Page 26 of 28

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

Posted: March 27th, 2018, 11:55 am
Rotational process.

Well, since everything has a carbon base structure, I guess it’s time to see how that structure came to be.

We will use what we already know about energy, meaning that it enters at 12 o’clock while the “object” is rotating in a clockwise direction.

I didn't draw the first incoming Carbon atom at 12 o'clock; but you can see its presence in the second drawing at 2 o'clock.

You must remember that all the energy inside a deformed "volume" of space-time (as in an atom) is located at the center of gravity which is solely responsible of the object's traveling.
That center of gravity (here of the Carbon atom) is the "incoming energy" in the formation of molecules.

And after four completions of "passive energy states” (pair hours) going through the 12 o’clock hour, we get the basic Carbon structure for Nucleobases.

Note that the third drawing already provided the basic Carbon structure for Amino-acids.

We could even say that the second drawing supplies the basic Carbon structure for Glycine, but that is not possible if energy always enter at 12 o’clock because the Nitrogen atom would have to enter at 10 o’clock (see previous glycine drawing).

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

Posted: March 27th, 2018, 3:06 pm
Rotation centers

Here is another point I should make, which becomes obvious.

If you look at the next drawing:

You can see the difference when we have a "barycenter" with when we do not.

On the left drawing, without the barycenter of a cluster, the rotation center is the Carbon atom standing at the junction of the "Y" shape (left); as for the right drawing, the rotation center is evidently, the "barycenter".

This changes the place where all information stand.

I noted that all "nucleobases" possess a cluster with a barycenter.

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

Posted: March 29th, 2018, 9:37 am

It might be a bit early to point it out, but let's note that the "information" I keep talking about is transported through the "flowing" of electronic-energy-units through "Tidal effects".

This might become very relevant eventually.

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

Posted: March 29th, 2018, 11:10 am
So let’s see what we are dealing with in cells structure.

It’s obvious that all we’ve seen already has to be involved.

This means: “gravitational effect “, “Tidal effect”, flowing of electronic-units (electrons), incoming of “mass-energy” (center of gravities) at the 12o’clock position, and installation of these “mass-energy”, first from 12hr to 6hr, then to 8hr-2hr, -4hr and 10hr, successively in molecules.

This takes care of the “mass-energy” (centers of gravity) inside molecules; but their “coming in” means that these “mass-energy” also possess “kinetic energy. What happens to this kinetic energy when “mass-energy” is installed, since it cannot simply disappear?

The answer is simple when we consider the universal “Time clock”.

We know that kinetic energy is “Time energy”; so it simply follows the “Time arrows” of the “Universal Time clock”; and since “Time arrows” are always perpendicular to “gravitational effects”…

a) The "kinetic energy" of “mass-energy, incoming at 12 o'clock, is released through the 3hr “Time arrow”

b) The 2hr "kinetic energy" goes through the 5hr Time arrow

c) The 4 hr "kinetic energy" exits through the 7hr time flow

d) The 6hr "ke" goes through the 9hr Time flow

e) The 8 hr "ke", through the 11 hr Time flow

f) And the 10 hr "ke" exits via the 1 hr Time flow.

But the answer, simple as it is, doesn’t simplify the results in afterward evolution.

I agree that “flowing-electronic-units” (electrons) through molecules distributes “information” through the cells; but what role does the expelled kinetic energy (neutrinos) from atoms plays in molecules?

The only answer possible is that it makes molecules rotate, and we’ve seen that this rotation of molecules is responsible for distributing incoming “mass-energy” on each pair hours that passes through the “fixed” universal 12hr position.

And, afterward, what could be the following implication of "kinetic energy"?

The characteristic of kinetic energy indicates "where" we should direct our attention at the cells level.

It could be kinetic energy that is responsible for “splitting” proteins”, amino-acids, and even DNA.

We will try to stay attentive at that possibility while continuing our analysis.

And I still have to find any correlation between "information" and “barycenters”. This, also, has to implicate "kinetic energy".

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

Posted: March 30th, 2018, 11:59 am

A few “posts ago” I noted that:

The first sub-division we have to remember would be that non-living "things" are related to centers of gravity (falling effect) while living organisms are related to "tidal effects".”

And since “Tidal effects” are responsible for information distribution, I will permit myself to notify a possible “path for research” which would be the evolution of information “distribution.

The “climax” of this evolution has to be information propelled in neurones by electronic energy pulses' (electrons).

Which means that there has to be a continuity from “Tidal effect” distribution at the molecule level and the neuronal distribution of the same “object” holding “information.

While looking for this continuity, we should also try to identify the “kind” of information an “electron” can hold. Without forgetting that the information is also “transported” by chemicals through synapses.

The question would finally be: Are electrons THE information itself, or are they only their "transport facilities"?

I’m afraid that it won’t be easy; but we can always come back to when were produced electron/positron by collision of gamma rays, to see what basis those info could have.

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

Posted: March 31st, 2018, 12:17 pm
Proteins

Proteins are macromolecules (big molecules) consisting of one or more, long chains of amino acid residues.

An amino acid residue is what’s left over when you remove all identical parts of different amino acids. It’s what specifies a particular amino-acid and noted as “R” in drawings. This means that you have ONE kind of amino acid structure to which you add a specific "characteristic" (residue) that defines its ability.

Proteins perform a vast array of functions within organisms including DNA replication and transporting molecules.

Proteins differ from one another primarily in their sequence of amino acids, which is dictated by the nucleotide sequence of their genes, and which usually results in protein folding into a specific three-dimensional structure that determines its activity. Which means that they are “geometrically controlled”.

A linear chain of amino acid residues is called a polypeptide. A protein contains at least one long polypeptide. Short polypeptides, containing less than 20–30 residues, are rarely considered to be proteins and are commonly called peptides, or sometimes oligopeptides. So instead of “proteins” we could call them “big peptides”. Which means that proteins are peptides.

The individual amino acid residues are bonded together by peptide bonds and adjacent amino acid residues.

Peptides are short chains of amino acid monomers linked by peptide (amide) bonds.

A peptide bond, also known as an amide bond, is a covalent chemical bond linking two consecutive amino acid monomers along a peptide or protein chain. This means that a peptide is an amide and it is still a covalent bond that is implicated.

I'm starting to understand why biology is so complicated, complex, difficult, intricate, dense etc. It's because it as so much names for the same "thing". Biologists must use a "synonyms dictionary".

Important!

I’ve put in the clockwise rotation that shows how the “one hydrogen” bounded oxygen atom is “pushed out” of one amino-acid when smashed by a two hydrogen bounded nitrogen atom of another amino-acid that loses one hydrogen bound to the oxygen atom in the process; resulting in an “outside” water molecule. Note that the so-called peptide bound comes out of nowhere in the drawing; it just appears “magically”; which is not acceptable a an explanation.

Amide. Most common are carboxamides. The properties and reactivity of the carboxamide group arise from the hydrogen bonding capabilities of the -NH2 group as well as the carbonyl oxygen. Furthermore, the carbon atom in a carboxamide has a low-lying LUMO that is capable of accepting electron density from the nonbonding lone pair on the nitrogen, weakening the carbon-oxygen bond. In chemistry, HOMO and LUMO are types of molecular orbitals. The acronyms stand for "highest occupied molecular orbital" and "lowest unoccupied molecular orbital", respectively. Note that if biologists talk of “molecular orbitals”, it should mean that molecules rotate.

Acetamide (systematic name: ethanamide) is an organic compound with the formula CH3CONH2. It is the simplest amide (meaning Peptide or Protein) derived from acetic acid.

Acetic acid , systematically named ethanoic acid, is a colourless liquid organic compound with the chemical formula CH3COOH (also written as CH3CO2H or C2H4O2). Acetic acid is the second simplest carboxylic acid (after formic acid). It consists of a methyl group attached to a carboxyl group. The rotation axis is at the center of the middle Carbon atom on my drawing.

A monomer is a molecule that can undergo polymerization thereby contributing constitutional units to the essential structure of a macromolecule. Natural monomers are Amino acids (for proteins), Nucleotides (for RNA and DNA), Glucose and related sugars (monosaccharides for carbohydrates, glucose which is linked by glycosidic bonds (ouch!) into the polymers cellulose, starch, and glycogen.), and Isoprene a natural monomer that polymerizes to form natural rubber.

We will see Glucose in the next post. Isn't that sweet enough?

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

Posted: March 31st, 2018, 1:39 pm
Glucose

I’ve already drawn Amino-acids, Nucleotides, and Proteins; which leaves me to draw Glucose with the formula C6H12O6.

My drawing:

Note that the barycenter is not at the center of the middle Carbon atom; it is off-centered to the lower-right (not shown).

1) They are fundamental units of carbohydrates and cannot be further hydrolyzed to simpler compounds. What I see is that they are surrounded (protected?) by hydrogen bounded oxygen atoms, and that all gaps are "blocked by an Hydrogen atom except one.

2) They are the simplest form of sugar and are usually colorless, water-soluble, and crystalline solids.

3) Glucose, is a hexose; a subcategory of the monosaccharides.

4) Glucose is the most important medications needed in a basic health system.

5) Glucose is the most widely used aldohexose in living organisms.

6) Glucose has a lower tendency than other aldohexoses to react non-specifically with the amine groups of proteins.

7) The reason for glucose having the most stable cyclic form of all the aldohexoses is that its hydroxy groups are in the equatorial position; which means on the Time flow where “gravitational effect” is less effective, but were the “Tidal effects” are stronger than Hydrogen bonds, being at the “Oxygen-Carbon" atoms level.

8) Glucose is used as an energy source in most organisms, from bacteria to humans.

9) Glucose is oxidized to eventually form carbon dioxide and water, yielding energy mostly in the form of ATP.

10) Glucose supplies almost all the energy for the brain.

11) The enzymes that join glucose to other molecules usually use phosphorylated glucose to power the formation of the new bond by coupling it with the breaking of the glucose-phosphate bond. I'm tempted to draw it, to show the "rotational effects"; but I'll restrain myself.

12) Each glucose isomer is subject to rotational isomerism. Within the cyclic form of glucose, rotation may occur around the O6-C6-C5-O5 torsion angle, termed the ω-angle, to form three staggered rotamer conformations called gauche-gauche (gg), gauche-trans (gt) and trans-gauche (tg). There is a tendency for the ω-angle to adopt a gauche conformation, a tendency that is attributed to the gauche effect.

Read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015599 where is mentioned “molecular spin clusters”.

Nevertheless, Glucose is a simple sugar with the molecular formula C6H12O6, which means that it is a molecule that is made of six carbon atoms, twelve hydrogen atoms, and six oxygen atoms. Glucose circulates in the blood of animals as blood sugar. It is made during photosynthesis from water and carbon dioxide, using energy from sunlight. It is the most important source of energy for cellular respiration. Glucose is stored as a polymer, in plants as starch, and in animals as glycogen.

Sorry but I don't know what will be coming next. We will all have the surprise.

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

Posted: April 1st, 2018, 11:37 am
Cellular respiration

Cellular respiration is a set of metabolic reactions and processes that take place in the cells of organisms to convert biochemical energy from nutrients into adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and then release waste products. The reactions involved in respiration are catabolic reactions, which break large molecules into smaller ones, releasing energy in the process, as weak so-called "high-energy" bonds are replaced by stronger bonds in the products.

It’s rather surprising to me, that “high-energy” bonds would be “weak”.

Respiration is one of the key ways a cell releases chemical energy to fuel cellular activity.

Nutrients that are commonly used by animal and plant cells in respiration include sugar, amino acids and fatty acids, and the most common oxidizing agent (electron acceptor) is molecular oxygen (O2).

The formula for cellular respiration is:

C6H12O6 (Glucose) + O2 (Oxygen) --> H2O (Water) + CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) + ATP (C10H16N5O13P3).

My drawing of ATP:

(Red inner circles are Oxygen's first shell; Yellow inner circles are Phosphate's first shell, black inner circles are Carbon's first shell, light blue inner circles are Nitrogen's first shell, and single blue circles are Hydrogen's first shell).

ATP stands for adenosine triphosphate. It is a cell's energy "bank."

In the diagram above, you can see that there are three phosphate groups as part of ATP. In the bonds of the phosphate groups, energy is stored.

And in my drawing, you can imagine that the Ribose-Adenine group was already joined before joining with the Phosphate group.

Since so much energy is stored in the bonds (you can see in my drawing the energy "stored" at the only two oxygen atoms “full” valence shells where an incoming simple electron could “break” the bond), one of the bonds "breaks," releasing some energy and letting go of one of the phosphate groups. This makes ATP turn into ADP, adenosine diphosphate. To make ADP turn into ATP again, glucose that contains energy (Carbon and Oxygen ions) forms another bond with ADP, turning ADP into ATP again.

But it has to keep hold of its Hydrogen bonded atom (no 1 in my drawing). Otherwise it cannot form another bond.

The explanation resides in the next note.

Note that numbers 1-2-3, on my drawing, show the very first real exclusive hydrogen bonds I’ve had to use in any drawings until now. All bonds, before this drawing of ATP, were normal Carbon with Nitrogen or Oxygen atomic bonds; never “exclusive” hydrogen bonds.

The only reason I can see, is because previously all bonding were operated while the joining molecules clusters were rotating, and a simple hydrogen “tidal effect” wasn’t enough to “hold” bonds; a stronger “gravitational effect” was needed to “capture” and “hold” molecule clusters after the rotational “impact”.

Now, in ATP, we clearly see that we have three hydrogen bonds that can hold the phosphate group to the previously bonded Ribose-Adenine group. This means that both groups weren’t rotating anymore; otherwise the hydrogen bonds wouldn’t have held.

Somehow, after the bounding result followed by collision of parts of rotating molecule clusters, the resulted joined clusters stopped rotating after impact.

This event defined a new evolution level of “molecular structures”.

From now on, “real” exclusive hydrogen bonds could be effective. Bonding didn’t need the valence shells denser energy of atoms with nuclei containing mass-energy of protons + neutrons, but could get the same result with a “single proton's tidal effect” of the hydrogen nuclei. Which is logical considering the greater "intensity" of a "gravitational effect" compared to a simple "tidal effect"

This observation is possible only because we make our search starting from the past towards today. If we had used the other way around, we would have discovered Hydrogen bonds first, and never put attention to any rotating molecules clusters.

We probably would have “imagined” all sorts of “forces” to explain the different bonds we were seeing, without even thinking a second that the initial “effects”, responsible of the occurrence of everything before molecules, had to be also “working” after the advent of those molecules.

I really feel that a simpler explanation is slowly emerging from our investigation.

Furthermore, being related to "gravitational effect", organisms structure keeps relevant to the subject of this discussion.

Fun, isn't it?

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

Posted: April 2nd, 2018, 10:22 am

A glycosidic bond is a type of covalent bond that joins a carbohydrate (sugar) molecule to another group. Which confirms that we are always facing "covalent bonds".

Polymerization is a process of reacting monomer molecules together in a chemical reaction to form polymer chains or three-dimensional networks.

A polymer is a macromolecule, composed of many repeated subunits. Polymers range from familiar synthetic plastics such as polystyrene to natural biopolymers such as DNA and proteins that are fundamental to biological structure and function.

And we are back to our previous RNA through DNA.

I'll have a final check if we really enclosed the subject.

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

Posted: April 3rd, 2018, 12:14 pm
Bonds

Let’s see what we found, listing it accordingly to the kind of bonds involved:

First, we have to note that all atoms, and all “free” molecules rotate.

A)- Gravitational bonds

Note: Amino-acids rotate while forming and keep on rotating afterward.

Valine (amino-acid)
Glycine (amino-acid)
Alanine (amino-Acid)
Leucine (amino-acid)
Histidine (amino-acid)
Cysteine (amino-acid)¬
Tryptophan (amino-acid) (possesses a barycenter)

Note: Nucleobases rotate before joining and stop when joined. Presented here according to their chronological appearance.

1-Uracil (nucleobase) (barycenter)
2-Thymine (nucleobase)
4-Cytosine (nucleobase) (barycenter)
5-Guanine (nucleobase)

Glucose (rotates)
Acetic acid

Phosphate molecule (rotates until joined)
Benzene molecule (barycenter)
Pyrimidine molecule
NH2 molecule
Ammonia molecule

Desoxyribose (rotates until joined))

Amide

DNA (does not rotate)
RNA (does not rotate but curves)

B)-Tidal effect bonds

Ribose.

We have a problem with Ribose which does not rotate. In fact, Ribose seems to be a “conditional” component.

We know that all molecules rotate; so there’s no way that, simple “too weak” hydrogen bonds could “fabricate” Ribose with rotating molecules. Which means that its components have to be “captured” separately, by the Adenine and the Phosphate group and “compose” Ribose when joining.

As for the Phosphate group, it doesn’t rotate.

Acetamide

Phosphate groups (do not rotate)

ATP (does not rotate)

So this is all we saw up until now. What can we say about it?

1) We didn’t mentioned it formally, but whatever “inert” components is formed on a “solid state”, as rocks, dirt, etc., is accreted by “gravitational bondage”. “Tidal effect” bonds appears with liquids and gases.

2) The same “gravitational bonds” produces whatever appears before Phosphate groups and Acetamide. Afterward “Tidal effect” can takes over because rotations are not involved anymore.

And that’s all there seems to be.

All complexity just disappeared in this single last post. After such an amount of work, I’m really impressed.

I’ll double check if I didn’t forget anything.

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

Posted: April 4th, 2018, 1:36 pm
Miscellaneous:

1) - If we consider that information exchange is made by « flowing » electronic energy through « Tidal effects » at the valence shell level, it is remarkable to also consider that “information” in the brain travels through electronic “flows” in neurones.

2) - The universe’s “Space aspect” has a “flat” topology inside and outside “gravitational fields”, and “Tidal effects” are always at the same “Space” level as the barycenter.

3) – All energy is always manifested at the “Time” level; even the “mass-energy” standing inside the center of a gravitational field’s “basic-space-unit” is strictly installed at a moment of “passed” Time.

4) - The main point of “entry” of electronic energy and of incoming centers of gravity (mass-energy), in an atom, is always at the 12hr >-< 6hre line, perpendicular to the atom’s main “Time flow” at 3hr <-> 9hr; where energy is expelled according to the universal Time clock’s hours (lines) as shown here :

The successive hours indicates the vertical "Time rotation" with its axis at the center of gravity, while the horizontal "space rotation's axis is the 12hr >-< 6hr line.

And all this “magnetism” origins from the Gluon.

The drawing also explains clearly the “magnetic” neutrality of a Gluon (at the center) where mass-energy neutralizes itself coming from all directions, before being “divided” in quarks by the energetic 3hr – 9hr Time flow.

Knowing that Gluons are “basic-space-units” that cannot be smaller, if we reduce the following permanent magnet to the size of a Gluon (10^-35 meter), we get superimposed North and South poles (half of the space available is impossible to exist). The “magnetic” South Pole is then installed perpendicular to the “out-flowing” North Pole, which result in the Gluon’s trajectories of the “Time flows”.

Same structure as for our planet’s magnetic field:

Where we find the rotation of the Earth perpendicular to its magnetic field.

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

Posted: April 8th, 2018, 11:20 am
Entries confirmations in atoms:

Here is when and where, the « entries » at 12hr and 6 hr were confirmed at the atomic level.

This also explains why we find two neutrons in the nucleus when one would have been sufficient to separate the Protons.

Afterwards, a Neutron is expelled via 3 hr producing the Helium 3 atom out of the Helium 4 "Boson" atom.

The succeeding incoming Protons, producing new elements, would use those two points of entry, pushing the "in place" Proton on the other obliques "gravitational lines" (passive space).

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

Posted: April 11th, 2018, 11:15 am
I’m still working on cells and molecules; but there are some questions that pop up in my mind, I have to address along the way.

Adding energy density to a center of gravity:

Let’s look deeper at joined atom’s centers of gravity versus atom’s bonded valence shells.

We will imagine three defined energy centers of gravity (different “birth dates”) merging together.

The older the V shape is, the greater is the energy density; because energy dilutes progressively by the expansion of “Space” holding it.

So, C density being the less dense, gets denser when we had the B density to it; meaning retroceding in “Time” at a date when Space was denser. In fact, it should retrograde to the “birth date” of B density.

Because we have to take in consideration the constant motion of the Time flow; so density becomes greater near the center of gravity, diluting towards the valence shell. Consequently, “Time-wise”, the center of gravity of B density takes the place of C’s center of gravity; while, “Space-wise”, the density equalizes everywhere.

One thing though, even if it seems that both centers of gravity merge into one single center, the “fact” seems to be that the “older” center of gravity takes the priority on the deformed “Time volume”, and keeps it a single “unit”.

We now have a B + C energy density in a C’s augmented “gravitational” affected volume of “Space”, where the center of gravity stands in “Time”, at Nov 12th.

When we add the A density, this new BC density gets even denser without getting as dense as the former A density (Space-wise); but “Time-wise, the center of gravity is now at Nov 16th. And a new one single “unit” is produced by the “take over” of A’s center of gravity. This explains why when the M shell is filled “Time wise” (Argon), it still can accept electrons “Space-wise” (heavier elements).

If we take quarks in a Proton as the identity of three centers of gravity, we get two “same date” density (Up quarks) joined with a bit “older” date (Down quark) to form a Proton. The total must sums to three equalized energy density fields that merge and produce one “inner” equilibrated field unit in “Space”, which center represents the “birth date” of the Down quark. This equalizing density process indicates that quark energy (Space wise) acts the same way (water) as electronic energy in a “tidal effects”; which is normal since it’s all “kinetic energy”.

So a Proton is the sum of three energy densities, of which two are equal, and the other denser, equalized (Space-wise) and confined at a definite moment in “Time”.

In a drawing, let’s say we take a density equalized volume of space (4/4) and add ¼ size of the same density to it, in two moves. Now let’s consider it Space-wise and Time-wise:

So the “X” square (at bottom left) becomes a volume of “Space” confined in the “C” moment of “Time” (at right). This “X” square would be the “state” of a Proton in “Space”. The “gravitational field” (at right) would be the “state” of a Proton in “Time”. The circle shown is the same (a cone volume) as seen from the top at the present moment.

Note that “Time wise”, this Proton travels on its own “Time flow” carrying its “gravitational field”.

Now let’s see what is the difference when covalent bonding occurs?

Let’s have another drawing:

First thing we see is that centers of gravity don’t change density “level” (birth date). They just get closer towards each other (in Space), caused by the joining of “field's borders” at the “Tidal effect” which “lowers” the produced mutual border.

Second their density augments until the energy density of the valence shell is reached (Space-wise). This increase in density doesn’t affect the “birth date” of the “gravitational field”.

But why does the M, N and O shells of atoms still increase density AFTER being “filled” producing a “noble gas”? It’s obvious that there’s an added valence shell to make covalent bonds; so this would mean that the energy density needed to “fill” a shell isn’t a “density limit” in a shell. This “limit” would reside in the “geometrical” deformation we already saw previously. And since “deformation” is “Time related”, once again, we get the “Time-flow” involved in the density limit of electronic shells confirmation. On the other hand it seems more likely that the “volume” of the shell augments in “Space” (gets wider in Space without getting “deeper” in Time) while keeping the same density limit. This is normal since electrons don’t possess centers of gravity to affect the atom “Time-wise”.

Third, there cannot be a covalent bond if two valence shells are already “filled” Time-wise.
This newly formed bonded “unit”, in our drawing, possesses three centers of gravity. They are structured as molecules.

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

Posted: April 11th, 2018, 11:42 am
Here is another consequence when energy is added to a center of gravity.

Angle deformation produced by added energy:

One more detail about the "size" of bonding valence shells.

Official measurements of the covalent bond radius of two (smaller) Hydrogen atoms is longer (37 Picometre) than the covalent bond radius of two (bigger) Helium 4 atoms (32 pm).

This is simply because the angle of deformed “Time” gets smaller by added "mass-energy's" pressure units at the nucleus center of gravity:

And this is, also, another confirmation that the “gravitational effect” operates at the atomic level.

The result at the covalent bond radius is:

The “Time angles” (Centers pushed back, further in “Time”, by mass-energy”) explain why the covalent bond radius of two Helium 4 atoms is smaller than the covalent bond of two Hydrogen atoms.

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

Posted: April 13th, 2018, 3:11 pm
How does the Gravitational field increase when added “mass-energy”?

First, I’ve checked if, by disposing Protons and neutrons differently in the Helium nucleus, it would change the “Time angle” of the “gravitational effect”. As you can see, when comparing A to B, it doesn’t change the angle.

Second, I’ve checked if the Lithium’s “gravitational angle” diminishes by having one Proton added to Helium, and the angle does decrease. As you can see on the right, none of the three atoms (Hydrogen-Helium-Lithium) have the same angle; which affects their covalent bond’s radius accordingly.

Covalent radius measurements have been made for all elements of the periodic table; and all added Protons diminishes the “gravitational angle” until each noble gas is reached. You can verify here:

As we know, the element (atom) following a Noble gas is far bigger (adding another valence shell). So the diminishing “gr. angle” starts at a greater length of the covalent bond’s radius; but they always diminishes afterward.

However, at the copper atom, there’s a reverse trend and the two following atoms gets bigger bond’s radius. The same occurs with Silver and Gold and their two following atoms; but at the third atom, the radius starts diminishing again.

Copper atom

Here, I’ve drawn the Copper atom with 29 Protons and 29 Neutrons which is unstable, because there are too much Protons on (or near) the energetic Time flows which decay it rapidly. It needs 5 more Neutrons to gain a stabilized isotope (Cu-63).

You’ll see that I noted all the information we have gathered at this point, related to “Expansion”, “local Gravitation”, “centered Mass-energy”, “blurred Electronic energy”, “universal Electromagnetism”, and “Time flow”.

But let’s see how this Copper atom was produced:

That is how the Copper M shell gains two electrons when one elec. unit is added to the Nickel N shell’s atom. And that is the only possible reason to augment the covalent bond radius of the Copper atom compared to the Nickel atom. The M shell of the Copper atom has to get “larger (increase its size) all around the L shell; which answers our question as for its density limit that is never exceeded.

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

Posted: April 17th, 2018, 10:26 am
One thing I don’t like about my ideas.

When we put our attention to the next drawing, representing the first events after the Big bang…

…we note the following:

1) The "radiating period" after the Big bang (confirmed by Planck satellite) is contained in a “Space” volume of three “basic Space units” in diameter (full yellow circle).

2) The gluon (in pink), itself, is indisputably neutralized energy “confined” in a “passive” Space unit because of its topology.

3) The “gravitational effect” is not “universal” but is “local” (between yellow Time flows).
4) The Top/antiTop quarks appear 10-43 second after the Gluon (the Time it takes to travel
10-35 meter).

5) The gluon appears at the second lapse of 10-43 second after the Big bang (which means the third duplicating layer of space unit).

6) The “Time” flows continuously at light-speed, while “Space units” appear after every lapse of 10-43 sec.

But let’s show the increasing of “Space”, with the decaying particles, from the end of the radiating period until the end of the inflation:

And I hate it when such things shows up!

-Which thing?

-Look at the drawing:

1) We started with one single space unit containing all energy.

2) Then we get six additional basic space unit defining the trajectory of Time which, here I inscribed beside (outside) “Space” because “Time" is different from "Space" and I wanted to analyse “Space” (only two Time volumes are shown here, in yellow, standing over the bottom center unit).

3) And then, while “Time flow’s dependent Space” simply continues to duplicate (expand), “Time flow’s independent Space” appears. And that is the only “place” where “evolution”, meaning production in a stable environment, will take place afterward.

4) Following that, we find that our Time clock has twelve hours being defined by the Time flow’s expansion, and it becomes obvious that the “evolution’s schedule cycle” starts with something at 1 o’clock, and aims a target to be attained at 12 o’clock (Which defines 11 stages).

5) So I hate it; but, it astonishes me to find that when after starting (Space-wise) with a first volume at one o’clock, we end up with all needed fundamental particles, at twelve o’clock, ready to start another “clock cycle” (at 1 o’clock) that would bring further attained objectives of evolution.

The whole thing seems too “astrological” to my taste.

Luckily, we know that a Down quark has a “mass-energy” of 4.8 MeV which is the double of an Up quark with 2.4 MeV, and they both appear on the 12 o’clock “moment”. So this eases my mind a bit and I can now, go to sleep.

It’s interesting, though, to see the Higgs boson (125 GeV) appear before the W bosons (80.39 GeV) followed by the Bottom quarks (4.18 GeV).

This morning, re-reading this, I decided to verify with my former graphic on particle decay.

I found a few things:

1) Every particles inside the dotted squares has its antiparticle, so they all annihilate each other; AT THE EXCEPTION of the new Gluon produced by the “collision” (or merge) of the Charm and AntiCharm quarks (at the middle-right).

2) This new Gluon decays into a Strange and an antiStrange quarks; which decays result in one Strange and one Up quarks surviving the annihilation, as I showed (middle far right).

Strange and Up quarks don’t produce Down quarks which are missing here. But there’s also something else that is missing; it’s the result of the other Gamma ray originating, this time, from the antiBottom quark (lower part of the drawing) of which I couldn’t find any experimental results but should be different than for a Bottom quark.

So, counting how many decays resulted in producing this surviving Up quark, I came to the total of nine stages.

Feeling quite released, I happily went back to my previous drawing and saw that the first gluon, which was my ninth particle decay stage, was standing inside the third “independent Space unit” ever produced. Which made a total of eleven stages.

Naturally, I refused absolutely to add the Planck epoch that would have made a twelfth stage taking the real beginning of our universe in consideration.

And that refusal, brought me back to the twelve evolution stages (or hours) from a zero “Potentiality” to a “Reality” (which is an attained realisation at 12 o’clock).

So; let’s forget I brought the subject.

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

Posted: April 18th, 2018, 2:42 pm
Deviation of trajectories

The following drawing is the deviated trajectories we develop if we define the angles toward the gravity center according to the axis of entry, and use their “counter-angles” (same angle on the other side of the axis) away from the same center.

The only method to confirm this “process” would be by comparing the objects’ entry trajectory with their exit trajectory according to facts observed; because the real curvature would be a lot “smoother” than what is shown here.

Note that the object A’s trajectory makes it “crash” at the gravity center, whatever its “speed” is.

But ever without confirmation of the drawing’s results, there is still a very important question that pops up:

Why would an object deviate its trajectory?

The answer has to be that the increase of “energy density” slows down the object, which deviates it toward the center of gravity because of the loss of speed. As we all know, insufficient entry “speed” makes an object fall, increasing velocity, towards the center of gravity.

So the reality observed is that the object gains velocity toward the center, then loses it getting away from the center when a minimal speed limit is involved; which is contrary to what we explained and, most disturbingly, contrary to the notion behind the mass being given by the Higgs field because its energy density slows down the particle.

Let’s make a more explicit drawing:

The result of gaining speed while “falling” toward the center is the “fact that I have to accept.

So the only explanation left possible, since there’s no “attraction” involved, is the notion that the energy which gets denser toward the center of gravity (in regard to the “Time flow”) is kinetic energy.

This “fact” installs “Time shells” around the gravity center possessing a definite speed” environment; and when an object enters this environment it adopts the “speed” dictated by the environment. Meaning that the denser the kinetic energy is, the “faster” travels an object.

The event being exclusively a “Time effect” is also confirmed by the “fact” that an object can be relatively “immobile” in Space, but never can be, relatively or not, “immobile” in Time. Time is never “still” wherever it is; while Space is “still” when it’s in a “gravitational field”.

Which observed “fact” is absolutely contrary to the “slowing effect” of energy density attributed to the Higgs field.

As for “mass”, everybody knows that two objects, whatever their mass is, will accelerate simultaneously while “falling” in the increasing energy density of a “gravitational field”; so how could “mass” be related, in any way, to “speed versus energy density as proposed by the Higgs field?

But then, again, I could have another problem regarding the acceleration of expansion in a continuously decreasing energy density as observed in our universe.

Luckily, this acceleration has nothing to do with energy density, since it is provoked by the increasing number of “basic-space-unit’s” constant duplication between cosmic objects. The acceleration of expansion is a "space factor"; duplicating 1000 space-units creates more “overall space” than the duplication of 10 space-units.

This space-unit duplication average actually 67 km per second per megaparsec.

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

Posted: April 21st, 2018, 2:36 pm
Layers of the universe

a) “universal energy layers”,
b) “topological space field layers” and
c) “composite layers”.

This is the simplest way I’ve found yet, to “see” our universe. It denotes a “flowing” chronology just as much as “blocked instant’s objects”.

First universal energy layer: “Time.

This layer is installed at the start of Planck epoch (time = zero), and extends until today. It seems to be the nature of kinetic energy.

Second universal energy layer: “Space”.

This layer started at 10^-43 sec, and still keeps on duplicating today. It is produced by almost light-speed “motion” in all directions, that travels 10^-35 meter distance, making this the “basic” minimal diameter possible to exist, since, at light-speed, distances disappear.

Third universal energy layer: “Electromagnetism”.

It appeared when the Gluon’s centripetal topology (magnetism) installed itself perpendicular to the universal “toward everywhere” energy flow, at 10^-36 second.

First space field layer: “Centers of gravity”.

These are different basic space unit topologies that appeared at 10^-36 second, that we call Gluons. These basic space units possess a centripetal topology.

Second field layer: “Gravitational fields”.

These layers appeared around centers of gravity (first field) when Top and antiTop quarks where produced by splitting Gluons. They were 10^-15 meter in diameter. Which was the influence volume of a gluon’s spinning surface.

Third field layer: “Sub-particles”.

They are “mass-energy space-unit fields” composing massive particles. They are the result of kinetic energy responding to the second field layer’s topology oriented toward a centered space unit. All possess a center of gravity except the electronic energy unit. We call them quarks. As for Bosons they are energy quanta of either mass-energy and electromagnetic energy.

Fourth field layer: “electronism”.

It is the production of “electronic basic energy units” when electromagnetic waves collided, separating their frequencies up and down “motions”.

This is a layer of reunited sub-particles in groups of two or three.

Six field layer: “Elements

It starts when “electronic energy units” are captured by Hadrons; in “fact” Baryons (groups of three) since Mesons (groups two) don’t live long enough to capture any. When these united energy fields called atoms unify with each other by joining their center of gravities, they produce heavier elements that gain additional “mass-energy” which extend their “gravitational field”.

First composite layer: “Molecules”.

They result from the “tidal effect” caused by the gravitational fields of atoms brushing against each other. Atoms are then united without joining centers of gravity. Tidal effects are where electronic blurred energy flow from one atom to the other.

Second composite layer: “Cells”.

This composite layer starts when molecules collide, which stops their rotation and unites them by “Tidal effect” between heavy atoms. Some cells are circular and others are linear. Circular cells adopt a gravitational barycenter. The circulating flow of electronic energy distributes information between molecules composing the cell. Circular cells possess definite information while linear cells hold “progressive” information.

Third composite layer: “Organisms”.

They are the result of uniting cells. Which augments their information grade that keeps on accumulating while physical exchanges.

Note that I’m still blocked at the second composite layer because the “drawing” of some individual molecules are not identical when being presented in a cell composite.

I’m still verifying where this discrepancy comes from, before making d… drawings uselessly.

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

Posted: April 24th, 2018, 9:46 am
Energy density.

I’ve been talking, since the beginning, of “energy density”; which seems very “smart”, but isn’t that much so, in reality.

Because, even if we are starting to understand what “energy” is, meaning a “flowing motion” whatever its orientation, we don’t yet understand what and how it does, to reach equilibrium inside the universe’s continuously changing environment. Especially at the very first beginning, when our universe became electromagnetic at 10^-36 second after Time = Zero.

It is obvious that “energy density” starts at “Zero density”, which is a “Neutral state density”. And it’s just as obvious that, every time the universe has to equilibrate its density, it has to attain that “Neutral state” density, without the obligation to reach a “Zero energy state” of its components.

So the only way, is to put in presence two “contrary” energy states.

This “reality” has been observed rapidly, in the history of Science, as the polarized -1 and +1 “energy states” from the atomic level to higher levels.

But quantum mechanics discovered, just as fast, that this “one for one” polarization didn’t exist and wasn’t possible at the sub-atomic level, where a “3 to 1” relationship is absolutely needed.

This “need” was supplied by the Quantum chromodynamics theory (QCD) using “colour” and “flavor” charges; which really is an imaginative “exploit” as an explanation.

The only problem is, that quarks don’t really have “colours” or “flavours”.

So, can our “geometrical” description of “events” help find a simpler and more “realistic” explanation?

Let’s see:

We will, start at the atomic level where a Proton “energy state” defines a “gravitational field effect”, which needs two surrounding electronic-energy-basic-fields (electrons) to be neutralized and produce a neutral atom. This is considered as the positive “energy density” of a Proton needing two negative energy densities of electrons “equalizing the field”, without bringing each of the involved energies to a “zero energy state”.

Now, if we consider our own concept related to the “nature” of each energy, we get energies that simply possess contrary orientations.

The Proton is a field of confined “kinetic energy” oriented “toward its center”, while the electronic-energy-unit is a field of confined “swirling” kinetic energy.

And we’ve already seen that this contrary orientation “structure” of the universe, where “gravitational Space” is perpendicular to the existing “toward everywhere” oriented Time energy, was the case since the appearance of the Gluon at 10^ -36 sec. when all “Space” existing had the diameter of 10^-15 meter.

Its drawing looked like so:

But the “Time reality” of the universe, at that “Gluon” moment, was a lot more specific than this previous drawing. It had already defined a “12 orientations pattern”, successively contrary to one another; as the following:

And we can easily see that the difference between these energy orientations are regarding their “flow”. So, since the “time flow” is an “invariant” and the “gravitational flow” is “cumulative”, the previous drawing represents specifically the Time” aspect free flow of the total universe.

What we really need is its Space” aspect, in order to analyze definite “volumes” of energy.

And the “Space” aspect would be the following…

…where “Space” is perpendicular to the invariant free “Time flow”.

Here we, now, clearly see that each “gravitational energy orientations” sums to “neutrality”; but the reality is that, when is added the free “invariant Time flow’s energy”, this “neutrality” is overwhelmed and disappears.

So, to equalize the “gravitational field’s” energy with the “Time flow’s” energy, we have to eliminate whatever “gravitational energy” that neutralizes it (could this mean: eliminating "anti-gravity"? I'll have to think about this)..

And we end up with this drawing:

Where “Space’s gravitational energy” is equal to the “Time flow’s energy” (creating “space”). We thus get a volume of “energy-Time-flow” = “Space”, and obtain a volume of non-expanding” Space-Time.

It is very clear to see that this volume of “neutralized Space” needs three “gravitational” energy states to “equalize” the Time flow’s energy. We also see that they are all different from one another just as the three quarks of QCD.

And this is what determines the number of quarks needed in a “stable” Proton. Meaning, 2 different “oblique” quarks, each equal to 1/4 of “Space’s gravitational energy”, plus 1 perpendicular quark equal to 2/4 of “Space’s gravitational energy”.

Which shows as:

But then, again, this explanation doesn’t totally conforms to the “concept” of QCD, since a “Down quark” is said to have 1/3 negative charge with twice as more “mass-energy” than a 2/3 positive charged Up quark. Did we make an error?

The “fact” is that, mass-energy-wise, our drawing has to represents only the “reality” of Down quarks being twice as more “massive” than Up quarks; because, size-wise, science cannot pronounce itself. So they simply consider those “energy states” as “point particles” (sizeless). The “fact” known is that their smallest size possible is 10^-35 meter, and they are “confined”, three at the time, in a volume of 10^-15 meter.

So, when you measure the “orientation” (charge) of a Down quark you measure its “energy oblique orientation” that applies to all its related “Space”, which covers all space between the vertical axis and the horizontal axis. This 1/3 “charge” amounts to 2/4 of the “Space” involved, which energy is, afterward, “compressed” in ¼ of space of the previous drawing.

And when you measure the “orientation’s perpendicular energy” of an Up quark, the “Space” implied is containing the general energy density found in 1/4 of the total “Space”, which is then “repeated” in another 1/4 of the “Space” involved, which doesn’t change its energy density.

Density-wise, on the drawing it would show as:

So, in an Up quark, the density (mass-energy) it represents, is ¼ of the total energy present in 2/4 of “Space”; while in a Down quark, the density (mass-energy) represents 2/4 of energy “compressed” in 1/4 of “Space”. Which makes the Down quark twice more “massive” than an Up quark.

As for the “negative” and the “positive” aspect, the “fact” resides in the difference from the perpendicular orientations of each quarks. Up quarks are perpendicular while Down quarks are “oblique”. They are not “contrary” to each other because, then, their energy would be neutralized; which they, obviously, are not. The universe doesn’t do maths, it simply operates with its “Space” (volumes) and “energy” (Time) factors.

On the other hand, the obliquity of Down quarks could indicate their counter-clock-wise rotation which would then confirm the clock-wise rotation of the Up quark (see the next drawing).

But what maths doesn’t tell, and our concept does, is that an Up quark is twice “bigger in size” than a Down quark, even if it is half “massive”; which could explain its “stability”. Quarks cannot be “point particles” (sizeless); they have to be volumes of “energy states”.

So a Proton would look as the following:

…where the 4/4 (total) density of quarks equals to 1% of the Proton’s “mass-energy” (rotating quarks), leaving 99% of it, to the kinetic energy of orbiting quarks, “pushing” towards the Proton’s center of gravity inside its “inner gravitational field”. Which "pressure" extends its "outer" surrounding gravitational field about 10,000 times.

Personally, I feel that we, now, can see “clearer” the QCD event’s reality.

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

Posted: April 26th, 2018, 9:55 am
Anti-gravity

I made a promise in my previous post:

“So, to equalize the “gravitational field’s” energy with the “Time flow’s” energy, we have to eliminate whatever “gravitational energy” that neutralizes it (could this mean: eliminating "anti-gravity"? I'll have to think about this).”

And I thought about it while looking at this picture:

Without doubt, this picture represents a Gluon when it appeared in our universe. And it confirms two “facts” we already saw:

1) Inside a Gluon, the energy is neutralized by its different contrary orientations; this is why we observe that Gluons don’t have mass. The “reality” is that a Gluon possesses twice as much “mass-energy” than a Top quark, because it contains the total “mass-energy” of Top and antiTop quarks; but being “neutralized”, we cannot “measure” it.

2) Top and antiTop quarks are simply the “half” parts of a Gluon, separated by the overwhelming “Time flow” energy as we can see on the next picture:

As we can observe, the Top quark’s “mass-energy” is “half” of the Gluon’s “mass-energy”.

But we can also perceive that “anti-gravitation” is an error of interpretation.

What is neutralizing the Gluon’s “mass-energy” is not “anti-mass-energy” (anti-gravity) but simply contrary oriented “mass-energy.

So there only one sort of “mass-energy” that exists, and it’s always topology-confined” kinetic energy, oriented toward a single point.

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

Posted: April 30th, 2018, 2:42 pm
Bottom quark

The next drawing is a Proton as we’ve seen in my previous post.

This Proton is composed of quarks (energy states) of which the first that appeared in the universe was the heaviest Top quark.

This Top quark was the maximum “mass-energy state” density possible to exist; and it stood in an environment with a constantly decreasing energy density, because of the expanding space.

So, to keep “existing” in such an environment, this Top quark had to balance its own mass-energy density “state” to its environment density “state”. To do so, it had to “eject” its surplus of energy while keeping its “energetic structure” of energy as the following:

First, let’s note that the “ejection” is made at the 9hr – 3 hr of the universal Time clock.

Second, the Bottom quark is the residue needed to attain equilibrium with the environment; so the 80 390 MeV ejection of “mass-energy” is made when the universe’s energy density is 4 240 MeV. Which could make the appearance of the W+ Boson simultaneous to the Bottom quark; but it also could be a progressive process which seems more logical.

Third, none of the six directional small triangles, around the centered circle, are identical and represents all “gravitational” possibilities on the Time clock. Which might explain the existence of six different quarks possible.

Finally, we will focus our observation on the ejected W+ Boson.

This ejected Boson particle is simply a surplus of “mass-energy” ejected from the Top quark to diminish its own energy density “state”. Which explains why the W+ Boson possesses “mass-energy”.

Experiences in colliders tells us that this W+ Boson of 80 390 MeV decays into a Bottom quark of 4 240 MeV which then decays into an Up quark of 1.9 MeV and an antiDown quark of 4.4 MeV.

Which means that this decay process misses 76 150 MeV between the W+ and the resulting Botton quark. It could explain the difficulties to identify everything that surrounds a Bottom quark in the process.

Meanwhile, another 4 233 Mev, between the resulted Bottom quark and the following resulting Up and Down quarks, is missing.

Note that Bottom quarks, elsewhere, decay into a Charm or an Up quark. Which, just as well, leave missing “mass-energy” (Charm, leaving 1 925 MeV and Up, leaving 4 237 MeV). Could this mean that there are two kinds (or generations) of Bottom quarks like there seems to be for Gluons?

Now, all this missing “mass-energy” has to go somewhere, because it cannot simply stop existing; and the only possibility it has is to be transformed into Kinetic energy or electromagnetic energy (which is the kinetic energy at the electromagnetism level). So these results have to be accompanied by electrons and neutrinos; which are rarely mentioned.

Note: Most Bottom quark “live” longer (10^-12 sec) than a Charm quark (10^-13 sec), which is not “normal”; and shorter than a Strange quark (10^-8 sec), which is more logical.

As you can see, there are quite a lot more informations to be collected through future collider experiences.

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

Posted: October 8th, 2018, 2:51 pm
Coming back to the most important "basic" of all.

Space production vs energy density

The explanation between the above two factors should specify the notions of universal expansion, constant speed expansion and, most important, the energy density dilution.

As usual a drawing should explain it easily:

First we have to consider that kinetic energy, propelled in all directions, produces the basic metric of “space”. “Basic” because space is a “measurable” volume; and the shortest measure possible is the distance traveled at light speed; which is 10*-35 meter. A shorter distance would augment the speed, which is impossible since that, faster than “light speed” eliminates distances.

So, here we have a “volume” of a basic space metric:

When this first volume of “space appeared (at the Big-bang), it was surrounded by “nothingness” (nothing else existed); which means that it didn’t have a surrounding “border” defined by two “things since “nothingness” isn’t a “thing”. So the first basic space volume was “infinite” (which means: not definite).

Furthermore, the energy manifesting inside this first “basic space” volume, produced a constant “motion” in all directions, at light speed, which took another 10*-43 second to travel the additional 10*-35 meter. Thus, duplicating the first basic space volume.

Each of these basic space metric are defined by the “journey” covering 10*-35 meter.

And each of these “basic space volumes” have identical energy, since they are all produced at “light speed” during the definite duration of a certain moment. We know that energy cannot be “spent”; energy never disappears.

We, then, can consider the interval of 10*-43 second as the first perceptible duration, defining a “measurable momentof the “Time’s flow”. Which confirms that “basic space volume’s reproduction” is constantly done at “light speed”.

And now appears the importance of the meaning of the word “Universe”. The “Universe” represents “everything that exists”. Which means that, at each moment we consider the universe, we are contemplating “all that existsat that moment. No need to say that we forget the notion of “multiverse”.

Consequently, whatever moment we consider in the history of the universe, we continuously observe a constant invariable amount of energy manifesting inside it. This is, evidently, a “Time wise” observation.

On the other hand, when we consider the universe at different “moments” of its “Time flow”, we observe a different energy density. This is because observing at a certain moment “in Time” is observing a certain volume “in space”. And since the volume of “space” increases continually, the density of energy constantly diminishes proportionally. But this fact doesn’t affect the energy “intensity” which is “constant”.

Therefore, when we look far away in space, we are observing a “moment” in the past, when space had a heavier energy density.

As for the “Universe”, let’s compare the universe at its beginning versus today:

Time wise”, it undergoes exactly the same “energy” manifestation, because the present moment of each has the same manifesting energy “intensity”.

But “space wise”, each volume doesn’t have the same energy density because of the difference in “space volume”.

So Time is constantly “active” and space is momentarily “passive”. Once again, the “energy density” of “Space” depends of the observed moment in “Time”. Time “flows” while space is “static”.

Today’s “space” is fixed, while today’s “time” is flowing.

On the other hand, today’s “fixed space” gets older while today’s “flowing time” is continuous. This last statement indicates that “Time” is the only factor that changes “Space”; which also means that “Space”, at a specific moment, is exactly the same everywhere.

This indicates explicitly that Space-Time” deformations have to reside exclusively in the “Time factor.

Space cannot be “deformed.

Finally, it is obvious that the "gravitational effect" is a "Time" induced responsibility.

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

Posted: November 15th, 2018, 1:23 pm
Another "question" came to my mind while working on orbits:

The “size” of a gravitational field.

Let’s say that we have a spacecraft traveling through space and, that its trajectory takes it near a planet.

It is the speed of our spacecraft that will decide of the orbit it will adopt to travel around that planet.

In fact, its “speed” will define the radius of the “gravitational field’s effect” on our spacecraft.

In other words, for the spacecraft, the “size of the “gravitational field” of that planet will possess the “radius” decided by our spacecraft’s speed. Farther out of that radius, the planet’s “gravitational field” doesn’t exist at all.

Which brings us to an important fact: “Gravitational fields” are relativistic “effects”. They are determined by the speed of motion around a “gravity center”.

Which again changes our understanding of the relation between “mass” and “gravitational fields”.

Because it means that “mass” doesn’t affect “space” at all (since farther out of the orbit of an object, it doesn’t exist), it strictly affects “motion” around a “gravity center”.

Furthermore, it specifies that the “mass-energy”, installed at a “gravity center”, produces an effect only on the speed of a “motion”.

We have, then, to focus on the nature of “speed”.

A “speed” is a distance traveled in a definite lap of time. “Distance”, being related to “space”, is not affected at all, as we have just seen.

Consequently, whatever the distance of a “motion”, it is strictly the lap of time involved that will determinate the “speed” of that motion.

Which confirms that a “gravitational effect” is related to “time”.

The next question has to be: How and why can that “relation” exist?

The reason “why”, is that “mass-energy” puts “pressure” on a gravity center. We know this because it is “pressure” that produces “fusion” at the center of stars.

The reason “How” is a bit more difficult to understand.

We have to keep in mind the nature of a “gravity center”.

A gravity center is a point in “space” positioned by its appearance while space was expending.

Which means that it is related to the “date” it appeared on the “time flow” of the universal expansion. In other words, a center point of gravity is a moment” in the “life” of the universe.

So, if we want to be precise, we have to say that a “center of gravity” is a “point in time” during “space production”.

This being understood, we have to ask ourselves: What, for even’s sake, can “pressure” do to a “point in time”?

There’s only one answer that I can find: The “pressure” on a point of the “time flow” can only push back that point on the “time flow”. No other possibility is available.

But how can, pushing back in time a “gravity center”, affects the “orbit” of a motion?

To answer this, we have to add another fact that we know of: Expansion of space “dilutes” the energy density of the universe.

In other words, the more you go back in time, the more the energy density increases. Which means that the more you are traveling near a center of gravity, the more you motion is going through a dense energy environment.

The energy related to “motion” is kinetic energy. So if the “speed” of a motion is affected by energy density it has to be the energy density at the kinetic level.

Which, now, means that, if the “speed” of motion decides of the orbit around a center of gravity, every orbit possibilities depends of the kinetic energy density at different distances from that center point. Which also indicates that expansion of space-time is an effect of kinetic energy.

Consequently, since the energy density is defined by “moments” during the expansion of “space”, each of those “moments” represents a density of kinetic energy which, in other words, represents a motion’s “speed”.

This explains why an object adopts the orbit that represents the same “speed” as its own “speed”.

It also explains why an object, having too much speed, cannot find an equivalent density of kinetic energy, and after going through several energy densities, keeps going on whatever trajectory it adopts afterward.

But there is something missing in that description of the event.

Because when an object’s approaching trajectory is oriented exactly toward a center of gravity, the object doesn’t take a “curved” trajectory and precipitates itself straight on that “gravity center”. So, depending of the “size” of the planet, containing the “gravity center”, it is brushing past, it will, either, collide with it or orbit around it.

In other words, only a trajectory tangential to a center of gravity is liable to adopt an orbit around that center of gravity.

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

Posted: December 14th, 2018, 8:03 pm
Laws of physics versus “dark matter”.

Here’s a question I’ve just answered on internet, regarding dark matter:

Can you explain to me in three short sentences, or under, what is the essence of dark matter?

Sure!

It’s an imagined solution for people that still think that masses attract themselves.
Dark matter doesn’t exists.

OK; so now, you need a clearer explanation. Then, here goes; but it cannot be in three sentences if you want to have a glimpse to that explanation. So I guess you’ll have to read on. If you don’t have the resilience for it; just remember that nothing is “free” in life. And if this can help your “resilience”, it took me more than 60 years to develop the following opinion, which is my own opinion evidently; not anyone else’s (I don’t want to be accused of being a “con man”, like I was by a participant, a few days ago).

So, here goes:

We don’t even realize how much this question is important. Right now we use the dark matter “notion”, in order to prevent our minds from “panicking”.

Funny enough, scientists always say that they would be delighted to find something that would suggest a “new and different” physics; and when it happens, “they create unobservable dark matter to replace missing mass” to not “disturb” their actual notions. And this, even if “every search to date…has come up empty-handed and many papers have been published in the last couple of years, by those involved in the search, declaring there is no dark matter (where they verified).” (The “dark material” of this paragraph, was taken from another participant’s post).

Now, what could make stars orbit faster, and in a larger “corridor”, than they should according to our present calculating process which was proven to be exact everywhere else in our observations?

First evidence:

It’s not the stars that are wrong. They orbit where and how “nature” tells them to. The “fact” is that they know nothing about our “physics laws”; and they don’t care about them. They just do, the “only thing they can do”; which is what we observe.

So, do we have to change our “gravitational laws?

Certainly not, in front of a “first” offence; your honor. We have to review (reconsider) the results of those laws before applying a sentence (and more evidently, three). There could be “circumstantial factors” involved.

First question:

Are the calculations we use give such a precise answer, as we are led to believe?

Well, the fact is that Newton’s formula is “precise enough” for Earths events; but for Solar system’s events, we have to correct their results according to Einstein’s formulas which are more precise.

Second question

So this means that Einstein’s formula are more precise, in a greater volume of space, than Newton’s formula. Could this suggest that in an even greater volume than the solar systems, Einstein’s formulas aren’t precise enough?

It’s definitely a possibility to consider.

Third question

What is the reason for the imprecision of Newton versus Einstein?

The reason is they are based on completely different notions. Newton uses a “force” notion (in which he didn’t really believe because of lack of a physical link between objects) while Einstein uses a “geometrical notion” applied to “space-time”.

So since Einstein is more “precise”, it means that he is closer to the “realty”. The “gravitational effect” would be the result of a “geometrical alteration” of “space-time”.

But I see a problem in this geometrical notion of “altered space-time”. The problem is caused by an information that Einstein was never aware of, because nobody knew it at the time.

Space” possesses a “flat topology. Our most advance technologies where not able yet, to measure its “flatness”; but the margin left is so small, that it cannot justify the curved trajectories that we observe.

So, if the “space” factor isn’t responsible of the “gravitational effect” we observe in “space-time”, the only “culprit” possible left is the “time” factor”.

Fourth question

But “time” isn’t a “geometrical” factor, how can it be “altered geometrically”?

Time is not “geometrical”; but it still affects space. Which means that a small change in Einstein’s notion might solve our problem.

Let’s check that.

First fact

Time flows while “space” expands. And while space expands, its “energy density” diminishes even though its “intensity” keeps constant (like our voyager space shuttles that travel through “space” without spending or the need of any kinetic energy).

Second fact

The result is that at this present moment all space in the universe possesses a homogeneous energy density; but “a moment ago” that density was “greater” than it is now, because of the constant expanding universe. So, the farther back in time you go, the greater is the space energy density.

Third fact

Every “gravitational field” that exists is a “volume of “space”; and that volume of “space” exists because “space” expands; which means that each “gravitational field” possesses a “birth date” that starts at it “center of gravity” and expands from that point.

Fourth fact

The “space” inside a “gravitational field” has homogeneous energy density at this “present moment”; but “time wise”, it is evident that its density increases while getting closer to its “center of gravity”.

Fifth fact

So if the enormous energy density of a Higgs field, can “slower” particles going through it, going through increasing energy density might, just as well, affect a trajectory.

This finally, would indicate that "motion" is more related to "time" than to "space".

Conclusion:

In view of these “circumstance factors”, your honor, I think scientists should consider these “facts” of physics, before accepting unobservable and unduplicatable “dark energy”.

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

Posted: December 27th, 2018, 9:17 pm
Happy New Year everybody!

And here is my present to you for this New Year.

Relativity in motions

In space

In the space “portion” of space-time, the energy density is continuously homogenous through every basic space volumes while expanding; which gives space a “flat” topology. That means that whatever direction an object adopts, it goes forward in a straight trajectory.

In time

On the time “portion” of space-time, we observe quite a different scenario.

Because, as expansion goes on, the energy density gradually diminishes. So we get different energy density for each series of basic space volumes created, even though the energy intensity always keeps constant.

Evidently this simple difference between the space and the time situation, becomes the only natural possibility available to explain curved trajectories of object traveling through the “altered” space-time of a “gravitational field”, compared to the straight trajectories of objects traveling through “unaltered” space-time (outer flat space).

If we take in consideration the effect of a Higgs field slowing down particles because of its great density, we can assume that an increasing, followed by a decreasing density, would affect, for the first increasing density portion of the trajectory, by slowing its speed, thus gradually making the object “falling” toward the center of gravity thus increasing its curved trajectory; followed by the second effect of decreasing density, which increases the speed of the object gradually straightening its trajectory. The gradual curving, then redressing, a trajectory trough a “gravitational field” is exactly what we observe.

This signifies that each energy density in corridors is responsible for a defined velocity. Meaning that the more energy dense a corridor is, the more velocity it controls. So the more velocity an object possesses, the less its trajectory is liable to be affected or curved (and here adds on, the factor of the angle of entry of the trajectory in the “gravitational field”. If the entry is straight toward the center, the trajectory will lead, without any curvature, right to the center).

Which is exactly what we observe since at light speed a trajectory is less curved than at slower speed.

But there is still a problem; because we also observe that speed increases while an object falls toward a center of gravity.

The solution is also shown on the Time situation drawing.

The gravitational corridors decreases in length toward the center of gravity. The proportions shown of the gravitational corridors, on the drawing, are the diameter proportions related to the electronic density shells around atoms nucleus.

First shell = 2 electrons (one subshell, 1s)

Second shell = 2 + 6 electrons (two subshells, 2s, 2p)

Third shell = 2 + 6 + 10 electrons (three subshells, 3s, 3p, 3d)

I didn’t go further in my drawing because of lack in space; but we can see the increasing progression for the production of basic space volumes. This is what explains why space between supernovae 1 seems increasing in speed; the reality is that it only increases in production at always the same speed.
The followings shells would be:

4th shell = 2 + 6 + 10 + 14 electrons (4 subshells, 4s, 4p, 4d, 4f)

5th shell = 2 + 6 + 10 + 14 + 18 electrons (5 subshells, 5s, 5p, 5d, 5f. 5g)

6th shell = 2 + 6 + 10 + 14 + 18 + 22 electrons (6 subshells, 6s, 6p, 6d, 6f, 6g, 6h)

7th shell = 2 = 6 + 10 + 14 + 18 + 22 + 26 electrons (7 subshells, 7s, 7p, 7d, 7f, 7g, 7h, 7i)

At this point we can say that the “gravitational effect” stops.

Now this reality, of increase in length for “gravitational corridors”, is far from the way we actually calculate the extension of the gravitational effect. This drawing doesn’t show, at all, a decreasing effect equal to inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

Just to make it clear. According to our present calculations, using the brown center basic space volume of the next drawing, we get the gravitational corridors shown on the left side of it.

While the reality is on its right side, where the ratio determines the strength of the gravitational effect. Meaning that all basic space volumes, included in each “ratio”, possesses identical gravitational “strength”.

So it’s not surprising that Fritz Zwicky was dumbfounded when he realised that stars dared not to follow is way of calculating the gravitational “power”; but, as we can see, it wasn’t a sufficient reason for him to imagine “dark matter”; poor guy.

It’s absolutely normal that stars, orbiting inside the same gravitational corridor, have the same orbiting speed. And it’s just as normal that each corridor increases in “wideness” in accord with the series of basic space production they appeared in.

Nature is such a wonderful thing!

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

Posted: January 11th, 2019, 3:08 pm
The “variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Here follows the basic information regarding my « variable expansion speed theory of gravity”.

The whole theory is based on “kinetic energy”; which means, based on “action and motion”.

This opinion is supported by the very basic “fact” that we know about our universe: The universe is “dynamic; and its “dynamism” relies on its “vibrating action” and “expanding motion”.

At the Big-bang, we had a situation where energy intensity and energy density was at its maximum inside a minimum energy volume. And since this maximum energy was kinetic, the “expanding action” was at the maximum speed possible; which is “light-speed”.

At “light-speed” we travel 10*-35 meter in 10*-43 second. A shorter length cannot exist at this speed because a shorter length would mean a greater speed, which cannot be. So the first basic volume of “space” had no other choice but to have 10*-35 meter in diameter.

Furthermore, this “space volume” couldn’t expand, since half of its diameter length couldn’t exist. So it had to duplicate. The exact “fact” is that, at light-speed, it took 10*-43 second to produce another “space volume”; which explains the duplicating process. And since the centrifugal energy was oriented towards everywhere, height new space volumes where produced, surrounding the original space volume.

At the end of only three 10*-43 second periods, every “factors” needed to produce the universe we observe today where settled.

You can see everything in the following drawings.

The first drawing shows the universal “state” at that third period, while the other four drawings specify each factor involved at the same moment.

At the beginning of that third period, the gluon appeared and installed itself in a “space volume” that wasn’t directly “supported” by the main flow of centrifugal energy. And since that gluon possessed twice as much centripetal energy (it had made, at light-speed, an additional rotation during the second 10*-43 second period) than the centrifugal energy of the “space volume”, it took control of that space volume.

However, energy never disappears; so the centrifugal energy's intensity influenced half of the gluon’s centripetal energy's intensity by slightly towing it away, producing two “massive” volumes of centripetal energy that we call a “quark” and an “antiquark”.

So check these “facts” on the drawings:

I must specify that since the energy intensity of each basic space volumes is "invariant", they each produce height new basic space volumes; which makes the third "layer" of expanded space height time greater than what is shown on the drawing.

There’s not much more to add in order to describe the state of our universe when “inflation” began. And this “inflation period” lasted during the 10 subsequent periods of 10*-43 second which brings us at 10*-32 second, when ends the “quark- gluon plasma” period.

André Lefebvre

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

Posted: February 6th, 2019, 1:09 pm
Misconceptions do increase comprehension.

Everybody, by now, must have realized that when I say to shorten the distance of 10*-35 meter in the same time lap of 10*-43 second wasn’t possible, because it would increase the velocity, was a gross logical error.

The fact is that it would slow the velocity. It’s easy to see that if you take an hour to travel ½ a mile instead of 1 mile, it means that you are traveling more slowly.

But it also means that at the speed of 1 mile an hour, you are including all distances that exist at lower velocities.

So the reality is that, at light-speed, in the time lap of 10*-43 second, you get all the distances possible to exist. Which means that it is "longer distances" that are impossible to exist, because a longer distance would increase the velocity.

So can this destroy all what I’ve been saying until now?

What does this contrary fact changes in my opinion?

It doesn’t change anything. In fact, it explains even better the existence of all velocities we observe in the universe.

Because, since the whole universe expands at light-speed, whatever slower velocity that can exist has to be found inside the space volume created at light-speed.

And this is exactly what we observe inside the space volume of our universe. All velocities slower than light-speed do exist.

But then, if light-speed’s expansion is constant, this also means that the total distance of the universe increases constantly; which produces an increase of existing distances.

Once again, this is a misconception. The reality is that the distance of the whole universe cannot increase since light-speed prevents greater distances to exist.

So the universe having 10*-35 meter or having 14 light-years in radius, doesn’t change the possible existing distances, since at light-speed, distances become “null” and time “freezes”.

This confirms that the universe is in a “dynamic” constant “present state” that doesn’t change neither “time” nor “distances” at this universal level. And it shows that distances and time are "relativistic" below that level.

On the other hand, “distances” and “time flow” keeps increasing at slower speed. So you can “see” the expansion motion of space-time, but that expansion motion doesn’t have any effect on the “status” of the universe.

When you observe the universe as a whole, you see the universe in its continuous “present state”. It doesn’t have any “time flow” or any “distances. To measure “distances” and “time flowing” you have to observe the “inside” of the universe where motion exists. The universe itself doesn't "travel" since there is no space outside of it to travel through.

Then what you really are doing is observing the universe’s “dynamism” that it contains. Nothing exists “outside” of the universe.

The fact is that even the “outside notion” doesn’t exist.

But what happens when we really look for the reality?

Let’s “see” these “facts” by observing wavelength in electromagnetism.

The followings are different wavelengths:

The increase of their size is due to expanding space.

Now this is the maximum length a wave can have in space:

Because space is "flat"; so the motion cannot be more "curved", in expanding space, than "flat".

This means that in this last "flat" wavelength, you have all previous wavelength that can exist.

But even this is a misconception.

Because expansion of space applies in all directions; so the wave reality can never be "flat":

And now we can see that whatever the size of the universe, it always “contains” all distances and “wavelength” possible to exist, while the “universal status” stays unchanged in its constant “present” state.

Is there anything else that these drawings show?

The only thing it could show is that since space possesses a constant "flat topology" because of the constant light-speed of expansion, it means that all waves or "curves" are related to the "time flow" instead of "space production".

In fact, even the "space production" is related to the "time flow".

Which means that any "motion" is "time related". But that reality is obvious. isn't it?

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

Posted: March 22nd, 2019, 11:20 am
What comes out as important in all the pages we have accumulated here?

Finally, there are only two factors that results in what we can observe in the universe.

1) Expansion in the “universal field”.
2) Gravitation in the “gravitational fields”.

And those two factors are the result of one single origin which is “motion”.

Expansion is a “motion” toward everywhere, while gravitation is a “motion” toward one single point.

Motion is a kinetic energy manifestation.

The kinetic energy manifested in an “expanding motion” creates “space”, since a “motion” defines a distance. Consequently, a “motion” toward everywhere results in 3D volume distances, which is “space”.

The “expanding motion” is defined by successive volumes of space; which means that “motion” also defines “time”.

But each attained volume of space by expansion, represents a definite “moment in time”; which means that the expanding universe is continuously in a “present moment”, because the previous definition of the “volume of the universe” cease existing continually.

A “gravitational field” is quite different. The volume of a gravitational field doesn’t expand because a motion toward a definite point in space blocks the “motion” of that point.

The first “toward one point” topology appeared in our universe with the Gluon that had a size of 10*-35 meter and a potential effect, around itself, of 10*-15 meter. But its energy was nullified at its center, coming equally from all around it; which is why we cannot calculate the "mass-energy" inside a gluon and we consider it as having "no mass". But after the splitting of the gluon’s surfaces by expansion, its "mass-energy" stopped being nullified and produced two massive volumes.

The first gravitational field to appear in our universe was surrounding each massive Top and antiTop quarks issued from the gluons. Quarks had a size of 10*-35 meter and where located at the center of the previous gluon’s topology of 10*-15 meter. Those quarks possessed centripetal kinetic energy that put “pressure” on them, deforming the space inside their gravitational field.

Fusion of quarks augmented the “pressure” on their unified common center of gravity; which increased the size of the gravitational field. This pressure produced at the center of a proton is even greater than at the center of a neutron star.

The fusion of the three quarks of a proton (two Ups and one Down) produced a deformed space volume 10,000 times bigger than the diameter of that proton.

Since all the kinetic energy is oriented toward the center point, there is no more kinetic energy “filling” the gravitational field itself. All the "mass-energy" is located at the center of gravity.

When this immense “empty” gravitational field captured a free "swirling electronic energy field" (electron), the electronic energy of this field spread itself inside the “empty” gravitational field surrounding the energetic nucleus.

Evidently, the space environment outside the gravitational field possessed a greater energy density than the inside of the gravitational field. At the appearance of the proton’s gravitational field, its environment had twice as much energy density than the said gravitational field.

And, as long as this difference in density lasted, hydrogen atoms could fusion to one another because atoms gravitational fields were able to augment their energy density by capturing electronic swirling energy (electron) outside of the gravitational field. But most of these “captures” where operated by nucleus “fusions” of hydrogen atoms which included their proton.

As soon as the environment’s energy density of the produced atoms became less than inside the gravitational fields, the production of “heavier” atoms became impossible; because it was now the environment that needed to increase their energy density. And it was impossible for them, to take back the electronic energy trapped inside gravitational fields. So the primordial nucleosynthesis was blocked temporarily. At that moment, hydrogen, helium, lithium and a few beryllium atoms had been able to appear inside the gravitational fields.

To produce heavier elements, the universe had to wait until and event was able to produce a surrounding having more energy density than in the gravitational fields of existing atoms.

That needed environment was found inside the first stars.

Stars are the result of accretion of hydrogen atoms; so it is said. But there are two kinds of accretion possible by gravitational fields, for atoms:

1) By fusion.
2) By covalent bounding.

Fusion of two hydrogen atoms produce a helium atom; if you fuse helium with another hydrogen atom, you get a lithium atom and so on. Which means that you will never produce the event called a star.

Covalent bounding produces molecules which cannot, ever, become a star either.

So how were stars produced?

The answer is found by considering the helium atomic structure.

A helium atom possesses one single electronic shell (K shell) which is “saturated”. This means that this “K” shell cannot accept another electronic energy field (electron) inside itself. But the helium nucleus possesses 4 nuclei (2 protons and 2 neutrons) which expands its gravitational field at least 4 times more than a hydrogen’s gravitational field.

This means that a helium atom’s gravitational field can “capture” many hydrogen atoms which, afterward, all tend to “fall” toward the center of the helium’s gravitational field.

Naturally, the falling motion of hydrogen atoms is blocked as soon as their unsaturated “K” shell encounters the “filled” K shell of the helium atom.

This blocking of the hydrogen atom’s falling motion puts “pressure” on the helium’s saturated “K” shell that extends even more the surrounding gravitational field container; which then can “capture” still more hydrogen atoms that also “fall” toward the center, continually augmenting the “pressure”. All around the first centered helium atoms, hydrogen atoms fuse into helium atoms which keep tending to “fall” toward the center even if their “motion” is still blocked by all their respective “K” shells.

And the process continues until the pressure on the “K” shell of the centered helium atom surpasses its maximum of resistance and provokes the fusion of the centered helium atom with the surrounding other helium atoms.

A star is born and fusion producing heavier atoms has restart.

Explosion of these first stars sends produced heavier atoms with an added “L” shell around their "K" shell, into space.

When heavier fused atoms gained their second electronic shell called the “L” shell, these atoms could now start to “covalence bound”; because their “L” shell was not saturated. They could accept up to 8 electrons in this "L" shell. The “L” shell of atoms gets finally “filled” when the neon atom was created by fusion.

This means that there were 7 atoms that could covalent bound, plus the hydrogen atom with its “unsaturated” “K” shell. The only atom that couldn't accept another electron was the helium atom as we have seen. But an "unfilled" "L" shall could accept an electron from the helium atom which let helium participate in the nucleosynthesis.

Actually, in chemistry, covalence bounds are said to be mainly assured by hydrogen atoms. I’m sorry to say that it is impossible. At least, impossible when you don’t accept “forces” that has to keep coming out of nowhere to explain the observations.

The valence shell around a hydrogen atom can “contain” only two electrons. Which means that, when a hydrogen atom makes a covalent bound with whatever other atom, its electronic shell is instantly “filled” and cannot accept another electron. This means that a hydrogen covalent bound blocks any further covalent bounding possibility.

Which leaves only heavier atoms to have the covalent bounding possibilities.

The “L” shell around atoms can accept up to 8 electrons. Carbon atoms, for example possess 4 electrons in their “L” shell; so they can covalent bound with 4 hydrogen atoms before losing any other covalent bounding possibility. They can also covalent bound with other atoms until the maximum of 8 electrons, in its “L” shell, is reached. And even then, they still can covalent bound with another atom that has an "unfilled" valence shell.

Atoms with unsaturated “L” shells are: lithium, beryllium, bore, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and fluor.

The most abundant atoms in the universe is 1) hydrogen, 2) helium, 3) oxygen and 4) carbon.

Carbon is the structural foundation of living beings. Life originates through covalent bounding of other atoms with carbon.

This means that life appears through covalent bounding evolution.

Life, then, becomes the sum of complexification created by the covalent bounding process.

To get a glimpse at the origin of life, you have to erase, from your mind, the notion of an electron being a “particle”, and consider it as a “volume of electronic energy” without a center of gravity. Which gives it a “non-material” character and confirms it as a simple basic information.

The covalent bounding process of atoms provokes the flow of those basic information through all valence shells of atoms and molecules. The more molecules bound, the more the information gets important, diversified and complementary.

At a certain point in the accumulation of information, life starts to expresses itself. It seems to be at the cellular level.

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

Posted: April 28th, 2019, 3:17 pm
Here is a question to which I answered on Quora:

Why do people keep saying that gravity is caused by the warping or curvature of spacetime when it has never been observed, even Einstein himself never believed in that concept?

17 answers and 17 different ways to look at it.

So let’s stop repeating all what was said during the last 300 years, and have a look at what we have in front of us, today.

Let’s start by looking at the “facts” that have been proven until today:

1- Space is “flat”. Meaning that, in “space”, all trajectories are in a “straight line” without any curvature.

Now, this “proven fact” is the main objection in regard to the “curvature of spacetime” notion. Because if “space is flat”, it cannot be “curved” at the same time.

But we do observe “curved trajectories” inside “gravitational fields”. This we can’t deny. And this “curvature of spacetime notion” explains everything we observe inside those fields. So GR (General relativity) has to be a good part of the explanation, even if “space is flat”.

Let’s not jump to conclusion, take a breath, and look at it logically.

2- If “spacetime” is curved and “space” is flat, the only possibility left is that “curvatures” are related to the “time” factor of “spacetime”; and not to the “space” factor.

So what is “time”?

3- Time is a unique “present moment” in “motion” towards the “future”.

Which makes “space” that we see, the traveling result of all past “present moments” which we observe surrounding us. This means that looking through “space” is, in reality, looking back in “time”; and we all know this as a “fact”.

So, we are constantly standing on a “present moment” flowing towards the future, observing the “past” around us.

4- The “fact” here becomes that we are in motion, “backing” towards the “future”.

5- And the other “fact” is that space is “created” around us while we are “backing” towards the “Future”.

That “creation” of space, while time flows, is the exact description of the “expansion of the universe”.

Which gives us another “fact”:

6- The expansion of the universe is a “time factor”.

Let’s catch a “present moment” and “freeze it” for a second.

So, what do we have in front of us?

We have a “space volume” frozen in a “present moment” that possesses a homogeneous energy density.

Because the energy density of the universe dilutes while times flows. And since we have “frozen” the flowing of time, the energy density of the present moment's “space volume” is everywhere homogeneous.

This is what we observe at this “frozen moment”; but it is also the constant situation of the whole universe, since the universe is not in “motion, having no “space” to move into.

The universe is all the “space” that exists; it’s surrounded by “nothing else”. Which, then, means that the universe is continuously in a frozen “present moment”. This situation is possible only if the universe expands at lightspeed; because that “speed” is the only thing that can “freeze” time.

7- The universe is a “space volume” frozen in a “present moment”, with constant homogenous “energy density” that gradually dilutes at lightspeed.

So the “observer”, inside the universe, sees a “present” flat topology space, hiding a “time” gradual increasing energy density towards the “past”.

We can now suspect that this hidden “gradual increasing energy density is what affects trajectories inside “gravitational fields”.

To verify this we have to find out what, exactly, is a “gravitational filed”.

8- What we have already found is that energy density of “space” is “time related”.

Which means that a “gravitational field” has to be a “time affected” space volume.

9- We already know that a “gravitational field” doesn’t respond to the “expansion process”; which means that the “space volume”, inside a “gravitational field” is frozen in time.

So let’s observe that frozen “space volume”.

A- It possesses a “center of gravity” toward which the “topology” of all its volume is oriented.
B- The farther away from that center of gravity, the lesser its energy density is.

10- Which proves that, inside a “gravitational field”, we have a “volume of space” where the energy density is frozen (in the “past”) at its “moment” of appearance on the time flow of the expanding universe.

Which can be represented in the following drawing:

So what can be the result for an object traveling through such a decreasing energy density?

According to scientists, the energy density inside a Higgs field slows down a particle’s velocity, giving it “mass”.

This would mean that a “particle” going through decreasing energy density would increase its velocity and, when going through an increasing energy density, it would decrease its velocity.

Curiously, this is exactly what occurs with planets having an elliptical orbit.

They decrease their velocity going toward the center of gravity of the “gravitational field” they are orbiting into (during which density increases), until they reach their perihelion, and start increasing their velocity when they go back to their aphelion (during which density decreases).

GR (General relativity) is right by saying “spacetime” is “altered”.

But we have to improve its precision, in adding the now proven “fact” (by GPS needed corrections) that this alteration concerns specifically, the “time factor” of “spacetime”, while the “space factor” is always in a “present” flat topology.

André Lefebvre

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

Posted: May 14th, 2019, 10:19 am
Those baffling falling objects

Galileo Galilei was a great mind, a normal man, and an extraordinary scientist.

This is what he said to the world:

The grand book of the universe is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it”.

And I, for one, accepts his words as the final truth. I do place all my confidence in geometric figures.

During Galilei’s time, he showed us that two objects of different weights accuse identical acceleration while free falling and hit the ground at the same instant. Scientists even went to the Moon to verify, and Galilei was right.

This identical acceleration definitely shows that, in fact, it’s the center of gravity of the object that is accelerating its fall; and the weight of the object doesn’t have any effect to the event.

Let’s see if we can see this more clearly.

Two objects, of different weight, are falling inside a “gravitational field” towards its center of gravity:

Evidently each of those objects possesses its own “center of gravity”.

So a more precise drawing would be:

Now, this second drawing shows clearly that the acceleration is given to each object’s centre of gravity.
The next question is:

What do represent those two centers of gravity?

In physics, a body's center of gravity is the “point” around which the resultant torque due to gravity forces vanishes”.

Let’s just remember that a center of gravity is a “point” in “space” situated at the center of whatever “gravitational field” we observe.

So let’s define what “space” is:

Space is, firstly, a geometrical notion. This space is made of fundamental components; meaning:
1- the “point”,
2- the “line” which is a succession of “points”,
3- the plane, which is the spread of points in a “surface” and
4- the “volume” which is the spread of points in all directions
”.

This being said, let’s not forget that the universe has been proven “Euclidean”; which eliminates all other “geometries” we can imagine.

So, “space” is made of “points”, and the center of gravity of an object is the “point” where all its constituents tend to fall gravitationally inside the object’s gravitational field; which normally is situated at the center of the object. In other words, that point is, also, simply a “point” in “space”.

Let’s now see the difference between those points “center of gravity” of the objects and other “space points” outside these objects:

What exactly are we seeing here?

First, we see that the “space energy density” increases going towards the center of gravity of the “gravitational field”.

This increase in density is shown by gradually darkening “space points” of the “gravitational field”, toward which center of gravity, the object is falling.

Second, we know for a fact that “space” is animated by kinetic energy which explains its continual expansion.

Consequently, each “space points” towards a centre of gravity, are gradually more “energetically denser”; meaning containing more and more “undiluted” kinetic energy.

So the “space point” in “free fall” (the gravity center of the object) is subjected to the gradual kinetic effect of the increasing energy density, through the “gravitational field” he travels in, towards the center. Which explains quite clearly its “acceleration”.

It’s evident that, at the start of the free fall, the “kinetic energy densities” of both center points of the objects are “identical”, whatever that density is (depending on how “high” they start from). So the acceleration has to be identical.

Let’s see now, the difference with a “free fall” in an environment out of a “gravitational field”.

It doesn’t take long to see that, whatever the direction of the “free fall”, the object will never accelerate, since the kinetic energy density is consistent all around the object’s own “gravitational field”.

Consequently, we can see that it’s not the object itself which “falls”; but rather the whole “gravitational field” that is containing it.

This also indicates that the object has no impact on the fall, for the simple reason that it is the center of gravity of its “gravitational field” which really is in “free fall”. The object has no choice but to follow. Because the object doesn’t possess any energy to do anything; all of its “mass energy” is located at the center of gravity of its own “gravitational field”, like Newton almost found out.

Newton had said: “Now that’s funny! It looks like all the “force of gravity” was located at the center of the mass???).

This helplessness of the object is rather simple to understand, since the object itself is the result of the “gravitational field” it occupies; without it the object wouldn’t even exist.

Finally, we don’t have to believe anymore that when we push a wall, the wall pushes back with its inertial “force”. There is no such thing as “inertial force”. Objects are powerless. So the wall doesn’t push back at all anymore, and we can get rid of another imaginary “magical” force.

Furthermore, when you push a wall, according to Newton’s “mass attraction law”, the wall should be “pulling” you; not “pushing” you. And if it did, some of them are so “sturdy” that they would “crash” you on themselves and, by God, you could be killed. Forget Newton’s law; it is dangerous.

Another detail to underline; an object in “free fall” doesn’t have any “weight” which is why weight has no incidence in a “free fall”. The weight of the object appears only when “free fall” is directly blocked. This is explained by the fact that the “gravitational field” of the object keeps its acquired kinetic intensity, which pushes on whatever is blocking its trajectory. Mind here, the verb “blocking” I used; I didn’t use “repelling” which Newton anchored in the minds of every scientists (well, almost every scientists).

The “fact” is that whatever is blocking the way, is itself “blocked” by something that precedes it; and it is so, way down to the center of gravity where the accumulated “pressure”, coming from all sides, equalizes itself. That is, simply, the result of the “accretion” process of particles.

Naturally, if the “blocking” is indirect, the center of gravity’s trajectory will simply be deviated. This also are experiments that Galileo made with balls rolling down slopes. But, unfortunately, the poor man couldn’t have any notion of “gravitational fields” at the time; otherwise he would, certainly, have figured it out.

The deviation of the trajectory towards the center of the Earth, by indirect blocking, is what happens, when walking on a slope, you trip and starts rolling downward. If the slope ends at a ravine, you will regain your direct trajectory toward the Earth’s center of gravity as soon as you leave the slope that is deviating your trajectory.

But it’s always better to tie yourself to a security cable.

André Lefebvre

P.S. I don't know if you are feeling the same thing; but somewhere in the back of my mind, something is stirring up.

It feels like if the "notion" of energy is starting to be defining itself.

That would be great to know exactly the real nature of "energy"; wouldn't it?