A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Not quite philosophy discussions, debates, various thought experiments and other topics of interest.

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 25th, 2019, 11:30 am 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (17)

Planet formation (suite)

So we are now observing a protogalaxy where a forming star is orbiting the center of that protogalaxy.

The reality is that we are simply observing a smaller gravitational field orbiting inside a greater gravitational field:


Which two perfectly stable points would be seen as the following:


L4 and L5 Lagrangian points are the only perfectly stable points; and particles standing on those points are subjected exclusively to their own related gravitational fields. This means that, at those two points, all particles are liable to accrete (regroup) into one single big clump of “matter” if one of them possesses a slightly greater gravitational field.

If enough particles accrete, you end up with a planet standing at these two stable points, surrounded by its own gravitational field inside the star’s gravitational field, which stands in the galaxy’s gravitational field. It is always the same “gravitational effect” that apply to “gravitational fields”.

Now the stars we are talking about have to be the ones produced the farthest from the protogalaxy center of gravity; otherwise they are part of the light emitting space around that center where the star population is overwhelming.

Something else was observed in 2010, about galaxies, at the center of our Milky Way galaxy. Bubbles formed by great amount of Gamma and fewer x rays were found to be emitted perpendicularly to the galaxy disc shape:


The origin of these bubbles is still being researched. Personally I’m afraid that, eventually, the panacea “dark matter” will be involved in the considered adopted “solution”.

But if we reproduce the centripetal affected 12hr – 6hr axis of the universal time-clock on the galaxy disc, were “matter” stands, we can observe the 9hr – 3hr perpendicular axis where the “centrifugal effect” manifests itself. And Gamma rays (and X rays) are electromagnetic “excited” waves.

Since we’ve already seen that electromagnetism is “excited” when its lightspeed expanding process encounters an obstruction. We can see that it is exactly the case with a galaxy (outside which there is no gravitational effect), which is encountered by the expanding process of our electromagnetic universe. Then, the explanation of those electromagnetic projected bubbles becomes perfectly understandable.

Here is our universal time clock pattern superposed on a galaxy:


All what’s left to do, is turn this drawing 90 degrees and compare it with the previous picture of our galaxy.

But once again, I‘m losing track of my subject which is “planet formation”.

So we were at the moment where two planets gradually formed on L4 and L5 Lagrangian points, quite far away from their related star because of the compared proportions of the young galactic gravitational field with a bit younger star’s gravitational field.

Now let’s consider those two forming planets which stand in angle with the protogalaxy center and the star center. Each of them also produce 5 Lagrangian points of which two (L4 and L5) are stable:


Now these two planets would have been formed with the second generation of stars, since the first generation had already projected most of the “heavier” atoms (elements) through the space of their “gravitational field”.

Then occurred the second explosion of stars.

Those second generation of stars were less “massive” than the previous generation. Which means that their gravitational fields were less extended.

Adding to this that the constantly expanding universal space was more density diluted, the explosion of the second generation of stars propelled, not only heavier elements, but also pushed away the planets they had form. And some of those elements nebulae and planets were able to “escape” the exploded star’s gravitational field and started to cruise through “open space”.

And the third generation stars started to form from the new ejected nebulae. This third generation is the one our Sun is related to.

So we now have gravitational fields, spread through space, where new stars form, defining their own new Lagrangian stable points where new planets appears also forming their own Lagrangian points.

Most orbits around those new stars should, then, contain two planets, which their distance from the Sun is related to the stable Lagrangian points produced successively while gradually forming planets.

We can imagine our Solar system being completed with two planets on each orbits, before some of the already formed space “free cruising planets” started passing through our newly formed Solar system. Most probably these “free cruising planets” had been passing through our Solar system from the beginning of its formation and many newly formed planets had already been “crushed” in asteroids.

Nevertheless, what we know is that, starting from 4.5 billion years ago our Solar system was subjected to an important transformation because of those “passing through” free cruising planets that collided with our system’s planets.

The result of those events transformed our Solar system as we see it today.

We shall look at what is known about these events in my next post.

I wish a very merry Christmas to everybody.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 27th, 2019, 12:47 pm 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (18)

Stabilizing our Solar system.

Here is a picture of our actual Solar system:


What is the Kuiper Belt?

The Kuiper Belt is an area of the outer solar system that is estimated to stretch to a wideness of 25 astronomical units (AU) of space. It contains small bodies made mostly of ices. The ices are frozen volatiles (gases) such as methane, ammonia, nitrogen and water. It also is home to the known dwarf planets Pluto, Haumea and Makemake.

Being on the verge of the Solar system, it either makes the “gravitational effect” of the Sun’s gravitational field less effective or represent a region where Lagrangian points related to the Sun don’t exist. Which explains the “belt” structure.

The ices in the Kuiper Belt date back to the formation of the solar system. They contain clues to conditions in the early solar nebula.

But if you look at the overall picture, it becomes evident that the orbits of planetoids from the Kuiper belt are completely different from the planets of the inner Solar system. They look as if they were pushed away from a circular orbit without being able to leave the Sun’s gravitational field. Which makes the whole Kuiper belt susceptible of being the remnant of planet collisions at the beginning formation of our Solar system. Those collisions would have “crush” one of the two planets on the circular orbits, sending some pieces in outer space while the rest formed the Kuiper belt.

One way to find out would be by checking the position of each planets related to one another and look which ones stand on Lagrangian points of others. We could then find which planet appeared first, producing the Lagrangian points where the next planet appeared. To do that I would need the actual position of all planets at a definite moment, to identify each Lagrangian points of the planets related to the Sun. Positions that I cannot find in actual info.

The Kuiper Belt extends from roughly the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU out to about 55 astronomical units from the Sun. The main body of this belt covers much of this region, ranging from nearly 40 AU to 48 AU. It is thick in most places and astronomers have described it as being more torus-shaped than a belt would be. This could result from the 30 degree corridor for circular orbits around the Sun, since the expelled “crushed” planets would have different orbiting angles inside this general 30 degree angle (the greatest been Pluto at 29 degrees).

Astronomers have found structures similar to our Kuiper Belt around at least nine other stars.

There is another “theorized” belt encircling further out of the Kuiper’s belt. It’s called the Oort Cloud.

The Oort Cloud is a theorized shell of icy objects that lie beyond the Kuiper Belt, and as such, the facts detailed further on are hypothetical.

The inner limits of the Oort Cloud begin at about 2,000 AU from the Sun. The cloud itself stretches out almost a quarter of the way to the nearest star from the Sun, Proxima Centauri. It is spherically shaped and consists of an outer cloud and a torus (doughnut-shaped) inner cloud.


The Oort cloud is thought to have developed after the formation of planets from the primordial protoplanetary disc approximately 4.6 billion years ago. The most widely accepted hypothesis is that the Oort cloud's objects initially coalesced much closer to the Sun as part of the same process that formed the planets and minor planets.

Based on their orbits, most of all long-period and Halley-type comets entering the inner Solar System, and many of the centaurs and Jupiter-family comets as well may come from the Oort cloud. Astronomers conjecture that the matter composing the Oort cloud formed closer to the Sun and was scattered far into space by the gravitational effects of the giant planets early in the Solar System's evolution. After formation, strong gravitational interactions with young gas giants, such as (or similar to) Jupiter, scattered the objects into extremely wide elliptical or parabolic orbits that were subsequently modified by perturbations from passing stars and giant molecular clouds into long-lived orbits detached from the gas giant region.

Computer models suggest that collisions of cometary debris during the formation period play a far greater role than was previously thought. According to these models, the number of collisions early in the Solar System's history was so great that most comets were destroyed before they reached the Oort cloud.


In 2016, the European Southern Observatory announced the discovery of Proxima Centauri b, a planet orbiting the star at a distance of roughly 0.05 AU (7.5 million km) with an orbital period of approximately 11.2 Earth days. Its estimated mass is at least 1.3 times that of the Earth.

Info on our Solar system from NASA:

"Our solar system consists of our star, the Sun, and everything bound to it by gravity — the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, dwarf planets such as Pluto, dozens of moons and millions of asteroids, comets and meteoroids.

Beyond our own solar system, there are more planets than stars in night sky. So far, we have discovered thousands of planetary systems orbiting other stars in the Milky Way, with more planets being found all the time. Most of the hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy are thought to have planets of their own, and the Milky Way is but one of perhaps 100 billion galaxies in the universe.

Our solar system extends much farther than the eight planets that orbit the Sun. The solar system also includes the Kuiper Belt that lies past Neptune's orbit. This is a sparsely occupied ring of icy bodies, almost all smaller than the most popular Kuiper Belt Object, dwarf planet Pluto.

And beyond the fringes of the Kuiper belt is the Oort Cloud. This giant spherical shell surrounds our solar system. It has never been directly observed, but its existence is predicted based on mathematical models and observations of comets that likely originate there.”

So this is the overall description of our Solar system; which means a description of whatever is factually contained inside the Sun’s gravitational field encircled with a hypothesis.

We will try to stick with the facts.

The Sun is the "accreting" result of 99% of all Hydrogen contained in the Solar system. Heavier matter farther out in the disk was also clumping together”. We’ve already seen the accretion process.

For those who ask themselves why planets rotate, just conceptualize the first two dust particles falling to the “gravitational center”. Neither of them can occupy that center because the other particle pushes it back from it. So, while both pushed each other, they started revolving around that center point. Afterward, all added dust particles adopted this rotating motion.

The first four planets (closer to the Sun)—Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars—are terrestrial planets. They're small with solid, rocky surfaces.

Further out, we find gas giants Jupiter (the most massive composed primarily of Hydrogen and ¼ of its mass being Helium) and Saturn and ice giants Uranus and Neptune (which have little Hydrogen and Helium but methane molecules and a water-ammonia ocean).

But in between solid and gas giants, we find the asteroid belt (orbiting between Mars and Jupiter) that is composed of ice asteroids (which means mostly “frozen water”).

While saying that the asteroid belt never could have been a planet because it doesn’t have enough “material” to form one, scientists also say that 99.9% of the asteroid belt's original mass was lost in the first 100 million years of the Solar System's history. Which dates this “loss” to when “free cruising” planets invaded our Solar system.

So, to me, the structure of our Solar system seems to be (starting from the Sun) solid matter followed by liquid matter and further on, by gaseous matter. Which concord with the resulting successive distribution of gradual heavy elements by exploding stars.

And the asteroid belt could have been the location of a planet mainly composed of “water”.

Furthermore, the farthest a planet orbits, the slowest it travels its orbit. Which is normal when looking at the gravitational decreasing density effect. The farther away you are from a center of gravity, the less speed you need to put yourself in the "corridor effect" of the orbit.

So let’s say, that at the time, we had a relatively stable Solar system, even though very more “populous” than today, before the “attack” of the free cruising planet (or planets) from outer space.

We have seen that planets appeared in pairs, on the same orbit.

We have also found that solid planets were closer to the Sun followed by at least one liquid planet succeeded by gas planets.

And the outer “free cruising” planets came approaching into view.

We will see what happens in my next post.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby TheVat on December 27th, 2019, 2:30 pm 

For those just joining us, would it be possible to provide an abstract, in which you brieflly describe your theory and the body of scientific evidence and current research upon which it is based. See our forum guidelines (in "Announcements" section) on posting threads in the Science section, to get an idea of what is needed. It is not necessary to review basic astrophysics and astronomy (this would only be required in Beginner Science section), so you can get right to the "meat" of your theory. Many thanks.
User avatar
Forum Administrator
Posts: 7852
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 27th, 2019, 4:11 pm 

To put it briefly, the T-Model is based on the underlying background vacuum energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe.

And the basic "meat" of my theory starts at Time = zero and stops at Time = 10^-32 sec after Time = zero. The following of events, which are "effects" related to their changing environment, are simple consequences of the "basic meat".

This vacuum energy is responsible for the expansion effect of the universe and the localized gravitational field effects throughout space-time.

It is composed of two contrary oriented kinetic energy; meaning an active "centrifugal" (towards everywhere) energy and a passive centripetal" (towards a single point) energy.

The expansion effect (of centrifugal energy) dilutes its density in accord with the expanding ratio without losing any "intensity", due to the constant presence of the underlying vacuum energy.

Space is not "full of energy" as usually described; it is simply the manifested effects of those two kinds of kinetic energy, which are independent from each other and stand "behind" space, in the Planck time epoch.

Which means that Time started before space appeared, because, when space appeared it was manifested by the total energy accumulated during Planck epoch. There was no more energy produced, or destroyed after Planck time (Lavoisier).

I guess its better to read the whole model description starting at "My T-Model for astrophysics (1)" to find the "body of scientific evidence and current research upon which it is based".

It is pretty simple to understand by everybody. Which is why it is called the "T-Model" (the first easily available automobile); even though the "T" also stands for "Theory Of Everything" (TOE).

If anything else, its a "fun" model to read.

Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 28th, 2019, 11:15 am 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (19)

Have a look at this animation of our solar system:


To understand its formation we will have to start with a planet pushed in outer space, by the explosion of a second generation star, which was “captured” by our third generation Sun.


This planet followed the great elliptical orbit with a perihelion close to the Sun; which produced Lagrangian points as follow:


As we can see when the planet got closer to the Sun it produced Lagrangian points of which L4 and L5 where stable. But as the planet turned at its perihelion, the L4 Lagrangian point (in front of the planet) was pushed of its course to keep the same distance related to the Sun (in fact a small clump of “matter” that had just accrete). So when the planet kept its course toward outer space, this L4 point was captured by the gravitational field of the Sun and adopted a smaller elliptical orbit around it. This orbit was even closer to the Sun than Jupiter, where Oxygen and Hydrogen had already produce an orbiting water molecules cloud. Its “gravitational field” capturing those molecules, transformed the planet in a “water planet” on the orbit of the actual asteroid belt.

Astronomers actually observe quite a number of those star system; a star with an enormous planet orbiting closely around it.

The L5 point simply followed the elliptical planet and its stability probably “faded” gradually.

This first captured L4 point formed a planet which evidently produced 5 Lagrangian points including L4 and L5 points, which L4 point was subjected to the same event than previously and adopted a more circular orbit, while the L5 point kept the same smaller elliptical orbit.


A planet started to form by accretion on that L4 points orbiting the Sun. This was the second planet of our solar system orbiting near the Sun. This “object”, today, should have the less eccentric orbit of the gas planets, which is Neptune (orbit more circular than the Earth's); and the other object should have the most eccentric orbit of the gas planets, which is Saturn.

And two more planets where formed with each of them forming two additional planets (dotted lines on the next drawing).

Note that astronomers think that Neptune and Uranus formed closer to the Sun and afterward “migrated” to their actual orbit.


And the process had produce at least 7 main planets in the Solar system.

I indicate “main planets” because if we define all Lagrangian points where planets (clumps of matter) formed (instead of only L4 and L5) there was 21 additional planets (total 28) formed inside our Solar system; which will inevitably collide with the L1 and L2 Lagrangian points of each 7 main planets.


The 7 planets orbiting closer to the Sun are L3 points of all planets.

And the outer “elliptical” far away planet kept passing through this system, crushing some of them and sending their pieces in a greater orbit around the Sun, producing the Kuiper belt.

The result was one planet left on each orbits.

But in order to eliminate one planet from each double planets orbit, the incoming planet had to pass on one side of the Sun, destructing almost everything in its way, turn around the Sun and miss all resuming planets because they had time to reach the safe orbit side already traveled by the incoming planet.

Meanwhile, collisions of inner planetoids were bringing chaos and threatened the stability of our Solar system.

That lasted until the “first planet” captured by the Sun, the far away planet on elliptical orbit, came back and re-entered our Solar system.

The incoming planet passed near Uranus, reversing and tilting its rotation axis by nearly 90 degrees; it then collided with the first formed “water planet”, crushing it partially and throwing the remaining two pieces nearer to the Sun. Then, following through its trajectory, it brushed against Venus reversing (proved in the 1950’s) and slowing its rotation (it actually has the slowest rotation of all planets), before gaining outer space again.

The crushed parts of the “water planet” stayed on their orbit, between Mars and Jupiter, while the two projected pieces installed themselves on the actual Earth’s orbit, closer to the Sun (they had gain speed from the collision).

The fact is that the biggest piece adopted Earth’s orbit, while the smaller piece was “captured” inside the “water planet’s” gravitational field and became the Moon we see at night.

The final result was the Solar system as we observe it today:


You’ll have to admit that this is a great scenario plausible for the forming of our Solar system. Furthermore, it contains all the actual scientific information’s we have on the subject, plus explanations according to actual basic physics laws (and "T-Model").

But you will never suspect where some of those information came from.

One information describing the “birth” of two planets at a time (simultaneously) comes from a text written more than 4,000 years ago by Sumerians (Akkadians transcribed it), called “Enuma Elish”. I couldn’t believe it myself when I read it.

The same source gave me the info for the “water planet” projected from the asteroid belt’s orbit to the actual Earth orbit.

The reason I used this last info is because it’s more plausible, in my mind, for the moon to be a broken part of the Earth, than Earth “capturing” a “free cruising”, from outer space, small planet that would have not been “captured” by preceding greater planets of the Solar system.

We will verify if the Moon could be a “portion of Earth” in my next post.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 29th, 2019, 1:55 pm 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (20)

Is the Moon a portion of Earth?

This is the Earth of today when we remove all the water from its surface:


The Mariana Trench (in the green region) is located in the western Pacific Ocean about 200 kilometres (124 mi) east of the Mariana Islands; it is the deepest trench in the world. It is crescent-shaped and measures about 2,550 km (1,580 mi) in length and 69 km (43 mi) in width.

This is the single piece of land above water 340 million years ago:


The Mariana trench where the incoming planet bruised the Earth:


Now here is a collision between Earth (the water planet in orbit at the asteroid belt) and the far away planet on its way to its perihelion:


Having reached its actual orbit, the Earth started to heal itself by volcanic matter coming from its core, trying to “fill” the bottom of the missing part of the water planet (Pacific ocean) and started, gradually, closing the “gap” made by the impact.

This closing process broke the Pangaea continents into smaller continents that started to move away from each other, producing the Atlantic ocean and giving the actual appearance to our planet.


Note that the “healing process” is still occurring and continents are still moving away from each other.

As for the Moon, it has a solid iron-rich inner core with a radius possibly as small as 240 kilometers and a fluid outer core primarily made of liquid iron with a radius of roughly 300 kilometers. Around the core is a partially molten boundary layer with a radius of about 500 kilometers. This structure is thought to have developed through the fractional crystallization of a global magma state shortly after the Moon's formation 4.5 billion years ago.

The number of impacted asteroids (300,000 craters wider than 1 km) gave “material” to shape it the way we see it today. The radiometric ages of impact-melted rocks collected during the Apollo missions cluster between 4.1 and 3.8 billion years old: this has been used to propose a Late Heavy Bombardment of impacts (resulting from the previously crushed pieces produced by the incoming planet.

Liquid water cannot persist on the lunar surface, which doesn’t mean that the Moon never had any. When exposed to solar radiation, water quickly decomposes through a process known as photo-dissociation and is lost to space. However, since the 1960s, scientists have hypothesized that water ice may be deposited by impacting comets. My opinion is that the water-ice would be the remaining water after the photo-dissociation process.

Volcanic lava beads, brought back to Earth aboard Apollo 15, showed small amounts of water in their interior. The spectrometer observed absorption lines common to hydroxyl, in reflected sunlight, providing evidence of large quantities of water ice, on the lunar surface.

In May 2011, 615–1410 ppm water in melt inclusions in lunar sample 74220 was reported, the famous high-titanium "orange glass soil" of volcanic origin collected during the Apollo 17 mission in 1972. The inclusions were formed during explosive eruptions on the Moon approximately 3.7 billion years ago. This concentration is comparable with that of magma in Earth's upper mantle.

The ice deposits were found on the North and South poles, although it is more abundant in the South, where water is trapped in permanently shadowed craters and crevices, allowing it to persist as ice on the surface since they are shielded from the sun.

In October 2017, NASA scientists at the Marshall Space Flight Center and the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston announced their finding, based on studies of Moon magma samples retrieved by the Apollo missions, that the Moon had once possessed a relatively thick atmosphere for a period of 70 million years between 3 and 4 billion years ago. The ancient lunar atmosphere was eventually stripped away by solar winds and dissipated into space.

So; we’ve settled our stable Solar system with simple “gravitational effects” and now, start to have a look at diverse implications of those “gravitational effects” inside it.

In my next post, naturally.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 31st, 2019, 11:26 am 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (21)

Gravitation versus the effect of “density”:

In order to really understand the gravitational effect, we will have to scrutinize the “gravitational field” much more closely than we already have.

The first characteristic we’ve observed was that the “effect” consisted in a tendency to send everything towards the field’s center.

The second characteristic we’ve discovered about a “gravitational field” is that, it is a simple volume of space that has never been exposed to the universal expansion process.

Which means that its formation represents a “time wise” succession of particles decay structure, obtained by the different progressive density decrease of the environment for each decay occurring at definite successive “present moments”.

Afterward, the fusion process structured their volume’s density while creating heavier atoms (elements), followed by the creation of cosmic objects, by accretion of dust particles, making those gravitational fields gradually gain in size.

So obviously, “gravitational fields” were always independent from the universe’s expansion process.

Let’s see that structure again, this time by drawing half a gravitational field:


The thickness of each arrows of the drawing corpus, pointed towards the center, shows the increase “effect’s” density.

Keeping in mind that we are observing an “effect”, it becomes indisputable that the more intense the effect is, the more its “toward the center” tendency will manifest itself (will intensify).

So let’s see what happens to an object traveling through such a “gravitational structure”.

And this is when we finally become conscious of the difference between the “notions” of considering “gravitation” being a passive “effect” instead of an acting “force”. Because an acting “force” would inevitably “deform” the proven “flat” structure of space; while the “passive” gravitational “density effect” concord with the proven “flat” structure of space, without having to deform it whatsoever. Which means that even in a “gravitational field”, space is “flat” and if it was not for the gradual density inside them, trajectories would be in “straight” lines.

The exception being when a trajectory is oriented straight to the center of gravity which eliminates the curving process and leaves operating only the speed increasing process.


It becomes evident that the curved trajectories are a directly related density result.

But this is in “space”. Let’s have a closer to us verification.

It has been experimentally proven many times that two objects, whatever their “mass” (or weight), when starting to “fall” from the same height at the same moment, increase their falling “speed” exactly at the same ratio; so they reach the ground at the same “moment”.

It was experimented on Earth and on the Moon, where gravitational effects differ in “intensity”, with identical results.

So let’s see if our notion of the “density effect” applies to this proven “fact”:


I don’t know what to add to this drawing to make it more explicit. If I do try, you and I, have to be very attentive to each words used; so here we go:

If we consider the “punctual center of gravity”, of each object’s “gravitational field”, as being the actual falling “object”, and we forget about the falling “material volume” surrounding that center of gravity point, we can understand clearly that the event, in fact, is related to the gradual diluting effect intensity of each produced punctual basic space “points” (of 10^-35 meter) while time flows. This space “basic unit” production gave successive greater space available at each “present moments” of those points production; gradually diluting the intensity for each area of production moments.

I’ll have to reread that last paragraph. Those who don’t have to, are remarkable intelligent persons.

After re-reading it, another question comes to mind:

If the density, inside a gravitational field, was determined as the gradual decay process of particles occurred, how was made the transition from the atomic size to the “dust particle” size that would produce cosmic objects?

Let’s see the atomic electronic shells and subshells that would define a gravitational field. I will install our planets on each “shells” just to see if the idea is plausible:


The possibility is present in a general view but not as evident as it should be; maybe in considering the subshells I’ll find the answer.

And I still have to describe the “transition” for the electronic shell structure to the final “orbital shell structure” of a “gravitational field”. The solution should be found in a density “effect” decreasing from a shell or subshell to the other.

If I can find that process, the “T-Model” will really be a TOE.

Meanwhile, have a look at the relative proportions of our Solar system’s planets:


Happy New Year and my best wishes to everybody for 2020.

André Lefebvre
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 2nd, 2020, 11:54 am 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (22)

Transition from electronic shells to « gravitational corridors”:

To find the solution we have to start at the very beginning of “gravitational fields” which appeared with the first “massive” Top quarks which decayed successively into less massive quarks.

So the question is:

How could the next (A) structure picture become the (B) structure picture?


It is impossible to deny a certain relation between the two; it even shows the more intense "effect" at the 12 - 6 o'clock angle. But what could have been the process to go from the first structure to the second one?

What we understand is that since all gravitational fields are a surrounding “effect” of the underlying vacuum energy, the energy itself isn’t present in these effects (it stands behind it in the Planck era); so if the center loses its particle identity “effect” in our universe, the “gravitational effect” still remains “effective” in “space”.

Which gives us a clue with the Pentaquark after the Charms Meson disappeared:


As we can see the Proton adopted all “gravitational fields” existing inside the Pentaquark because all fields joined together with a single center. The fact is that the Proton doesn’t “do” anything; it’s the three “center of gravity points” that merges into one single centered punctual point which all three gravitational fields follow, with whatever they “contain”.

It’s always the centered punctual gravity point that controls events. The rest of the event is simple consequences of that “control.

This means that, consequently, all “gravitational fields”, produced by each generations of particles, incorporated themselves in relation to their “density” (or birth dates); and since there was 3 generations of quarks and Anti-quarks, the total amounted to six “gravitational fields” incorporated into one another producing a decreasing density towards the exterior.

Once this gravitational structure was elaborated, evolution inside the “centripetal effect” could continue.

We know that stars and planets are produced by “gravitational effect” (centripetal effect) inside molecular clouds. Stars are formed of molecular Hydrogen officially; but we’ve already seen that it has to start with a Helium atom at its center.

But what about planets (non-stellar bodies)?

Cores of specific planets may be entirely solid, entirely liquid, or may be a mixture of solid and liquid layers as is the case in the Earth. This is already a difference with the forming of stars of which the core is strictly gaseous.

All of the rocky inner planets, as well as the moon, have an iron-dominant core. Venus and Mars have an additional major element in the core. Venus’ core is believed to be iron-nickel, similarly to Earth. Mars, on the other hand, is believed to have an iron-sulfur core and is separated into an outer liquid layer around an inner solid core.

Even gas giants have solid cores though the composition of these are still a matter of debate and range in possible composition from traditional stony/iron, to ice or to fluid metallic hydrogen. Jupiter and Saturn most likely formed around previously existing rocky and/or icy bodies,

The first detection of Earth's core occurred in 1906 by Richard Dixon Oldham upon discovery of the P-wave shadow zone; the liquid outer core. By 1936 seismologists had determined the size of the overall core as well as the boundary between the fluid outer core and the solid inner core.

The existence of a lunar core is still debated; however, if it does have a core it would have formed synchronously with the Earth's own core (supporting our view of the Moon’s “Earth” origin) at 45 million years post-start of the Solar System based on hafnium-tungsten evidence and the giant impact hypothesis. Such a core may have hosted a geomagnetic dynamo early on in its history.

The Moon's core has a radius of 300 km. The Moon's iron core has a liquid outer layer that makes up 60% of the volume of the core, with a solid inner core.

Planetary systems form from flattened disks of dust and gas that accrete rapidly (within thousands of years) into planetesimals around 10 km in diameter. From here gravity takes over to produce Moon to Mars sized planetary embryos (105 – 106 years) and these develop into planetary bodies over an additional 10–100 million years.

So it looks as if stars were the result of starting with a gas atom (Helium) while planets would have started with a metal atom.

If you remember when we described the atoms existing at the first formation of stars, there was Hydrogen (gas), Helium (gas) and Lithium (metal). Lithium atoms where a lot less numerous than Helium atoms and they could covalent bound with all existing atoms at the time. This means that they were plausible to produce solid core planetoids and gain size as fast or maybe faster than stars.

This also means that there could have been planets produced at the same moment as the first stars. And those planets where not submitted to any stars “gravitational fields”; they were “free” cruising planets.

This also means that they could produce Lagrangian points when their “gravitational field” covalent bounded with a star’s “gravitational field”.

Finally, our described “process” of solar systems production by Lagrangian points, gets all the “ingredient factors” to explain itself.

Once again we can observe that the only source of all that exists today is a simple coexistence of two “facts”:

1) “Punctual points” are the basic units of “space” produced by a diluting centrifugal “effect” motion at lightspeed, and

2) “Gravitational fields” are the volume of space surrounding a center punctual point (center of gravity) where the focusing centripetal “effect” has accumulated.

Both “facts” are independent from each other and evolve simultaneously on their own individual path.

The centrifugal evolution strictly creates “space” continuously, while the centripetal evolution creates everything else we can observe today. And, I have to repeat myself, without any “force notion” implication.

As of now, it’s evident that, to understand the universe, we have to forget this magical based “force” notion, and we have to be conscious that “matter” has no real importance in this comprehension.

The only factor related to “matter” is that it “increases” the “pressure” (time wise) on a center of gravity when it collides with other matter in contact with that center point. When “matter” is not in contact, it doesn’t add any pressure.

To understand this last affirmation, just imagine standing at the center of the Earth with all the soil falling on you, from all sides. The “pressure” would be enormous even if the “gravitational effect” equalizes itself at the center, because it’s coming from all 360 degrees around it.

But there is no other way to increase that “centered pressure” than adding “matter” on top of all that already “falling soil” on you. And the contact on top of that soil is the strict condition in order to augment that “pressure”. This means that the “massive” Moon orbiting the Earth doesn’t augment the “pressure” on you at all.

Which also means that the Moon has no implication whatsoever in the Earths “gravitational field”.

This, then, means that stars orbiting around the center of a galaxy don’t have any implication on the galaxy’s “gravitational field” either.

Which contradicts the actual accepted description of the “mass” of a galaxy. It’s time we observe the difference between a “fusion process” and a “covalent bound process”. Covalent bounding of “gravitational fields” results in orbiting “objects” around another “object”; while fusion bounding of “gravity centers” results in an augmentation of “mass-energy effect” on the new center of gravity.

This should be enough for today; I still have a lot of “Holiday food” to eat; might as well get to it.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 5th, 2020, 12:49 pm 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (23)

The making of the first generation of planets:

Before coming to the subject, I think that it wouldn’t be bad to specify what this “effect”, I keep talking about, exactly is:


An “effect” is the result of an “action”; a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon. It is the result of a particular influence; something that happens because of something else.

In the “T-Model”, the “action” (previous phenomenon) is done by the energy accumulated in Planck era (the vacuum energy) and manifested at the Planck time. The “result” (the following phenomenon) is our three dimensional universe (a volume) that exists starting at 10^-43 second after Time = Zero (which is the exact "instant" of this "action").

Which means that the first phenomenon is “active” while the result is a “consequence”. And since the “action” results in kinetic (motion), the consequence possesses “dynamism”. In other words, our three dimensional “motional” universe is a dynamic electromagnetic “volume” which still stays a simple consequence.

Now, we will try to produce a planet with the sole existing particles produced by the Big-bang synthesis.

We will use, as a “solid core”, the only metal atom existing at the time, the Lithium atom, and the only process available to Lithium, which is covalent bounding.

Fusion bonding wasn’t possible anymore because the environment’s density had decrease, by the expansion process of space, to a level lower than inside existing atoms. So these atoms couldn’t withdraw any “energy effect” from their environment to increase their own “density effect”. The fusion opportunity would reappear at the center of future formed stars as we have already seen.

But covalent bounding has its own “laws” that cannot be transgressed:

1) The entry of energy is at the 12hr of the universal clock
2) All nucleus have to be installed on a “gravitational axis” of the universal time-clock.
3) When a (K) shell is filled, it cannot accept more “density”.
4) The (L) shell can accept no more than 8 electronic unit’s density.
5) Every succeeding shell reaching 8 “electronic units” (electrons) opens a new valence shell.

And these “laws” will create a problem in the Lithium’s covalent bounding:


As we can see, all “gravitational axis” of the Lithium’s (L) shell are occupied by protons which are blocked by the Lithium’s (L) shell and there is still one “electronic unit” missing in this (L) shell; we actually have 7 and it can accept 8 to be completely “filled”.

So there was only one solution to this problem:

The Hydrogen atom standing at 12 o’clock has to merge with the last acceptable incoming Hydrogen atom, thus producing a Helium atom.

According to the third law of covalent bonding (stated above) this should not be possible; nevertheless, because electrons aren’t “particles” but are “clouds” of electronic effects densities, the bounding becomes possible since the Lithium’s (L) shell can accept an additional density unit. Thus the superior density coming in at 12hr just disperses through the Lithium’s valence shell, filling it completely. So the 12hr Hydrogen atom transforms itself in a Helium atom with two protons and two electronic density units which fill completely the Lithium’s (L) shell.


Naturally, this last “molecule” is the result of a list of succeeding covalent bounding events. But I wanted to develop the event up to this molecule, to point out that each shells of this molecule has reach its maximal energy “effect” density; shown on the drawing by all their full line circumferences.

We must also specify that all these covalent bonding never obstructed the rotation of the molecule or, more precisely, the orbiting of its components.

This outcome of all “filled” gravitational fields, produces a new kind of molecule that we call a “dust particle”. And this “dust particle” possesses its own “gravitational field”, even if there was only “partial fusion” involved (Helium produced atom). This new “gravitational field’s” center of gravity is defined as the “barycenter” between the Lithium atom and the Helium atom:


The barycenter is the center of “mass” of two main bodies that orbit one another and is the point about which the two bodies (or more) orbit”.

And these “dust particle’s barycenters” are the centers of gravity that will “unify” to produce the molecular clouds of “solid” nucleus molecules (dust particles), from which the first planets will be formed.

The unifying process produced by barycenters is called the “accretion process”.

Once the “dust particles” are formed, the “accretion process” performs just as it did in the star formation event; it accumulates “pressure on” the center of gravity of the “clumped” object and gradually augments its temperature.

This “process”, defined by the first planet formation, will continue to operate for all succeeding planet formations composed of heavier atoms. It seems that the heaviest atom used was the Iron atom; but this is what we have identify up until today. There could be heavier planet cores found eventually.

Some of those future produced planets will possess so much “inner pressure” at their center that they would emit more “heat” than what they receive from the star they orbit. But their inner pressure wouldn’t reach the needed level to provoke the “fusion process”. Jupiter is one of such planets.

I will verify if there is specifics I promise to explain and didn't have the opportunity yet.

Then, afterward, we will have a look at the "unsolved problems" our actual scientists are having and see if we can give them a hand.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 14th, 2020, 1:38 pm 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (23)

Specifics to make the T-model clearer:

a) Define Inertia

Inertia is the resistance of any physical “object” to any change in its velocity. This includes changes to the object's speed, or direction of motion”.

Whatever way I consider it, I cannot erase the “weight notion” from my mind when I’m thinking that “inertia” is a “resistance” to a change of its “speed” or “trajectory”.

The problem which emerge from this “interpretation” is that “weight” is always related to the intensity of “attraction of masses”. But we know that masses don’t “attract” anything; so what is this “intensity” in reality?

We’ve already seen that “weight” is the result of “blocking” the “falling” motion towards a center of gravity. This “blocking” doesn’t eliminate the “intensity” of the “falling motion” because this intensity is related to the distance from the center of Gravity. And this is what adds “pressure” on the center of gravity. Then, since the “motion»” is blocked, it’s evident that the “object” is “inert”. Furthermore, this “inert” object suffered a change in its “falling speed”. This tells us that “weight” and “inertia” is basically the same “thing”.

We usually say that in a “free falling” situation, an object doesn’t have any “weight”. But since “weight” is the result of the “blocking of motion”, it is, in fact, not related to the “gravitational effect” on an object but, more precisely, to its proper “speed”; which means related to the distance from the center of gravity. In other words, it’s not directly related to its “mass” because whatever the “mass” is, an object is never “immobile” (inert).

Once again, our mind has to refocus on the center of gravity of an object, instead of on the “object” itself. And as we do it, we can understand that the “mass-effect”, the “inertia-effect” and the “weight-effect” are different descriptions of the single motion of a “center of gravity”.

Mass-effect is the motion’s intensity in “Time”.

Inertia effect is the motion’s intensity in “expanding Space”.

Weight-effect is the motion’s intensity in a “Gravitational field”.

And all three have the same “motion intensity” in different circumstances; thus their basic value should be “identical”. And this basic value should be the “intensity value” of a basic “center point of gravity”.

Knowing that a “punctual” center of gravity possesses a diameter of 10^-35 meter, since it cannot be smaller in our universe, its “basic value” should be the smallest value of the particle that possesses a center of gravity; which is the Up quark.

The gravitational value of an Up quarks is 2.2 MeV; but it should be considered as a value of “1” MeV and be called a “Q” value.

Then the “electronic effect” would have the value of 0.23223 “Q”

The Down quark’s value would be 1.136 “Q”

And a proton would have a “mass-effect” value of 3.136 “Q” instead of 938.272 MeV

This “system” would give a neutron the value of 3.272“Q”, and a value of 3.36823 “Q” to a Hydrogen atom.

Then the difference between the “mass value” of a Proton and a neutron would be:
3.272 Q – 3.136 Q = 0.136 Q

And the difference of the “mass value” between an Up quark and a Down quark would be:
(Down) 1.136 Q – (Up) 1.0 Q = 0.136 Q;

Which is the same value as between a proton & a neutron. Thus the comprehension of the event becomes a lot simpler and explicit.

So when we add a Hydrogen atom to an element, we would add a “mass” of 3.36823 “Q” to the element changing it into a new element.

But you could object: “Since the electronic effect orbits around the nucleus, how could it add “mass” to the “gravitational effect”?

The answer is: Because the “electronic effect” occupies the whole shell’s space and, thus, is in “contact” with the nucleus. The electronic “effect” is exactly in the same “situation” as the imaginary “dark matter” that cannot be and is never observed.

The main improvement, if there is one, would be to relate the “Q” value directly to the “gravitational field” involved, and eliminate the problem caused by three different “nouns” used to describe the same “thing” in three different events.

If I didn’t get mixed up in my “math”, that is; which I can’t guarantee.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 16th, 2020, 12:56 pm 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (24)

Galileo Galilei said:

«The great book of the universe is open in front of our eyes. It is written in a mathematical language and the characters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures without which it becomes humanely impossible to understand a single “word” of this book”.

So here is the basic “facts” we’ve understood in three drawings:

1) Actual universe:


The Universe is « everything that exists ».

It is “whole” and “one” because "all that exists" cannot be separated, divided by “nothingness” which doesn’t exists.

2) Structure of the universe:


Flat space is everywhere; even in gravitational fields.

The only difference, inside a gravitational field, is “Time wise” which gives increasing “effect density” while getting closer to the center of gravity.

This is because a gravitational field is the result of a “frozen” expansion effect over a time period.

3) Diagram of the universe’s history:


Nothingness is a « state » of non-existence; it is stabilized by a “potentiality” of existence.

This potentiality of existence possesses more possibilities than “Nothingness” which, being a “denial of existence”, doesn’t have any possibility at all.

Energy is the manifestation of the existing potentiality which increases exponentially by manifesting a “motion” in a “no-space” state.

Its manifestation results in a rotation; increasing the exact definition of a Time basic moment through all the Time “possibilities” existing in the “wholeness”. The result is the appearance of a “wholeness” real “present moment”.

The rotating motion creates two “effects” inside this “wholeness”:

a) Centrifugal effect
b) Centripetal effect

Dynamic universe is the manifestation of the Centrifugal motion effect through successive "present moments". This effect manifests continuously by creating “distances” in all directions of the “wholeness”; which becomes “expanding Space”.

Successive "present moments" define the "Time flow".

The Centripetal motion effect appears in the “wholeness” when the “Centrifugal effect” had given a certain volume to the “wholeness”. This last “effect” takes this wholeness volume has its “frozen” influential space volume where a "gravitational field" will be created during the inflation process.

Supplementary geometrical figures can explain the rest of the evolution inside the “wholeness's” gravitational fields; but these first figures have to be understood perfectly to proceed any further.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 18th, 2020, 12:55 pm 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (25)

Reason for the acceleration inside a gravitational field

Here is everything involved towards the center of a gravitational field’s “flat space”:


As you can see, in this drawing everything tends to fall towards the center of the planet.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 24th, 2020, 11:54 am 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (25)

I guess that the last four drawings cover about everything that as to be understood in order to explain everything we observe today in our universe.

But just to make sure, we will go through unsolved problems encountered in physics by scientists. Note that I never thought that there were so many.

List of unsolved problems in physics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_u ... in_physics

1) Theory of everything:
Is there a theory which explains the values of all fundamental physical constants, i.e., of all coupling constants, all elementary particle masses and all mixing angles of elementary particles?

The “T-Model”, at least, supplies a simple and normal explanation for the decreasing masses of elementary particles by relating it to the gradual decreasing density of the universe vs particle decays through “time flow”; which determine all coupling constants as results of the decreasing “gravitational effect’s intensity”.

2) Arrow of time (e.g. entropy's arrow of time): Why does time have a direction? Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past, and time correlates with the universal (but not local) increase in entropy, from the past and to the future, according to the second law of thermodynamics?

Time is an energy effect animated with "motion"; the direction of this "effect" as to be "forward"; there is no other possibility.

Entropy always increase through time because evolution is an increase of defining more precise information; which means gradual appearing of more specific definitions. We can consider this as a "survival game"; the universe tries to define a perfect "equilibrium" in order to ascertain the reality of it former potentiality state.

Entropy isn’t a “path” toward “chaos”; it’s a “path” towards “equilibrium” (survival) by defining a general solution with more precise “fractional” information. If you take “1” (the wholeness) and try to define it more precisely, you look at its counterpart (nothingness) which gives you 1/0; then, to get more precision, you split the existing "One" in “2” (1/1) and analyze both pros and cons parts. You then split all parts in two to get even more precise definitions; so you get four “pieces of 1” (2/2) and so on; which starts to look a lot more “complicated” than one single pieces. This is what “entropy” is.

3) Interpretation of quantum mechanics: How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wave function collapse or quantum decoherence, give rise to the reality we perceive?

This is a wrong question! Quantum mechanics cannot be “interpreted” because it is, itself, an interpretation; it is not “reality”. Quarks don’t really have any taste or color. Quantum mechanics gradually arose from theories that were based on the “force notion” which obliged scientists to find an “interpretationthat could “fit” with this imaginary notion.

The reality is that: Forces don’t exist. What exist is simple "effects".

Whatever “event” we observe is always resulting “naturally” from the evolution in precision (entropy) of a previous situations (state) without any “force” manifestation; and all these “events” occur strictly inside “gravitational fields” where a “gravitational “effect” is manifested. “Forces” in physics are the same as “laws of physics”; neither are “realities”. They are imagined “tools” to explain events observed (not to "do" them). And since laws are originated from a wrong basic “force notion”, laws contains confined unsolvable problems.

4) Physical information:
Are there physical phenomena, such as wave function collapse or black holes that irrevocably destroy information about their prior states? How is quantum information stored as a state of a quantum system?

Information isn’t destroyed in a black hole; it is simply pushed back to its “basics”. The Black hole event is like rewinding entropy. The “path” is similar to: when a “200 pros/200 cons” information is generalized into a “100 pros/100 cons” info, then into a “50 pros/50 cons” followed by a “25 pros and 25 cons” and so on, until you get to the “first pro/first con” information that you unify in one “state”. The information is simply less precisely defined; but is still existing.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 29th, 2020, 2:59 pm 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (26)

List of unsolved problems in physics (suite):

5) Dimensionless physical constant: At the present time, the values of the dimensionless physical constants cannot be calculated; they are determined only by physical measurement. What is the minimum number of dimensionless physical constants from which all other dimensionless physical constants can be derived? Are dimensional physical constants necessary at all?

Answer: It isn’t a question of “necessity”; it’s a question of “logical reality”. The word “dimensionless” here relies to the “first dimensional possibility” that can exist. And there are TWO of those possibilities; the first one is at the start of “Time” and the second one is at the start of “Space”.

Before the start of “Time”, there was absolutely no dimension whatsoever; everything was at the “zero” value. This is the “real” dimensionless. But this “constant” wasn’t even “physical”.

At the beginning of “space”, appeared the very first “physical constant”. It didn’t have a value of “Zero” but had the value of “One”. It consisted of the “wholeness” of existence; and the “wholeness” cannot be other than “unique”. Consequently, it can only have the possible value of “One”. To give it a value of “Zero” can only be “conventional”.

Furthermore, at the beginning of “Space”, three distances were needed to be manifested; because “Space” cannot be anything else than a “volume” with the two distances of a “surface” PLUS another distance, to change this “surface” into a “volume”, which is its “deepness”.

So we can describe that first “space volume” has a “basic physical constant”, but there is no way to consider it as “dimensionless”. This first “space volume” is indisputably a sphere with a diameter of 10^-35 meter which we can consider as a “basic unit” of the “physical” universe.

6) Fine-tuned universe: The values of the fundamental physical constants are in a narrow range necessary to support carbon-based life. Is this because there exist other universes with different constants, or are our universe's constants the result of chance, or some other factor or process?


a) There cannot be other universes existing because they would have to be separated by “Nothingness” which is ridicule.

b) Carbon-based life isn’t the result of “chance”. It results from the normal evolution of “entropy”. As we have seen, entropy is the natural developing process to assure “survival” inside a constant decreasing density of the energy's “effect” by expansion. The increasing density of that “effect” diminishes the “effect’s” intensity; but that occurs strictly inside “gravitational field”.

c) “Life” is a “survival state”. In this “view”, life can be considered stirring at the very first defined “present moment” (10^-43 sec) when the first basic volume of “space” appeared. This “basic volume” assured its own survival by reproducing itself (expansion). The same “survival necessity” appeared inside “gravitational fields”, where entropy’s necessity to define survival precision resulted in making the “survival state” a “living reality”. This “living reality” thus had to continue defining the precision needed for a “constant life state” in a dynamic (motional) universe. It started with organisms in the sea which continued evolving by producing more able organisms.

7) Problem of time: In quantum mechanics time is a classical background parameter and the flow of time is universal and absolute. In general relativity time is one component of four-dimensional spacetime, and the flow of time changes depending on the curvature of spacetime and the spacetime trajectory of the observer. How can these two concepts of time be reconciled?

Answer: As we have discovered, space doesn’t have any curvatures. As for Time, it is universal and absolute as quantum dynamics says; but it is manifested strictly in a forward “motion”; it cannot be reversed.

The only reason we can “see” the “past” is because we are standing at the universal “present moment” facing time that elapsed. It is evident that here is no possibility to “see” the future that doesn’t exist yet. Our “stand point” makes us “backing towards the future”.

Seeing the “past” permits us to specify each starting moment of every events and thus define the start of each of their proper “time flow”.

Time doesn’t have any “trajectory” except a “flat” trajectory manifested as “flat space”. On the other hand Time, observed in a gravitational field”, acquires different decreasing “density” at every passed present moments; and this is what results in of observing time changes inside gravitational fields. It’s simply a 3D photograph of passed space-time showing decreasing densities of the Time flow through decreasing space.

But the “present moment” we are standing on, is the only existing time; it is the universal constant “present moment” of the dynamic expanding “wholeness”.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 1st, 2020, 10:50 am 

Correction at answer b) of question 6)

"The increasing density of that “effect” diminishes (should be: augments) the “effect’s” intensity; but that occurs strictly inside “gravitational field”.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 1st, 2020, 11:49 am 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (27)

List of unsolved problems in physics (suite):

8) Cosmic inflation: Is the theory of cosmic inflation in the very early universe correct, and, if so, what are the details of this epoch? What is the hypothetical inflaton scalar field that gave rise to this cosmic inflation? If inflation happened at one point, is it self-sustaining through inflation of quantum-mechanical fluctuations, and thus ongoing in some extremely distant place?


1) Inflaton is simply a “word” to represent whatever “particle” is in motion to create “distances” in every directions which produces “space”. Inflaton is a “conventional” word for an unidentified particle. But there already exists a particle identified as the “kinetic” (motion) particle; and it’s called: the neutrino.

2) Results from Planck satellite tells us that there was an inflation period at the beginning of the universe; but only the simplest “kinds” of inflation are still admissible in the theory. And the “simplest” kind of inflation is the introduction of a “surface particle” into existing space that transforms into two “volumes” which start to decay into successive double volumes of the same size as the original volume. This is as simple as the growth of the water volume when you jump in a pool; and it is called: the Standard Model.

3) Inflation is a specific “moment event”; it lasted from 10^-36 sec to 10^-32 sec. It is a “reproduction effect event” (particle decays) found inside “gravitational fields” related to the gradual decreasing density in space through a “time span”. It happened at different points in space. It is not the same as “expansion” which is the reproduction of “space units” at each present moments of the time flow, continuously happening at every points of space.

9) Origin and future of the universe: How did the conditions for anything to exist arise? Is the universe heading towards a Big Freeze, a Big Rip, a Big Crunch, or a Big Bounce? Or is it part of an infinitely recurring cyclic model?


1) At the beginning, the choice was between the “potentiality of being” against the “negativism of being”; and since “negating the possibility of being” eliminates itself, there was no other choice left than the “potentiality of being” which, then, became the only “probability”.

2) The universe is gradually getting “colder” because of “space expansion”. It is actually at 2.7 Kelvin. But it cannot reach the Zero Kelvin level because 0 Kelvin is a complete absence of temperature which means complete absence of “energy effect”. 0 Kelvin is “no temperature at all”; it is not the “coldest temperature possible”. It is “by the same way, “no energy “effect” at all” which isn’t possible as long as the universe exists. Zero Kelvin is “Nothingness” which cannot exist. Furthermore, the energy responsible for the existence of the “effect” that we call “our universe”, is the “vacuum energy” which stands as an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. And this energy, whatever the “size” of the universe, doesn’t decrease in intensity and is never “spent”. This eliminates whatever Big Freeze, Big Rip, Big Crunch or Big Rebound you can have fun to imagine.

3) Our universe is not a recurring cycle; it is a “single” pathway defined by the continuous experimental attempt to gradually obtain the perfect stability condition in the wholeness’s “inner-self present moment” towards eternal survival. It is a “one time intrinsic motion” journey event; we can see it as a “Time trajectory”.

10) Size of universe: The diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light-years, but what is the size of the whole universe?


Space wise, the diameter of the whole universe is (10^-35 meter per 10^-43 sec) x 13.7 billion years + the size of all galaxy’s gravitational field diameters.

Time wise, the size of our universe is 27.4 billion years in diameter.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 5th, 2020, 10:44 am 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (28)

List of unsolved problems in physics (suite):

11) Baryon asymmetry: Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?

Answer: As we’ve already seen, the only logical explanation is because of Pentaquarks during the inflation period.

12) Cosmological constant problem: Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause a large cosmological constant? What cancels it out?


Since the cosmological constant problem (or vacuum catastrophe) is the disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density (the small value of the cosmological constant) and theoretical large value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory, I don’t see any logical problem. The value of the theoretical zero-point energy is the value at the Big-bang’s starting instant density, while the observed value is at today’s density. Since this original density has been decreasing for 18.7 billion years, I cannot find where the said “catastrophe” stands.

13) Dark matter: What is the identity of dark matter? Is it a particle? Is it the lightest super partner (LSP)? Or, do the phenomena attributed to dark matter point not to some form of matter but actually to an extension of gravity?

In light of the actual scientific information, plus the proportional quantity in the universe (around 30%), the “dark matter” problem could simply be the volume of gravitational fields around matter which appears when considering light effects inside increased density fields, beside light effects in expanding density around those fields. One thing is certain; be it normal or dark, “matter” doesn’t “attract” or “repulse” anything.

14) Dark energy: What is the cause of the observed accelerated expansion (de Sitter phase) of the universe? Why is the energy density of the dark energy component of the same magnitude as the density of matter at present when the two evolve quite differently over time?


Expansion doesn’t have “speed”; it has “frequencies”; and these frequencies are related to the space production “ratio” (not speed). Space expansion is a vacuum energy “effect; it applies at every points composing our Euclidean “flat” space. This energy effect is at lightspeed on every of those points; so each of their existing diameter of 10^-35 meter is reproduced every 10^-43 sec. which gives a 12 to 1 ratio. This events gives us the impression that expansion is speeding up; but the reality is simply that space production is constantly increasing every 10^-43 sec at a 12 to 1 ratio which isn’t related to “speed motion” at all.

15) Dark flow: Is a non-spherically symmetric gravitational pull from outside the observable universe responsible for some of the observed motion of large objects such as galactic clusters in the universe?

I’m sorry to say that this supposed “problem” is as “silly” as any notion can ever be. Gravitation doesn’t “pull” anything; gravitation is a simple “effect” limited to gravitational fields which cannot be a universal field.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on February 11th, 2020, 11:51 am 

My “T-Model” for Astrophysics (29)

List of unsolved problems in physics (suite):

16 Axis of evil: Some large features of the microwave sky at distances of over 13 billion light years appear to be aligned with both the motion and orientation of the solar system. Is this due to systematic errors in processing, contamination of results by local effects, or an unexplained violation of the Copernican principle?

Answer: This is something I never heard of before. On the other hand it is not very surprising since we observe that galaxies are “flat”; which to my point of view is related to the bi-dimensional shape of the gluon which appeared at 10^-36 sec after time = Zero. But I can’t guarantee the exactitude of my opinion. Sorry.

17 Shape of the universe: What is the 3-manifold of comoving space, i.e. of a comoving spatial section of the universe, informally called the "shape" of the universe? Neither the curvature nor the topology is presently known, though the curvature is known to be "close" to zero on observable scales. The cosmic inflation hypothesis suggests that the shape of the universe may be unmeasurable, but, since 2003, Jean-Pierre Luminet, et al., and other groups have suggested that the shape of the universe may be the Poincaré dodecahedral space. Is the shape unmeasurable; the Poincaré space; or another 3-manifold?

Answer: Our universe is Euclidean which means, in mathematics, that a manifold is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space near each point. Two-dimensional manifolds are also called surfaces; which indicates that a three-dimensional manifold is a “volume”. Which we have to admit is the exact description of "space". As for the Poincaré dodecahedral space, we’ve seen that the space reproduction process results in something very close to it.

18 The largest structures in the universe are larger than expected. Current cosmological models say there should be very little structure on scales larger than a few hundred million light years across, due to the expansion of the universe trumping the effect of gravity. But the Sloan Great Wall is 1.38 billion light-years in length. And the largest structure currently known, the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, is up to 10 billion light-years in length. Are these actual structures or random density fluctuations? If they are real structures, they contradict the 'End of Greatness' hypothesis which asserts that at a scale of 300 million light-years structures seen in smaller surveys are randomized to the extent that the smooth distribution of the universe is visually apparent.

Answer: The space reproduction process has a ratio far beyond the actual accepted ratio. So the previsions of the limit on structures are completely erroneous.

19 Quantum gravity: Can quantum mechanics and general relativity be realized as a fully consistent theory (perhaps as a quantum field theory)? Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete? Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton, or be a product of a discrete structure of spacetime itself (as in loop quantum gravity)? Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very small or very large scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum gravity theory?

Answer: The notion of “fields” is the best ever imagined to represent “reality”; in fact it is “reality. Once this is accepted, we have to get rid of the obsolete notion of “forces” and replace them by the notion of “effects”. When this is done, we find that all “effects” are regulated by the expansion diluting effect. This makes us understand that the “gravitational effect” is proportional to the “density” of its own “effect” increasing towards the center of the “gravitational field”. In other words, the “effect's intensity” increases towards the center of gravity. And since this “effect” is the tendency to fall towards that center, the nearer you get to it, the greater this "tendency" becomes. “Gravitational effect” is the same in GR as in QM.

I’m not going to answer all unsolved problems in physics, even though I don’t think there is any that the T-Model cannot answer.

If you have a problem you’d like to be addressed, just mention it; I’ll be glad to look into it.
Posts: 671
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby TheVat on February 11th, 2020, 12:58 pm 


you told me that your thread had activity, but my analysis suggests that your "hits" consist mostly of ad bots. Usually, when a thread is active, other members will respond and offer their thoughts. Bots will run up the counter, but they are not true activity. I gave you an extra few months, since we exchanged PMs, to see if it would turn around, but it really hasn't. At moderator discretion, such threads may be locked. If I hear from other members on this, I may unlock it in the future. For now, you may consider it done.

Given that this is a discussion board, we don't really do novel-length discourses on a theory. If you have a web host somewhere, you are welcome to put up the theory and link to it in our Books section. Thanks for your contributions.
User avatar
Forum Administrator
Posts: 7852
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby TheVat on February 11th, 2020, 1:00 pm 


(Books section)
User avatar
Forum Administrator
Posts: 7852
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby TheVat on September 22nd, 2020, 2:05 pm 

Moved to Odds and Ends Forum.
User avatar
Forum Administrator
Posts: 7852
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Return to Odds & Ends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests