shell was filled.

But what permits the energy to be poured inside the closest shell to the center of gravity without the “help” of a whatever “force”?

The answer is in understanding the “density levels” defined by the “gravitational effect”.

We must remember that “gravitation” is an “effect” of the Time flow’s decreasing energy density. Which exists strictly at the “Time flow level” of the universe.

So defining “decreased density” at the “Time flow level” produces different “sub-levels” (K-L-M-N-O-P-Q) of energy density, which looks like the following:


And simple “gravitational effect” (at each "Tidal effect" position) permits each level of energy density to be “filled” by the flowing energy from the succeeding energy levels of each atoms.

Must I remind you that this “energy level structure” for Protons, atoms and molecules is the same "gravitational" energy level structure we found, earlier, for planets (Earth), stars (Sun) and galaxies (M31)?

If I was an “alchemist” I would affirm that the Microcosm is the same as the Macrocosm. And the same few “laws” of physics applies everywhere and every time.

By the way, this flowing energy “fact” simplifies a lot all the understanding of the universe’s reality (including molecules formation). I wonder if it wouldn’t be possible to simplify the “maths” to quantify everything.

Too bad I can’t do it myself.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 14th, 2018, 8:16 pm 


My drawing before last, in the last post. is no good at all.

I'm working on a correction; but I'm finding so much details while working on it, that I cannot post the result today.

So I'm asking for a bit of patience from everyone.

Thank you all.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 15th, 2018, 11:39 am 


My drawing before last is completely wrong. And I’m sorry to have presented it to you. It’s misleading. I’m starting the correction with this post; but a few posts will be needed to present all implications.

What I found while correcting the drawing is that when both “atoms” were exactly the same size, the “Time flow” of each atoms merges and two of the “Time clock’s pair hours” crossed at two places in the same electronic level; as shown at A and B, on the following drawing. Which should produce a “solid” enough bounding, even with the residual repulsion existing outside the valence shell, at the main flow horizontal line. This drawing adds information to the second last drawing of my preceding post:


But this last drawing shows that, if atoms don’t join their center of gravity, they “merge” their “unfilled” electronic shells without increasing their energy density. Which means that the “merging effect” shown on my drawing is not adequate. So let’s increase that “merging effect”:


What we observe now, is that only a portion of the valence electronic shell is really “energy density augmented”; the rest of the shell stays at the same energy density.

On the other hand, this “gravitational effect”, which is a “tidal-effect”, should produce Lagrangian points just like a normal “tidal effect” does. Which adds 10 points (5 for each atoms) to the molecule where energy density is “augmented”. Let’s see what it means:


These ten surfaces of Lagrangian points are where energy densities should be “greater” because, at each of these places, you have the energy density of one shell that is added to the density of the other shell; and, as we can see, they are all at the same level.

This also means that because of the involvement of a “tidal effects” in the production of molecules, we have to consider the Lagrangian points.

This drawing, just showed covalent bounding between two electronic shells atoms. Which means: Lithium, Beryllium, Boron, Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Fluorine, and Neon. The last being a noble gas. The next element (Sodium) possesses three electronic shells (another shell opens).

So let’s see how these elements gradually distribute their “electronic units”, accompanying incoming Proton, in their electronic shells.



Note that the "entry" of the electron is always on the vertical non-energized "Time flow" (12hr -> 6hr).

Lithium and Beryllium show us where the most “stabilized” position is (perpendicular to the horizontal “Time flow” (not shown).

Boron and Carbon show us that when an additional “electron” arrives it “pushes” an electron from the vertical “gravitational flow” and they each install (bouncing on each other) on the nearest oblique “g-flow”.

Nitrogen and oxygen continue the same progressive process and admit “electronic units” successively on their vertical “g-flow”.

Fluorine and Neon repeat the same process which makes the Neon the most “stable” of these elements, having a “full” energy density in its valence shell, with four electronic units (six with the two of the first shell) on its most stabilizing vertical “g-flow”.

This is the regular gradual successive distribution process that the non-energetic “gravitational flow” oblige the elements to adopt.

And it shows a progressive clockwise rotation motion:



Which I’ll investigate more precisely eventually.

But, I’ll come back to the size problem of atoms in the next post.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 15th, 2018, 1:24 pm 

Size of atoms

So let’s analyse the size

We know that “the radii of isolated neutral atoms range between 30 and 300 pm (trillionths of a meter)”; so they do not have the same size. “For instance, the radii generally decrease along each period (row) of the (periodic) table, from the alkali metals to the noble gases; and increase down each group (column)”.

But, “the radius increases sharply between the noble gas at the end of each period and the alkali metal at the beginning of the next period”.

On the other hand, “the atomic radii decrease across the Periodic Table because as the atomic number increases, the number of protons increases across the period, but the extra electrons are only added to the same quantum shell. Therefore, the effective nuclear charge towards the outermost electrons increases, drawing the outermost electrons closer. As a result, the electron cloud contracts and the atomic radius decrease”.

With these information we can visualize what happens while atoms increase in number of Protons and electrons, until an elements succeeds in filling its valence shell and thus become a “noble gas”.

According to official information, before acceding to the noble gas energetic density, an atoms “barely” increases in size because the “gravitational effect” of Protons simply augments the “energy density” of an electronic shell. In fact, adding a Proton adds “mass-energy”; which pushes back the atom’s center of gravity on the “Time arrow”, where electromagnetic waves are shorter because space is less “expanded”. Consequently, the volume of the quantum shell’s radius diminishes.

I have to check before agreeing completely with this affirmation. Because, in any consideration, the size of an atom has to increase drastically when a new electronic shell opens. Like we’ve already seen with this drawing:


So where do Lithium, Sodium and Potassium install themselves on the periodic table?

This is quite a relief; because each of those elements installs itself right after a noble gas element. So the “official information” confirms our explanation of the opening of a new shell, for the atom’s size radical increase. Which also confirms that before that moment, atoms don’t gain much size.

So now is the time to make the correction for my inadequate drawing in my former post.

To show the “bounding” between atoms having different number of quantum shells, we will use a Silicon atom that possesses three shells and bound it to lithium which possesses two. Just to verify their importance we will install the Lagrangian points also.


The problem I see here, is that the Lithium’s valence shell is not at the same level as the Silicon’s M shell. But we must remember that “shell levels” are a “Time flow” characteristic; at the “physical” (space) aspect, everything is at the same level; for example, M 31 is a “flat” galaxy even if it has Time flow energetic “levels”. So Lagrangian points do have influence in bounding, whatever the energetic level because Lagrangian points are "space" related where there's only one single "level".

This difference, between the “Time flow” and the “space” aspects, eliminates the “need” to consider polarization of molecules. Which demands chemists to consider that an element “loses” an electron to become positive (having, then, one more Proton than electrons) while the other element gains an electron (becoming negative). They then explain the bounding of these molecules with the electromagnetic “force”.

We’ve just seen that such a “force” is not needed at all, due to the presence of a gravitational "tidal effect"; and furthermore, it is indisputable that neither elements involved, loses or gains an electron; they simply make a normal covalent bound.

I've got to admit that Marshall's proposition for the title :" A variable expansion speed theory of gravity" is quite exact. This variable gravity is augmenting its involvement at every aspect of the universe.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 15th, 2018, 3:57 pm 

Tidal effect vs « space :

Just a small reminder.

Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 16th, 2018, 10:36 am 

Molecule’s secret

How do molecules “bind” to each other; what process do they follow?

This is going to be a “though” one; since I can’t allow myself to use “attractive forces”. So let’s see how I get through.

We’ll use water since it is the molecule that develops one of the most intense “bound” called “Hydrogen bounding”.

So let’s have the drawing (the very small numbers are Lagrangian points of each “centers of gravity):


Note that, in reality, all atoms are « spinning », provoked by the "falling effect" on the center of gravity; and all electrons are simply “energy states”; which means that they do not have a “physical size”. Thus these “energy states” spread evenly in the valence shells equalizing the energy density. Nevertheless I’ve put a white dotted spot where an electron is usually shown balancing the valence shell of a Hydrogen atom (instead of the double red dots on one side). Furthermore, it's obvious that the "non-energetic" Time flows (pair hours) influence the "space of an atom. We can see that electron positions correspond to Lagrangian points.

It becomes evident that the reason for the “intense bound” of Hydrogen bounding is not a “polarized bounding” of any sort, but simply because its K shell is the greatest valence shell “energy density” that can exist in any atom. So there’s no need for any “force” to justify this “max-intensity-bounding”, which is perfectly normal according to the Time flow’s “gravitational effect”.

Note that the hydrogen atoms could have bounded on the upper part of the drawing as long as it would have been on the same “non-energetic-pair-hours”.

But that doesn’t exclude all possibilities for the need of intermolecular force.

What are they, first, and then we will be able to address them properly.

Intermolecular forces (IMFs) are the forces which mediate interaction between molecules, including forces of attraction or repulsion which act between molecules and other types of neighboring particles, e.g., atoms or ions. Inter-molecular forces are weak relative to intramolecular forces – the forces which hold a molecule together.

I agree that “repulsion” acts between Protons to create Neutrons; but that’s it. There’s no “repulsion” involved in the “capture” of electronic units by Protons, and neither is there “attraction”. The process is simply a “gravitational falling effect”. As for “outside the valence shell, let’s be logical: the “outer part” of the valence shell is where the “falling effect” ceases to exist; it doesn’t extend further. Otherwise there would be no limit to the number of electrons in a shell. The “size” of an atom (extend of its shells) is defined by the “gravitational falling effect. So this “fact” eliminates all “forces”, either outside or inside a valence shell, that could hold a molecule together.

Finally, it wasn’t as “tough” as I thought it would be. All molecule bounding are the result of the simplest “valence bounding” (covalent bounding).

Which might be described as: “Do you want to “mate”, I’m in need of your “electronic unit” to “stabilize” my energy density a bit more?
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 17th, 2018, 1:01 pm 

Why molecules?

The reason for the existence of molecules is that atoms always try to be as more “stable” as possible; which means “filling” their valence shell at their potential energy density. Each shell possesses a different energy potential.

They acquire that possibility when atom’s center of gravity starts to “travel” through “space”, on their own.

The most effective joining possibility is in “straight-on” collisions where atoms merge their center of gravity into one single center, augmenting the new center’s “mass energy”. They, then, result in a new element that possesses more shells with “full” energy density.

The “merging of center of gravities” path, leads to the denser natural atoms which is a noble gas, named Radon. It is the only radioactive noble gas. Out of the existing 35 isotopes it has, only 4 are “natural”; and they all are radioactive, emitting alpha particles (Helium-4 nucleus).

This is what its electronic shell structure looks like:


I’ve installed the “electronic units (electrons) according to the rotation process we found previously in the eight atoms having two electronic shells. This disposition of electronic units doesn’t explain the acquired radioactivity of a Radon atom. Which confirms that radioactivity, in general, comes from the nucleus.

All electronic units, which confirm the “matter state” around nuclei, are found in the “space” allowed for “non-energetic” portion of the atom’s shells, between energetic “Time flows”.

And this is how the Sumerians pictured what was "controlling" the universe, more than 4000 years ago. Where did they get that idea? I wonder if that picture could represent a science of some sort? If this is a coincidence it resides in the group with: "S... happens!"


Anyhow,we all know that the Universe possesses two “characteristics”:

1) A “Time” facet, and
2) A “Space” facet

Making the universe a “Space-Time”.

But now, we know that “Time” is the energy of the universe, while “Space” is the passive consequence of that energy. Energy (Time) gives progressive “depth” to “Space”, because it constantly reproduces all and every “space units” that exist outside of “gravitational fields; which means, reproducing the first “space unit”, just as the last produced “space unit”. The actual “expansion motion” is occurring, at the same moment, in the past of “Space”, as much as “right now”. Energy "lives" in a continuous "present state". It has no past and no future. This is the kind of “deepness” (Time- energy) the universe possesses. And that is also why, the farther we look in “Space”, the earlier we see in “Time”.

The other joining possibility is by making a “covalent bounds”. And this is what produces “Molecules”. Covalence bounding occurs when two atoms, while traveling, brush against one another. Each volume of their “gravitational effect” come in contact, and produce a “tidal effect”.

This “tidal effect”, when the atom’s speed isn’t enough to break it, produces Lagrangian points where the energy density of one valence shell is added to the density of the other valence shell.

This “union” of two valence shells is what produces a “Molecule”. Atoms can unite to make molecules, but cannot unite with molecules. A molecule can unite with other molecules until all valence shells of their atoms are “filled” at their maximum energy density.

Molecules define a baryonic center between each center of gravity of their composing atoms. This barycenter doesn’t possess any “mass-energy”. In other words, a barycenter is simply a “position” in space occupied by a “space unit” (of 10^-35 meter); it doesn’t have any “depth” since it doesn’t responds to “expansion” (kinetic Time energy). A barycenter is situated at the “present” space level of the molecule; while real “centers of gravity”, with “mass-energy”, are installed somewhere “in different pasts”, on the “time flow” of the molecule.

The easiest example to show this would be the structure of the Benzene compound made of 6 hydrogen and 6 carbon atoms:


We can see that this center is a “hypothetical" object; it doesn’t have a “physical” existence.

What is interesting in the “molecule evolution path” is that, it is the only process leading to “lifeforms”.

So “lifeforms” would be the resulting evolution “stage” for the existence of molecules.

Could this mean that the center of “lifeforms” would be a barycenter?

That’s quite a “funny” question. But I might think a bit more about it someday since a barycenter is, nevertheless related to “gravitational effect”.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 17th, 2018, 1:30 pm 

Barycenter’s repercussion

It is wrong to say that a barycenter is a “center of mass”. It can’t be, since it doesn’t possess any “mass” or even “mass-energy”. On the other hand, it really is a point in space around which, two “center of gravities” orbit.

It’s important to specify that it is the center of gravity that “travels” in space. Because whatever surrounds it, confined in its “gravitational field” , simply follows the center of gravity, since all the “mass-energy” is concentrated at that center of gravity.

So this, strictly, means that a barycenter “position” is the result of a gravitational “tidal wave effects” between two “deformed space-time volumes” made by their centers of gravity’s “mass-energy”.

It’s also inexact to consider that “object” orbit around a barycenter. Because, in cases where one of the two “objects”, inside a “space-time deformed volume”, is considerably bigger than the other (and close enough), the barycenter will be located within the bigger object. Hence rather than appearing to orbit a common “center point”, the larger body will seem to wobble slightly. So, from now on, consider merely each “center of gravity” of the objects and the wobbling won’t bother you anymore whatever the distance between them. As you must know, a center of gravity having a diameter of 10^-35 meter cannot wobble; because whatever the “wobbling distance”, it too small to exist.

Let’s check barycenters in our solar system with two big planets: Jupiter and Uranus:


Uranus takes 84 years to make one orbit, and Jupiter takes 11.86 years. Which means that Jupiter makes almost 7 orbits while Uranus makes one. And the situation of Jupiter (opposite to Uranus), shown on the drawing, occurs at least 6 times during Uranus’s orbital period.

As we can see, since no “attraction force” exists, the Uranus/Sun barycenter is not affected by the Jupiter/Sun barycenter; otherwise the planets, while orbiting, would have a “jerk” motion reaction during their traveling. In fact, a “jerk” reaction isn’t possible since planets “circle” around a barycenter; so the “jerk motion” would rather be an increasing elliptical orbit.

But then, the result would be multiple different orbits for each planets depending of their position in space. And there are no different orbits for Jupiter, produced because Uranus is not always at the same distance. The Jupiter’s years are always the same and so are the Earth’s years. Which means that barycenters are independent for each planet/Sun systems.

Consequently, there is no “gravitational barycenter” for the overall solar system. Everybody will be happy to realize that we don’t face any “n-body problem” (three and more) in our solar system.

Each planet possesses its own volume of “deformed” space-time, produced by its “mass-energy” located at its center of gravity.

This deformed volume can be shown as V shape volumes. The overall V shape represents the “depth” of the volume “Time-wise”. The top of the V shape is at the “space level”, while the bottom is where the center of gravity is located.

The “Time dimension” is the energy dimension; which stands “inside” our normal three dimensional “space”. Whichever direction you look, you’re always looking “inside” space, towards the “past”. The “fact” is that we spend our life facing the “past”.

A drawing would show something like the following:


The same Time structure applies to the integrated electronic shells around atoms. When two valence shells merges, they define a barycenter. The “place” where this “barycenter” situates itself, between atom’s centers of gravity, results in a gravitational “tidal effect” display. This “display position” becomes a L1 Lagrangian point.

Four other L points are simultaneously produced in each valence shells; which results in uniformalising the energy density in both shells.

This is about all we’ve seen until now, about the implication of the “gravitational effect” of “mass-energy”. And we’ve followed its constant implication in the universe since 10^-36 second after the beginning of the Time flow (Time = zero).

I will try to continue and come back to molecules.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 18th, 2018, 10:55 am 

Why centers of gravity?

The reason why it is better to consider centers of gravity instead of “objects” is the same as why it is better to consider “reality” instead of “impressions”.

The following drawing shows two “objects” orbiting around a barycenter similar to the Earth-Moon system. As you can see, the barycenter is located inside the Earth; which will ask neurons to explain the difference between this situation and the other situation where both “objects” have the same size.


The reality is that there’s no difference at all when you consider both object’s centers of gravity like is shown in the same picture reproduced here without the objects:


But let’s go a bit further on, in this analysis and, after installing the Moon’s center of gravity on the Sun’s “Time flow”, let’s find the Lagrangian points for each centers of gravity (in reality, Lagrangian points belong to both centers of gravity since those “points” are the result of both “gravitational effects”.

Nevertheless, I’ll imagine, and put in, Lagrangian points that I’ll attribute to each “mass-energy”.


The only existing Lagrangian points in this situation are the “white” points.

Either way, from what we see here, we can understand that Lagrangian points are related to “orbits”; but they are also related to the mass-energy that each center of gravity possesses. So when considering the centers of gravity, we are also involving the “Time factor” where both centers are “standing”. What would the drawing look like if we added the “Time factor”?


I’ve installed only the “real” Lagrangian point, for this situation, on this last drawing. We must remember that three of them (3-4-5) “stand” on the “orbital path” of the Moon’s center of gravity.

As for centers of gravity, I’ve installed them in the “space” dimension as well as in the “Time dimension. This shows clearly that we cannot observe “Time” in “space”; which means that there’s only three dimensions that are “observable”. And to my personal opinion, the “Time factor” is not a “fourth dimension”; it’s simply “kinetic energy”. The “fact” remains that “energy” itself is non-observable.

Another situation we have to reconsider is: what about Lagrangian points when two objects have the same “mass-energy?

Let’s have another drawing:


Here we can clearly see that both centers of gravity produce their “proper” Lagrangian points because both “objects” have identical “size”. Which supports my previous using of Lagrangian points of each nuclei of an atom that have “practically” the same size. Especially since two protons and two neutrons can share the same space wave function since they are not identical quantum entities.

Note that, once again, the L1 Lagrangian point position becomes a barycenter.

Those are all "results" from the implication of the "gravitational effects". As we can see, there are no other implications for the moment.

Guess we're ready for molecules.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 19th, 2018, 12:22 pm 


We will explore the Benzene molecule which is made of 6 carbon atoms and 6 hydrogen atoms.


As we can see, Carbon atoms of Benzene produce a barycenter.

And we will find that the structure shown on the right is, most probably, inexact for, at least, two of the carbon atoms.


We show that, in the sp and spd atomic-orbital limits of MP2 theory, benzene is nonplanar.

Let’s verify the structure of Benzene using what we’ve found already, by the involvement of “gravitational effect”, namely “Tidal effects”.

We will make Hydrogen’s “electronic units” (brownish electrons) enter Carbon at the vertical of the main “Time flow”. All carbon’s electronic units (in red) are installed on the “non-energetic” pair hours of each Carbon atoms.

I’ve also placed some Lagrangian points. They should be relevant since, in our view, everything is assembled by “gravitational effects”.

You will see “partial valence bounds” of four electrons (2 for each) of both Carbon atoms installed on the “main Time flow” of the Benzene molecule. The valence “borders” pass through the “middle” of electrons.

In the “energy state” interpretation, it means that the energy involved distributes fifty-fifty in each valence shells; which doesn’t change the energy density equalized in all valence shells of the carbon atoms. This density is of seven electronic units in every valence shell. Remember that these valence shells are like "communicating vessels"; and electronic energy flows through all "tidal effects".

You should remark also the more important “bounding effect” along the vertical axis to the main “Time flow” of the Benzene molecule.

In this drawing we have two Hydrogen atoms that had to "covalent bound” on Top of the Benzene molecule’s plane, because at the plane, only four vertical axis where available as “entries” in the Carbon atoms. Three, four, five, and even all six hydrogen atoms could adopt the same “top position bounding”. This gives Benzene, altogether, 5 possible “bounding structures”. The result would still be a Benzene molecule, but each structure would have different “bounding characteristics” because of their difference in “shape”.

Note also that none of the atoms involved, acquires a “full” valence shell. Which leaves Benzene with lots of “bounding” possibilities for each 5 characteristics procured by the “position choice” of hydrogen bounds.


Considering the increase bounding effect along the vertical axis, plus the "anchoring" of all Lagrangian points involved, there's no question about the "solidity" of the Benzene atomic structure.

Once again, I didn’t have to introduce any “outside particular forces” to explain things. Simple “gravitational effect” still goes!

The next drawing shows the two hydrogen atoms bounded at the top of two carbon atoms.

I’ve shown this, because of the importance to realize that “Time” doesn’t flow as a “river” streaming through land, but as a “flat ocean” extending everywhere; and this, at each “space-time” level, whatever its orientation.


At the biological level, pure benzene oxidizes in the body to produce an epoxide (benzene oxide) which is not excreted readily and can interact with DNA to produce harmful mutations. But inhaled benzene is primarily expelled unchanged through exhalation.
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests