## 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

Shape of the total universal volume

The second volume of space is the one that gives the universe its “shape”:

Because of the disposition of the space volumes, the universe possesses a polygonal shape. And it’s also easy to see that “Y” is shorter than “X”.

After 4 space volume reproductions (4 x (10*-43 s) the difference between the “perpendicular” diameters is, already, quite significant.

The proportion is, as shown on the next drawing, 10 volumes high x 11 volumes wide = 0.91%
Or a decreasing "ratio" of 1 basic space volume every 4 (10*-43 sec); which would make it "progressive".

If not progressive, this would mean that when the universe was 13 billion light years in horizontal diameter, its perpendicular diameter was 11.83 billion light years.

Or if you prefer, its “horizontal” radius was 6.5 billion light years while its “vertical” radius was 5.915 light years; which is still 0.91%.

Just for fun, let’s check the Earth’s orbit:

Aphelion = 1, 0167 UA and Perihelion = 0, 98329 UA which equals = 0.967%

It wasn’t fun at all.

So what would be the shape of our universe?

According to space volumes distribution, the shape of the universe should look like this, or similar:

Now here is what “Space-time” is all about.

1) All which is in red relates to “Time” while the rest is “space”.

2) All “balls” that have the same color (in corridors) have the same “birth date”. Space-wise” that represent the same “energy density”.

3) “Time-wise” all “balls” have their specific “energy density”. These “densities” are “subdivisions” of the space “corridors” energy densities”; like, for example, electronic shells containing “sub-shells”, which are “atomic orbitals”.

4) The “horizon” length of the universe is longer than its perpendicular length; making the universe a somewhat “flatten” dodecahedron.

And the following is the “work” done by the two orientations of “kinetic energy” in the universe:

So what do we see?

1) The “magnetism” is always perpendicular to “electronism”; which makes the whole universe electromagnetic.

2) The “gravitational effect” is always perpendicular to expansion.

3) Because of these two factors, all “fields” (space volumes), in the universe, possesses the same volume “ratio”.

4) Which means that the “gravitational fields” of “nucleus” (fields), “electronic shells” (fields), planets (fields), stars (fields) and Galaxies (fields) possess the same global “shape”.

5) And they are all “shorter” than electronism, expansion and “universal” time.

So let’s check the shape of a galaxy field.

We’ll do it, first, with the Crab nebula (from Hubble telescope) because we can compare a few fields inside it:

The crab nebula is the result of a “supernova” that “exploded in 1054 to 1055 of the present era. It is now centered by a “pulsar”.

The bigger circles are copies of each other’s. I draw the bottom one and copied it to place at the top, using the center Pulsar to join both. We can see that they are mirror images of each other.

The smallest circle would be the shape of the galaxy when it exploded in a supernova in 1054. It was observed by a Chinese astronomer.

Since the two bigger ovals contain all “matter” that was expelled, I figure that those space volumes are related to “gravitational fields”; which instructs me to install the expansion energy flow, perpendicularly to them. That is where I’ve put the double headed red arrow. On the universal clock they would indicate the 3 hr and 9 hr.

Now let’s have a look at NGC 1672:

We get a good idea of the size and shape of its “gravitational field”.

I couldn’t discern if the “flattening” process of the "universal field" was “stable” or progressive; but it seems as if it’s slightly progressive.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

The energy notion

I was saying previously: « It would be great to know exactly the real nature of "energy"; wouldn't it?”.

So here is what it has been coming to, up to now:

First:

A) The energetic speed of expansion = c (light-speed) = 1 (value of universal energy's intensity)

B) Space production = (space volume’s Diameter) x 3 x (10*-43 sec)

Or (D x 3) x (10*-43 sec)

Or 3D x 10*-43 sec. = 1

Second:

Observations:

« Energy » is not quantisable. Energy isn’t a « thing » that produces other « things ». Energy is strictly a simple “state of being”; a unique intensity value of “energetic state” of being. Its intensity, not being quantisable, we can quantise its “density” diluted in a volume, by measuring its “wavelength’s vibration”.

“Energy” isn’t a “force” either. It’s a “state of action”; or more precisely, an “invariant active state”. The only “value”, possible to give it, is: “One”; the “non-active state” being: “Zero”.

0) At the Big-bang this unique invariant “energy state” manifested itself and started a “motion” in every directions, producing “distances” and extending “time”.

1) Which means that the “universal energy” is kinetic energy that becomes the “cause” for “creation” of “space” (distances in all directions) and “time” (linear towards the “future”).

2) This energy is everywhere, at always its constant “full” intensity, inside each basic space volumes, “created” at every 10*-43 sec interval periods (it takes 10*-43 second to travel 10*-35 meter).

3) Its “motion” possesses a “flat” trajectory (straight line) in all directions. It cannot be “curved” since it doesn’t encounter any obstruction on its path. It, thus, creates “flat” space and “straight trajectory” progressing time.

4) This invariant “energetic state” dilutes itself gradually in the constant increasing “space”, but never loses any “intensity”. At every “basic space volume” produced, starts a new additional “time flow” that joins the already existing universal “time flow”.

5) The “action state” called “energy” possesses, intrinsically, all slower “speed” motions, from zero to light-speed “c”, which is its “invariant” maximum speed intensity. It also possesses all the “dates” (present moments) defined on its progressing “universal time flow” (the time arrow).

6) These different gradual “speeds” composing the maximum speed” are what is successively diluted by expansion, from “max speed/energy” to “zero speed/energy”.

7) And since the “production” of “basic space volumes” constantly increases every 10*-43 sec period, corridor’s space volumes gets bigger at every “space production” around the preceding “space volume”. Which gives those corridors a unique “time date” and “density”.

8) However, inside a “gravitational field”, the expanding motion is blocked; which means that every “orbital corridors” possesses its own “size” and “energy density”. This density of kinetic energy is what defines the “speed” allowed inside each corridors. And since the density increases towards the center of gravity, an object falling towards the center of gravity, in a gravitational field, increases its “speed” to the pro-rata of the environment’s density.

9) This provokes the event we observe with a rocket ship or satellite that doesn’t have enough speed to exit the “gravitational field”. It becomes “confined” inside the corridor which energy density corresponds to its proper “speed”.

A) Time is not a « reproduction » phenomenon; it’s a « linear motion » event towards the “future”, in all direction, but from a unique starting point in the past; further back than “space”. “Space” appeared when “time” was already 10*-43 sec old; and it expended from everywhere towards everywhere. “Time” is a “present moment” that travels at light-speed; which freezes that “present moment” at a lapse of 10*-43 second for each basic distances of 10*-35 meter.

B) This 10*-43 second is thus represented by a “basic space volume” of 10*-35 meter in diameter.

C) Each of those “basic space volumes” possesses a « birthdate ». Thus any straight trajectory towards a center of gravity, is composed of “present point moments” of 10*-35 meter in diameter, having a “specific birthdate”, which are situated gradually farther in “time”. This defines a time flow towards the “past” to a “time trajectory” inside a “gravitational field”.

D) Consequently, each of these regressing “10*-35 meter” represents a progressing kinetic energy density towards the “past”. Which explains why the more we recede from a center of gravity, the more time extends which we see as “slowing down”.

André Lefebvre
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

The only solution to every problems is the “Time factor”:

The next drawing presents the expansion of space through time which shows the decreasing kinetic energy density

The following drawing presents expansion of “space” at each “present moments”; which eliminates the “Time factor” with the decreasing kinetic energy density.

By imagining trajectories, in both these drawings, makes us understand that “curved” trajectories can only be a “time factor” result, caused by the increasing energy density towards the “past”, slowing down the velocity of a trajectory.

And since the “speed” of an object is what dictates the “falling” procedure towards a center of gravity, the slower the object gets, by obstructing increasing density, the more it “falls” toward that center.

But most importantly, we can also realize that the “deepness” of space, or the third “dimension” as seen usually, is strictly “Time related”, if not the “Time flow” itself.

And if so, this would mean that “space” is a “bi-dimensional motion” (a surface) expanding through the “Time-linear-motion” towards the “future”. Giving the “reality” three dimensions, exclusively, instead of four, as actually thought.

This would eliminate, in equations, the time dimension as a 4th dimension and would restrict the “gravitational effect” to the “deepness”, meaning to the “Time flow”.

This, being a “fact”, would be quite an achievement for Occam’s razor and bring a completely different “view” to observations; but what would a drawing show?

This would be the ultimate concept of the universe, as being a dynamic state of kinetic energy, composed of a surface expanding “space” (where we stand to observe the past) traveling through “Time”, towards the “future”.

We can see that all motions, involved in the drawing of such a “dynamic universe”, are “centrifugal”, and express the “Time factor’s” reality.

Simple logic tells us that a “centrifugal motion” cannot exists if its “counterpart” doesn’t exists (just as “blackness”, which is a total absence of colors, cannot exists without the existence of “whiteness” that is the presence of all colors).

Which explains the existence of a “centripetal motion” inside the same “Time factor” of the universe dynamism’s. This “centripetal motion” is the “effect” we observe in a “gravitational field”.

And it is a “local event” because its “centripetal size”, in the “Time factor”, was limited to the size of the universe dynamism’s at the “epoch” it appeared inside it.

But what surprises me more, is that I can now understand the "nature" of "energy".

Energy is not a "thing" that does "work"; it's a general state of invariant dynamism that manifests constantly producing "space-time".

This "invariant dynamism" can be locally "excited" spreading, towards everywhere, invisible vibrations (waves) which, when obstructed, releases its "excited dynamism" in quanta of energy which "motion" can be observed.

By the way, it's also evident that all we can "see" is "motions", since photons are quanta of a traveling waves energy, meaning quanta of kinetic energy; even though we imagine "referentials" as "motionless" for quantifying "speed". Absolute "stillness" is impossible in a "dynamic state universe".

As for "absolute motion", it's now evident that it is quite impossible to difference it from the "absolute stillness" that cannot exists; but a "present moment" frozen in time leaves the only possibility of existence as the result of "absolute motion" which is "lightspeed".

There is still a lot of thinking left to be done.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Electromagnetism

Further “research” on the implication of my “gravitational theory”, brings slightly different views from the official view of the reality; most of the time it brings precision to it.

Geometrically, the electromagnetic “space” (universal wave volume) has a shorter magnetism length than its perpendicular electronism. This is cause by the reproducing process of basic space volumes called “expansion of the universe”. It means that if the whole universe was a single electromagnetic "wave", its wavelength would be longer than its wave hights.

Electronism, being the “expansion energy flowing state” (wavelength), could then be more “space intense” (powerful) than the “magnetic state energy flow” (wave-hights) containing less space “energetic state” volumes. This could give a possibility to the existence of the "EM drive” of Roger Shawyer. But, either way, the “expansion energy flow” being 3D, while "magnetism state" is 2D; explains the constant continuation of “space expansion” and the splitting of both gluon’s faces from one another.

The geometric description follows here.

Time clock of electromagnetic flows:

Drawing to the right is the energy flowing state, universal clock.

Drawing to the left is the physical result of “basic space volume” reproduction (expansion). This result shows a difference in length between the X and Y perpendicular dimensions.

But the “magnetism state flow” annuls itself, even if it accumulates, at the center; while the “expansion energetic flowing state” starts from it.

Note that an "energetic state" that is not "excited" isn't observable.

The universe (“space”, or “universal field”) is electromagnetic; which means that, when excited, it produces electromagnetic vibrations. And a vibration is a two contrary direction “motion”.

Classically, electromagnetic radiation (the far field) consists of electromagnetic waves, which are (excited) synchronized oscillations of electric and magnetic fields (a vibration) that propagate at the speed of light, which, in a vacuum, is commonly denoted “c”. When not excited, it is invisible and even non-discernible. It is either excited at the source (by an incoming energy state “unit”) or at the end (by an obstacle).

But what is that “near field” between the emitter and the wave itself?

The near field is the “distance” needed to a wave, in order to “obtain” its stable length’s structure. It is a three parts “process”.

The first part of the process is unifying the “overlapped” sideways vibrations, inside the “space field” separated by the “energetic state flow” (translation motion).

The second part of the process is unifying the up and down vibrations, which are still separated by the “energetic state flow”. But I’m not certain that this really occurs. You’ll see why further down.

The third part is the normal “electromagnetic waves” which becomes the “universal energetic flow” composed of “electronism” plus “magnetism”, which aren’t shown in that part of the drawing. This might indicate an error in the official electromagnetic wave “notion”.

But my first question is: Why was the vibrations overlapping at the start?

If we use the “universal clock”, can we figure it out?

First we have to consider the two sides of the gluon’s surface (in green). Those “sides” cannot overlap since the “expanding energy state” separated them. But the two secondary “expanding energy flows” (11-5 hrs and 1-7 hrs) each affect one face (side) of the gluon, by spreading them on opposite sides of the “electronic field”.

Second, we have to remember that a gluon is a boson which can “accumulate” in the same “energetic state”. So these “states” have to be “overlapping”. Which confirms that the first and second part of the “process” is related to “magnetism”. The fact is that the unification of overlaps is executed by the gluon being spread through the whole “space volume” by the "energetic state" affecting both sides of its surface.

Third, we now can understand the structure of the electromagnetic “field”, composed of one “full electronic space sphere” occupied by two “magnetic fields”.

This “full electronic space sphere” is the “wave-front sphere” described following his drawing.

Note: The red line tells that electromagnetic waves are oriented in all directions, while the magnetism is oriented toward the center of the sphere (electromagnetic field) always perpendicular to the direction.

This drawing shows that the “magnetic wavelength” is twice shorter than the “electronic field’s wavelength”. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be possible to have successive “half magnetic fields” vibrations; we would get a “full magnetic field” that would simply duplicates without any “vibrations”.

But then, we have to take in consideration that one of the "magnetic wavelength" is of an antimatter particle (ex:anti-quark); so when, afterward, antimatter was annihilated, the "particle wavelength" (quark) might have taken the whole length of the electromagnetic wave, while still vibrating, and produce what is observed today as the electromagnetic wave. So I made an error by doubting the official information.

The “wave-front” of electromagnetic waves emitted from a point source (such as a light bulb) is a sphere; which is the “electromagnetic field”. If so, that “sphere” is flattened at the poles because it is “space”; meaning that the “wave-hights” is shorter than the “wavelength”. Which could also means a difference in “speed vibration” (intensity) of both “fields”.

Furthermore, whatever the “size” of the “electromagnetic field” we observe, it is this "size" that defines the “wavelength” we are considering. This confirms that a “wavelength” is a “metric factor” of the universal “electromagnetic energy state”. Improving our interpretation that wavelengths are not “things”; they are strictly different “states” of the “space” electromagnetism.

And since electromagnetism appeared when “space” had a volume of 10*-15 meter in diameter, at 10*-36 sec. this is what the event was:

And electromagnetic “space” continued to expand as followed:

Producing what we observe:

With the “space sphere” at the “wave-front”:

So, what happens when this “wave-front” encounters an obstacle (an object)?

We know that a photon never disintegrates, while a collision of two gamma rays produces a “positron” plus an “electron”.

We also understand that, what is “blocked” on the drawing, is the translation “motion” of the wave.

This would mean that the photon “energy field unit” is a simple electromagnetic “kinetic particle”; because no positron or electron particle appears in this case.

Let’s try to precise the drawing:

This is presented in the visible waves of the electromagnetic spectrum; but the result is the same in all wavelengths.

My question is: Even if the translational motion is blocked, since energy cannot disappear, where did this kinetic energy “state” go?

The only answer is, that it was transformed into “heat”; a caloric energy state that is absorbed by the collided obstruction.

Officially, “the energy of an individual photon is quantized and is greater for photons of higher frequency. This relationship is given by Planck's equation E = hν, where E is the energy per photon, ν is the frequency of the photon, and h is Planck's constant. A single gamma ray photon, for example, might carry ~100,000 times the energy of a single photon of visible light”.

Like I already described in a previous post, I don’t agree with this affirmation. The photon’s intensity which means the “energy state of a photon”, is homogeneous through all the universe. The difference in its “effect” is the “frequency” of its “impacts”; which lasts as long as the source is excited (meaning: emitting vibrations).

Which results in the following:

Photons (electromagnetism energy state units) have a “full spin”; which is a regular rotation of 360 degrees (“half spins” are for particles that need a rotation of 720 degrees to come back at its original position. So, since a normal complete rotation is 360 degrees, those particles are valued having “half spins”. Funny kind of logic, but that's mathematics logic).

Gluon (Magnetism state field) also has a “full spin”.

Two objects with “full” spin, which come in relation, does so at a 60 degree angle to each other and acquire a “half” spin.

Now, we can presume that two objects coming in relation has to use the “magnetism factor”; because the “energy state flow” would repel them.

So, we’ll draw two “universal clocks” that have naturally a “full spin” and put them in relation to see what’s comes out of it. But we must remember the “energy inserting law” that demands the "insertion" to be at the 12 hr:

So the total field produced by those two “universal clock” (or object) has to sum two rotations of 360 degrees of the objects which gives it a “mathematical” half spin of 720 degrees. I say “mathematical” because a rotation is related to “360 degree angles”; not to "sums" of angles, or “speed”, or “length”. Which indicates that the “spin” difficulty is a “mathematical concept” difficulty; not a “geometrical concept” or a “visual concept” difficulty.

I’m tired; so we’ll come back to all this another time. Hope you liked it.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

I forgot to mention that the 60 degree angles "relation" of joined objects is what we have in the previous drawing.

And it is, strictly, the consequence of the universal "energy inserting law" that demands the "insertion" to be at the 12 hr.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

The “energetic state” notion

I have been restraining myself until today, but I have to do it.

I would like to try clarifying what I mean by the “universal field” being simply an “energetic state”.

The best example I could find yet was “water in a pool”.

Water, in a “pool field”, is in a “wetness state” just as the universe in the “universal field” is in an “energetic state”.

Whatever the size of the pool, the “wetness state” stays the same; it’s “wetness” is an invariant. You cannot be more or less “wet"; you’re “wet” or you’re “dry”. And the water in a big pool is just as wet as the water in a small pool.

The same logic applies to the “energetic state”; whatever the size of the “universal field”, its “intensity” stays the same; it is also an “invariant”. You cannot be “half-energetic”; you’re “energetic” or you’re “static”.

Furthermore, just as you cannot quantise the “wetness degree” of a water drop, you cannot quantise the “energetic intensity” of a portion of space; all portions are identical to the whole “universal volume” in the “universal field”, just as the water drop is identical to the whole water volume in the pool.

And if the water, in a “pool field”, changes its “wetness state” for a “dryness state”, the water stops existing. It doesn’t exist anymore.

Once again, it’s the same with the universe; if the universe changes its “energetic state” for a “static state”, the universe stops existing. It doesn’t exist anymore.

This is why the universe is simply an “energetic state field”; the same as a filled pool is a simple “wetness state pool field”.

Now here are the consequences of that “energetic state”:

Being in an “invariant energetic state”, gives certain “characteristics” to the “universal field”.

A- Its “energetic state” manifesting motion is at the maximum “speed” possible to exists; but since this “speed” is manifested by a “field” that is surrounded by “nothingness”, it cannot express a “translation” motion. It can only express a reproduction process called “expansion”. It's in this sense that "expansion" isn't a "motion".

Furthermore, since it is expanding in all 360o directions in a “straight trajectory”, the universal “energetic state” cannot rotate either (because the expansion trajectories wouldn’t be “straight” anymore); so all possible motions for its maximum “speed” are “frozen”. Which install the expanding “energetic state” into an expanding “potential energetic state”. It is “present” but its motion manifestation are strictly “potential”.

B- “Speed” being a “distance” traveled during a “time lapse”, means that both “distance” and “time lapse” are “frozen”.

C- This “lightspeed” was liable to manifests itself, only after the maximum “energy state” was attained. And even if we don’t know what “energy” really is, just as we don’t know what “wetness” really is, we can understand that this “energetic state” had to accumulate “energy” starting from a “static state”, in order to reach its maximum “energetic state”. Just as the “wetness state” had to accumulate “humidity” starting at “dryness”, to reach the maximum “humidity state” called the “wetness state”.

D- So, all this reveals another characteristic of the “universal field”, which is that the “universal energetic state” is actually a “potential energetic state”. It exists but we cannot “observe” any motion manifestation. We can’t even observe its “expanding” process.

E- We have now attained the first evolution “level” of the “universal energetic state”. But this first “level” is not electromagnetic yet. We’ve seen that electromagnetism will appear only when the surface gluon proto-particle installs itself perpendicularly to the “expanding process” of the “universal field”, when it had attain a diameter of 10^-15 meter.

F- This new addition of the gluon made the “universal field” a “composite universal field”; and this “composite field” was now in a “universal electromagnetic state field”. This new “status” of the universal field didn’t change its “potential energetic state”. Its “motion manifestation” was still unobservable.

G- But something had been change by the addition of a “perpendicular gluon field”; a new kind of potential “motion” was now possible to be expressed, which was successive up & down translation motion joined perpendicularly to a sideways translation motion. This new kind of motion is called: a vibration.

H- This new motion transfers itself from the “potentiality state” to the “manifesting state”, exclusively when the “universal energetic potential state” is “excited”.

I-Exciting” the “universal energetic state” became possible after the expanding process attacked each sides of the gluon “surface field particles”. Both faces of the particles were ripped from one another, producing two massive field volumes. The simple presence of those small massive "fields" in the “universal electromagnetic state field” was enough to excite the “electromagnetic field”.

J- The “excitement” was provoked by the “new created potential motion” which could be expressed in successive “up-down-sideways motions”. We can visualize the event happening into a flowing river. If you put a big rock in the “water flow”, water will react to that presence by forming waves in front of the obstacle. The same thing happens when a massive particles stands in the “electromagnetic flowing potential energetic state”. But since this flowing potentiality is in all directions, the wave production is all around the obstructing massive particle. And the new created electromagnetic wave is carried by the potential flowing motion.

K- Being carried by a “potential energetic flowing motion” prevents us from “seeing” the wave itself. But when this invisible energetic wave hits another obstacle, the wave is “blocked” and has to release its “kinetic electromagnetic energetic state” that we, then, can “observe” as a quantum of energetic state called a photon.

L- This quantum of “energetic state” is an expression of the “total universal energetic state”. It is not a “portion” of the “universal energetic state”, because the “universal state” cannot be a “composite” of “states”; it’s a “unique state”.

This is what makes important the exact understanding signification of the word “state”.

Ouf! This was quite an exercise of my English capabilities. Hope it was clear enough.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Let's try to focus a bit more on added precision:

QCD

One of the great discoveries in Physics during the 20th century was the existence of Quarks.

Quarks are considered as “particles”; but, in fact, are punctual mass-energy quanta. Which means that they are the composites of “massive particles”. This discovery finally confirmed that “particles” are indeed “energy”.

Quarks are given “fractional values” because the proton they “compose” is conventionally given the value of “one” (1).

Personally, I don’t believe that the universe, or “nature”, had the possibility to learn mathematics; so I don’t really adopt the exclusivity of mathematics explanation, even if it can discern different quantification which, most of the time. brings complexity to our understanding.

So let’s see how quarks existence can be present in my understanding of the universal “creation” history.

At “Time equal zero”, the uni-dimensional energy potentiality started to manifest by using the only possible “motion” available in a “non-spatial” state. It started to rotate on itself producing a bi-dimensional surface caused by the centrifugal effect.

The normal centripetal effect followed right afterward. Both “effects” started to accumulate energy exponentially by the tangential acceleration at the circumference of this bi-dimensional surface. Naturally, the difference in intensity of each “effects” grew in conformity.

When the centripetal effect couldn’t hold to the centrifugal effect, they were ripped from one another.

The “energy quanta” representing the centrifugal effect where projected in all directions creating the first “space volume”, while the “energy quanta” representing the centripetal effect recoiled on themselves, producing a new surface which started to rotate in the contrary direction of the previous surface.

Both “effects” had reach the “energy state” producing light-speed. Which means that the “centrifugal quanta” projection at light-speed instantly resulted in a “space volume” having the diameter length of the distance covered at light-speed (10*-35 meter) while the recoiled “centripetal quanta” started to rotate at light-speed.

At this speed, the centripetal quanta needed only one single rotation to extend at the 10*-35 meter diameter, making it able to appear in the new created expanding volume.

At this moment the expanding space volume had reach a diameter of 10*-15 meter which became the “size” affected by the 10*-35 meter centripetal “energy quanta’s” surface. And the centrifugal effect “energy quanta” kept on expanding.

The surface centripetal “energy quanta” are what we call “gluons”. We cannot observe “gluons” as “definite particles” but we can observe them as “virtual particles”; because, being “surfaces” in rotation, they appear and disappear twice during each of their rotation.

On the other hand, we can observe events occurring inside this 10*-15 meter size of their “effect”. This is where “quarks” will eventually appear.

Expanding centrifugal quanta in all directions, affected both sides of each confined 10*-35 meter centripetal quantum surfaces, ripping those sides from one another, weakening each of their resistance on one side.

Having one side weakened, each split centripetal surfaces recoiled on themselves by their own energy, producing a volume of “centripetal energy quantum” which are called “quarks”.
Let’s have a few drawings starting with the “virtual” centripetal surface:

As we can see, each had two rotations; one vertical and one horizontal. The splitting result of the gluon surface produced two split surfaces having one vertical contrary rotations. The vertical rotation represented their “helicity rotation” while the horizontal rotation made them “virtual particles”. These combine rotations are what we observe as their “spin”.

When both split surfaces recoiled, they resulted in two contrary rotating energy quanta volumes (quarks) having contrary “spins”.

They stopped being “virtual” and became “defined” existing energy quanta.

Their contrary “spins” permitted them to unify three by three which produced Protons and antiprotons:

It becomes quite simple to understand that the universe is in an “energetic state” which produces “motions” that results in whatever we can observe today, according to the "field" the motion occurs.

André Lefebvre.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My final (I hope) view on energy.

The first law of thermodynamics stipulates that the total energy of an isolated system is always constant. Which means that energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed.

Our universe being “all that exists” is definitively an “isolated system”. Which means that, in the universe, energy cannot be created nor destroyed (Lavoisier's Law); it can only transforms itself (Carnot's principle).

Consequently, if energy cannot be created or destroyed in our universe, this could mean that it isn’t “located” in our universe but stands “somewhere else”.

As for being “transformable”, the “fact” would simply be that it is strictly its “effects” in our universe, which gives different results depending on the environment conditions of where it occurs.

This would also mean that, in that located “somewhere else”, there is only one kind of energy that exists and it is “kinetic energy”. And this “kinetic energy” stands where it was first “created” by rotation: in the Planck’s era.

Finally, our universe is not “composed” of energy, but is a simple consequence of energy's manifestation.

This consequence would, then, have started at the Big-bang (10*-43 sec) when the centrifugal effect was “ripped” from the centripetal effect, creating a “flat space” topology.

Our universe would be, at this point, a “dynamic space field” instead of an “energy space field”. And this “dynamism” is expressed by the “universal expansion” that we observe.

It’s easier to understand if you consider the “Planck era” as a shotgun that shoots scattering pellets at the instant of the Big-bang (the pellets being neutrinos defining distances and trajectories):

http://www.centpapiers.com/wp-content/u ... 10x204.png

But this description concerns only the “space factor” of our universe. Knowing that our universe is “space-time”, what about its “time factor”?

It’s rather simple.

At the instant of the Big-bang, the totality of energy that will ever exist manifested itself; and it was “kinetic energy”.

It’s obvious that all existing “kinetic” energy will result in the “maximal speed” that can be attained; and that speed is “lightspeed”. Nothing can go faster in the universe because there isn’t enough energy in Planck’s era to increase it more.

We know that at lightspeed, time “freezes”.

We also know that “lightspeed” represents the traveling distance of 10*-35 meter in 10*-45 second.

This indicates that, in our Euclidean universe, a “present moment” lasts 10*-43 second, and a “punctual point” volume possesses a diameter of 10*-35 meter.

Which informs us that, in the “view” of the universal totality, time is “frozen” in a constant “present moment”.

The next question becomes:

Why do we perceive “time” as a continual succession of “present moments”?

The answer is obvious: it’s simply because we are standing in a “gravitational field”, where “lightspeed” expansion doesn’t exists. In a “gravitational field”, massive particles cannot have “lightspeed”.

As for the question: what would happen if one of us was transferred into “lightspeed expanding space” where there is no “gravitational field”?

The answer is an impossible situation since each of our body possesses “mass energy” and will always be protected inside its own “gravitational field”.

André Lefebvre
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

That "somewhere else" i'm talking about does exist.

For those who would say that the "Planck era" is from the past and doesn't exist anymore, I'm afraid that they are wrong.

If you look at any photo of the "Cosmic microwave background" that stands at 13,7 billion light-years from us, you have to accept that this "wall of light" does exist today even if it appeared 13,7 billion years ago.

So, if you go back a little bit more, namely 270,000 years behind that "light wall", you'll find the "existing" Big-bang; and just behind that, a little bit sooner, stands the "existing" Planck era.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T model” for Astrophysics

I’ve just come back from a vacation to a French “scientific” discussion. I should have stayed home. The vacation lasted 2 weeks before I was “banished” from two discussions because my ideas were “perturbing” the exchanges.

And I’m leaving out the insignificance of the retorts, I had to “put up to”, from those “knowledgeable” persons. Sadly enough, quite a bit of those were french scientists; so they said. This was my second serious try to exchange with them. I’m afraid that there will never be a third try. Which is very hard on me because I’m a “French speaking Québécois” that defends is language in our vast sea of English speaking community.

Anyway, there’s one thing positive that I learned from them. Which is that the Newton notion, that “bugs” me so much, was only a “model” to explain things. And the same is said for the Einstein “model”. This “model" definition is what makes acceptable whatever doesn’t concord between the two models. Too bad they didn’t accept to discuss my own “model”.

And this is what started my actual action.

I’ve decided to present my own “T-Model”; “T” being for “TOE”. In other words, my “T model” is a “model” for a “Theory Of Everything”. So, there’s nothing to get excited about, it’s only a “model” to explain things; right?

This “T-model” should solves everything, including the “Planck era” problem which is behind the limit of our “scientist’s accessibility”.

Scientists cannot access to that era because they use mathematics; and mathematics collapses when it reaches Planck’s time, length, energy etc.

So I’ll use a different tool. I’ll use the tool of which, Galileo said, is the only one capable of explaining all events in nature.

Let’s see if he was right.

As I promised, we will start at Time = zero; which means that energy is at “zero”. Consequently there is no temperature existing; which is “zero Kelvin”.

Consequently, the first drawing as to be regarding “Time” which naturally, starts at “zero”. That’s a limit which even time cannot cross. So let’s draw a “time arrow” and add-in the information we have, today, from science:

Wow! Galileo was right! Just by drawing a simple line, we get a lot of information that science doesn’t really take into consideration.

1- Time had to start at “zero”, when absolutely nothing existed.

2- The Big-bang was a manifestation of energy. So this energy had to accumulate before the Big-bang in order to manifest itself. This means that the energy accumulated during Planck’s era (A) and the Big-bang occurred at Planck’s time (10^-43 second).

3- From that moment (at Planck time) our universe started to exist (B) and expanded until today, still expanding toward the future.

This is the “Time” story of our universe. And it cannot be otherwise; which doesn’t seem complicated at all; we have to admit.

But what about the energy creation period?

How could energy be created and furthermore, how could it accumulated to its maximum?

We all know that no energy was ever “created” since the Big-bang.
On the other hand, luckily for us, no energy ever disappeared since the Big-bang either.

This is the so called “Principle of mass conservation” and since mass = energy it should be called “Principle of energy conservation”.

Either way, our universe is a “closed system” even if it is expanding; because nothing else exists around it; not even space.

And since this energy’s manifestation, at the Big-bang, is responsible for the “expansion in all directions” from everywhere, this energy has to be “kinetic”.

“Kinetic” means “motion”; so the creation of that energy has to be related to “motion”.

There are only four kinds of motion that exist (vibration is the same as the following first two kinds of motions):

1- Up and down motion (vibration)
2- Sideways motion (vibration)
3- To and fro motion
4- Rotating motion. (rotation)

There is only one of those four kinds of motion that increases “speed”; which means increases “energy”. And that is the “rotating motion”.

In a rotation, speed increases tangentially in the direction of the rotation.

Let’s check with a drawing once again:

It’s easy to see that the “D” balls have to travel a longer distance than the “C” balls, which travels a longer distance than the “B” balls. So there is an increase in speed the farther you are from the center (“A” ball).

But this event is not really increasing speed; because all different speeds are stable and aren’t increasing. So how can we explain increasing energy?

It’s pretty simple if you forget whatever Newton has put in your mind for a minute.

First of all. There is no centrifugal or centripetal “forces” involved. Whatever is involved are simply “effects” produced by the rotating motion. Calling them “forces” will only blur you mind.

The first “effect” to appear, when the rotation starts, is the centrifugal effect. If you spin fast enough, your hairs will be projected away from your scalp. And if they are not rooted firmly, you will lose them. So there is no “centripetal effect” involved beside the fact that your hairs are attached to your head.

This being cleared, let’s find out what could have started the rotation when energy was at “zero”.

The "Quantum dynamic" model will supply the answer with its vacuum energy notion.

Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. The vacuum energy is a special case of zero-point energy in a zero point field that relates to the quantum vacuum.

Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. Which means that even at zero Kelvin there is still a bit of energy existing.

This is the bit of energy that is enough to start our rotation. And since there is nothing else existing beside it, it will be that energy itself that will start rotating.

By rotating, it will start to expand. This expansion isn’t applied to a “volume”; it starts from a “point” and “creates” a “surface”.

Let me explain that.

A “zero point” is a non-existing point. You cannot see it because it is not there. The other reason is that you can never “see” energy anyway. So even if there’s a bit of energy, it cannot be observed. This non-observed energy is present, even before the geometrical “punctual” point ever appears, which is the first dimension in geometry.

So, even if we cannot see it, we will figure it as a non-solid “point” that starts rotating.

In order to “see” what happens, let’s imagine that you are making a pizza. If you’re good at it, you will throw the “pasta” in the air to enlarge it and make it perfectly round. It is the centrifugal effect that expands evenly your rotating pizza dough.

And while expanding, the circumference of your pizza will increase speed as it increases its diameter.

Check this video:

Now, for our mathematics buffs, here is how to calculate tangential speed:

First you take the diameter and multiply it by “pi” which is 3.1416 (approximately)

So if you have a diameter of 5 inches the circumference will be 5 x 3.1416 = 15.708 inches.

Then you divide the circumference by the time it takes for one complete rotation. We had 10 seconds in our drawing; so 15.708 inches divided by 10 seconds = a speed of 1.5708 inches by second.

Therefore when your pizza expands to 10 inches, you get 10 x 3.1416 = 31.416 inches of circumference; divide by 10 seconds = 3.1416 inches per seconds.

Has you can see, the speed of the pizza’s circumference doubled while its diameter doubled. Thus there really is an increase of energy supplied by the rotation.

But even this speed increase isn’t as fast as the speed increase during the Planck era. The difference is that the quantity of your pizza dough doesn’t change while rotating; which is not the case of our starting bit of energy.

When we have that bit of energy that starts rotating, it doesn’t disappear after the first rotation, but keeps doing its kinetic action. So when the second rotation starts, the increase of kinetic energy produced by the rotation, adds itself to the starting bit of energy. Which makes energy “accumulate” and speed increases a lot faster. Let’s see the event in a drawing. I’ll draw the added energy coming from underneath the energy’s surface:

Let me explain the drawing.

A, B and C are moments in time; let’s say: 1st turn, 2nd turn and 3rd turn.

At “A”, there is only a bit of energy involved, and it makes a full rotation increasing the tangential speed (kinetic energy).

So at “B” (start of second turn), all the kinetic energy present takes action, which doubles the amount of kinetic energy first involved.

The same event occurs at “C”, but then, it’s the previous doubled kinetic energy that doubles; so you have four times more energy than at the first rotation.

This constant adding of kinetic energy increases speed on top of the created rotating tangential speed (which is the second factor of the event) that already doubles at every turn.

So if we put a value of “1” to the initial energy “point”, after the first completed rotation you get double speed = 2, plus the double value of energy increase which totals 4 times the initial energy value. And then, this 4 times more energy value starts to operate.

At the end of the second rotation, you get an injection of double speed of 4 = 8 times more than the initial energy plus the value of 8 added tangential kinetic energy that, then, starts to operate; which is a total of 16 times more than the initial kinetic energy.

So in just two rotations starting with a value of “1” you increase to a value of “16”.

There should be a formula to calculate this increasing “ratio”; but I don’t even want to think about it. I leave it to specialists.

The important fact is that we’ve found the operation that increased the start of our zero point energy.

And this increase of kinetic energy kept on going during all the Planck era.

The next question that comes to mind is:

Why did it stop at Plank’s time (10^-43 sec)?

I’ll get to this question in my next post.

If anything is wrong in this post don't hesitate to point it with an explanation of your objection; please.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Scientists cannot access to that era because they use mathematics; and mathematics collapses when it reaches Planck’s time, length, energy etc.

Mathematics is not subject to time, length or energies. Among other things, mathematics is subject to a level of understanding. Mathematics may reach a point beyond ones comprehension, but that is not to say it collapses.

Watson
Resident Member

Posts: 4536
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Thank you for the correction Watson.

Let's say that at the so called "singularity", mathematics has problems.

Glad someone found something wrong in my "T model".

I choose this name because the "T model" was a car accessible to everybody.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015
 Watson liked this post

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T model” for Astrophysics (2)

To resume what we’ve just seen, let’s enumerate the “facts” we have met:

1- Energy accumulated because of a rotating “motion”
2- This energy was kinetic
3- The “effect” of the energy’s rotation was Centrifugal

Naturally, the next question that comes to mind is:

Why did it stop at Plank’s time (10^-43 sec)?

Let’s see what we have when Planck time occurs.

What is the state of “things” just before the Big bang?

This is a drawing of our “bubbling” kinetic energy surface in rotation:

The “bubbling” impression is given by the fact that we are in front of a kinetic energy event that possesses one single feature; meaning “motion”. And this “motion’s potential trajectory” starts from everywhere towards everywhere.

On top of that fact, we have the rotating motion of the event itself, which is oriented counterclockwise. This rotation defines the centrifugal “effect” we have just seen.

Now to get our answer to why the energy creation stopped at the Big-bang, I will ask a Chinese friend of mine to present us what he calls a Tai-Chi graphic which will represent our "bubbling" surface;

First, we have to note the direction of the rotation (counterclockwise) which is confirmed by the two trailing part of both “water drops” composing the drawing.

Those “water drops” will represent the two “factors” produced by a rotation:

a) The active “centrifugal effect” we already have observed and

b) A passive “effect” habitually called “centripetal effect” that we will analyse right away.

Let’s settle this active/passive description.

Coming back to imagining our solely existing energy surface in rotation, we observe a centrifugal “effect”. So, undoubtedly, this “effect” is “real”; it does exist. In fact, today we use this rotating “effect” to help us sending rockets in space by “blasting off” from sites the closest possible to the equator.

Well, just as perceived when we experienced with your hairs, being kept by you while rotating, for the sole reason that they are “rooted to your scalp”, there is no “real” centripetal “effect”. The reason our “energy surface” stays as a “whole” despite the acting centrifugal “effect”, isn’t because there’s something holding it together; but simply because there is nothing else that exists. So there’s no possibility to be separated by anything. The centripetal “effect” isn’t real; the most we can say about it is that it is a “passive” inertness; it doesn’t “act”. In fact, this “passive effect” is very close to the “weight notion”; but we will not be able to pin point this allegation before we get to the “gravitational effect” further on.

This last conclusion modifies Newton’s third law quite a bit; because simple “inertia” replaces his “reacting force”.

Note that our finding, here, is exactly the contrary of what Newton found with his own “model”. To Newton, the centripetal “force” was real, while the centrifugal “force” was “fictitious”. This is the kind of conclusions his “force” notion brings our mind to make. It might be a “nice” model; but it’s only superficially logical and lacking in precision (in both ways, mathematical and intellectual).

Finally, what we found during Planck era amounts to three “facts”:

1- Accumulating Energy,
2- A Centrifugal active “effect” and
3- A Centripetal passive “inertness” status.

We also observed that the centrifugal active “effect” appeared before the centripetal passive “inertness”. To describe the “action” we could say: It had to “move” (take action) in order to, afterward, “be”. Which makes the “active” portion stronger than the “passive” inertness. A more realistic and undoubtedly logical way to see it, is that “action” is more dynamic than “inertness”.

The result is that the centrifugal effect can never be prevented from “acting”, by a “passive” response. So, from now on, when you push on a wall, the wall stays “inert” and doesn’t stop you from keeping “pushing” (and certainly doesn’t push back). This specifically tells us that the accumulation of “speed” (meaning: energy) in Planck era, wasn’t restrained whatsoever by anything.

With all this in mind, let’s go back to my Chinese friend’s rotating Tai-Chi drawing.

All we have to do with this drawing is identify each “water drops” with either, the centrifugal acting “effect” and the centripetal “passive” inertness.

Let’s say that the black drop is the “passive inertness” while the white drop is the “active centrifugal effect”.

Since the “centrifugal effect” isn’t restricted in any way, the increasing energy of the constantly extending circumference keeps accumulating.

And since this “action” factor started before the “inertness” factor, there was a difference in intensity/response installed between the two factors (resulting in the fact that “inertness” was augmenting slower than “action”); and that difference in intensity augmented at the same ratio as both factors.

This phenomenon brought the Planck era event to a point where the difference in intensity became so great that the “passive inertness” couldn’t restrain the “centrifugal effect” from releasing itself, and being projected in all directions. The time of this scission event was 10^-43 second after Time = zero. We call it: The Big-bang moment.

This projection of the centrifugal effect in all directions (from everywhere), was what created our three dimensional “space”; meaning the first “volume” ever. This confirms that “space” appeared AFTER “time”; and not at the same moment of the Big-bang.

Another way to “present” this episode would be: the centrifugal effect being released in all directions, created distances within a “space volume”.

Just as soon as this “scission” between the centrifugal effect and its passive inertness occurred, the initial rotation was cancelled, so the “speed” stopped increasing and the “energy” stopped accumulating.

But while the “active” half of our Tai chi drawing was projected in all directions, the other half reacted in a backlash, as a normal inertness aptitude would, and adopted a contrary rotating direction to the one it had previously. And both kept getting "bigger"; the centrifugal part by propulsion expanding in a volume and the "centripetal inert part" by extension of its surface caused by the rotation it adopted.

This phrase is a bit complicated to visualize; so I guess we need a drawing to simplify its understanding. We will use the “rotating balls” drawing to picture the event:

This Big-bang “incident” resulted in defining two observed facts in our universe:

1- The maximum energy attained its limit.
2- The maximum possible speed attained its limit.

But there is an additional, but very subtle, “fact” that we must be aware of:

Which is: “The new space volume created wasn’t “energy”; it was solely an “effect” resulting from the kinetic energy in Planck’s era”.

Consequently, the energy itself wasn’t transferred into our universe; only the “motion” (the resulting work) produced by the kinetic energy manifested as the universe was transferred. And, still today, our universe undergoes the constant “effect” of this kinetic energy still standing behind Planck’s time, in the Planck era. This constant “action” is what produces the universe’s expansion. It is also the underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe, that we call “vacuum energy”. The proof is that this “vacuum energy” of quantum dynamic is “virtual”.

So let’s add right away this third “fact” that we observed:

3- Our universe is not composed of energy; its “dynamism” is simply resulting from the “action” of the underlying vacuum energy of Planck era.

Now can we quantise those three facts?

1 and 2 are easy to quantise, because we already know those numbers.

1) The maximum energy is the Planck energy constant = 10^19 GeV (Gigaelectronvolt) which is:
10, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 electronvolts.

2) As for the maximum speed, it's easy to understand that a maximum of kinetic energy produces a maximum speed impossible to be overcome because it requires all the existing energy. And this maximum speed is known as “lightspeed” that is 299, 792, 458 meters per second. Which is equivalent to a Planck length traveled within a Planck time (approx. 10^-35 meter in 10^-43 second).

As for

3) The universe’s dynamism should be manifested by the maximum energy of Planck’s era; meaning at lightspeed. But we will have to verify this postulate a bit later in a further post.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T model” for Astrophysics (3)

So we’re now facing the Big-bang that made our universe appear at 10^-43 second after Time = zero.

This event is only half of the whole event we observed during the Planck era. It is exclusively the “projected” centrifugal motion produced by the accumulated total energy attained at 10^-43 second after time = zero.

The change that occurred at that moment is that, half of the former “rotating motion” was transformed in a full “forward expanding motion”.

Let’s compare drawings showing the slight difference:

The drawing on the left is a surface full of kinetic energy, while the drawing on the right is the motion “resulting” in a volume, produced by the kinetic energy’s “action” of the Planck era, manifested at Planck time.

Now we’ve already seen that this “motion” was manifested at lightspeed; and we’ve also seen that lightspeed means traveling a distance of 10^-35 meter in 10^-43 second.

This means that the first volume of “space” ever to appear had a diameter of 10^-35 meter. This diameter could not be shorter, since its distance was defined by the already attained maximum speed of the moment; slower speed didn’t exist at that precise moment.

This statement explains that the first expanding motion (the dispersion in lower picture) at the instant of the Big-bang is what was observed by the Planck satellite; scientists called it the “radiance period”:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.06205.pdf

This “radiance period” lasted until 10^-36 second after time = zero. Then started “inflation” which lasted until 10^-32 second after time = zero. After that moment, Planck satellite shows the appearance of the “focusing” motion. This “focusing motion is observed where baryonic matter “resides” (it has a higher temperature). Which tells us that the blue spots is where no baryonic matter can be found.

We will now “see” (imagine) what could have happened between 10^-43 second and 10^-36 second.

This period is called the “radiance period”, because it implies exclusively the “expansion” of the universe. “Inflation” started only at 10^-36 second after time = zero; as Planck satellite also observed.

We’ve already seen that a shorter length than 10^-35 meter was impossible to exist; which determined the diameter of the very first volume of space that appeared animated with the expanding motion as our drawing as shown:

And since a shorter length couldn’t appear before another 10^-43 second had elapsed, the following was the expanding result 10^-43 second after the Big-bang:

So at the Big-bang we had one volume of 10^-35 meter in diameter, and 10^-43 second later, we had 12 additional volumes of 10^-35 meter in diameter.

This is the “reproduction ratio”, which is not a “speed”, for each basic volume of space, where every one of them has 10^-35 meter in diameter. So the reproduction ratio is “12 for 1” per 10^-43 second.

To be perfectly clear, the “speed” of expansion of each space volumes is constant at lightspeed; but the “ratio” of reproduction of basic space volumes is: 12 for 1 volumes per 10^-43 second. This is a “fact” that can be “seen” only with geometry. Mathematics cannot show this undeniable “fact”, I don’t think so. On the other hand, mathematics can most surely supply a formula that can calculate the future results implied by such a “ratio”.

And these results are going to be far greater than what redshift gives for type 1a supernovae; because type 1a supernovae have “inertness” that prevents them to have “lightspeed”; and even if they had lightspeed, the ratio” of reproduction of space volumes represents, after a certain distance in space, a growth of that distance superior to what lightspeed can travel.

It will also give à result exceeding enormously what we are actually given to the expansion rate.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/uni ... te-mystery

Furthermore, the so named “acceleration” between type 1a supernovae and us is a “deceitful” expression. “Acceleration” is related to “speed”; but the observed event is related to the “space reproduction” ratio; which isn’t a “speed” at all.

Fortunately, this “fact” relieves us of a big problem; because we don’t have to search for any added “dark energy” coming from nowhere to explain the wrong notion of this expanding “acceleration”. There’s a great economy involved here. Economy of dollars which could serve for more serious research.

As for now, our research doesn't cost anything; so we will keep observing "freely" what happened afterward, in my next post.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

As you will probably note, my "T Model" improved a lot while discussing some of its features. In fact, this "model" is the result of my being here during the last four years.

When I started, I had no idea it could result in such a clear view, at least for me, of the "birth" and the "evolution" of our universe.

I cannot express the amount of gratitude I feel for participating to this forum. My thanks to all of you.

André Lefebvre
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T model” for Astrophysics (4)

The previous post ended when the time was at (2 x (10^-43)) second.

Let’s have a look at the picture when the next 10^-43 second expired.

Remember that each of the existing basic space volumes reproduces at the ratio of 12 for 1 space volume. In the next drawing we will consider only a 2D picture of the following 10^-43 second event (a 3D picture would show 13 x 12 = 156 basic space volumes), which will supply us with information pretty surprising:

First thing that jumps to our eyes is the trajectories of the expanding motion (in red) that leave some of the newly appeared volumes of space (in white) not directly affected.

There’s no question that those white space volumes where produced the same way as the other ones (by the centrifugal effect); but they clearly stand outside of the main expanding motion process of the overall event.

So what does that imply?

First, since these non-affected space volumes are also going to reproduce themselves because they are just as animated by the kinetic energy effect as all the other space volumes, this tells us that the instant of this 3rd reproduction, is their birth-date from which their personal reproduction starts, giving them their own “time arrow”.

Second, their positions are the perfect “spot” where the “inert” centripetal factor can install itself, since they stand out of exterior influence.

So let’s see what happened to that other factor that stayed back in Planck era.

We’ve seen that this half portion of our Tai Chi drawing reacted in a backlash and adopted a contrary rotating direction to the one it had previously; so it started rotating clockwise.

How can we describe it?

A) It is a surface in rotation.

B) It is, also, an “inert, passive” energy. Simply because everything that was “rotating” in that Planck era was energy.

But how can energy be “inert”?

The only possible answer is that: This energy is “inert” because its kinetic direction is “focusing” towards one point instead of “dispersing” from everywhere towards everywhere. We could say that its “action” is “self-centered”; which should make it independent of outside influence (I guess we’ll find out, eventually, if that’s really the case). Surprisingly, this “focusing aptitude” is relevant to “keeping everything as a whole”. In other words, it’s a “centripetal effect” aptitude.

C) This “focusing energy” had already gained lightspeed at 10^-43 sec, just as the “projected active motion” had; so when it started rotating clockwise, it did so at lightspeed. Consequently, after a completed rotation, its lightspeed energy had multiplied by itself; representing the intensity of its “focusing energy”.

D) During this completed rotation, it had also doubled its “size” which originally was half of the needed diameter to appear in our universe. Doubling the length of its diameter's effect made it appropriate to manifest itself in our three-dimensional space.

So, the 2nd period of 10^-43 second of our universe’s life was used by the “inert, passive energy”, in Planck era, to double its diameter’s length and increase its focusing energy effect.

Now having the proper diameter for its surface, its effect appeared inside our universe at the 3rd period of 10^-43 second, and couldn’t install itself elsewhere than where the main “active motion” wasn’t “influencing”.

So the next drawing is the situation in which this “focusing surface effect” found itself:

As we can see, the focusing surface, even if it’s not standing in a main event expanding effect trajectory, is still subjected to the “inner centrifugal effect” of the space volume it occupies. And we can clearly observe that this “centrifugal effect” is pulling each faces of the “focusing surface”.

So we can imagine what happened afterward to this “focusing surface”. Let’s see it in another drawing:

A) This part of the drawing represents the moment when both faces of our focusing surface are ripped for each other by the inner "centrifugal effect". Having lost their resistance on one side, their focusing effect made both faces recoil on themselves producing two “focusing volumes”.

B) And since the diameter of the former surface of 10^-35 meter was the shortest length possible to exists, it had to keep the same diameter for each new produced volume.

C) Two volumes replacing one surface, inside the original space volume, made this space volume inflate significantly in one shot (it, at least, double it). This is what startedinflation”.

D) So we, now, can “date” this event at 10^-36 second after time = zero, as when inflation started. We will see that inflation was far from finished.

But this isn’t all; we can also identify the initial “focusing surface effect” that transformed itself into two “focusing volumes”. The “focusing surface effect” is the boson we call a Gluon, which “decays”, 75% of the time into a Top and antiTop quarks.

Furthermore, we now can understand why a gluon doesn’t have “mass”; simply because it’s a bi-dimensional “surface”, and mass is limited to three-dimensional “volumes”.

As for the quasi particle, also without mass, related to the “expanding motion” of our universe, I’m tempted to identify it with the neutrino that travels at “almost” the speed of light. The main reason is that its “helicity” is “left handed” which means that it “spins” in the contrary direction of its motion’s trajectory. Which is the normal result from the counterclockwise rotation projected by the “centrifugal effect” from Planck era.

We are now confronted to a very important question that science was able to answer recently with one of their “model”, naming: the origin of “mass”. They used the “Higgs field” model to explain the process.

I must say that no one can verbalize clearly what this process is. Only “mathematicians” say they really can understand it "mathematically".

We will answer the same question with my “T Model” that wants to be accessible to everybody.

But that will be in my next post.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Is somebody fooling around with my posts? I can'y post anymore.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T model” for Astrophysics (5)

Before continuing, we have to verify something.

I think there might be another “adjustment” going to appear to my T-Model. Every time I prepare a post something pups up to help me understand better or bring down the whole concept.

I always get a “funny” feeling when I look at my drawing of the 3rd (10^-43 sec) event. The reason is that I’ve never drawn the complete “reproduction” of the 7 first “basic space volumes” (in 2D) as logic really demanded it. So I’ve never “seen” the implication of its overall geometry.

Furthermore, I don’t know if this 3rd event representing 3 times (10^-43 sec) is enough to expand the universe at 10^-15 meter, which should be the size of the universe when the Gluon appears.

So let’s have another look.

This is the result attained at the 2nd “space” reproduction event; in other words: at the second “present moment” of 10^-43 sec:

As we can see, since each dots are created space, there are many “no-space” intervals between the space volume productions. So how must we “comprehend” this event?
My first comment is that it has the “shape” of the first snowflake that was ever photographed in 1885. But I can’t see any relations except that the pattern exists in nature; it's called a "snowflake".

My next comment is to remember that this “situation” lasted only one “present moment” (10^-43 sec) in an “activity” of succeeding creative “present moments”. So I guess we can accept those “no-space” intervals as part of the event’s evolution.

But those “no-space” intervals cannot last more than one “present moment”; which means that they have to be “filled” (spatially confirmed) at the precise following “present moment”.

The last comment would be that the “angle changes”, that we observed, for two of the centrifugal effect trajectories, in regard to the horizontal trajectory, is provoked by the active effect of energy, since it occurs before the appearance of the “inert” centripetal effect (Gluon). This eliminates my reluctance to have an “inert” factor “doing” something.

It is now evident that this “centripetal effect” would install itself in those “no-space positions” (with no influence) which agree with its “inertness”.

So let’s see what happens at the next “present moment”:

We can see that the previous existing “space volumes” have reproduced themselves and our “inert centripetal effect” (red dots) has appeared in the universe.

The “inert” surfaces are localized where we have red dots. All the other “pink dots” are previous and new “no-space” locations.

How can we accept that our “inert” surfaces occupy all those “no-space” locations?

Personally I can’t justify it clearly yet. But since our “inert particle” is a Gluon, if I ask science, I get this answer:

A Gluon is a boson; and a boson possesses an aptitude that is “special”.

As the quantum concentration depends on temperature, most systems at high temperatures obey the classical (Maxwell–Boltzmann) limit, unless they also have a very high density”. Which is exactly the “state” of our gluon at the beginning of the universe; the density is extreme.

This means that regardless of the high temperature of the moment, our gluon responds to the Bose–Einstein statistics which “describe one possible ways in which a collection of non-interacting (inert), indistinguishable particles may occupy a set of available discrete energy states”.

The Bose–Einstein statistics apply only to those particles not limited to single occupancy of the same state—that is, particles that do not obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle restrictions. Such particles have integer values of spin (full spin) and are named bosons, after the statistics that correctly describe their behavior. There must also be no significant interaction between the particles.

So, our “Gluon surface” stands accordingly to these restrictions; it has a full spin (the complete clockwise rotation from Planck era) and is “inert” which means it doesn’t interact with other particles.

Since our boson isn’t limited to occupy a single location, it then can influence all of the “no-space” locations existing when it appeared in our universe. This is why science says that the “effectiveness” of the Gluon covers all the universe existing when it appeared (diameter of 10^-15 m). Which is the size of an atomic nucleus. Just imagine the “density” it had; actually the diluted density of the universe gives a temperature of 2.73 Kelvin over absolute zero; which is absolute Cold. Absolute Hot is given by Max Planck as being approx. 10^32 Kelvin. Around 10^32 K, particle energies become so large that gravitational forces between them would become as strong as other fundamental forces.

So we cannot neglect the “fact” that, just after the Big-bang, the “gravitational effect” was a lot more “effective” than it seems to be today (note the effect of the density; we will encounter it again later). We should nuance our conviction that “gravity” is the weakest “force” existing. Approximately 10^38 times weaker than the strong interaction, 10^36 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 10^29 times weaker than the weak interaction; but that is in today's environment. The reality is that at the time when those imagined forces operated to produce "particles", the density/temperature was so great that “gravity” didn’t need any other “force” to do the job at hand and "hold particles together.
Last edited by Andrex on December 4th, 2019, 12:26 am, edited 5 times in total.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T model” for Astrophysics (6)

My last post told us that the universe at this precise moment was as big as an atomic nucleus.

Now the next “present moment” arrived and things started to change. Our Gluon surface’s faces where thorn from each other and “inflation” started.

Let’s see what this "inflation" consist of.

Inflation is caused by a series of events happening inside our “non-influenced” locations occupied by the gluons (but not the “no-space” locations). Thus, it doesn't have any relation with "expansion". Those two events operate simultaneously and "expansion" never stopped.

As you will notice, the size of the Top and antiTop quarks are 10^-35 meter; but they are “massive particles” so they produce a “gravitational field” as big as the influence of their original Gluon; which is 10^-15 m in diameter. So in these drawings, we will observe strictly the “Gravitational fields” of the incoming particles that always keep the same volume of influence, thus increasing the previous volume of influence (previous gravitational field).

Here are those events:

The Standard model separates particles in three “families” (Quarks, Leptons & Bosons); but what is really important is that it also separates them in three generations.

What is not mentioned sufficiently is that each generation is “born” inside the previous generation starting with the Gluon’s centripetal (towards the center) influential surface.

So if we make a drawing of the three generations of the quark’s “gravitational fields”, we get the following picture:

And to me this previous structure is the same as the one we observe in our galaxy:

Wasn’t it a good thing to think it over once again (even if it took two posts to do it)?

We’ve found the proof that none of the so called “fundamental forces” are needed to explain Astrophysics. I think it was worth spending the time.

I’ll go work on my next post.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T model” for Astrophysics (7)

The “instant” when the 3rd “present moment” appeared in our universe is the instant when this universe changed its “nature”.

Before that instant, the universe had a “radiance” nature (confirmed by Planck satellite); but a change occurred at 10^-36 sec. when the gluon adopted the whole existing universe as the “range” of its “effectiveness”. The universe became electromagnetic.

We know that electromagnetism consists of a magnetic field installed perpendicularly to an electronic field. This is what we observe today.

Naturally, this observation, of today, is the final “result” that came after a period of evolution at the time it happened. So what exactly was the changes that occurred during that “evolution” period?

This is the drawing of the “appearing event” of the gluon in the universal expanding space of the time:

As we can easily observe, all 6 gluons (G) that appeared, were installed perpendicularly to one of the three expansion trajectories: G-1 to E-1, G-2 to E-3, G-3 to E-2, G-4 to E-1, G-5 to E-3 and finally G-6 to E-2.

So the first phase of electromagnetism’s evolution was the “centripetal effectinstalled perpendicularly to the “centrifugal effect”.

For us, today, naming the centripetal effect a “magnetic field” describes the event perfectly enough; but naming the centrifugal effect an “electronic field” doesn’t describe the event with precision at the instant electromagnetism appeared; because at that moment, electrons didn’t even exist.

Once again, we have to note that our observation of “electromagnetism” was established by Hendrik Lorentz, after a lot of work by previous scientists; but it doesn't give the information of how it came to be; only of what was observed as a “fact”. And admitting the existence of a "fact" is far from "understanding" that "fact".

Furthermore, this “fact” was considered as a “force” called either “Lorentz force” or “electromagnetic force”.

Let’s have a look at how it was then described (and still is):

In physics (specifically in electromagnetism) the Lorentz force (or electromagnetic force) is the combination of electric and magnetic force on a point charge (zero dimensional) due to electromagnetic fields”.

So, putting aside the “force notion”, we can say that our previous drawing represents what is called the “electromagnetic field” in this description of “electromagnetism”.

And since our gluon with a diameter of 10^-35 meter, being a boson, acquired an effectiveness to the size of the whole universe existing at that moment, which had a diameter of 10^-15 meter (effective range of the so-called “strong” nuclear force), we clearly observe a “magnetism effect” (centripetal) overriding perpendicularly a “diffusing effect” (centrifugal). This means that the first phase of electromagnetism appeared when the universe had a diameter of 10^-15 meter. And since this was the limit range of the “centripetal effect”, the centrifugal effect continued the expansion of the universe without any influential obstruction; but adopted the new “nature” of electromagnetism. The universe became electromagnetic.

This is how electromagnetism looks like:

For the motion, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroma ... Colors.gif<

Definition: “Electromagnetic waves are waves that are created as a result of vibrations between an electric field and a magnetic field. In other words, EM waves are composed of oscillating magnetic and electric fields”.

An electromagnetic wave can travel through anything; be it air, a solid material or vacuum. It does not need a medium to travel from one place to another”. Which is an observed “fact” unexplained. But the explanation is rather simple. The reason is that the whole universe is in an electromagnetic “state. We could even consider that the whole universe is a single “big photon”.

“EM waves are 'transverse' waves”.

All the parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are electromagnetic radiating waves. Including light which is an electromagnetic wave:

So what happened afterward, in research, to involve electrons in the process?

This involvement of electrons is a bit “blurred” when we look at the “electronics’ definition”:

Electronics comprises the physics, engineering, technology and applications that deal with the emission, flow and control of electrons in vacuum and matter”.

To my mind, “in vacuum and matter” means: “everywhere”; and since it is a “flow” of electrons, it means “motion… everywhere”, be it “electrons” or “whatever” which is in motion. And since the whole universe possesses an “expanding motion”, the whole universe is “electromagnetic” without any implication of electrons as its cause.

For example; if you’ve seen the motion “pattern” adopted by our solar system “cruising” through space, it adopts exactly the “pattern” presented for the electric field vector, presented previously.

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-conten ... o1_400.gif

Note that the objections are related to “the Sun leading planets”; which isn’t accurate. It’s the Sun’s “gravitational field” that moves as a “whole” with the orbiting planet’s “gravitational fields”. Planets and Sun are only “passengers” of their own field.

The simple “fact” observed is that electrons simply follow the “expanding motion” of the universe. And this “effect” on electrons, is what electronic is all about. Finally, we have to admit that electromagnetism is not a “force” in any way; it’s a simple “effect” caused by simple natural “facts”.

But there is something else that we have to indicate from our previous drawing.

Let’s see it once again:

I naturally inscribe numbers to the gluons without even thinking about the sequence. But now I note that this instinctive distribution reveals the “full spin” (integer spin) rotation direction as being clockwise; which is the positive helicity of a gluon (I’ve just added the curved direction arrow in black).

https://www.bnl.gov/aum2018/content/wor ... licity.pdf

Conclusion:
2009 RHIC data have placed the strongest constraints on the gluon helicity and, for the first time, provide evidence for a positive gluon polarization for x > 0.05
”.

The question is:

Is the gluon’s polarization represents its “right handed” (positive) helicity?

In particle physics, helicity is the projection of the spin onto the direction of momentum. The helicity of a particle is right-handed if the direction of its spin is the same as the direction of its motion and left-handed if opposite.

On the other hand, massless particles may exist in just one helicity state. For example, neutrinos only exist in negative helicity states, known as left handed states. So we can represent “helicity” on a drawing, as a simple spinning ball.

Since the photon and gluon are massless, they cannot exist in a helicity zero state; and since they are bosons, they exist in an integer (full) helicity state.

Particles with integer helicity (full spin) are said to be transversely polarized and those with zero helicity are longitudinally polarized. So photons and gluons are transversely polarized.

In physics, a transverse wave is a moving wave whose oscillations (magnetic and electronic fields) are perpendicular to the direction of the wave. Electromagnetism is an example of a transverse wave, where the oscillations are the electric and magnetic fields motion.

So we can understand that a gluon’s helicity is “transverse”; but is it “positive” or “negative”?

Let’s draw two particles moving in the same direction but having contrary helicity (here a rotation):

For massless particles like photons and gluons, “chirality” is the same as “helicity” (which eliminates a lot of discussions). A given massless particle appears to spin in the same direction along its axis of motion regardless of point of view of the observer.

And since mathematically, helicity is the sign of the projection of the spin vector onto the momentum vector: “left” is negative and “right” is positive; so a gluon is “positive” meaning “right handed” as shown by the left side ball on our drawing.

In resume, we had already deduced that neutrinos where “left handed” because they originated from the counterclockwise rotation existing during the Planck era, and we, just the same way, deduced that the gluon was “right handed”, because of the normal backlash, after scission with that rotation, adopted a clockwise rotation.

So my “T-Model” isn’t bad at all, until now, after all.

Furthermore we seem to have discovered a similarity of motion pattern between an electromagnetic wave and our solar system; which tends to “generalize” all motions within the same pattern.

But I still have to “digest” the total implication of this last finding, I must say.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My "T Model" of Astrophysics (8)

Inflation lasted from 10^-36 sec to 10^-32 sec. This is less than “a blink of the eye” time frame. But as extraordinary as it may seem, a lot of events happened during this period.

One of them was the “creation” of electrons.

In our science data collection we don’t have many experiences where electrons are “created”. Most of the time, they are “ejected”; except in one event that I’m certain of.

This event is when two gamma rays collide directly. The collision “produces” an electron (negative) and a positron (a positive electron) which weren’t involved before.

Let’s draw the event:

The result is:

I guess everybody can see where the “negative” and “positive” distinctions, between produced electron and positron, come from just by comparing the two drawings. If not, they come from the negative electronic fields and the positive magnetic fields. There is nothing else in a gamma ray.

But what are their “nature” exactly?

They are simply the different motion directions of each composites of the gamma rays that are separated.

The reason they separated was that both rays had the same propulsion intensity; and when they collided, those propulsion's intensity cancelled each other so the "ray" motions were “blocked”. Consequently, since the motion directions of each perpendicular fields where the only motions left, they couldn’t unite, being contrary to each other; so they were separated and propelled sideways.

And since these contrary motions were resulting from the vibrations of the previous gamma rays, they were not well defined “energy effect volumes” because a gamma ray wavelength ranges between 10^-14 m and 10^-8 m. partially overlapping X rays. So they are observed as “cloudy volumes” of energy effect.

OK. Now when did, exactly, this event happened?

We’ve seen that a Top quark decays into a Bottom quark plus a W+ boson.

This decaying event was happening while the electromagnetic space was expanding, which, by the way, explains why the Top quark decayed; it was equalizing its own “inner density”, which was becoming too much, with the constant diluting density of its surrounding. So it expelled some energy “effect” creating a W+ boson, and transformed itself into a Bottom quark.

So the, just now, appeared Bottom quarks were all “floating” inside the electromagnetic space that was in lightspeed expansion. At the time, this lightspeed expansion was manifested by electromagnetic gamma rays.

So first, we have to understand how a gamma ray could appear in space.

It’s pretty simple to see, when you draw a bottom quarks inside a dynamic space where motion comes from everywhere:

The result of collision of lightspeed expansion with the bottom quark is a “vibration” (a wave) of the electromagnetic space all around the bottom quark that spreads in all directions:

These “waves” are electromagnetic gamma rays and they react just as “light rays” do. So let’s see what happens when these “rays” graze against other massive Bottom quarks.

We will consider only one direction of all of which are involved:

And since those collisions happened all around the Bottom quarks (in 3 D), you can imagine the innumerable electrons/positrons that were “created”.

So electrons and positrons were “created” just after Bottom quarks appeared in our universe.

Bottom quarks were the first quarks that lasted long enough to “travel” a short distance in space; which means, to “exist” as bottom quarks long enough to provoke a reaction of its environment before it reacted itself to the constant diluting density of space.

The Top quarks didn’t last long enough to do so.

As to, if there was electrons/positrons “created” afterward, I would believe it couldn’t. Because all other particles that appeared afterward, were stationed inside the Bottom quarks “gravitational field” and in there, there is no expansion process occurring.

But I could be wrong here, even if I do not think so.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T-Model” of Astrophysics (9)

I must indicate that we are still observing the inflation period which isn’t finished yet. What we’ve witness until now is:

A) Just before this inflation started, we’ve seen the universe becoming electromagnetic.

And then :

B) We’ve seen that inflation started with the production of Top quarks.

C) We’ve seen the decay of Top quarks into Bottom quarks and W+ bosons.

D) And we’ve seen the “creation” of electrons.

The Inflation process was amplified by the increasing number of transformed particles by the decaying process inside each previous particles.

To have an idea of its importance, let’s just have a look at the gradual decaying of quarks:

Top = Bottom + W+ (boson) = Charm + AntiUp + gamma ray; Charm = Strange = Up + AntiUp + 2 Strange. While W+ boson = Bottom = Up + AntiDown. The Gamma ray = Charm + AntiCharm (+ AntiDown and Down) = Gluon = Strange + AntiStrange = Strange + Up + AntiUp and AntiStrange + Up.

As for

AntiTop = AntiBottom + W- (boson) = Charm + gamma ray = AntiStrange + Up = (another) AntiStrange + Up + Down + AntiDown. While W- boson = Muon + neutrino = AntiBottom = Neutrino + electron. The Gamma ray = Charm + AntiCharm.

And each of those massive particles were surrounded by a “gravitational field” of 10^-15 meter which had appeared inside the previous generation’s “gravitational field”. So the “gravitational fields" expanded tremendously in a fraction of a second (between 10^-36 sec and 10^-32 sec).

This is the explanation behind “inflation”; there was no “added” energy needed or manifested; only a simple decaying process consequent to the continuous exponential diluting density of the environment, provoked by the expansion of space.

At the end of the inflation, it seems that the only quarks occupying space were Up and Down quarks that compose matter today. But the “How” it happened is not explained clearly. Maybe the “T-Model” can do it. We’ll see.

Today, all we can observe is that, ordinary matter is composed of Up and Down quarks. I cannot tell you where the remaining Strange and AntiStrange quarks have gone yet; they probably decayed into Up and Down quarks, or were annihilated by their Antiparticles, since we don’t find them anymore.

We’ve already seen that all those quarks are distributed in three generations:

1st generation = Top and Bottom (plus their anti-particles)

2nd generation = Charm and Strange (plus their anti-particles)

3rd generation = Down and Up (plus their anti-particles).

This tells us that the only quarks remaining in the universe at the end of inflation were the ones of the third generation, since they were the result from decaying previous quarks.

So what happened to the “Charm, AntiCharm” and “Strange, AntiStrange” quarks left in the decaying process I've just describe?

This is when and where, the annihilation event comes into play.

Annihilation:

In particle physics, annihilation is the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle to produce other particles, such as an electron colliding with a positron to produce two photons”.

This is what is observed in our particle colliders; so we know that the process exists in reality.

But it doesn’t explain the event that happened at the beginning of our universe during or just after inflation.

Presently, the “annihilation period” is strictly related, by science, to the temperature of the universe to start the process. Personally, since I'm not an Alchemist, I prefer considering the “environment's density” which controls this temperature. Just remember that the environment's density changes the intensity of the incurring event; which makes the temperature obsolete.

Now on page 48 of the following link:

http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~cczhu/EmbersonQual.pdf

You will find that Epochs are distinguished according to “forces” taking over, one after the other. Science cannot get rid of that “force notion” only because it wants to keep using the mathematics it procures. They don’t consider the difference between a “notion” for thinking from a “tool” for using.

Since we’ve seen that the “force notion” is a non-existing reality, this “chronological distribution” based on the “force notion” cannot be acceptable anymore.

But you will also find, in the link, that the only annihilation indicated is the Electron-Positron annihilation still according to the temperature existing at that moment (the temperature doesn’t seem to be indicated).

So I had to look somewhere else for quarks annihilation.

In physical cosmology, the hadron is a subatomic composite particle made of two or more quarks held together by the strong force (sic). The hadron epoch started approximately 10^−6 second after the Big Bang, when the temperature of the universe had fallen sufficiently to allow the quarks, from the preceding quark epoch, to bind together into hadrons.

As the temperature of the universe continued to fall, arrived a moment when most of the hadrons and anti-hadrons were then eliminated in annihilation reactions, leaving a small residue of hadrons. The elimination of anti-hadrons was completed by one second after the Big Bang (according to the decreasing temperature), when the following lepton epoch began
”.

The Lepton epoch:

"In physical cosmology, the lepton epoch was the period started roughly 1 second after the Big Bang, after the majority of hadrons and anti-hadrons annihilated each other at the end of the hadron epoch. Approximately 10 seconds after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe had fallen to the point where most leptons and anti-leptons were eliminated in annihilation reactions, leaving a small residue of leptons".

So according to the decreasing temperature, Hadron's annihilation ended 1 second after the Big-band, while Lepton's annihilation ended roughly 10 seconds after the Big-bang.

But if we think about it, the Hadrons scientists talks about, are “composite particles”, not fundamental quarks. This means that “composite particles” were formed before 1 second had elapse starting at Time = zero.

But what happens if we leave aside the temperature factor, which is only a consequence of the energy effect’s density just as the other consequences in the event, and look at the exact cause of the event?

Annihilation is the result of particles confronting their Antiparticles. And this must have occurred a lot earlier than the Hadron epoch. In fact it had to occur during the last part of the “inflation period”. Which means that Hadrons were produced at that period and no 1 second afterward annihilation of Hadrons could have happened. The time frame seems to be wrong.

Furthermore, if there had been such a formidable annihilation event, we would observe, today, a "burst" of gamma rays all through the universe; which doesn't exist. So the annihilation event wasn't such a big deal after all.

Note that, in the “official” description we’ve seen above, there is no explanation for the small residue, of either Hadrons or Leptons, stated being left over. So all this isn’t a real description; it’s mainly a doubtful “plausible story”.

Let’s see if we can find a more plausible “explanation”.

Recent discoveries where made regarding the existence of some few exotic particles; beside these, mostly other exotic particles are “hypothetical”.

According to Gell-Mann’s model, there are two broad classes of hadrons. One is particles made of three quarks called baryons and the other particles made of a quark and an antiquark known as mesons”.

Until recently, baryons and mesons were the only types of hadrons that had been seen in experiments. However, back in the 1960s, Gell-Mann raised the possibility of more exotic combinations of quarks, such as tetraquarks (two quarks and two antiquarks) and pentaquarks (four quarks and one antiquark)”.

These next two types of exotic Hadron are now proven existing.

"In June 2013, the BES III experiment in China and the Belle experiment in Japan independently reported on Zc(3900), the first confirmed four-quark state" (Tetraquark).

"On 26 March 2019 the LHCb collaboration announced the discovery of a new pentaquark, based on observations that passed the 5-sigma threshold, using a dataset that was many times as large as the 2015 dataset".

So let’s see first what a Tetraquark looks like:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 105416.htm

As you can see, since “forces” don’t exist, the four massive quarks are “encased” inside the “gravitational field” produced by the merging of each their own “gravitational fields”. Which means that quarks are not "glued" to one another but are "attached" to the Hadron's center of gravity. This is another different "fact" to what science proposes based on its "force notion".

But both these kind of quarks are of the second generation; and had disappeared at the end of inflation. So Tetraquarks cannot answer our question.

Let’s see a Pentaquark.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9304009517

As you can see I’ve taken the liberty to install all previous findings in this drawing; naming the “centrifugal active effect” and the “centripetal inert effect”.

Quarks being “massive particles”, they install where the “active effect” is absent.

But we must remind ourselves that what we are observing here are “gravitational fields” inside a “getting bigger field”. Which means that each composing fields have a diameter of 10^-15 meter; which increases the Pentaquark’s gravitational field.

Now this drawing is quite interesting; because a Pentaquark is composed of five quarks which are components of two already known particles: A Charmonium Meson (1 charm and 1 AntiCharm quarks) + …"guess what”… a Proton.

We know that a Charmonium has a life of 10^-21 sec; while a Proton has a life longer than the age of our actual universe. This is quite an incentive to look forward into it.

But in order to survive the annihilation, these Charmoniums had to “evade” any collisions with their Antiparticle.

If we look closely at the structure of the Charmonium, this “evasion from collision” was no problem at all; because Charmonium cannot have any antiparticle.

Let me explain.

An Antiparticle is a particle that possesses the contrary particularity of its particle. For example, a positive Top quark has its antiTop quark, which is negative.

So our Pentaquark’s Anti-particle would then have to be composed of a Charm and AntiCharm quarks; which is the same as a Pentaquark. This simple case of the Charm quark annuls the possibility for the existence of an Anti-Pentaquark.

Mind you, there is always the possibility that a Charmonium unites with 2 Down + 1 Up quarks (which is a Neutron), but then we should find a neutron in the very first atom that appeared in the universe; and we do not, since Hydrogen is compose of strictly one Proton + one electron. And until now, the universe never produced anything that wasn’t instantly needed to evolve; which means that when the Proton appeared, the neutron wasn’t needed before the second atom (Helium) had to be produce.

Furthermore, there wasn’t any such kind of Pentaquark, composed of a Neutron, discovered yet.

Either way, we’ve found an “escape route” for the survival of an Hadron, protecting our Up and Down quarks, which evades the annihilation period of particles/antiparticles. So scientists don’t have to look for a discrepancy between the quantities of Hadrons anymore. That's another economy in their budget.

But we didn’t save the Leptons yet.

I guess we’ll have to wait for my next post.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (10)

Lepton annihilation

We’ve already seen that according to “temperature”, scientists deduced that Leptons where about all annihilated 10 seconds after the Big-bang; which for them is “Time = zero”.

But we have also seen, with the “T-Model” that electrons and its Antiparticle the Positrons appeared between the incoming of Bottom quarks and the moment they decayed. And this was at the 5th “10^-43 sec” (5th present moment) after the Big-bang at 10^-43 s. Which is a lot sooner than 10 seconds after the Big-bang.

So what event could have “save” electrons from positrons during all that time?

Let’s see what happens when an electron collides with a positron:

They transform into an “energy effect”, in the form of two gamma rays (or two gamma photons if you prefer).

Which means, according to our previously seen production of electron/positron by two gamma rays collision, that this time it is the “motions” of the electron and the positron that are annulled; so the lightspeed expanding motion (vacuum energy’s effect) takes over and reproduces two gamma electromagnetic waves.

But this also means that electrons and positrons are never really annihilated; they are simply transformed in gamma rays that, eventually, re-collide transforming them into positrons and electrons once again.

But, why don’t we observe positrons anymore?

I’m not sure; but I think that, in fact, we might observe them; but we don’t recognize them.

Every time there is an ejection of an electron, it is exactly the same event as an insertion of a positron; and when we observe an insertion of an electron, it is the same event as an ejection of a positron. So positrons and electrons are much more “linked” to one another, than we are conscious of. Both are always present in our universe because their origin is the electromagnetism of the universe. Both are potentially "everywhere" as representatives of "magnetic" and "electronic" fields.

In 1928, Paul Dirac published a paper proposing that electrons can have both a positive and negative charge. This paper introduced the Dirac equation, a unification of quantum mechanics, special relativity, and the then-new concept of electron spin to explain the Zeeman effect. The paper did not explicitly predict a new particle but did allow for electrons having either positive or negative energy as solutions.

Quantum mechanics did not allow the negative energy solution to simply be ignored, as classical mechanics often did in such equations; the dual solution implied the possibility of an electron spontaneously jumping between positive and negative energy states. This would mean that electrons and positrons are the same particle depending of the “way” they are observed.

There is still a lot of experiments needed to really understand electron/positron particles. But if we scrutinize the next picture of a wave of circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation, we can observe an "instant" in "space", of a simultaneous contrary motion of the magnetic and electronic fields.

Zooming:

And since the magnetic field is related to the positron and the electronic field, to the electron, we can understand the contrary equivalence of their “motion”; insertion of one is equivalent as the ejection of the other.

Maybe we will find another explanation later on in our description. We will have to wait.

Let’s see if we couldn’t solve some small problems encountered by our scientists with what we’ve already seen of our universe.

For example:
How is it possible that an object standing at 13 billion light-years from us in one direction be separated by 26 billion light-years with the object we observe at the same distance in the opposite direction?

The expansion of the universe cannot be faster than lightspeed; so how can both of those objects exist at the distance of 26 billion light years between each other in a 14 billion years old universe.?

And this seems to be an enormous problem for scientists.

Here is how they see the problem:

The reason for their problem is that Time exists; it isn’t just an “imagined factor”; so you have to take "Time" into consideration in this problem. And taking Time in consideration is including the expansion factor “through time”, in the observation.

The result is the following:

And so, we find that the problem doesn’t exists at all.

I’ll go prepare my next post.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (11)

After reading my last post, I realized that I had to prevent from “scattering around” with any interesting questions that comes to my mind, in order to increase progressively our understanding of our universe.

We are now at the point where “gravitational fields” appeared and started to take “effect” in incoming “events”.

So we will try to make clear all aspects of those “gravitational effects”.

First. What are they in reality?

From what we’ve already seen, they are volumes of space of a diameter of 10^-15 meter which is the “effective volume” of a Gluon “particle”. But since Gluons are “surface particles”, this “gravitational volume” was really defined when Top and AntiTop quarks issued from Gluons.

Now we’ve seen that Top and AntiTop were “produced by the “pressure” put on the center part of each separated faces of the Gluon’s surfaces which turned them into “volumes”. This “pressure” was coming from the “centripetal effect” created in Planck era.

Which means that the totality of this “effect” was now accumulated at the center of that new created “volume of space”; which leaves the space, around the center of that “volume”, empty of that “centripetal effect”.

This confirms that the “gravitational volume” is passive and cannot "act" whatsoever.

But it creates a big problem in our understanding of the process; because if the volume of internal space of a gravitational field is “empty” of the “gravitational effect”, how can it provoke “curved trajectories?

The answer is that we have to identify which “effectwe are talking about.

The “gravitational effect” is the passivecentripetal effect” coming from Planck era (vacuum passive energy). So, being passive, it cannot provoke “curved trajectories”.

So what is provoking them finally?

And, once again, we have to include the Time factor which we forget to do in most of the occasions.

Including the “Time factor” means considering the results of constant expanding space.

As we’ve seen quite a while ago, space reproduces itself every 10^-43 sec and it does so exponentially at the rate of 1 for 12.

Which means that every “present moment” a space reproduction occurs, there is 12 times more space that appears than the total space existing the previous “present moment".

This gives the universe an increasing “space distance” for each reproductions. If we can make a graphic to “see” it, here is what it looks like. I will first make a 1 for 12 reproduction and follow with a more general picture.

The result of this “fact” is: different distances for each “space-time” present moments, which can be presented as the following (but the proportions shown are extremely shorter; only the “idea” is presented):

Once we’ve understood this situation, we still have to add another “factor”; which is that while expanding, density decreases. Which means that the longer is the “space-time” metric, the lower is the density.

So what is left is to identify the nature of this “density”.

This “density” is the “total energy effect” manifested at the first “present moment” (10^-43 second) when our universe appeared. In other words, it’s the total energy effect inside each existing “present moments” of our universe. This total “energy effect” is issuing from the vacuum energy standing in Planck era.

Through Time, each “space metric” was constantly affected by the maximum energy accumulated at Planck’s time; and since this energy was an unchanging intensity, its density decreased as “space” increased.

But even if its density decreased, its intensity remained unchanging at every “present moments”.

So this is what occurs while space expands.

But what happens where “space” doesn’t expand?

In other words, what looks like “space density” inside a “gravitational filed”?

It’s easy to find out because all we have to do is reproduce the previous graphic of expanding space metrics, put a “center of gravity at its beginning and stop the expansion process:

As you can see. Stopping the expansion process “freezes” the metric’s characteristics in the situation they are at that moment.

And those characteristics are:

1- Each of their length.
2- Each of their density.

Now, what is the dynamic involved?

The dynamic is simple to see: “space” keeps on expanding in “Time” all around the “gravitational field”, which is “contained” to its diameter’s volume.

Here’s how it looks as a “space” volume with different densities:

And here how it looks as a “space-time” graphic:

But take note that I said that this was what a gravitational field looks like. The reality is that this field didn’t get “bigger” because of expanding space; it gained size because of the decaying process of the so called “fundamental particles”, and afterward, by capturing and fusing with additional massive atoms.

So now I’m stuck in having to explain massive atoms and their uniting processes.

For now all we have to understand is that the so-called “mass” is a simple centripetal effect and is strictly located at the center of gravity where it blocks it at a defined “present moment”.

Furthermore, if you add “pressure” to this center of gravity, it is liable to be pushed further back in Time.

We will see what happens when this occurs.

As for trajectories, we will use a post to explain their process, inside this gravitational field, further on. What we already know, and have observed in experiments, is that they tend to “fall” towards the center of gravity.

But now, I will go prepare the atoms event.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (12)

Where were we in the evolution of our universe?

Ah yes!

We were at the moment when Proton were protected from annihilation by Pentaquarks; and 10^-21 sec later, Protons were left by themselves, floating in our small universe where density was still overwhelming and electrons/positrons were speeding everywhere in all directions.

So here is the picture at the time:

We can see that the proton’s gravitational field’s density is slightly higher (darker color) than the universal’s environment constant diluting density.

And we see one electron going in a “crash course” with our proton’s gravitational field.

This incoming electron possesses “mass” because it’s a volume of fluid “spinning energy effect”; so if its speed isn’t fast enough, it will “fall” in the proton’s gravitational field, whose effectiveness is related to the density’s environment, and get itself into orbit around the centered Proton, which is a well “definedenergy effect volume.

But electrons aren’t well defined “volumes”; they are “blurred” fluid energy spinning effects. We even describe them as “cloud’s energy effects”.

So when the so-called electron gets in orbit around the Proton, its “effect” spreads into the whole gravitational field of that Proton.

Now another question arises:

If Protons are positive and electrons are negative why don’t they merge to produce a neutral particle?

In fact they do produce a neutral particle because the Hydrogen atom they produce is neutral. But the reason they don’t merge is because they don’t have two gravitational centers to merge. We will see the difference when we consider the production of elements (different atoms).

The Proton possesses a center of gravity where everything tends to fall, because a Proton isn’t a fundamental particle. It has a center of gravity defined by its quarks components which already have merge their center of gravity to which they are “attached”. The reality is that there’s no “interaction” between those three quarks. They are simply punctual massive energy effects “stuck” inside a “gravitational field”, orbiting around its center of gravity to which they are "attached".

But the “electronic energy effect” doesn’t have such a defined center because it is a fundamental particle and isn’t issued from massive quark decays but from electromagnetism (Gamma rays) which don’t possess “mass”. It has no components to define anything. It’s just a “cloud” of spinning “punctual electronic energy effect”. So, having no center of gravity, it doesn’t have anything to merge with the proton’s center of gravity. In other words, it never can get inside a nucleus. And you don’t need “forces” to prevent them. Sometimes it seems to do so (get inside a nucleus); but it’s only an appearance, the reality is something else that we will see further on.

Here is what a Hydrogen atom sums up to:

Our “electronic cloud”, around the Proton, possesses a densityhalf as intense” as what the proton’s gravitational fields can accept (which is the remaining density left after decaying quarks and joining three of them into a Proton). All of these densities are determined by the density of the universe existing when those particles (quarks) appeared. The densities of all those different effects are related to the “Time factor” of expansion; nothing else.

So a Proton’s gravitational field cannot contain more than two “electronic energy’s effect” densities (which is wrongly described as two electron particles).

On the other hand, an electronic effect is “negative” (it has a counterclockwise spin); so any other electronic effect that tries to “invade” the already occupied Proton’s gravitational field, is repelled by its identical spin. That is the reason why a “two electrons Hydrogen” doesn’t exist as an atom; it only can exist as a “molecule”.

Now we must never forget the angles of the “passive gravitational effects” that are present inside an atom’s gravitational field (as in any gravitational field where expansion is absent). The first “gravitational angle” to serve as an “entry” to any energy effect is always at 12 o’clock; so that is where the probability of observing an “electronic energy effect” is liable to happen in a Hydrogen atom:

So let’s see what a Hydrogen molecule looks like, taking in consideration those “passive” effects inside both Hydrogen “gravitational fields”:

As we can see, when an “electronic energy effect” is already inside a Proton’s “gravitational field”, the “gravitational effect” of both atom fields surpasses the repulsive effect of the “electronic energy spin” and the Hydrogen gravitational fields merge together. But each fields cannot superpose over the other’s nucleus by which they are blocked. This is what “stops” the merging process of both atoms; so the centers of gravity cannot “unite”.

This “blocking” defines the “shared gravitational space” between both atoms. And this “shared space” serves as a communication channel where the fluid “electronic effect” can pass and spread to each gravitational fields; attaining the acceptable maximum “electronic density” for each atoms.

This “observation” is possible only since we know that electrons are not defined volume particles; they are not “small balls of energy” that can be “shared” by atoms. Consequently, Bohr’s atomic model cannot show this. The basic control in covalent bonding is not the number of “energy ballsa valence shell can “contain” but the density of “energy effect” a valence shell can support.

This changes the fundamental basis of Chemistry and simplifies it quite a lot. Because, hydrogen bonding isn’t the result of sharing “electronic balls”, but instead is: attaining the maximal density of a valence shell. Once again, a lot of “forces” disappear from existence as a non-existing “notion”.

And since molecules are the components of Biochemistry, the comprehension for the production of medicament should be much affected by this different notion for “molecule bonding”. We might see the implications later on.

Let’s see, for now, the “hydrogen bond” between two oxygen atoms according to what we’ve found.

Oxygen atoms’ “gravitational fields” (electronic fields) have the value of 2 “electronic energy densityin their first shell (K shell) and 6 “electronic energy densityin their second shell (L shell), which is their valence shell that can still accept the value of 2 more “electronic energy density” (8 electrons would have said my teacher who blocked me in my Chemistry exam in college. I have to admit that I hadn’t memorize what he wanted me to):

The valence shell of an oxygen atom could accept “two electrons” (if they were “balls”) to fill their valence shell possibility of eight. But this “chemistry model” isn’t an accurate way to consider the event.

As we can see on the drawing, the “shared surface” of both atoms is delimited by the fact that the “K” shell’s density is at its maximum; so the “L” shells of both atoms are blocked by their mutual “K” shells. The reason is that there is no additional intensity acceptable in the two K shell’s densities.

We can also see that the “shared space” between atoms is defined once more, the same way, as in the Hydrogen molecule, by the “blocking of the valence shells. This is the constant process for all bonding atom events.

The fact is that those access, through mutual “shared space” by atoms, are sufficient for the fluid “electronic effect” to circulate in both valence shells and attain the maximum intensity capacity of those two oxygen valence shell’s density.

And when you have two atoms which have their valence shells at their full density/intensity (seen wrongly as “maximum number of electrons”), there is no “bonding” possibility between them. For example, the Helium atom cannot bond to another Helium atom because its valence shell cannot accept more “electronic energy effect’s” intensity.

The only exception is when they reach extremely low temperature which then, permits van der Waals molecules. The reason for this specific exception is simple to understand, if you remember that low temperature means less intense energy “effect” (slowing of motion) whatever the density is; so if the intensity of the “electronic energy effect” diminishes, the “gravitational effect” takes priority and permits bonding for full density valence shells.

Now what is the difference involved by this different concept of covalence bonding?

I’ll just present an Oxygen atom that has bonded with two hydrogen atoms to explain it:

Now as we can see all valence shells of this molecule are “full”; so how can they accept additional energy intensity within themselves, in order to covalent bond to any other atom? The only way left to a “full valence shell” is to bond with another atom which valence shell isn’t filled to which it can “share” energy effect intensity.

In fact, the molecule presented here is called: “water” (H2O). And this impossibility to bond “two water molecules” will have to be addressed later. Water is a very “special” molecule.

Consequently, what is shown here is exactly the opposite of what is “adopted” in Chemistry: The “fact” is that Hydrogen atoms don’t “produce” the covalent bonding; in the contrary, it “prevents” them; because as soon as a Hydrogen atom bonds, it cannot bond to anything else afterward.

We will come back to this subject with more precision further on, when we deal with molecules. The important point here is to understand that the electronic energy “effect” is “fluid”; not “solid”; so when it spreads, it augments the intensity of the “flowing electronic energy effect” inside valence shells.

The other point is that molecules are not the result of “electron” sharing, but of the “gravitational access” for the “flowing electronic energy effect”.

Since we’ve partly addressed the “covalence bonding” process, I guess we should now see the second uniting process of atoms which is the “fusion bonding” process.

But that will be in my next post.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (13)

The fusion process

As you have certainly notice, our starting point in Astrophysics has brought us in “Physics” and “Chemistry”.

It’s not because I’m all “mixed up” in my mind; it’s because everything is related to the “birth” of the universe and its components appearances through Time. In fact, the universe doesn’t specialize in anything; it simply tries to “survive”.

So don’t be surprised if, whenever I talk of planet productions, I end up talking about Geophysics. This wouldn’t surprise me at all.

You will have to decide if talking of different atom’s production is in “physics” or “Astrophysics”; I won’t bother doing it. What I’m going to do is simply describe the process at the time it happens and consider the problems involved.

So we were at the point when (or where) an “electronic energy effect” was imprisoned inside a Proton’s gravitational field” which produced a Hydrogen atom. This electronic energy effect was quantized by science as being: 511 KeV; which is 511,000 eV (electronvolt). Astronomical measurements show that the proton-to-electron mass ratio has held the same value for at least half the age of the universe.

We’ve seen that the valence bonding process permitted the production of a Hydrogen molecule.

But there is another bonding process that applies to atoms; and this bonding process is called “fusion”. The difference between fusion and valence bonding is that fusion implies the two nucleus of two atoms (Protons in our basic Hydrogen example) while valence bonding implies solely the “gravitational fields”.

Which means that instead of partly merging their gravitational fields as in valence bonding, the fusion bonding consists in the two Hydrogen atoms merging completely their gravitational fields. And when this happens, the two protons fall towards the center of the new “gravitational field” produced by the merging process.

Consequently, I will have to draw the gravitational fields of the Hydrogen atoms differently in order to see the “falling” protons.

Here are both Hydrogen atoms with a different presented view for their gravitational fields:

So now we are going to merge the gravitational fields into one field and get a different atom, called a Helium atom, instead of a Hydrogen molecule:

This result is going to be interesting to analyze.

A) The new gravitational field got larger; which seems normal in a “doubling” process.
B) The new gravitational field is now at its “full density” and “intensity” capacity; which should be: 2 x 511 KeV = 1,012 KeV or 1,012,000 eV.
C) The protons cannot occupy the center point of “gravity” because they cannot merge into one particle since they both have identical spins.
D) Protons repulse each other resulting from their spins of identical intensity; which defines an “open space” between them that has the same volume as their own.
But we have to verify those items cited more closely; because some don’t seem to “fit” with one another. For example:

How can two half energy intensity of two identical volumes can “fill to its capacity” the total new volume of the merged two initial volumes, if there was a gain in “size” of the volume in the process? That is simply impossible. If you have two bag each half filled by two apples and you double the size of the bag, putting in all apples, you get a doubled size bag still half filled by four apples.

The other problem is to describe precisely the process implying the repulsion of the protons. Which is less problematic than the previous problem.

To verify the first problem, let’s check the differences between a Hydrogen atom and the next produced atom, the Helium atom. Luckily for us they both are gazes; so the comparison should be easy.

Known scientific measurements:

Hydrogen: density = 0.090 g/L at STP, average molecular mass = 2.016 g/mol

Helium: density = 0.179 g/L at STP, average molecular mass = 4.003 g/mol

So we can see that the Helium characteristics are near, but not exactly, twice the Hydrogen characteristics; even though it is composed of two Hydrogen atoms of 511 KeV.

Helium has less density and less mass than the double of Hydrogen’s density and mass; but it should still have its double intensity of 1,012 KeV; otherwise, quantized energy wouldn’t be a stable measuring “tool” (or “force unit” if you prefer).

Hydrogen atom’s size = 53 picometer

Helium atom’s size = 31 picometer.

So the Hydrogen atom’s size is 22 picometer greater than the following (double Hydrogen) Helium atom. Consequently, intensity has to increase since the volume decreases; which partly eliminates our first problem. Furthermore, the size of Helium isn’t twice less than Hydrogen; so the density of Helium cannot be twice greater than Hydrogen.

In order to get twice the density of a Hydrogen atom without adding any electronic energy effect, all we have to do is decrease the volume of the atom to half its size. But what we have here is a decrease of 40% volume which produces a 0.001 g/l less density than its doubled initial density (0.09 x 2 = 0.18 g/l).

On the other hand, this diameter doesn’t tell us the exact volume of the Helium atom; because the depth (in time) of the Hydrogen atom has to be increased by the added “pressure” that an additional Proton puts on the center of gravity.

Let’s try to visualize the impact in a drawing:

Note: the size shown on the pictures are the nearest geographic approximations to the measured size in experiments; 52 instead of 53 and 32 instead of 31.

So what was the event?

What happened is:

A) One of the atom entered the other atom at 12 o'clock and fell on top of the other proton.

b) and this second Proton put more “pressure” on the center of gravity pushing it back in “time”; or more precisely; former appeared space punctual “position”, which possessed more density.

And this backing in Time, diminishes the “spatial” diameter of the Helium atom

Let’s analyse our second problem, the Proton’s incident:

Inside a “gravitational field” there is no active energy effect; everything is “passive”; but Protons have positive “spin”; so when they get in contact, they repulse each other as far as half their individual intensity’s spin permits it. This “half-push dynamism” of each protons equals a “full-push dynamism” of one proton; which gives, to the space between them the same volume they each have (the reality is that they never “touch”; they are stopped at a certain distance defined by their repulsing effect):

Normally, according to our drawing, the neutron should have a negative “spin” (helicity) and wouldn’t be “neutral”, even though it would neutralize the repulsive consequence of the positive protons spins in the nucleus.

Consequently, what we see here is the “creation” of a Neutron. And the orientation of the colliding “spin motions” of protons installs the orientation of motion inside the Neutron’s space volume (towards the center) which defines a center of gravity and thus, the neutron is given a “Gravitational field” space volume; making it a “mass” affected defined particle.

Note that every changes are resulting exclusively from “motions”.

This would mean that the pressure put to the center of gravity of a Helium atom isn’t limited to the two protons but is also increased by the neutron’s mass; which means that the “pressure” on the center of gravity isn’t twice the proton’s mass, but three times this proton’s mass. And this is for a Helium 3 atoms; a Helium 4 atom have 4 times a protons mass.

Gravitational orientations, in a neutron, are composed of 1) the contrary (falling) “centripetal motions” plus 2) the contrary “repulsive motions”; which all accumulate at the center of gravity, defining the “pressure” put on the neutron’s new “created” center of gravity. This is what is giving the neutron its proper “mass”.

As we can see on the drawing, neutrons are missing two opposed “angles” (oblique 10hr-4hr) of a normal total “centripetal effect”; which makes them unstable. They, then, “need” to stabilize themselves by dispatching “energy effect” (done within 15 minutes) to those two missing angles.

Suddenly, a question comes to my mind: If there are missing two angles of “gravitational effect” in a neutron, how can it possess more “mass” than a proton?

The only answer is that the total of the two kinds of motion composing a neutron sums up to more intensity than we find inside a proton. The next question would be: which of the two kinds of motion is more “powerful”; the "falling motion" or the “spinning motion”?

The “falling motion” consist of the proper kinetic energy of the protons and is strictly related to the “gravitational field”.

The “spinning motion” consist of the increasing tangential spinning effect of each protons.

If we look at the previous drawing, we can see that, in order to stabilize itself and become a proton, the neutrons has to transfer its spinning energy effect to the missing oblique angles of its “gravitational field”.

It would be while doing so, that the neutron loses a bit of its “spinning energy effect” in the process.

Science quantizes that “lost” as being 0.0014 g/mol of its “mass”. This mass lost, qualified as a Beta decay, consists of releasing an “electronic energy effect volume” (called electron) accompanied by a kinetic energy quantum (seen as a mathematical antineutrino).

This means that it releases one composite quantum of electromagnetism, which is the “electronic field’s quantum”, plus a unit of its kinetic energy effect. And both “particles” are issuing from the spin collision’s intensity of the protons (or from the total contrary motion at the collision point of both spins). They would, then, be a residues from the collision of the spins; in other words, a residue of “motion”.

We’ve seen previously that the electromagnetism’s “electronic field” is what propels the electromagnetic wave, bringing along the “passive” magnetic field. So what is expelled from the neutron is a part of its negative propelling motion. In other words, part of its counterclockwise rotation.

As for the small “kinetic energy effect”, called an antineutrino (which is the same as a neutrino), it is simply a quantum of “kinetic energy effect” which could represent the “increased” tangential portion of the rotation.

On the other hand, the ejected electron possesses a left handed helicity “blurred energy effect volume” (it is negative), and an antineutrino represents a right handed helicity kinetic energy (it is positive). This means that a neutron, in order to stabilize as a proton, has to expel a “volume” of “electronic spinning effect”; meaning a left handed “density quantum” (electron) accompanied by a lost in straight kinetic effect (right handed “kinetic effect quantum”) neutrino.

If this is the case, it means that when the “tangential kinetic increase quantum” (neutrino) was released from the circumference of the neutron, it was subjected to a tangential “backlash” that reversed its negative rotation to a positive one, and became an antineutrino.

A free neutron is unstable and has a left handed helicity (its magnetic moment’s orientation is opposite to the neutron's spin). So when it expels a left handed volume of “electronic effect”, it loses part of its left handed helicity (the left handed electron), quantized as “mass”.

The “fact” is that this expulsion of a left handed helicity volume transforms the neutron’s total left handed helicity into a right handed helicity. But how can that be?

If we eliminate a part from one rotation’s intensity that impacts, the remaining contrary rotation intensity takes over and determines a contrary rotation’s orientation.

And if we look at our last drawing, we find that positive orientation already existing inside the neutron as the clockwise reaction (the reversed process comes to the same result since the factor in charge is the “contrary” situation and not the “orientation” situation).

So we’ve found the process used by neutrons to transform into protons. What is surprising is that it takes almost 15 minutes to be done.

But there’s still a lot of “thinking” to do to completely conceptualize and understand this decaying process of neutrons.

Note that neither the beta particle (electron) nor its associated (anti-)neutrino exist within the nucleus prior to beta decay. They are “created” in the decay process (we should say “appears” in the decay process as expelled “energy effect” quantum; because no “creation” is ever possible).

We are reminded here that the “Quark theory” is simply a concept used as a “tool” to describe fundamental particles. The reality still is that those particles are “punctual (point volumes) energy centripetal effects” either with right handed (positive) or left handed (negative) helicity; but it’s important to remember that a “concept” is only a “tool”; not the “facts”.

Finally neutrons, neutralizing the positive rotation of protons, will permit co-existing protons inside the nucleus, where they remain stable. In “fact” they will appear as often or as much as needed to permit this co-presence of protons inside nucleus. It will thus define the stability of an atom.

So, even if the free neutrons leaves us some bit of questioning, the neutron inside the nucleus isn’t a problem and we can pursue or atom production.

Now if we come back to our Helium atom, something still bothers me.

The result we obtained is still quite a bit confusing. Because in about 40% less of the previous volume, we get 0.001 g/l less than the double (0.18) of the previous density and 0,029 g/mol less than the double (4.032) of the previous mass. These are quantized scientific “facts” related to the “value unit” employed for determining them.

Either way, there seems to be a transfer of energy effect from the protons to their “intermediate space” (neutron) that makes it a bit “greater” than intuitively anticipated. Neutron’s mass is 939.56542 MeV while proton’s mass is 938. 2722MeV; a difference of 1. 29322 MeV.

All differences, in a single event, should be equivalent to each other; so this would mean that 1 g/l (of density) = 0,029 g/mol (of mass) = 1.29322 MeV (of energy effect).

I still have to find the whole meaning of all this.

Let’s check with one more atom, what the volume differences reveals us:

A) Hydrogen’s (1 electron) size = 53 picometer
B) Helium’s (2 electrons) size = 31 picometer
C) Lithium’s (3 electrons) size = 152 picometer

A is our starting point.

B is the result of adding one electron; which fills the K shell’s density.

C is the K shell filled density with another “electron orbiting it” (L shell).

The K shell of “C” shouldn’t change size (31 pc) and have its maximum density; while the L shell is 121 pc (2 times larger each side of the K shell) with very small density because a single “intensity quantum” is spread through a lot greater volume.

Let’s compare all three in a drawing:

These three atoms possess different characteristics:

Intensity differences wise,

A) Has 0.1163898 MeV of intensity difference (if x 2 = 0.2327796 MeV)
B) Has 0.23148638 MeV of intensity (difference of 0.00129322 MeV which is a thousand times smaller than the difference between the Proton mass and the Neutron mass; so we have here a possible relation of 2 electrons for 1000 mass difference in intensity (or 1 electron = 500 mass intensity).
C) Has 0.34787618 MeV of intensity (having 3 electrons, it should have a mass intensity of 1,500)

Mass wise

According to what preceded we have:

Hydrogen mass = 1.00794 u = 1 elect = 500 mass units

Helium mass = 4.002602 u = 2 elect = 1000 mass units

Lithium mass = 6,941 u = 3 elect = 1500 mass units

Density wise,

The K shell of Lithium is the same density as the K shell of Helium.

But the K shell of Hydrogen is 0.01 % denser than the Helium’s K shell.

To have the double density of Hydrogen (without adding an electron), we have to divide its volume by two; which is 26.5 pc

This means that in 4.5 additional pc (31 – 26.5), we get 0.01 % density loss by adding an electron.

Let’s try with giving the official 29 joules (energy effect) intensity value to Hydrogen.

Hydrogen = 29 joules,

Helium would be = 58 joules less 0.01 % (0.058 joules) = 57.942 joules which would be the intensity of Helium’s K shell.

All these numbers could be important, if they mean anything and if I didn’t get mixed up in the “interpretation/deduction” in getting them (which I feel I did); but there’s no way for me to keep on with these mathematical information. My mind can’t stand the pressure its getting from them. I’ll have to stay with, and accept, the event’s resulted numbers given by science.

You’ll have to excuse me; my mind gets “blurred” with these hard to “coincide” values.

I have to rest a bit.

Geez! This being chapter 13, I agree that the 13th floor should never be mentioned in elevators; 13 is really a bad omen number.

Chapter 14 should be more clear without math.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (14)

We’ve been using the “gravitational effect” since the appearance of Quarks without explaining clearly what it is.

I’ve mentioned that it wasn’t a “force” but simply a consequence of the centripetal “effect”; I guess it’s time, for me, to clearly describe the whole process.

We’ve already seen that the centripetal energy effect from Planck era had recoiled both separated faces of the gluon surface, creating two quark volumes.

We’ve also seen that all of the centripetal effect had accumulated at the center of those quark volumes where they kept putting pressure.

The constant pressure on that center point blocked the expansion motion of the whole quark volume.

We can draw the spherical volume of a quark, because a quark is a “punctual” object with a definite size; it has a diameter of 10^-35 meter. But the important part of a quarks isn’t its size; it’s rather the space that surrounds it.

This punctual quark is surrounded by a volume of space affected by the centripetal effectiveness of the previous gluon from which it was issued, and has a 10^-15 meter in diameter.

So a quark can be drawn as the following:

But its real effectiveness is:

As we can see, even if the centripetal effect is accumulated at the centered quark, the centripetal orientation of the whole volume is still “effective”. This is what gives a “gravitational field”, its characteristic; it sends everything towards the center of gravity.

Now let’s see how important the “density effect” of a “field” is.

Let’s start with the universal field that begins with the maximum energy effect’s density containing the totality of the “energy effect” existing. We know that as space expands, the density effect dilutes into it; but we also know that its intensity doesn’t diminish.

So when space has a diameter of 10^-35 meter, the density and intensity is at its maximum; and space starts expanding.

When space reaches a diameter of 10^-15 meter, which is a lot bigger, the density decreased a lot from its formal value; but the intensity stayed exactly the same as at the origin. The reason is simple to understand with a drawing:

I guess everyone will agree that expanding into “nothingness” doesn’t present any obstruction; so the expanding centrifugal motion effect cannot decrease in intensity when the energy responsible, is ever present as “vacuum energy” through all existing space.

If nothing had been “added” into the original expanding space universal field, all that would be existing today would be: “expanding empty space”; nothing else.

But the “active” (dynamic) centrifugal energy, responsible for expansion of this dynamic universal field, had its “passive centripetal counterpart” in Planck era. That “passive centripetal counterpart” appeared a bit later, as a “passive surface”, which was transformed, by the active energy effect, into two “passive space volumes”. These are the gravitational field’s quark volume we’ve just seen.

So the universe was then composed of two kinds of field, one inside the other:

1) A universal dynamic field that kept expanding
2) A local “passive” field that didn’t respond to the expanding effect.

The picture would now be:

And the universe kept expanding while the centripetal effected volumes started capturing massive particles eventually producing “matter”.

Naturally, the universal’s “centrifugal affected” space portion didn’t mix with the “centripetal affected” space portions; because space itself would then disappear (+1 plus -1 = 0); which, obviously, isn’t the case.

This means that the “centrifugal space portions” where completely independent “added space portions” to the space expanding universe. “Gravitational fields” are in a kind of “worlds inside the world” situation. And they possess their own “evolution process” as we’ve already seen with the subsequent gluon towards quarks, towards atoms, towards molecules evolution process.

As for the centrifugal effect, it is limited to the centrifugal expansion by the space reproduction process at lightspeed we’ve also previously seen.

And both evolutions kept going until today.

Now, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could have a confirmation of the exactitude of this description of the universe?

Luckily for us, we have it; and here it is:

This is the picture of our universe when it was 378,000 years old. It was composed of different temperatures of space volumes. Cold is shown in green and hot is shown in red.

The green spaces are not defined volumes; meaning that they are not encircled by “borders. That green portion looks like the oceans seen on the picture of our planet; where water spreads over all oceans. It all communicates together. This should mean that the green portion represents the universal expanding space portion. Which is supported by the fact that this green space doesn’t contain any “matter”; meaning it isn’t affected by any “gravitational effect”. Which explains why its temperature is lower, since the dilution of the energy’s effect density by expansion is maximized.

On the other hand, all red space portions have a border definition that surrounds each of them. Just as if those red portions were superposed to the universal green portion. Those looks like the continents of our planet bathing in the overall ocean water. Furthermore, these red defined space portions are where “matter” exists; which means that those space portions are all affected by the “gravitational effect” which prevents the maximized effect of expansion.

It doesn’t mean that those red portions don’t expand; it just means that somewhere in those red “dots”, we find gravitational fields space volumes that don’t expand; which leaves the expansion effect to solely small parts of those space volumes and slows down the expansion of the red dots themselves, compared to the expansion of the green portion of space.

And here is what really causes those different temperatures between the red and the green spots in this composition of “space”:

This observed “fact” was revealed by the pictures taken by the Planck satellite.

But this was more than 13.7 billion years ago; so how does it look today?

Well, we also have a factual measurement observation of what it looks today.

Just imagine what would result, after 13.7 billion years of fast expanding green portions of space while the red portions expands a lot slower.

All red portions would become seemingly “compressed” red lines, inside a total green space volume.

This is a picture of what a part of our universal space looks today:

And this is a more complete picture:

The brightest spots are where we find “clusters of galaxies”. This means that those clusters of galaxies aren’t produced by a “gravitational field” but are simply the result of the different “speed” of space production between “matter” occupied space and empty space.

There are more “space” produced outside the galaxies occupied space, so this outside space grows faster than the galaxies occupied space. Which gives the impression, in the whole picture, of “concentrating” galaxies volumes. But they are not "concentrating"; they just look "concentrated".

This means that there are no “gravitational fields” related to “galaxy clusters”.

But let’s have a look at the whole picture taken by three different satellites:

What are those dark “spots” where the temperature is the lowest?

We have to remember that these pictures represent a “sphere”, a “space volume”; which means they have “deepness”.

All three are pictures of the same “thing”: our universe after it had expanded for 378,000 years.

Red dots are space volumes where “matter” stands. Which means that the green portion of those pictures represents empty space. And the farther we see inside that empty space volume, the darker is the green color.

This would mean that the darkest color is nearest to the center of the sphere. Which means that somewhere near the center of the universal field, there is a space volume that lacks “heating isolation”; meaning “gravitational effect”.

So this answer cannot be other than these darker spots are issuing from the “fact” that at the first two “present moments” of the universe, there was no “gravitational fields at all. Do you remember its composition of basic space volumes?

Yes?

Then all that is left to remember is that, those basic “empty” space volumes reproduced themselves at the rate of 1 for 12 every 10^-43 second during 378,000 years to be, afterward, observed has the darkest “spots” on those satellite pictures.

We will see what comes out of this “gravitational structure” when observed in our own actual environment of galaxies, stars and planets.

I find it interesting to clear out problems of actual scientists before they even occur in my “T-Model”.

Let’s hope it continues.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (15)

The Big-bang nucleosynthesis

Let’s continue “fabricating” new atoms without “inventing” other “tools” than the ones we already have; which are:

1-Universal decreasing density

2-gravitational stable density.

3-gravitational fields

4-proton

5-electronic effect units

The following drawing is of the very first atom to be “created” by the “situation” at that moment:

We see that the Hydrogen’s valence shell density is lesser than the universal density. This is either caused by the faster decreasing density (than expansion) occurring inside the gravitational field by the decaying process preceding the moment when protons appeared, or the fact that all centripetal effect is accumulated at the center, leaving an empty effect in the rest of the gravitational field (before an electronic effect is captured).

And space keeps expanding while universal density keeps decreasing. Meanwhile, some of these new Hydrogen atoms, cruising through space, started to collide to one another. Collisions occurring “face to face” resulted in merging completely both “gravitational fields” of the Hydrogen atoms; creating a heavier atom called a Helium 4 atom.

We’ve already seen the process that we call “fusion” of atoms.

We’ve also seen the “creation process” of neutrons that occurred at that moment.

Perfect stability of the nucleus Helium demanded the “creation” of two neutrons which installed in its nucleus as the following drawing shows.

This Helium 4 atom is the most abundant in the universe after Hydrogen. Most Helium-4 in the Sun and in the universe is thought to have been produced at the beginning of the universe, and is referred to as "primordial Helium". We will see, further on, the star production process.

Helium-4 makes up about one quarter of the ordinary matter in the universe (by mass), with almost all of the rest being hydrogen. This "almost" represents all that we can observe today which is not Hydrogen or Helium.

Now here are “funny” parts of the official Helium 4 description:

A) “The total spin of the helium-4 nucleus is an integer (zero), and therefore it is a boson”.

This is an “adequate” deduction except that it is the very first boson without any “force vector” attribution (the second one is the Higgs boson), and more astonishingly, it is a boson that responds to the Pauli Exclusion Principle; which is quite a bit disturbing (normal bosons don’t).

B) “The helium atom is the second simplest atom (hydrogen is the simplest), but the extra electron introduces a third "body", so the solution to its wave equation becomes a "three-body problem", which has no analytic solution”.

The funny thing here is that Helium 4 atoms brings back mathematics to its origin’s (prehistoric) way of counting: “One – Two – and - Many-many”.

As for the “no analytic solution” conclusion, it gives quite a blow to the “understanding mathematical power” that most of us cannot conceptualize.

Regarding the stability of the Helium 4 atom, my “T-Model” describes it with the “gravitational field’s density” versus the surrounding universal density at the Time of each events; but if you feel that it’s not complicated enough, you can read the official description here, which certainly corrects that and provokes, as additional problems, a lot of not needed questioning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-4

So we now have a universe inside which a lot of Hydrogen atoms and a few Helium atoms are floating through space. Consequently, collisions between Helium 4 and Hydrogen atoms started to occur, merging them and resulting into new appearing Lithium atoms.

As we can clearly see. The valence shell of the Lithium atom possesses the same density as the universal field, at their “production’s” moment. So, after a bit more decreasing (expanding) of the universal field’s density, it wasn’t possible anymore to add density in this valence shell in order to get a stable atom’s gravitational field. No other Hydrogen atom could then merge with a Lithium atom.

If there were a few Beryllium atom produced after Lithium, they had only 8 minutes of life span; so they disappeared before any other atoms where produced.

And that is when new atom production stopped. There would be no more atoms “created” before an environment denser than the Lithium valence shell would appear, in order to permit adding electronic effect density to the atomic valence shells.

And that wouldn’t be before the first stars appeared.

Meanwhile, cosmic rays colliding to Helium 4 atoms, where able to extract one neutron from some of their nucleus; which occasioned a re-installment of protons each side of the remaining neutron as the following where the main “falling tendency” resides; meaning the 12 to 6 o’clock angle. Even though, this re-disposition inside the nucleus wasn't perfect, it still was stable:

Which resulted in the appearance of a few “free” Neutrons.

At that moment, our universe contained Hydrogen, Helium 4, Helium 3 and Lithium atoms, plus a few “free” Neutrons. Nothing else happened except that these atoms started to “covalence bond” with each other.

We have to note that this “moment” was a lot sooner than what is actually presented officially based on temperature instead of density. Which explains why new found "first formed galaxies" are a lot older than anticipated.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (15)

The first stars to appear:

The atoms existing at the time we have attained, Helium, Hydrogen and Lithium, started to covalence bond. Let’s verify each of those covalent bonds.

1) Hydrogen with Hydrogen:

This Hydrogen molecule cannot further “covalence bond” to any other Hydrogen atom because both their covalence shells are “filled” at their maximum of energy density; so there cannot be any more energy density added to their shells.

2) Helium with Helium:

None of these Helium atoms can bond together because both of their valence shells are already “filled” at their maximum energy density.

3) Lithium with Lithium:

Lithium atoms can merge to one another and, afterward, the molecule produced can still keep merging with 6 other atoms, because its valence shell can accept a total of 8 electronic energy densities.

The Lithium atom was the first metal element to appear in the universe; precedents atoms where gas elements.

Note:

a) LiHe (Lithium + Helium molecule), is a very weakly interacting van der Waals compound; it has been detected at very low temperatures. Which means it couldn’t have bonded at the time we are considering.

b) Though the amount of Lithium generated in the Big Bang nucleosynthesis is dependent upon the number of photons per baryon, for accepted values the lithium abundance can be calculated, and there is a "cosmological lithium discrepancy" in the universe: older stars seem to have less Lithium than they should, and some younger stars have much more.

This simply means that there was less Lithium produced during the Big bang nucleosynthesis than anticipated, and much were produced inside the first generation of stars.

c) Lithium 7 atoms (lithium isotope) found in nature have among the lowest binding energies per nucleon of all stable nuclides.

Lithium 7 is one of the primordial elements produced in Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

But why “7”?

To answer to this last question, we will need a drawing showing the production of Lithium:

Resulting in:

This drawing explains simply and clearly the production of Lithium 7 (3 protons + 4 neutrons) which is absolutely “NORMAL”. Once again, Lithium never needed capturing any free “floating” neutrons through the universe to be produced.

From all these information, we are left with Hydrogen atoms that cannot covalent bond to more than one other Hydrogen atom.

We find that the Helium atoms were impossible to covalent bound with any Lithium atoms because the “temperature” was too high at the time.

Which leaves us with only the Lithium atom that can bond to Hydrogen atoms to form molecules.

And this is all the “material” we dispose of to “fabricate” stars.

But first we have to ask ourselves:

What are stars exactly?

1) Stars are a great amount of hydrogen atoms, trapped inside a “gravitational field”, which are “falling” towards a center of gravity.

So, then:

How big is this gravitational field; the Sun’s (a star) gravitational field, for example?

We, finally, can answer this question with a supporting observed “fact”.

NASA announced on December 5, 2011, that Voyager 1 had entered a new region where charged particles streaming from the Sun, slow down and turn inward; meaning that they “fall back” towards the Sun.

Note that this proves that "gravitation" isn't universal but local; and that it is independent from outside space or its surrounding space; otherwise, charged particles would increase speed toward the far space being influenced by the expansion process.

This region is located approximately 113 AU from the Sun, which becomes the observed radius of the Sun’s “gravitational field”. This means that its gravitational field has, at least, a diameter of 226 AU (226 times the distance from Earth to the Sun).

2) Stars are also “objects” of which their center has so much pressure, that the density becomes extreme and existing atoms are “pressurized” into heavier atoms (fusion process in stars).

So our problem to produce a star is to make sure that the covalent bonding provokes “pressure” right at the beginning; otherwise, the “gravitational field” won’t expand and won’t be able to “capture” other atoms.

Covalent bounding of two Hydrogen atoms doesn’t produce any “pressure” to a single centered point; so stars cannot start by these two atom’s bonding.

Covalent bonding of Lithium with Hydrogen doesn’t produce any “pressure” either, since the bonding simply merges their valence shells.

This leaves us only with the Helium atom has our last resort.

A Helium atom possesses a “gravitational field” 4 times stronger that a Hydrogen atom (2 massive protons + 2 massive neutrons compared to 1 proton) and it doesn’t accept any merging process.

This means that as soon as a Helium atom captures a Hydrogen atom, this Hydrogen atom, “falling” towards the Helium’s center of gravity, puts “pressure” on the impenetrable circumference of the Helium atom.

The exact number of Hydrogen atoms that a Helium atom can capture in its “gravitational field” is impossible to say. All we can use as a proportion, is that the proton’s “gravitational field” diameter is 200,000 times greater that its own diameter (an electron stands at a distance 100,000 times the proton’s radius). Which proposes that the Helium’s gravitational field is proportional; meaning approximately 4 times greater.

So let’s make a drawing of “falling” Hydrogen atoms towards a Helium gravitational field’s center obstructed in their trajectory by the Helium atom’s volume (gravitational field):

As shown, Hydrogen atoms cannot prevent themselves from forming Di-hydrogen molecules by pairs of Hydrogen atoms; and as they accumulate inside the Helium’s gravitational field, they gradually augment “pressure” starting from the center and decreasing gradually towards the exterior.

But this accumulation of “pressure” also augments proportionally the helium’s gravitational field which, then, keeps capturing Hydrogen atoms, increasing constantly the density inside the gravitational field.

When the environment'sdensity surpasses the Helium shell’s density, the “object” becomes a “star”. A Beryllium 8 atom is created by fusion of Di-hydrogen molecules which is not stable. This Beryllium 8 decays into 2 Lithium 4 isotopes which one fuses with the centered Helium atom producing Bore 11 (Helium 7 + Lithium 4), which is stable.

As the pressure/density keeps increasing, fusion of additional hydrogen atoms keeps producing heavier atoms (elements) gradually, starting from the center of the star towards its perimeter.

The pressure conditions kept increasing until those first stars exploded scattering their production of heavier atoms through space around them, producing the gaseous clouds that would become the second generation of stars and, certainly, star systems with planets. These first stars produced all the carbon, oxygen, iron, and everything else needed to make dust clouds, planets, and life.

To read about the latest discovery on the first generation of stars:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06 ... e-big-bang

We will see the formation of planets further on.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (16)

Planet formation

Planets are formed by gravitation; I guess everybody knows that.

But that “fact” means that planets are formed inside “gravitational fields”.

So, I suppose we first have to have a look at what is involved inside a “gravitational field”.

The first thing is that inside a gravitational field, objects tend to “fall” towards the center of that field. And that is what accumulates particles in that centered “spot”.

The more particles accumulate, the bigger that buddle of particles gets. It can get as big as a star or as a planet.

The fact is that what we mostly observe today are planets orbiting around a star.

So how can we explain the process behind the formation of those planet systems?

Obviously, in order to be accumulated in one “spot”, those particles have to be “floating” in that region. Which explains why we also observe “dust clouds” that we call: “nebulae”.

Now the first kind of nebulae that were formed were Hydrogen nebulae that resulted in the first generation of stars that we’ve seen previously. Those stars were the result of the “gravitational effect” inside a Helium’s gravitational fields. We’ve seen that those stars exploded, throwing in space all the heavier atoms (elements) that they had produce by the fusion process occurring inside them because of the “pressure” involved.

This is a picture of an exploded star:

All the different colors you see are different kinds of atom (element) particles.

So, after those explosions, the surrounding space was spread with heavier elements which looked like a “dust cloud” floating in empty space. But the explosion had occurred at the center of “gravitational fields” holding stars that generally were a 100 times, and more, bigger than our Sun; so the ejected particles from each stars, by the explosion, traveled different distances in space according to their own ejection speed versus their “weight” (mass). But the “gravitational field” of those stars was so effective and immense that all ejected particles kept “trapped” inside it, travelling at different distances and speed.

Naturally, the less heavy of the particles were traveling the farthest and the fastest. And those lightest particles were evidently gas particles. Which means that the outer part of the exploded nebulae was formed of gas, mainly Hydrogen and Helium. But they were eventually reached by the heavier particles like we see on the previous picture.

And once again Helium started to “capture” Hydrogen gas which started to fall towards it.

Very rapidly, the pressure augmenting at their center, some became stars and kept on increasing pressure. Some others even became “black holes”; and all of this before the arrival, from the explosion, of heavier elements in their surroundings.

Just imagine those heavier particles arriving and entering those black hole’s “gravitational fields”. Those with a trajectory straight toward the black hole disappeared inside it, augmenting its “gravitational effect”, while other particles “fell” in different orbits around them, depending of their proper “traveling speed”.

The same thing happened around the bigger stars which gained, this way, enough “gravitational effect” to become black holes also.

These “gravitational events” were what formed disc shape galactic nebulae.

There are two kinds of disc shape galactic nebulae:

1) Spiral disc shapes
2) Elliptical disc shapes.

1-Spiral galaxies are quite thin, dense, and rotate relatively fast; but the reality is that they don’t rotate at all. The seemingly rotation of galaxies is related to the stars orbiting the galaxy’s center of gravity at different distances from the center of the galaxy’s “gravitational field”. This distance is determined by their own proper speed.

2-While elliptical galaxies have randomly oriented orbits of their stars.

So our problem for now, is to understand what made the different kinds of disc shape galactic nebulae.

Most elliptical galaxies are composed of older, low-mass stars, with a sparse interstellar medium and minimal star formation activity. Elliptical galaxies are not the dominant type of galaxy in the universe overall. They are preferentially found close to the centers of galaxy clusters.

Now, if you remember well, I’ve already mentioned that galaxy clusters weren’t the production of “gravitational fields”; they were the result of the faster expanding “empty space (green spots on WMAP pictures) than the “gravitational fields” occupied portions of space (red spots).

So scientists, by saying that low-mass stars galaxies are mostly found close to the centers of galaxy clusters (where density is greater) prove my point; because if galaxy clusters were the result of “gravitational formations”, the galaxies at the center would have to be the most massive of them and would be were the star formation activity would be maximized by the density of the “gravitational effect”.

This being said, the description suggest that these elliptical disc shapes are were the “gravitational effect” is the less effective permitting randomly oriented orbits of their stars.

Less effective “gravitational effect” means less “gravitational field’s density”. In other words, less mass energy effect at its center.

This would mean that elliptical disc shape don’t have black holes at their center.

But what about the spiral galaxies. They have black holes, some of them are “barred”. Most spiral galaxies consist of a flat disk containing stars, gas and dust, and a central concentration of stars known as the bulge.

Here is an example of a spiral galaxy:

As we can see, the pattern presented by stars orbiting this galaxy is a “falling pattern” towards the center; but stars aren’t following this falling pattern. They are not falling to the center; they are simply orbiting at the distance from the center in relation to their traveling speed.

And the “arm” shapes presented is because the stars, orbiting at the same speed, are assembled in definite locations of the orbits trajectory. This leaves less occupied or even empty parts on the orbits, giving this “arm shape” distribution in the global “falling pattern” which seems to rotate.

So now we have an additional problem to solve, which is:

How could, those “arm shapes”, be formed? In other words, what process is behind these arm formations?

One thing is certain; it is related to the “gravitational effect”.

So we have to review all that is relevant to gravitation that could result in separating dust particles and assembling them in different spots.

Basically, to have dust particles separated, you need the presence of two “gravitational effects”. Which suggest two gravitational fields “interrelating”; and this, only happens when “gravitational fields” are “intermingling”. Exactly the same way it happened when we studied the valence bonding molecule process.

Let’s see what precisely occurs when parts of “gravitational fields” merge; I’ll draw the volumes, plus the related “V” shapes deepness of the fields:

Note that, on the drawing, the centers of gravity at the top are the same as at the down centers of gravity.

So we have two identical merging gravitational fields on which I’ve indicated where something “fishy” might occur. Those 10 points are indicated as A – B –C – D – E – F – G – H – I and J.

I’ll do as if I just realized it, and exclaim:

Hey! These are Lagrangian points!

Let’s see what a Lagrangian point is:

Lagrangian points are the points near two large bodies in orbit where a smaller object will maintain its position relative to the large bodies. The two large bodies could be in orbit of each other or one can be smaller and orbit the other (the reality is that both orbit their barycenter). At all locations other than these Lagrangian points, a small object would go into its own orbit around one of the large bodies.

At these Lagrangian points, the gravitational effects of both larger objects annuls themselves; this means that smaller objects standing at these points are mainly “stable” and not affected by either “gravitational fields” of the two larger objects.

There are 5 Lagrangian points for each large objects involved. They are called L1 – L2 – L3 – L4 and L5. The L4 and L5 points are the only perfectly stable points. This indicates that three of those points are less stable.

Those points orbit at the same speed as the object they are related to. Which means that they are always at the same distance from that object. This is because those points are related to the object’s gravitational field that surrounds it. In fact it is more related to the center of gravity of the “gravitational field” than to the object itself.

But can you imagine what will occur with particles on those 10 Lagrangian points if, while rotating, the two protogalaxy merged into one?

If I could make a simulation, I suspect the merged galaxy would have developed “arms” (between 3 to 6); from the not perfectly stable Lagrangian points.

On the other hand, when you have a “gravitational field” inside a bigger “gravitational field”, you inevitably get 5 Lagrangian points from the smaller object.

This means that you get Lagrangian points, for molecules inside their gravitational atomic structures, for planet systems inside stars structures and for star systems inside galaxy structures.

Here are the Earth’s Lagrangian points “attached” to it, orbiting around the Sun:

So let’s go back to our galaxy formation.

There is no actual certitudes how galaxies formed. There are two sets of theories:

1) Top-down theories, which propose that disk galaxies form through a monolithic collapse of a large gas cloud.
2) Bottom-up theories which, instead of large gas clouds collapsing to form a galaxy in which the gas breaks up into smaller clouds, proposes that matter started out in these “smaller” clumps (mass on the order of globular clusters), and then many of these clumps merged to form galaxies, which then were drawn by gravitation to form galaxy clusters.

So, as for ourselves, we can clear this a bit by noting that galaxy clusters are not the result of a “gravitational effect”; they result of the universe’s expansion. So, too bad for Bottom-up theories.

We can also say that, at the beginning, space was a lot denser than today because it was much less “voluminous”. So we might support the Top-down theories. But since scientists involve “dark matter” in the process, I guess I’ll go with a “sideways” theory.

Consequently, the first galaxies appeared when the universe was much “smaller” than today, and we can add that the oldest galaxy we’ve observed lately, formed themselves only 400 million years after the Big-bang; that is 13.799 billion years ago.

This means that, at the moment those galaxies formed, the first generation of immense stars had already exploded, producing even more immense dust clouds. We will call these first dust clouds: Primordial Nebulae.

A nebula (Latin for 'cloud' or 'fog') is an interstellar cloud of dust, hydrogen, helium and other ionized gases. In these regions, the formations of gas, dust, and other materials "clump" together to form denser regions, which “attract” (“attract” is a confusing term here; there is no attraction whatsoever involved in gravitation) further matter, and eventually will become dense enough to form stars (we’ve already seen the process). The remaining material is then believed to form planets and other planetary system objects (but this planet formation is never explained clearly).

Naturally the “clumping event”, related to here, is a “gravitational effect”. I urge to say this before someone invents a “clumping unobservable force”.

So our Primordial Nebula, where the second generation of stars were formed, can be considered as a “protogalaxy”.

A protogalaxy would look like something as the following:

Naturally, the center part where light emerges is where the particles started to “fuse”, creating stars emitting light. Which means that this picture is already an “adult” protogalaxy. The rest of the picture would be the dust cloud.

What is remarkable is that it forms a “disc” shape instead of a “ball” shape dust cloud. But when you are aware of the main “gravitational axis” of a “gravitational field” is at the 12 to 6 o’clock angle, it is easy to understand the process with the disc shape result. Furthermore, this disc is restricted, at the most, to 30 degrees of thickness starting from the center. Meaning 15 degrees each side of the 12 – 6 o’clock axis. The same structure applies to our Solar system.

So we have a center of a great “gravitational field” around which dust particles orbits; some of them, after colliding with others while coming from their original first generation star explosion. Those collided particles where now “bigger” than normal particles and possessed a greater “gravitational field”. So they started “capturing” other dust particles increasing their “clump” size and the size of their “gravitational field”.

So we are now facing increasing clumps of particles augmenting their gravitational field at the rate which they capture more dust particles.

After a while, this growing gravitational field produced 5 Lagrangian points (in relation with the center of the protogalaxy) which two of them, were perfectly stable.

And “matter” particles, standing at those two stable points, started to “capture” dust particles without any obstruction or influence from the gravitational field they were encased in.

The global picture is now a galaxy center of gravity where a black hole was gradually forming by accretion of “particles”, a few future stars, gradually forming further out by the same process and orbiting the center of the protogalaxy, and around those future stars, we have two small increasing clumps of dust for each future stars, that follows them on their orbital trajectory.

We will take one of those stars and see what happens to it.

But that will be in my next posts.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 636
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

PreviousNext