A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

[Andrex]

You made a mistake since it takes only around eight minutes for the light from the sun to reach the earth.

You're right Inchworm; I'm missing a zero.

If the gravity from each one of the stars was not affecting the others stars in the whole galaxy, there wouldn't be any galaxy.

Mass doesn't attract itself; so here you're wrong. The stars are affected by the gravity of the galaxy not the gravity of the stars.

[Inchworm]

No need to know the way the stars know about the other stars in their galaxy, but it is evident that they know. You may imagine that gravity is due to their presence deforming the space around each of them, but then, you have to find a way to integrate those small deformations if you want to replace them by a big one at the center of the galaxy. You can use the flexible fabric for instance: if you put all the stars on it, it will automatically create a large deformation where the bottom will be right in the middle of the galaxy, with smaller deformations around each star.

[Andrex]

You may imagine that gravity is due to their presence deforming the space around each of them, but then, you have to find a way to integrate those small deformations if you want to replace them by a big one at the center of the galaxy.

I guess you'll never understand unless you do a bit of search about the decaying of elementary particles. You'll find out that decays occur inside the "active volume" of a particle and doesn't exit from it.

So the gravity of a galaxy depends of its center (where there's a black hole for most of them). Each of all stars have their own deformation that orbits inside this sole galaxy deformation; just as planet deformations orbit inside the solar deformation.

The whole structure is like "Russian dolls" one inside the other; like planets inside a solar system inside a Galaxy.

You can use the flexible fabric for instance: if you put all the stars on it, it will automatically create a large deformation where the bottom will be right in the middle of the galaxy, with smaller deformations around each star.

And those smaller deformations around each stars, that are orbiting far around the center (not in contact with it), don't participate at all in "pushing down" the bottom at the middle of your flexible fabric like the stars stuck at the center do.

[Andrex]

Just to explain the necessity of matter being in contact at the center of gravity in order to add to space-time deformation look at this photo:



As you can see, there are two identical "masses" on the flexible fabric. Each mass deforms the fabric to a certain point. These masses could be orbiting around each other without changing both deformations.

In addition, you can see a L1 Lagragian point situated right between both masses where "gravity" is in equilibrium.

But what is important is that you can easily imagine the increase of the deformation, if you put both masses, one on top of the other, at the center of the fabric. The masses would go a lot "lower" on the fabric than as they do individually.

This confirms that masses orbiting around a center of gravity do not increase the gravitation of that center. Masses have to be in contact at the center of gravity in order to increase gravitation.

Even if every events are not exactly "facts", the whole video is fun to look at; here is the link:

https://youtu.be/MTY1Kje0yLg

[Inchworm]

But what is important is that you can easily imagine the increase of the deformation, if you put both masses, one on top of the other, at the center of the fabric. The masses would go a lot "lower" on the fabric than as they do individually.

Of course, but the two masses orbiting one around the other would lower the fabric more than only one too, and if they would be orbiting close enough to one another, they would lower it almost as much as if they were touching, so your reasoning doesn't work.

[Andrex]

You say "Of course" and then add that my reasoning doesn't work. :-(

two masses orbiting one around the other would lower the fabric more than only one too

If you look at the video, you will find that when the second mass is installed, it doesn't affect the first one and the fabric doesn't get lower. So maybe your reasoning "works" with imagination but it doesn't concord with the "facts".

[Inchworm]

If two balls wouldn't affect one another, then they couldn't orbit one around the other, and they do. The reason why the fabric doesn't seem to get lower when two masses are orbiting is that they are too close to the sides. If the fabric was large enough, it would inevitably get lower with two masses than with only one providing they are not too close to the sides.

[Andrex]

Everybody are allowed to dream what they hope. The fact is that it would be lower if both masses where in the center.

What you have to understand is that those two masses are installed inside a bigger deformation that contains them. I hope you can see that the fabric doesn't represent "flat" space. This is not the actual situation; it's only a "way" to explain certain characteristics of gravity.

I showed this to help you understand; if you don't, it's really not my problem.
Sorry. I did my best.

[Andrex]

If two balls wouldn't affect one another, then they couldn't orbit one around the other, and they do.

The orbit of each masses is determined by the speed of each masses; nothing else. So the "tidal effect" between the two masses has nothing to do in the orbiting of masses around "whatever".

"Tidal wave effect" is a consequence of the gravitation of each masses. It influences the surface of each masses but doesn't change the orbit, since "what is orbiting" is the center of gravity of each masses. I must repeat: Forget Newton!

If two masses seems to orbit around each other, in fact they orbit around a mutual barycenter; otherwise the event is impossible.

As for the lowering of the fabric, the event is not the same in "real situation"; the "fabric of the universe doesn't "lower". You can see it when looking at M31. The apparent "declination" is exactly the same each side of the galaxy; so there's no "funnel" shape involved. It's, in reality, a simple gradual decreasing of the metric of space down to the centered black hole.

[Andrex]

Here is a video I just looked at.

It's a very good descriptions of the standard model. But the end is...gloomy.

After visualizing this, it becomes obvious that the problems scientists have with the standard model are at the level of the bosons. And since Einstein proved that gravitation is not a "force", it's just as obvious that these problems are caused by that concept of "forces" attributed to bosons.

What's left, is to decide if we want to understand or if we need to keep on "believing" old imagined concepts.

And this is up to each of us individually.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170404 ... is-made-of

[Inchworm]

The orbit of each masses is determined by the speed of each masses

Not only! It is also determined by the presence of those two masses. Put only one in there, and you get no orbital trajectory. It will only get equally distant from the sides with time, which tells us that this effect is also happening when there is more than one mass, whatever the size of the fabric, another way for you to criticize that analogy.

[Andrex]

It will only get equally distant from the sides with time,

I forgot to mention:

The flexible fabric you see on the video is "man made". It was constructed to explain things about gravitation.

In order to understand what is presented, you have to make the effort of transferring the event in space.

Consequently, "equally distant from the sides" doesn't apply or even, mean anything, unless you define what "sides" you're talking about.

Whatever; one thing is an undisputed "fact": What decides of the orbital trajectory of an object, is its proper speed; nothing else.

The proof is that if you decrease or increase the speed of the object, its orbit will change. In fact that is the only way to change an orbital trajectory.

[Inchworm]

What decides of the orbital trajectory of an object, is its proper speed; nothing else

What decides of the orbital trajectory of an object is also the presence of at least another object. An object cannot orbit with regard to nothing and you seem to think so. A gravity center is not an object, it is only a point that we draw on a paper to show the way objects are moving with regard to one another. If an object is rotating on itself, it is rotating around this point; if it is orbiting with regard to another one, it is orbiting around this point too. This point is only the place where the masses are in equilibrium, it is only a point on a balance. You seem to think that we can take the objects away without taking the gravity center away. You seem to think that gravity centers belong to space more than they belong to objects. If you could avoid considering the objects in your analysis, I guess you would. Are you there or am I only talking to the space you occupy? :0)

[Andrex]

What decides of the orbital trajectory of an object is also the presence of at least another object. An object cannot orbit with regard to nothing and you seem to think so.

Once again you don't refer to the signification of words. "Orbiting" supposes that an object orbits around something.

A gravity center is not an object, it is only a point that we draw on a paper to show the way objects are moving with regard to one another.

And are your objects moving on your paper? Furthermore an object alone in space has a center of gravity regardless of the presence of whatever object. So it's not to show the way an object is moving. Stop talking without thinking.

A center of gravity is just as much an object as the surface of a sphere or even your paper.

If an object is rotating on itself, it is rotating around this point; if it is orbiting with regard to another one, it is orbiting around this point too.

But when rotating it's not orbiting around its center. Rotating and orbiting are not the same event.

You seem to think that we can take the objects away without taking the gravity center away. You seem to think that gravity centers belong to space more than they belong to objects.

In fact, I do. And the proof is that a center of gravity leaves the center of the object in the presence of another massive object (for example: Sun versus Jupiter).

Are you there or am I only talking to the space you occupy? :0)

Are you talking to my ears or writing for my eyes? And do you think that they are the ones answering?

[Andrex]

Having gone through, once more, a great part of the exchanges in this discussion, I suddenly realized that it was possible to admit one fundamental "fact" without having to compromise.

We can determine one "basic fact" about the universe.

This "fact" is that the universe is 100% "space", basically composed of two kinds that we observe:

1- "Flat" space, and
2- "altered"space.

Undisputedly, these are the only "facts" that we should use as "bases" to study our universe.

Then we can affix to these "facts", all further observations we make with our advanced technology.

Only after this is done, can we start using maths to comprehend the whole picture. Using maths before that is risking to end up with bags that contains minus five apples in our grocery.

[Inchworm]

You seem to think that we can take the objects away without taking the gravity center away. You seem to think that gravity centers belong to space more than they belong to objects.

In fact, I do. And the proof is that a center of gravity leaves the center of the object in the presence of another massive object (for example: Sun versus Jupiter).

The earth doesn't lose its gravity center because the sun is there, otherwise we wouldn't be able to stand on it. If we have two objects, we have one gravity center for each object, and one common gravity center for the two objects, which is situated somewhere between the two objects' gravity centers.

[Andrex]

The earth doesn't lose its gravity center because the sun is there,

I didn't say that the Earth would "LOSE" its center of gravity; I said that the center of gravity is independent of the center of mass of matter.

If we have two objects, we have one gravity center for each object, and one common gravity center for the two objects, which is situated somewhere between the two objects' gravity centers.

And that is why, in your mind, a center of gravity doesn't exist and is only a fictional point that we install where all pressure balances itself.

I don't mind, but you are 100 years out of date.

[Andrex]

From what I said two posts ago:

When we consider that 100% of the universe is “space” divided in “flat” and “altered” space, we, at least, are affirming a reality.

To go further, in our precision, would be defining de quantity of each kind of space.

We already have the info in science since “altered” space has to be the one that contains “matter” and “supposed dark matter”. So the universe is composed of 30, 8% of “altered” space and 69, 2% of “flat” space.

Adding to this would be that the 69, 2% of “flat” space is where the maximal of expansion occurs, and is also where we find the “supposed dark energy”; while within the other 30, 8% of “altered” space, we have 4% of that space really occupied by baryonic matter; which is surrounded by 22 % of “deformed” space.

This is about all the “facts” we can affirm about our universe that has been observed.

Actually, whatever added observations we made during the history of science, are strictly related to the 4% of space occupied by baryonic matter.

The challenge of science is to relate all observations made on that 4% of baryonic matter, to the basic “facts” and quantities observed of our total universe.

That challenge cannot be confronted using all interpretations resulting from experiences made before our technology was sufficiently advanced. For example, the first observation made in regard to our planet was that “Earth was flat”. Nobody uses that “interpretation” of observation anymore, because we have the technology proving it is not “flat”.

Another interpretation that should be eliminated of our "knowledge", is the one that came from the observation of objects falling on the ground, which was interpreted has the “attraction of masses”. We know, today, that masses do not attract themselves at all. But we still continue using that interpretation on the excuse that the formulas issued from it, gives us a “good approximation” permitting to do whatever we want. "Approximations" can lure us into difficult and even dangerous situations. Nobody hits a nail with a hammer, "approximately" where the head of the nail is.
Let’s note that “flat Earth” can give us a “pretty good approximation” to travel anywhere on our planet, and it is not an excuse to accept Earth’s “flatness”.

So comprehension of reality isn’t so much related to whatever we are permitted to do.

To comprehend our universe, we have to consider 100% of the universe; not only 4% of it. Which doesn’t mean that the 4% doesn’t have to relate exactly to the rest of the universe; but it has to be related logically just as much as observationally.

[Inchworm]

I don't mind, but you are 100 years out of date.

I don't mind being different! :0)

But who knows if Einstein hasn't made a wrong turn? Attributing material properties to space doesn't explain gravitation anyway. What we have to find is the real nature of mass, and stating that gravitational mass is equivalent to inertial mass doesn't provide us with a mechanism. By the way, I found a flaw in my small steps: nobody noticed that it took more time for the light from the left atom to reach the right one than the inverse. If the steps' length is half the distance between the two atoms for instance, which is the case if they move at half the speed of light, the left atom starts its step when the right one is at distance D, and the right one starts its step when the left one is at half distance D, which is impossible since, this way, the steps' length wouldn't be constant, and it has to since their length is equivalent to their speed and that their speed has to stay constant.

Back to the drawing board! :0)

[Andrex]

But who knows if Einstein hasn't made a wrong turn?

I had the impression you knew.

Attributing material properties to space doesn't explain gravitation anyway.

Tell me what material properties are attributed to space to explain gravitation?

What we have to find is the real nature of mass

I tried to give you a natural explanation; but you don't consider it in any way. So...

and stating that gravitational mass is equivalent to inertial mass doesn't provide us with a mechanism.

The mechanism I provided you explains mass whether its gravitational or inertial. So...

By the way, I found a flaw in my small steps:

Good work!!!

[Inchworm]

Tell me what material properties are attributed to space to explain gravitation?

Before Einstein, it's massive bodies that had the property of interacting with other bodies to cause gravitation. Now, it is space, what actually gave you the idea to replace all the forces by your deformed space. You are kind of pushing that principle to its extremes, which is the only way to progress anyway. I wish you could have applied it to the small steps to see what would have come out of it, but you couldn't even try. Now it's too late, unless the flaw I found is the way to a better mechanism for motion. I'll read Ivanhov again to see if I could use his principle to solve my problem. Too bad he doesn't speak english, his principle is really close to mine!

[Andrex]

Before Einstein, it's massive bodies that had the property of interacting with other bodies to cause gravitation. Now, it is space,

This doesn't tell me what material properties are attributed to space that you talked about.

[Inchworm]

Before Einstein, to change the direction or the speed of a massive body, it took another massive body, and to change the direction of light, it took a massive body too. Now, as far as gravitation is concerned, space is doing the job without the help of bodies, and you are trying to apply the same principle to inertial mass: Einstein used the equivalence principle to sweep gravitational interaction under the rug, and you are actually trying to use the equivalence principle to sweep inertial mass under the rug. Two cleaning devices for the price of one! Einstein probably found his idea of curved space interesting because he could make an extravagant prediction for light, and because he could imagine that curved space was a real mechanism. It could have been so if he had accepted that light was propagated through a medium like aether, but he couldn't since his relativity principle did not contain such a medium.

[Andrex]

Now, as far as gravitation is concerned, space is doing the job without the help of bodies,

I wonder how you can say this. Probably because you voluntarily use the word "body" instead of mass; which shows that you don't understand Einstein's theory our you enjoy making sure to play with words in order to discredit it.

and you are trying to apply the same principle to inertial mass:

This phrase doesn't mean anything. Which principle are you talking about. All I did is explain what mass was; it's energy like everybody knows without knowing what kind of energy it is. Which means that nobody really knows what mass is in reality. My explanation tells what mass is and explains how that mass deforms space.

Einstein used the equivalence principle to sweep gravitational interaction under the rug, and you are actually trying to use the equivalence principle to sweep inertial mass under the rug.

You're probably talking about that "flexible" rug which your ball is deforming. It, then, shows that you're the one sweeping gravitation under that rug to "pull" the ball.

Einstein probably found his idea of curved space interesting because he could make an extravagant prediction for light, and because he could imagine that curved space was a real mechanism. It could have been so if he had accepted that light was propagated through a medium like aether, but he couldn't since his relativity principle did not contain such a medium.

You're proving to be "out if date" once more; since scientists are coming back to an "halfway notion" of ether. But I believe that they're off track once again.

[Andrex]

Let's consider that the notion behind Higgs boson is exact, and let us accept that the Higgs boson is "retarded" by the density of the "Higgs field" which process would produce "mass". I guess that if this notion is accepted by scientists, it's because the basic behind the explanation is considered exact.

This means that the "intensity" of energy of the Higgs boson is an "invariant" subjected to the density of the environment. In other words, if the intensity of energy is invariant, the quantity of "work" produced by this energy will be directly affected by the density of the environment.

Now let us transfer this notion to the "intensity" of energy affecting the universe.

It, now, becomes clear that the intensity of "universal energy" is subjected to the density of the universe.

Everybody knows that the density of the universe is diluting because of expansion. Which means that the universal energy, keeping its invariant "intensity", is gradually "released" from behind "retarded" by the density of the universe.

Tell me, then, why scientists, that accepts the notion behind Higgs bosons, don't understand the cause of expansion's acceleration? Expansion simply accelerates because of the diminishing density of the universe.

So, who needs "dark energy" tell me?

[Andrex]

In regard to Black matter

Observations made in Chile at ESO show that black matter in galaxies was a lot less present 10 billion years ago.

Scientists then deduce that black matter was the first matter to gravitationally “collapse” provoking the subsequent collapsing of “normal matter”. So they say that the great filament structures of the universe formed first and afterward, reassembled galaxy clusters then, assembled galaxies.

The “official” original scenario is now reversed. First the filaments were “created”, then the galaxy clusters and after that, the galaxies.

This is completely ridiculous. But never the less, quite true, in a certain sense.

But we have to use a different perspective to understand the “fact”.

Let’s solve the problem of stars first.

It is now proven that the first stars formed 400 million years after the Big bang (Alma and VLT with galaxy A2744_YD4). This is 13, 3 billion years ago; meaning 300 million years BEFORE what is said about collapsing black matter, at the beginning of this post.

200 million years later, the second generation of stars appeared, resulting of previous supernovae due to the first generation of stars. And this occurs, still 100 million years BEFORE what was said at the beginning of this post.

So 100 million years later, we observe that black matter is a lot less present in galaxies than it is today.

Putting all these information together, we find that in 200 million years, first stars appeared by collapsing of hydrogen, rapidly producing supernovae that ejected cosmic dust that reassembled and collapse into a second generation of stars (within 200 million years). And a 100 million years after that, we observe that black matter had collapse earlier than all this process provoking the first collapsing of hydrogen to create the first stars inside galaxies that had already reassembled into cluster which was previously assembled into filaments.

This means that the filaments we see today, exist since BEFORE 400 million years after the Big bang. Furthermore, the black matter that was so tenuous 10 billion years ago because it had “collapse”, reappeared sometime since (I wonder when), to be most effective in actual galaxies.

This is the best Harry Potter scenario ever imagined. Because how can it be explained that black matter, after collapsing, reappeared as halos around the actual galaxies without invoking "Potter's magic" producing an unobservable “explosion” of black matter? Can scientist’s illogical naivety go that far?

On the other hand, if we adopt my opinion that “flat” space is situated between volumes of “altered” space produced by the active field of gluons, all we have to do is let that “flat” space expand to reassemble gluons active fields by “pushing” (a matter of talking) them into concentrations, which, after 13, 79 billion years of expanding “flat” space, gradually produced the actual filaments where “altered” space is concentrated.

This would mean that, what we “imagine” being “special unobservable matter”, called “black matter”, is only “volumes of altered space” surrounding galaxies like halos. A situation perfectly natural in regard to our previous accepted “fact” that the universe is composed of 30, 8% of “altered” space and 69, 2% of “flat” space (see by Andrex on April 10th, 2017, 8:20 am page 17).

Conclusion: Black matter doesn’t exist.

[Inchworm]

My explanation tells what mass is and explains how that mass deforms space.

If the gluing part of mass is the result of anything close to my small steps' resistance to get out of sync, then it cannot deform space the way you describe, which is incidentally to me the illogical and naive way a scientist named Einstein used a few years ago.

[Andrex]

If the gluing part of mass is the result of anything close to my small steps' resistance to get out of sync, then it cannot deform space the way you describe,

Which might explain why you found a "flaw" in your theory. The universe doesn't have to correspond to your "small steps theory"; you have to see it the other way around.

Funny how you don't pick up anything I post in this discussion. Sounds like nobody goes on your own discussion to talk about your "small steps theory".

I don't mind, really; but it would be somehow a bit polite to pick up something from my posts once in a while. That is; beside the notion of "naive" I used in my precedent post. :-)

[Inchworm]

If I wasn't here, you wouldn't get many answers either. It's the same for anybody presenting a personal theory: nobody gets much answers after a while. To get some, we must accidentally find someone that already has the same idea, or that develops it accidentally while discussing. Our ideas don't progress by force, they progress by chance. The longer we discuss with somebody, the more we increase our chances that his ideas may change, but the inverse is also true. This idea may help us to talk longer, but it does not warrant our progress. Our crazy ideas are only mutations waiting to be selected.

[Andrex]

It's the same for anybody presenting a personal theory: nobody gets much answers after a while.

Right; but he can get a lot of readers. This discussion is up to more than 23 thousands.

To get some, we must accidentally find someone that already has the same idea, or that develops it accidentally while discussing. Our ideas don't progress by force, they progress by chance.

I wouldn't say that; since I've been exchanging with you for more than 10 pages without any other reason than because we were read quite a bit. Furthermore I didn't keep from giving more infos on my opinion during and between our exchanges. There's not much chance in that; I'd say.

The longer we discuss with somebody, the more we increase our chances that his ideas may change,

Maybe that's what you were hoping for; but there was no chance of me changing opinion with the kind of propositions you were offering; even though I tried to understand them.

Our crazy ideas are only mutations waiting to be selected.

But in the end, the less crazy they are the most chances they have to be interesting.