A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

[Inchworm]

New ideas always look crazy from an external viewpoint. Even old ideas look crazy from the viewpoint of those who did not develop them. Until they get experimented, ideas are dreams. The only difference with night dreams is that day ones can be oriented towards a problem that we have in real life. What we consider as facts are only facts for us until we can experiment them. I'm convinced that our new ideas are mutations from old ideas, and that those mutations are selected by the environment the same way biological mutations are, but then, it means that this idea is itself a mutation, so why am I so convinced that it is right? Why do we always believe that we are right? Is it a vital need? Not a physical one but a mental one? Do we need to believe so otherwise we wouldn't be intelligent? I think so. I think intelligence is mainly about trying crazy stuff in case it would work better than old one, which is exactly what mutations are about. We all are intellectual mutations, and we all are trying to get selected. Unlike biological ones, can we cheat to get selected, or do we have the choice not to show our mutation? I don't think so, but that thinking is only a mutation, so.... :0)

[Andrex]

...or do we have the choice not to show our mutation? I don't think so, but that thinking is only a mutation,so.... :0)

So... you don't get anywhere.

But since what I propose was, in fact, experimented and observed; which seems to you, by your own saying, enough to make it a "reality" instead of a "dream", let's review, once more, the basics clearly:

So... here are the cleared basic optics in my proposition:

1) The universe is 100% "space", basically composed of two kinds that we observe:

a- "Flat" space, and
b- "altered" space.

2) “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.

3) Adding to this would be that the 69, 2% of “flat” space is where the maximal ratio of expansion occurs, and is also where we find the “supposed dark energy”.
While within the other 30, 8% of “altered” space, we have gravitation where 4% of that space is occupied by baryonic matter surrounded by 26, 8 % of “deformed” space.

Note: Always remember that whatever added observations, made during the history of science, are strictly related to the 4% of space occupied by baryonic matter.

4) Based on the concept of the Higgs boson, accepted scientifically,

a) 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 (which, in the Higg's boson concept, gives "mass").

b) Everybody knows that the density of the universe is diluting because of expansion. Which means

c) 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"?

5) Observations made in Chile at ESO show that “dark matter” in galaxies was a lot less present 10 billion years ago. Meaning that the filament structure of the universe was existing by the collapsing of dark matter, way before being made by the collapsing of “normal matter” (which is pretty much solely wild speculation).

But 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 “dark 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 surrounding 4% of baryonic matter.

Conclusion: “Dark matter” doesn’t exist.

So I guess that we have pretty much cleaned up the “space” quite a bit, just by establishing these “facts”. So we should now be able to start explaining how things went in the universe in order to get to the point it is today. We will have to add another important note to these facts before starting, though.

Note:

1) What was observed by Planck’s satellite was that

a) where we have “matter” light is focussing (which means: gravity = toward one single point); and
b) where we have only “space”, light is dispersing (expansion = toward every points). Which brings us back to our previous facts:

2) The universe is 100% "space", basically composed of two kinds of "motions" that we observe:

a) 69, 2 % of "Flat" space (expanding = motion toward every points), and
b) 30, 8 % of "altered space” (gravity = motion toward one single point), which 4 % is occupied by baryonic matter.

I hope everybody realizes that explaining the “story of the universe” gets a lot easier from this starting situation based on observed “facts”, than trying to explain it based on “old blurred interpretations” issued from inadequate information supplied by former “not effective enough” technology.

[Inchworm]

4% of that space is occupied by baryonic matter surrounded by 26,8 % of “deformed” space.

What about the space between atoms that are part of molecules, and about the space between protons and neutrons, and about the space between quarks, and so on? Is there any matter at all? Is there only space?

[Andrex]

What about the space between atoms that are part of molecules, and about the space between protons and neutrons, and about the space between quarks, and so on? Is there any matter at all? Is there only space?

You're diving inside the 4% of baryonic matter. Start by being conscious of the "overall picture" of the universe before plunging in the "microcosm". Which, if I remember right, you said wasn't "you bag".

Once you "see" and "understand" that the universe is made of only two kinds of "motions", you will probably be ready to study the implications of each "motions" in regard to the result obtained by the universe.

I said "probably"; all depends on yourself.

[Inchworm]

To me, space is the same whether it would be inside or outside baryonic matter. Is it the same to you?

[Andrex]

To me, space is the same whether it would be inside or outside baryonic matter. Is it the same to you?

We've been through this before; and, right now, your question is irrelevant, since I said that the universe is made of 100% of "space". Baryonic matter OCCUPIES some of that "space; in fact 4% of it.

Why don't you concentrate on the basics I enumerated, and try to assimilate them?

That would help you not to go "sideways" all the time.

[Inchworm]

This would mean that, what we “imagine” being “special unobservable matter”, called “dark 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 surrounding 4% of baryonic matter.

Normally, curved space is curved by the presence of baryonic matter, but what you mean here is that a halo of space surrounding galaxies would be altered by nothing but itself. To me, you are actually adding to the illogical naivety of the scientists that invented dark matter. You are using their dark curved space, while forgetting about their dark matter. If you are aware of that, you are like magicians that tell us their subterfuges are science.

[Andrex]

Normally, curved space is curved by the presence of baryonic matter, but what you mean here is that a halo of space surrounding galaxies would be altered by nothing but itself.

I'm not saying that at all! I guess it's no use, you don't seem to understand what you read.
I'm just describing "what is", without any explanation to it. My "This would mean" addresses to what we "interpret" wrongly as "dark matter" by "imagining" non-observable "matter" to excuse the observation of supposedly "too rapid" orbiting stars around galaxies. It's nothing else but a description of "facts". You're the one adding to it.

To me, you are actually adding to the illogical naivety of the scientists that invented dark matter.

When saying: "...but what you mean here..." indicate clearly that it is you who is adding to the illogical naivety with your personal interpretation of my description of a simple "fact".

You are using their dark curved space, while forgetting about their dark matter.

Still saying whatever crosses your intellect to construct phrases are you? There's no such thing as "dark curved space".
As for dark matter, how can I have forgotten it, since I explained the reasons for it's nonexistence. If you want to talk silly, you should go to a "Daffy Duck" discussion.

If you are aware of that, you are like magicians that tell us their subterfuges are science.

And bring this "logic" with you.

All I can say is repeat:

"Why don't you concentrate on the basics I enumerated, and try to assimilate them?

That would help you not to go "sideways" all the time".

[Inchworm]

This would mean that, what we “imagine” being “special unobservable matter”, called “dark 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 surrounding 4% of baryonic matter.

You say there is a halo of altered space, you say it doesn't need dark matter to be explained, and you give no explanation. What do you want us to think?

[Andrex]

You say there is a halo of altered space, you say it doesn't need dark matter to be explained, and you give no explanation.

The explanation is right there; scientists say that galaxies are surrounded by a "halo of undetectable dark matter". Or maybe you didn't know?

But we also know that mass deforms a space volume around itself; like a "balloon" containing a "material center".
So it's obvious and there's no need for invisible dark matter since, as you say yourself, space is invisible, be it "flat" or "deformed".

What do you want us to think?

Just "think".

[Inchworm]

If there is no dark matter to form the halo, then what is forming it?

[Andrex]

If there is no dark matter to form the halo, then what is forming it?

Jeeeesus! It's the "volume of deformed space!!!

"Attraction" doesn't exists; how many times do I have to tell you.

[Inchworm]

Do you mean that those halos of deformed space have no cause, no origin?

[Andrex]

Do you mean that those halos of deformed space have no cause, no origin?

Did I say that?

What on Earth have I been saying on gravitation since the beginning?

Why are you asking a useless question like that?

Start by being conscious of the whole picture. I already told you that.

You can't go further before acknowledging it.

[Inchworm]

If you mean that gravitation appeared before massive particles appeared, it is not what I understood, so either you were unclear, or I misunderstood.

[Andrex]

If you mean that gravitation appeared before massive particles appeared, it is not what I understood, so either you were unclear, or I misunderstood.

Where COULD I have ment that gravitation appeared before massive particle; please tell me?

[Inchworm]

Then tell me where your halos of deformed space come from if they do not come from dark matter. Are they wandering in expanding space until they hit a galaxy?

[Andrex]

The halos of deformed space come from the mass energy of each "bundle" of baryonic matter spread in all the filament structure of the universe.

There is 4% of baryonic matter that deforms 30% of space. The rest of 70% of space is "flat" space.

[Andrex]

Now if you gain consciousness of the basic components of our universe being;

1)"flat" space, where expanding motion occurs toward everywhere (also from everywhere).

2)"altered" space, which is occupied by galaxies, each separated by "flat" space,

we can proceed in describing the components and events in a galaxy; since in "flat" space there isn't anything else happening than expansion.

[Inchworm]

If I understand well, altered space is occupied by galaxies, but it would still be there if there was no galaxy at all. This way, galaxies do not need to have their own motion, they just have to follow the motion altered space already has the same way they already follow the motion of expanding space. Is that what you meant since the beginning or did you change your mind a bit meanwhile?

[Andrex]

If I understand well, altered space is occupied by galaxies, but it would still be there if there was no galaxy at all.

No; you're mixing things up and swallowing the whole bowl of soup in one single "gulp", once again.

The origin of altered space is gluons. But we're not to that point yet. The way you amuse yourself by "guessing", which you call "the way you understand", will never get you anywhere. You should stop it. Instead of "guessing", try to understand exactly what you read. All words of each phrases I write, are important. I already told you often; I'm neither "conversing" nor "chatting". I'm exposing "notions" or "concepts" and I take great care of the words I use.

Somebody, once told me, "I found out, while reading you, that to understand you, I needed to concentrate on each words you write. Now I got it. Thanks!"

This way, galaxies do not need to have their own motion,

See what I mean? You leaving one important fact out: Galaxies have "mass energy". And "mass energy" is kinetic energy which produces "motion". That is another "fact" you can't forget.

they just have to follow the motion altered space already has the same way they already follow the motion of expanding space.

This phrase doesn't mean anything sensible. Which way are you talking about?

Is that what you meant since the beginning or did you change your mind a bit meanwhile?

And this one neither. Since the beginning of what? Changed my mind on what?

[hyksos]

I just joined this thread. I'm kind of put off by the peculiar manner that Andrex keeps putting the word "matter" in scare-quotes.

Galaxies have "mass energy". And "mass energy" is kinetic energy which produces "motion".

Hmm.. on second thought.. I maybe I better not join this "discussion"

[Andrex]

I just joined this thread. I'm kind of put off by the peculiar manner that Andrex keeps putting the word "matter" in scare-quotes.

Great argument!

What I’m doing with scare-quotes on the word “matter” is distancing myself from the term. That is, I’m saying "Look, that's what they call it. I'm not responsible for this term." There is no suggestion that I disapprove but a suggestion that it has a “blurred” meaning.

Galaxies have "mass energy". And "mass energy" is kinetic energy which produces "motion".

Hmm.. on second thought.. I maybe I better not join this "discussion"

Probably. Although it's always possible to have restrains on "second thoughts".

[Andrex]

From what I see, it's going to be a while before we get the opportunity of addressing the consequences of the basic two "motions" in the universe. :-(

[Inchworm]

The origin of altered space is gluons.

Unless there are gluons inside what I call the dark altered space, that kind of altered space has to be produced by something else. What is it?

[Andrex]

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

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

that kind of altered space has to be produced by something else. What is it?

"Energy toward one single point" is all that's needed to alter space.

[hyksos]

From what I see, it's going to be a while before we get the opportunity of addressing the consequences of the basic two "motions" in the universe. :-(

But why is the word "motion" in scare quotes?

[Andrex]

But why is the word "motion" in scare quotes?

For the exact reason that provokes your question: To mark their importance in the story of the universe. There's a lot of words in scare quotes in my descriptions. Many are underlined or/and in bold to signify their importance.

[hyksos]

Your use of quotes for this reason may cause miscommunication. In a physics or cosmology context, the use of scare quotes around a word can have negative connotations. It can indicate that you don't believe the phenomenon is physically real. It can indicate that you find the proposed idea to be silly. It can indicate that you are quoting some authority, but plan to redefine the word another way.

t I still don't understand why the very common word (motion) would need quotes around it. Imagine if you had written : I have "trees" outside my window. People would think you are being facetious.

[Andrex]

Ok; so you don't like the way I "dress" my phrases; but what do you think of all I've posted in 18 pages?

Don't tell me that you give more importance to "dresses" that what they contains.