Speculation arising from the Paradoxical Nature of Black Holes

[Mordred]

I know that. But what can I do? As for changing these messages to the speculation forum, I can't do it myself. so if nobody can. I'll just stop discussing it.

 

It was nice exchanging with you all. Thank you.

Just open a new thread in speculations. Or place a request to mods to move the thread

[Andre Lefebvre]

So , now that we are in the "speculation" area of the forum, let's speculate:

 

How the universe was born.

 

The universe was born at time zero +. Right at the beginning of Planck’s epoch, 10^-43 sec before Big bang. I consider the period of 10^-43 sec being the gestation period of our universe.

 

Our universe is now confirmed being Euclidian (flat) and according to Euclid, lines, surfaces and volumes are composed by unidimensional points. So, our Euclidian universe has to be also composed of unidimensional points. And the whole story of its birth has to start by a first unidimensional point since our universe is dynamic and so, has a “beginning”

 

This is a representation of the initial unidimensional point that composes Euclidian space.

 

 

This unidimensional point cannot be seen because it has only one dimension which is: “to be”. It can never be observed until it decides “to act”. The problem is how can it acts when there’s no space to move into? The answer is rather simple. The only possible “action” is to rotate. But to rotate the point as to have kinetic energy. Luckily, it’s proven that a zero point has, at least, a 0+ energy. And that (+) is enough to start the unidimensional points’ rotation.

 

As soon as the rotation starts, a centrifugal effect is felt by our unidimensional point which obliges it to duplicate itself. And since the rotation speed is even and constant, every time it makes a full rotation, duplication of the original point is necessary.

 

Note that the new point always emerge from the center of the line where the first unidimensional point appeared (Note that an emerging point brings more energy). So every second time a point emerges at this center, you get one more point to one side of that center; and a kind of “wobbling” (oscillation) effect is given to the whole line, caused by the momentarily disequilibrium of number of points on each side of the center.

 

On the following drawing, the “wobbling” effect is always to the same side, to the left part of the line. The following appearance of a point after the wobble stabilises the line because we then get even number of dots each side of the center. The whole movement can be considered as a “fluctuation”. The rotation is counter clock wise.

 

 

Gradually the points at each ends of the line increases their speed to keep up with the constant speed rotation of the center. The more their speed increases, the more the center point is stretched. So the right side of the line has to constantly increase its centripetal reaction to the pull of the left side of the line.

 

When the pull of the left side of the line becomes too powerful to hold for the right side of the line, the center point rips itself and the points forming the right side of the line are projected in a bundle (the point nearer to center is pulled so fast that it joins the last point of the right side line). while the points of the left side of the line are projected in all directions.

 

 

What can we see of the normal reactions of the points during the “break of the original line?

 

1) The points of right hand side of the line, not only gathers in a bunch, but the hole surface created by that bunch of points inverse its rotation and all points start to rotate clock wise in a full rotation unity.

 

2) The points of the left hand side of the original line, not only do they scatter everywhere, but they each keep their counter clock wise rotation.

 

3) It’s evident that the scattering, of counter clock wise rotation points, in all directions, gives depth to the previous surface they were part of.

 

4) It is also evident that in regard to the rotation of their original line, they keep only half of that rotation. Which mean they acquire a half spin.

 

5) As for the bunch of points from the right hand side of the line, they keep the bi-dimensional characteristic and produce another surface that rotates clock wise like we’ve seen on the graphic. So they attribute themselves a new “full spin”.

 

So the new situation is that the scattered points create a volume and the other points stays a rotating “surface” that slowly starts once more to expand. This is the situation when the Big bang occurred. Particles having a half spin (1/2 spin) produces our universe by “radiating” in all directions, while their movement was making distances and time perceivable. It made them perceivable because the left handed of their spin prevented them to move at light speed which would put them in a state of “zero distance” and “frozen time”. Perceivable space-time was there born.

 

Naturally, the projection of those half spin particles was in a straight line trajectory in all directions; so that the universe of that moment was a “flat universe”, since nothing was opposing the movements of those massless particles. The motion of their trajectory was creating space-time as needed (their speed).

 

When the scattering of those particles occurred, the increasing of kinetic energy of the rotating original line was stopped. All the energy that had accumulated in the left side of the line was now dispersing inside the new volume of the space time universe. By the same event, the length possible to be measured in our space time universe was determine by the length of half the length of the original line PLUS the additional point that made happen the sectioning of the line. That length was 10^-35 meter; the Planck’s’ length.

 

That single sectioning of the original line decided on a) the Planck’s length, b) the Planck’s time, the total energy of the universe at that time, which also mean the determination of light speed, the expansion effect and so on.

 

It also meant that the other particles still in the surface universe of Planck’s epoch, where still too small to be perceived in the new tridimensional universe. So they were gathered in their location and started slowly to rotate and… gain size.

 

While those were gaining size, our universe was expanding. So when the surface particle were big enough (10^-35 meter) to manifest itself in our universe, it had expanded to 10^-15 meter. That’s when the surface particle came into our universe and acquired its “field of action” of 10^-15 meter. And the universe kept on expanding.

 

That surface particle we now call the gluon. Its main characteristic is the same it had during Planck’s epoch; it “pulls”. In fact, the topology inside its “field of action” directs everything it contains to one point in particular (result acquiered when the line split), instead of everywhere like the expansion was indicating. The “fabric” of expanding universe was pointing to all directions while the “fabric” inside the "field of action" of the gluon was pointing toward a single location. But being a “surface” particle, the gluon didn’t have any mass.

 

However, since the expansion continued, the surface particle was being stretched. Possessing only to faces (front and back) without thickness, its stretching had to conclude by separating both faces one from the other. So two half surfaces appeared one being the mirror picture of the other.

 

Both had the same “action field” of 10^-15 meter that the original surface had, and also had the same topology characteristic. Being half surfaces they were instantly required to react to the amount of kinetic energy that adopted their topology. This energy started “pushing” on the center point its topology was indicating; and the result was that they made the surface particle withdraw onto themselves capturing kinetic energy while becoming a volume.

 

Those two new small volumes in our universe, holding inside them kinetic energy directed to the center point of their volume, where called Top and antiTop quarks. The first two mass particles had just been brought into our universe. The result of the one point directed kinetic energy made pressure on that point and deformed the space-time surrounding those two particles up to the diameter of both respective action field. Space-time deformation was then imprinted in our universe.

 

The jumping of the gluon in our universe, followed by the rapid successions of disintegration in different successive quarks and some other particles, was responsible of the inflation period that our universe had to go thru between 10^-36 and 10^-32 sec after time = zero.

 

This is the speculated description of the gestation and the birth of our universe that grew up to be the marvelous spectacle we can contemplate around us today.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Strange]

And the whole story of its birth has to start by a first unidimensional point since our universe is dynamic and so, has a “beginning”

 

As you don't have a model or any evidence, there isn't much to say, really. However, I would pick out this claim as being completely unsupported. There are models that give the universe an infinite age; perhaps because it has a cyclic nature (collapse and re-expand) or because there was an asymptotically long time before expansion started. Many such models remove the need for inflation. There is zero evidence for it having a beginning.

 

As you like non-mainstream models, have you looked at Nikodem Popławski's work?

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

As you like non-mainstream models, have you looked at Nikodem Popławski's work?

Just had a look. Universe originating from a black hole contained in a bigger universe...which originate from a black hole contained in a bigger universe...wich originate from a black hole contained...

 

Is that what is, for you, an explication of the origin of the universe?

 

 

 

There is zero evidence for it having a beginning.

You have to bring proofs against the Big bang theory to affirm that, Up until you do, proofs goes along with that theory.

 

 

 

As you don't have a model or any evidence, there isn't much to say, really. However, I would pick out this claim as being completely unsupported

Saying that I don't have evidences to support what I said is taking a big chance. You should instead ask if I have evidences. Give me a few hours and I'll bring you, if not evidences, at least pretty good indications. A for now, you have the neutrino with is "half spin" and the gluon with his "full spin" and its characteristic of holding things together because of its inner topology. If you prefer a "nuclear force" that comes from nowhere, there's nothing I can do to help. Sorry.

[Strange]

Just had a look. Universe originating from a black hole contained in a bigger universe...which originate from a black hole contained in a bigger universe...wich originate from a black hole contained...

 

Is that what is, for you, an explication of the origin of the universe?

 

No. It is just an interesting scientific hypothesis.

 

 

You have to bring proofs against the Big bang theory to affirm that, Up until you do, proofs goes along with that theory.

 

Not at all. The big bang model says nothing about a beginning or creation.

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

Not at all. The big bang model says nothing about a beginning or creation.

Your're right; it doesn't say; but only because it doesn't know. If it did, I'm sure it would say what it knows. And what are the string theories trying to do; as a matter of fact?

 

I'm prerparing to give you evidences or pretty good indications that what I said about the origin of the universecould be right. Watch my next post.

 

One of the results of satellite Planck’s picture of CMB that caught my attention was the effect on light on the two kinds of volume of space-time in the picture. The volume where there was matter (in red/orange on Planck's picture at the top) and the volumes where there was no matter (in blue/green at the same picture).

 

In the blue spots, light was dispersed and in the red spots, light focalized. It’s evident that light was following the topology (information of the sense of direction to follow) given by the volume of space-time involved. Just as light does when going through a gravitational lensing. Here’s how it looks:

 

 

As everyone can see, what we have here are the two motions; one resulting of gravity (where matter is) and one resulting of expansion (where no matter is).

 

From these facts, we can understand today's filament distribution of matter at large scale of the universe. Just imagine the expansion of the "blue" parts of space-time, while the red parts where submitted to gravity. 13,8 billion years later we shouldn't wonder why matter is concealed in "filaments".

 

Furthermore we know that superclusters and clusters of galaxies are situated where filaments seem to cross one another. They don't really cross each other but at that scale, they seem to be bonded by gravity. Which is not really the case. In fact even the "filaments" expands; but they contain so much volumes of galaxies that don't expand, that their own expansion is a lot slower than the volumes where there's no galaxies.

 

So the image at that great scale seems to show no expansion in the filaments.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, when you view videos showing those filaments, they show only the "gravitational" effect while the expansion effect should be a lot more important and more visible.

The results of the analysis of Planck's CMB photo made everybody a great surprise even though few people talk about it.

 

Here's that photo:

 

 

The anomaly is that if we follow the line in the bottom picture, which designs a dipole, one half (top half) of the photo contains more energy than the other half (bottom half). The lower part of the picture is colder that the upper part. Which means that there's more energy in the upper part than in the lower part. And since this is a map like a world map, the differences means that there's more energy to one side of the inner sphere than to the other side.

 

But not only is there more energy in the upper part, the intensity of the energy in each of the blue and red portions of that part of space-time is greater than the intensity we find in the same portions in the lower part. And where it's colder, is where there's less matter. This denotes that the surplus of energy is accountable to mass energy were the matter is.

 

These anomalies don't fit with our actual theory.

 

So what's wrong with our actual theory?

 

It rather simple to identify. The anomaly tells us that we have it wrong regarding the apparition of matter in our universe. In other words, we are wrong regarding when fundamental mass particles came to, in our universe.

 

We mustn't forget that when we look at this picture, we see the result of whatever happened before that picture was taken. And behind this picture, the universe was opaque. So if there's a difference between the quantity of energy contained in the two halves of this picture, it means that, at the Big bang a quantity of energy was released and, sometime afterward, another quantity of energy introduced itself in the universe. That last quantity of energy was related to matter since the surplus of energy is also related to matter.

 

We've already seen the two kinds of polarisation on the photo in the preceding post. And one kind of polarisation, the focusing kind, is related to matter (gravity), while the dispersing kind is related to expansion. What this anomaly tells us is that the focusing kind was introduced after the advent of the dispersing kind. It also means that the dispersing kind of energy as nothing to do, whatsoever with the focusing kind of energy since it was well established when the other appeared. So they are independent. This simply means that gravity doesn't have any effect on expansion. So, no wonder space-time is "flat". It always has been. Furthermore, there's no reason to complicate our lives with "critical density". The notion doesn't even apply.

 

In other words, gravity is not universal; it's localised to certain volumes of space-time. It also means that when the focusing energy jumped in our universe, it had the same effect that when Archimedes jumped in is bathtub. The volume of the universe inflated instantly. We call that the "inflation" period which started at 10^-36 sec and stopped at 10^-32 sec after time = zero.

 

What is left to find out, is which volume of space-time could be independent of space-time itself; and how can this be possible?

 

One thing we now know for sure, is if we could have a picture of the instant of the Big bang, we would get a picture uniformly "blue" without any red dots.

So going back in time of the origin of this universe, we have to create a scenario that corresponds to the reality observed; and that is what I did when describing the birth of our universe previously. Further more, it explains which volume of space-time is independent of general space-time itself and how it is possible.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

I think you better look at the later datasets the Planck anomoly turned out to be a calibration error.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

I think you better look at the later datasets the Planck anomoly turned out to be a calibration error.

Really?

 

Funny because scientists had already observe those anomalies with WMAP. And they were confirmed by Planck

 

Could you tell me where I can find that information? I've been looking for that kind of "explanation" for a while.

By the way; take any map of Planck's polarisation of CMB and if you see that temperature is equal on both sides of the map, I'l have to change the calibration of my eyes.

[Mordred]

,I'll try to locate the article, but it essentially boils down to interference radiation. I can't recall what the source was. The Planck results overview article covers numerous calibration and filtering corrections they had to perform from their previous dataset. Between the two sets of images the "axis of evil" is far less prominent.

 

So their calibration on the second set is far better than their first set. Though fine tuning is still required.

 

A couple of points Cobe, WMAP and Planck images variations is nothing more than sensor resolution. The Planck sensors are far more sensitive than either Cobe and WMAP.

 

So I wouldn't place any greater meaning onto the difference other than sensor sensitivity. Secondly the temperature variation from the hottest spot to the coldest spot on the CMB Planck dataset is less than 1/1000 th a degree Kelvin.

 

That's extremely uniform considering the volume Being measured.

 

As far as the directions of flows your believe your seeing. This is explained via the Baryon accoustic oscillations of an adiabatic fluid.

 

There is some indications that anistrophies of inflation may show up in those BAO waves. This may indicate (possibly which inflation model is more accurate)

 

From what I've read thus far your model has two influences. Unfortunately the Planck dataset supports single scalar inflationary model processes more than the multi scalar or otherwise processes. One of the articles in the 2012 dataset specifically mentions that.

 

For example Scott Dodelson Modern Cosmology included a multi scalar model. This model utilizes the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics.

 

( if you want your model to get off the ground, your going to need to master those two formulas) they are essential in the BBN big bang nucleosynthesis.

 

Anyways fermions and bosons have different degrees of freedom depending on their spin statistics.

 

Your idea that spin 1/2 is necessarily slower than integer spin particles is off.

 

Right hand neutrinos and left hand neutrinos have the same spin. This is where you need to study Patti Salam portion of the SO(10) model and understand what this model states in terms of the Higgs interaction variation between the two.

 

Granted this is also still currently being explored in greater detail. (May lead to understanding leptogenesis and baryogenesis.) I linked the relevant materials.

 

Evidence in physics means supplying the mathematical details. Images and verbatim isn't considered evidence in Physics.

 

In order to properly design a model you need to mathematically compare your model against existing models.

Physics is the lanquaqe of mathematics.

Unless you can do that your model will never be seriously considered no matter how well thought out.

 

I'll look over what you described later on in more detail. However thus far the only thing I see is a model premise. Not evidence.

Let's think about this.

 

Your going from t=0 to 380,000 years in the early universe thermodynamic history without covering any of the thermodynamic history of when each particle species drops out of thermal equilibrium. As a result your drawing conclusions based on images without covering how the particle species can affect those images.

 

Every standard model particle drops out of equilibrium at specific temperatures. Each has its own number of degrees of freedom, each has different influences on the thermal blackbody temperature and distribution. You haven't covered any of these steps in any detail.

 

I can for example calculate the number of photons or neutrinos that exist in the CMB data. Via the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics.

( The steps to do so is in two of the articles I posted)

(The filament images you posted are N Body code simulation images. It took one of the most advanced supercomputers over Three months to generate those.)

 

Those N Body codes are based on the current mathematics and LCDM model as a test of its accuracy.

 

Fundamental to that is the N Body codes to model our current understanding of gravity.

So essentially your using images that strongly supports the current models as your evidence, that the current models are incorrect. When Those images support the current models.

 

One thing we now know for sure, is if we could have a picture of the instant of the Big bang, we would get a picture uniformly "blue" without any red dots.

So going back in time of the origin of this universe, we have to create a scenario that corresponds to the reality observed; and that is what I did when describing the birth of our universe previously. Further more, it explains which volume of space-time is independent of general space-time itself and how it is possible.

You have not shown this as you haven't posted any mathematics only images and your explanation. Volume of space time is no different that General space time. There is no such distinction.

 

Space is simply geometric volume filled with the standard model particles.

Space time is any metric of space that includes time as a vector.

 

You cannot have volume of space time and general space time as the term space time is geometric volume of space with the time component as a vector.

Also it isn't light dispersion causing the blue or red zones. It's an extremely minute difference in temperature. Not light dispersion.

 

Using the Bose Einstein statistics for the Bosons in this case the number of photons that temperature difference will be extremely close in the calculated number of photons. In point of detail the number of photons will calculate the same. The only difference is a slightly lower wavelength for the colder region.

Which is not the same as dispersion.

What the red regions show is a slightly higher density than the colder regions. Not the other way around.

 

Higher density of particles per volume = higher temperature not colder.

 

[latex]pV=NrT[/latex]

 

The temperature contributions of each particle species in combination and separately is calculated via the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics which includes Boltzmann.

Here is a quick coverage of some of what you will need.

 

First off we need to define how a force is mediated. This is done through the related bosons.

 

-Photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field.

-W and Z bosons are the force carriers which mediate the weak force.

-Gluons are the fundamental force carriers underlying the strong force.

-Higgs boson mediates mass for guage bosons and W and Z bosons(not all particles)

graviton mediates gravity????

 

essentially what this means is the transfer the force from one particle to another. This is important.

 

Now we need to consider the ideal gas laws in thermodynamics or specifically thermal equilibrium. Particle reactions in thermal equilibrium are essentially unstable, its a factor of temperature, density and volume, which are all related by the equation

[latex]PV=nRT[/latex] The relation forms used with bosons however is Bose-Einstein statistics or distribution

 

now to explain this is further detail. Bosons become indistinquishable from one another where N is the number of particles and V is the volume and n_q is the quantum concentration, for which the interparticle distance is equal to the thermal de Broglie wavelength

 

[latex]q=\frac{N}{V}+\ge+n_q[/latex]

 

the number of particles of the Bose_Eintein statistics is

 

[latex]n_i(\varepsilon_i) = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}[/latex]

 

for fermions you use the fermi-dirac statistics

[latex]\bar{n}_i = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon _i-\mu) / k T} 1}[/latex]

 

the De-Broglie wavelength is

 

[latex]\frac{V}{N\Lambda^3} \le 1 \[/latex]

 

You can google each for better information I posted those relations to show how the ideal gas laws are done in regards to fermions and bosons. as opposed to the first formula.

 

Now when the particle species except gravity are in thermal equilbrium the types of bosons become indistinquishable from one another, hence the forces are indistinqishable as well. They would all have the same temperature and wavelength. Also any reactions that do occur such as as I said are unstable any reaction will quickly have the reverse reaction. In regards to the forces this also apply to the fundamental interactions. You can see the chart and wiki coverage here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

 

 

Now your going to also need to show how your model also leads to the acceleration equation.

[latex]H^2 = \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{8 \pi G}{3}\rho - \frac{kc^2}{a^2}\dot{H} + H^2 = \frac{\ddot{a}}{a} = - \frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho + \frac{3p}{c^2}\right)[/latex]

The second derivitive of a

 

[latex]- \left(\rho + \frac{3p}{c^2}\right)[/latex]

 

Shows the relationship of how energy density and pressure determines the rate of expansion.

 

This is what your model doesn't show by your descriptive. You need the math not descriptions.

 

Each particle species has energy density to pressure influences that collectively combine to form the acceleration equation. The radiation dominant, matter dominant and lambda dominant have different variations.

 

As soon as the rotation starts, a centrifugal effect is felt by our unidimensional point which obliges it to duplicate itself. And since the rotation speed is even and constant, every time it makes a full rotation, duplication of the original point is necessary.

 

Note that the new point always emerge from the center of the line where the first unidimensional point appeared (Note that an emerging point brings more energy). So every second time a point emerges at this center, you get one more point to one side of that center; and a kind of wobbling (oscillation) effect is given to the whole line, caused by the momentarily disequilibrium of number of points on each side of the center.

 

On the following drawing, the wobbling effect is always to the same side, to the left part of the line. The following appearance of a point after the wobble stabilises the line because we then get even number of dots each side of the center. The whole movement can be considered as a fluctuation. The rotation is counter clock wise.

 

 

Gradually the points at each ends of the line increases their speed to keep up with the constant speed rotation of the center. The more their speed increases, the more the center point is stretched. So the right side of the line has to constantly increase its centripetal reaction to the pull of the left side of the line.

 

When the pull of the left side of the line becomes too powerful to hold for the right side of the line, the center point rips itself and the points forming the right side of the line are projected in a bundle (the point nearer to center is pulled so fast that it joins the last point of the right side line). while the points of the left side of the line are projected in all directions.

 

 

What can we see of the normal reactions of the points during the break of the original line?

 

1) The points of right hand side of the line, not only gathers in a bunch, but the hole surface created by that bunch of points inverse its rotation and all points start to rotate clock wise in a full rotation unity.

 

2) The points of the left hand side of the original line, not only do they scatter everywhere, but they each keep their counter clock wise rotation.

 

3) Its evident that the scattering, of counter clock wise rotation points, in all directions, gives depth to the previous surface they were part of.

 

4) It is also evident that in regard to the rotation of their original line, they keep only half of that rotation. Which mean they acquire a half spin.

 

5) As for the bunch of points from the right hand side of the line, they keep the bi-dimensional characteristic and produce another surface that rotates clock wise like weve seen on the graphic. So they attribute themselves a new full spin.

 

So the new situation is that the scattered points create a volume and the other points stays a rotating surface that slowly starts once more to expand. This is the situation when the Big bang occurred. Particles having a half spin (1/2 spin) produces our universe by radiating in all directions, while their movement was making distances and time perceivable. It made them perceivable because the left handed of their spin prevented them to move at light speed which would put them in a state of zero distance and frozen time. Perceivable space-time was there born.

 

Naturally, the projection of those half spin particles was in a straight line trajectory in all directions; so that the universe of that moment was a flat universe, since nothing was opposing the movements of those massless particles. The motion of their trajectory was creating space-time as needed (their speed).

 

When the scattering of those particles occurred, the increasing of kinetic energy of the rotating original line was stopped. All the energy that had accumulated in the left side of the line was now dispersing inside the new volume of the space time universe. By the same event, the length possible to be measured in our space time universe was determine by the length of half the length of the original line PLUS the additional point that made happen the sectioning of the line. That length was 10^-35 meter; the Plancks length.

 

That single sectioning of the original line decided on a) the Plancks length, b) the Plancks time, the total energy of the universe at that time, which also mean the determination of light speed, the expansion effect and so on.

 

It also meant that the other particles still in the surface universe of Plancks epoch, where still too small to be perceived in the new tridimensional universe. So they were gathered in their location and started slowly to rotate and gain size.

 

While those were gaining size, our universe was expanding. So when the surface particle were big enough (10^-35 meter) to manifest itself in our universe, it had expanded to 10^-15 meter. Thats when the surface particle came into our universe and acquired its field of action of 10^-15 meter. And the universe kept on expanding.

 

That surface particle we now call the gluon. Its main characteristic is the same it had during Plancks epoch; it pulls. In fact, the topology inside its field of action directs everything it contains to one point in particular (result acquiered when the line split), instead of everywhere like the expansion was indicating. The fabric of expanding universe was pointing to all directions while the fabric inside the "field of action" of the gluon was pointing toward a single location. But being a surface particle, the gluon didnt have any mass.

 

However, since the expansion continued, the surface particle was being stretched. Possessing only to faces (front and back) without thickness, its stretching had to conclude by separating both faces one from the other. So two half surfaces appeared one being the mirror picture of the other.

 

Both had the same action field of 10^-15 meter that the original surface had, and also had the same topology characteristic. Being half surfaces they were instantly required to react to the amount of kinetic energy that adopted their topology. This energy started pushing on the center point its topology was indicating; and the result was that they made the surface particle withdraw onto themselves capturing kinetic energy while becoming a volume.

 

Those two new small volumes in our universe, holding inside them kinetic energy directed to the center point of their volume, where called Top and antiTop quarks. The first two mass particles had just been brought into our universe. The result of the one point directed kinetic energy made pressure on that point and deformed the space-time surrounding those two particles up to the diameter of both respective action field. Space-time deformation was then imprinted in our universe.

 

The jumping of the gluon in our universe, followed by the rapid successions of disintegration in different successive quarks and some other particles, was responsible of the inflation period that our universe had to go thru between 10^-36 and 10^-32 sec after time = zero.

 

This is the speculated description of the gestation and the birth of our universe that grew up to be the marvelous spectacle we can contemplate around us today.

This section is complete garbage. Particle spin is nothing like rotational spin...

 

"Bosons are particles whose wavefunction is symmetric under such an exchange, so if we swap the particles the wavefunction does not change. Fermions are particles whose wavefunction is antisymmetric, so under such a swap the wavefunction gets a minus sign, meaning that the amplitude for two identical fermions to occupy the same state must be zero. "

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin%E2%80%93statistics_theorem

 

Spin 1/2 particles do not return to their original quantum state after a 360 degree rotation. They are in the oppsosite quantum phase. It takes a 720 degree rotation to return to its initial state.

 

that's covered here.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)

 

So your images does nothing even similar to describe particle spin.

 

Which by the way is an intrinsic property of the particle.

 

The rest of the post in how you have rotations generating energy without causing changes to the initial rotation. Is quite frankly a clear violation of the conservation laws.

 

You cannot have a system maintain the same rate of rotation create energy that is removed from the rotating object and maintain the same rate of rotation.

 

That part should have been obvious.

 

particularly since we already discussed the conservation laws.

I should note the conservation of angular momentum for a particle itself is different than the conservation of angular momentum of say a disk.

 

I would study this link. In particular the quantum sections.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

Other conservation laws in particle physics is

 

Conservation of charge, isospin, color, strangeness, parity, baryon, flavor

Edited July 4, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

Secondly the temperature variation from the hottest spot to the coldest spot on the CMB Planck dataset is less than 1/1000 th a degree Kelvin.

That's extremely uniform considering the volume Being measured.

What differences could you expect at a time when everything was at a temperature around 3000 kelvin at such density? There couldn't be chunk of ice.

 

 

 

There is some indications that anistrophies of inflation may show up in those BAO waves.

 

So? Does it mean that they don't exist? That I'm seeing "things"?

 

 

 

From what I've read thus far your model has two influences.

Regarding inflation, I can't see where the second influence is. Gluon (which is a boson) of 10^-35 meter jumped into space-time of 10^-15 meter and made it inflate. End of the process.

 

 

 

Your idea that spin 1/2 is necessarily slower than integer spin particles is off.

That's not what I said. It's the left handed helicity that makes it slower. And I didn't invent that.

 

 

 

Right hand neutrinos and left hand neutrinos have the same spin.

Sorry; but it's the spin versus its trajectory that says if it's a right or left handed neutrino.

 

 

 

Evidence in physics means supplying the mathematical details. Images and verbatim isn't considered evidence in Physics.

 

And that's why you suggested me to transfer the subject to this part of the forum. So, please don't bring that argument back anymore. Let's keep to facts observed.

 

 

 

I'll look over what you described later on in more detail. However thus far the only thing I see is a model premise. Not evidence.

Let's think about this.

 

I'll let you think about it. But thinking is a rational process; so the outcome should be in regard of your rationality; not of what other say.

 

 

 

Your going from t=0 to 380,000 years in the early universe thermodynamic history without covering any of the thermodynamic history of when each particle species drops out of thermal equilibrium.

I would start by analysing the suggested events in Planck's epoch regarding of what we know of Planck's time first. Afterward, we can talk about what I said up to 380,000 thousand years. I surely didn't cover everything that can be said. But for the clearness of what's to come, I will not base my description on thermal equilibrium but rather on density equilibrium. Heat was used by alchimist because they didn't have any other references possible at their time. We have a bit more today.

 

 

 

As a result your drawing conclusions based on images without covering how the particle species can affect those images.

Once more you have to specify what we're talking about. Before or after Planck's. We can say that they are different universes. One is the embryo, the other is the baby.

 

 

 

Every standard model particle drops out of equilibrium at specific temperatures.

 

I covered that already previously, but with droping out of equilibrium at specific energetic density of the universe. Temperature is a consequence of density. But we can always get more specific if desired.

 

 

 

(The filament images you posted are N Body code simulation images. It took one of the most advanced supercomputers over Three months to generate those.)

Those N Body codes are based on the current mathematics and LCDM model as a test of its accuracy.

 

Wonderfull! What I said was that it didn't take in consideration the expansion of the empty "bubbles" of space-time. At least we can't see its consequences in the animation. To my point of view the "gravitational motion that we see in the filaments is a consequence of the expansion in the "bubbles". ike if we where "backing up" from tthe picture.

 

 

 

So essentially your using images that strongly supports the current models as your evidence, that the current models are incorrect. When Those images support the current models.

I certainly can't use something other than what is said to exist. I'm not writing a Harry Potter adventure here.

 

 

 

Volume of space time is no different that General space time. There is no such distinction.

 

Except for the polarisation of each parts of general space-time. That's all I was talking about. Space-time is not homogeneous.

 

 

 

Space is simply geometric volume filled with the standard model particles.

Euclidian space geometric is composed of unidimensional points. That is its "fabric"; and that is the "fabric" of our Euclidian universe. Standard model particles are something added to space by a transformation of some of its energy.

 

 

 

Space time is any metric of space that includes time as a vector.

Space-time is the product of movement slower than light speed. If everything was moving at light speed there wouldn't be any space-time; or, at least, there wouldn't be distances and it would stand in constant "present" which is a consequence of relativity theory.

 

 

 

Also it isn't light dispersion causing the blue or red zones. It's an extremely minute difference in temperature. Not light dispersion.

 

No light dispersion? So a source of light doesn't sends photon in all directions? Unless you mean that photons don't travel?

What causes the blue and red zones are differences in temperature; and temperature emits light. By the polarisation of that light we can find the direction it is emitted. That's quite a scientific accomplishment improvement; we have to recognize; and it has its effects on our findings.

 

 

 

What the red regions show is a slightly higher density than the colder regions. Not the other way around.

 

Who said it was the other way around? Red spots have higher temperature than blue spots, It's warmer because of density. End of the first fact.

Higher temperature is caused by the presence of matter which causes higher density; end of second fact.

That's all there is needed to start thinking about it. How come you read the contrary of what I write means. Am I so bad in my English structure of phrases? Geez!

 

 

 

First off we need to define how a force is mediated.

Bad start; "forces" don't exists. They are only "effects" of something else. The notion of "force" is 328 years old; it's about time that we "rejuvenate" our basic notions to analyse things. Temperature is outdated and we should use "energy density" instead. Furthermore "forces" don't exist; they're only effects of something else we "almost" still have to identify.

 

 

 

Photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field.

 

Basically, photons are energy quanta which are the basic component of our électromagnetic universe. They could be quanta that appears out of the energy of the universe every time adjustment of energy is needed or rejected by a particle. That would look as an "exchange" of particle but it wouldn't really be the process involved. But I could be mistaking here. But anyway, electromagnetic is not a "force" it's a consequence of a process.

 

 

 

 

W and Z bosons are the force carriers which mediate the weak force.

 

They are massive bosons that act almost like photon bosons. In fact, weak nuclear interaction is blurred with strong nuclear interaction. We should review the situation to clear it up a bit.

 

 

 

Gluons are the fundamental force carriers underlying the strong force.

That's a nice faith conviction. But in reality, the charcatéristic of a gluon is to "hold" things together inside its "action field", putting a "force" in the process is not scientific. Reality is that if the "action field" of a gluon has a topology (information to a sense of direction) directing everything (energy) to a specific point instead of everywhere, you would get the same result. And it would simply be a contrary direction than expansion's. What you gain is no magical force involved, coming out of nowhere.

 

 

 

Higgs boson mediates mass for guage bosons and W and Z bosons(not all particles)

 

It depends who's talking. Some scientists say "all particles didn't have any mass before Higg's boson came in the picture. But you're wiser than them because it's evident that Higg's boson couldn't give mass to the Top quark which has more mass than Higg's boson. Other scientists say that Higg's boson doesn't give particle energy but only a "form". What does that mean? The scientist that told me couldn't explain it to me. So I don't know. What I know is that we're getting nearer to the maximum energetic density possible in particle coliders; so let's hope there is still enough range to "imagine" whatever new particle we'll need to "explain" all anomalies in physics; otherwise we'll have to change our approach to it.

 

 

 

graviton mediates gravity????

 

After more than 70 years of research, it couldn't be find; so I'll stick to "consequence of the deformation of the geometry of space-time".

 

 

 

essentially what this means is the transfer the force from one particle to another. This is important.

 

I'd settle for transfer of energetic quanta; which is the reality. But it changes a lot of things in our understanding.

 

 

 

Now we need to consider the ideal gas laws in thermodynamics or specifically thermal equilibrium.

 

I hope you won't forget that gas is made of molecules that are made of atoms wuich all have mass. The concequence is "pressure" on each molecules or, factually, on each atoms caused by the presence of "gravitational effects" to put it simple.

 

 

 

Bosons become indistinquishable from one another

 

Which is rather normal since bosons are submitted to quantum superposition principle.

 

 

 

the types of bosons become indistinquishable from one another, hence the forces are indistinqishable as well.

 

It's not a big surprise for me that "forces" are indistinguable; they don't exist.

 

 

 

This is what your model doesn't show by your descriptive. You need the math not descriptions.

 

I've supplied you with the description, supply me with the math; I'll be very oblige. And then, we will both leave this "speculation address" of the forum to go to the normal scientific address.

 

 

 

Each particle species has energy density to pressure influences

You're right regarding massive particles. But if massless particles was subjected to the same process, we wouldn't have a "flat" universe and light would curve everywhere in space-time, even where there's no deformation of its geometry. Which is not the case. Pressure causes curvature of space-time. More specifically, gravity of atoms provoque pressure.

 

 

 

The radiation dominant, matter dominant and lambda dominant have different variations.

 

I promise to try to identify each one clearly. But I'm not to consider "forces" when I'm positive that they don't exist. This is one of my premisses for my interpretation I posted. But I'll try to identify them. It could be like the problem of "critical density" which doesn't even apply in an expanding universe that is "flat" since its beginning. So we'll see what will come out of it.

 

 

 

This section is complete garbage. Particle spin is nothing like rotational spin.

 

You'll be right only when you describe me what happens to rotation in a two dimensional space-time, when what is rotating "explodes", in a three dimensional space-time, in multiple particles. Specially when the new volume of space-time doesn't rotate, but expands.

 

 

 

"Bosons are particles whose wavefunction is symmetric under such an exchange, so if we swap the particles the wavefunction does not change. Fermions are particles whose wavefunction is antisymmetric, so under such a swap the wavefunction gets a minus sign, meaning that the amplitude for two identical fermions to occupy the same state must be zero. "

 

The gluon boson became such when it appeared in our space-time; in Planck's epoch it was a multitude of unidimensional points. That's all. The neutrino was the same. Their different characteristics where acquired during the Big bang for the neutrino and at 10^-36 sec after time zero for the gluon. In a few minutes you will tell me that it's impossible to apply our actual notions to Planck's epoch and that's exactly what you're doing now.

 

 

 

Spin 1/2 particles do not return to their original quantum state after a 360 degree rotation. They are in the oppsosite quantum phase. It takes a 720 degree rotation to return to its initial state.

 

Nice! Here is then another "curiosity" regarding leptons that can be attached to the "surface" quality of neutrino that came from Planck's epoch. A surface as two sides which each is the opposite of the other. Then if we apply the 1/2 spin fact, It could explains the 720 degree of rotation to come back to the same surface. May I remind you that scientists studying the spin of photons actually limits themselves to consider that spin as a simple rotation?

 

 

 

So your images does nothing even similar to describe particle spin.

 

My image is to explain a notion not to draw particle spins. I didn't make a surface with a multitude of "dots" because I didn't want to complicate the "effect" of the rotation; but it's obvious that in a two dimensional universe we'll get a surface expanding by emerging points at the center which multiply even more the addition of 0+ energy.

 

 

 

The rest of the post in how you have rotations generating energy without causing changes to the initial rotation. Is quite frankly a clear violation of the conservation laws.

Only in your mind, because you're not considering the added energy by continually emerging points at the center. Like you say: "That part should have been obvious."

 

 

 

particularly since we already discussed the conservation laws.

 

Exactly; and that was what gave me the solution making me see were the added energy came from. Thanks. That's what comes out of civilized exchange of opinion. I'm very obliged.

 

 

 

Other conservation laws in particle physics is

Conservation of charge, isospin, color, strangeness, parity, baryon, flavor

Right! You're now talking about particles in our universe.

[Strange]

You still don't have a model (and therefore no supporting evidence is possible) just a string of pictures and assertions.

[Mordred]

Your seriously missing the point here. All physics modelling even in speculations require an effort to being mathematically modelled.

 

That's the whole point behind a model it's to make testablepredictions. Even the speculation forum has its rules and guidelines.

 

Without the mathematics all you have is a premise. That's it that's all.

 

Scientists don't think of spin as a rotation. There is simply mathematics similarities. Honestly do you even bother reading the material I link to you?

 

Spin 1\2 = [latex] \frac{h}{2}[/latex].

 

What do you think the term quantum state and quantum phase means?

Your honestly giving me the impression you have no interest in any theory or model that disagrees with your personal model.

 

I provided you the formulas you need to develop your model.

If you can't adapt those formulas to develop your model your not going to get your model beyond mere conjecture.

 

Choice is yours. If you ever hope to get your model to a professional peer review format. You will never do so without applying the mathematics.

I provided the tools and material so that if you apply yourself you could do so. No one else will do the math for you.

[Andre Lefebvre]

Very well I'll see what I can do Thanks!

[Mordred]

What differences could you expect at a time when everything was at a temperature around 3000 kelvin at such density? There couldn't be chunk of ice.

 

At this miniscule temperature variation all you need is an anistophy in the average energy density. Information of any process travels at maximum c. This is how Baryon accoustic oscillations come into play. This also includes slightly different densities. Ie the beginning of large scale structure formation. Due to dark matter.

 

 

Regarding inflation, I can't see where the second influence is. Gluon (which is a boson) of 10^-35 meter jumped into space-time of 10^-15 meter and made it inflate. End of the process.

. Why would you think or even gluons jumped into our universe? No theory ever stated this occurs. At least not in any professional peer reviewed theories. You might want to study the term "drop out of thermal equilibrium". No standard model or concordance (mainstay model states qluons come from outside our universe. The quark/gluon plasma is always there at the beginning of the timeline of the BB model. Just because a particle is indistinguishable due to being in thermal equilibrium does not mean it's not present.

That's not what I said. It's the left handed helicity that makes it slower. And I didn't invent that.

Fine show your source, provide citation.

Sorry; but it's the spin versus its trajectory that says if it's a right or left handed neutrino.

The proper term is helicity

 

And that's why you suggested me to transfer the subject to this part of the forum. So, please don't bring that argument back anymore. Let's keep to facts observed.

 

 

I'll let you think about it. But thinking is a rational process; so the outcome should be in regard of your rationality; not of what other say.

I already covered the difference between premise and modelling

I would start by analysing the suggested events in Planck's epoch regarding of what we know of Planck's time first. Afterward, we can talk about what I said up to 380,000 thousand years. I surely didn't cover everything that can be said. But for the clearness of what's to come, I will not base my description on thermal equilibrium but rather on density equilibrium. Heat was used by alchimist because they didn't have any other references possible at their time. We have a bit more today.

regardless of your personal beliefs thermodynamics involves density as well as pressure. It is fundamental in Every cosmology application. Its also involved in GR. (Stress energy momentum tensor)

 

 

Euclidian space geometric is composed of unidimensional points. That is its "fabric"; and that is the "fabric" of our Euclidian universe. Standard model particles are something added to space by a transformation of some of its energy.

 

Space-time is the product of movement slower than light speed. If everything was moving at light speed there wouldn't be any space-time; or, at least, there wouldn't be distances and it would stand in constant "present" which is a consequence of relativity theory.

 

. Where do you get this idea??? Let's clear up one point space time is not made up of some mysterious substance. Pop media articles refer to terms such as space time fabric. This is a misnomer.

 

Space is just volume. Space time is any geometric (coordinate) system which uses time as a coordinate or vector. Space time curvature is simply describing in laymens terms. The differential geometric relation of influence that gravity has on the standard model. Gravity cannot and does not affect a region with no particles to act upon.

 

No light dispersion? So a source of light doesn't sends photon in all directions? Unless you mean that photons don't travel?

What causes the blue and red zones are differences in temperature; and temperature emits light. By the polarisation of that light we can find the direction it is emitted. That's quite a scientific accomplishment improvement; we have to recognize; and it has its effects on our findings.

photons are measured per quanta. If you calculate the temperature variation. Between red and blue regions you will arrive at the same quanta of photons. However wavelength variations can cause variations in the energy of a photon. For the miniscule temperature variation the quanta of photons is identical, just a slightly difference in wavelength. Think of redshift to get the idea. In this specific case it's the Sache Wolfe effect.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs%E2%80%93Wolfe_effect

 

The variations and timing of the Sachs Wolfe effect dictates which version is used and when.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs%E2%80%93Wolfe_effect

 

 

Bad start; "forces" don't exists. They are only "effects" of something else. The notion of "force" is 328 years old; it's about time that we "rejuvenate" our basic notions to analyse things. Temperature is outdated and we should use "energy density" instead. Furthermore "forces" don't exist; they're only effects of something else we "almost" still have to identify.

Good luck on this as the four forces are fundamental aspects of particle physics and QFT. All field theories utilizes and studies in detail those forces to the point where we have near exact coupling constants describing them. All physics mathematics today rely upon the four forces. Regardless of Your opinion

 

 

 

It depends who's talking. Some scientists say "all particles didn't have any mass before Higg's boson came in the picture. But you're wiser than them because it's evident that Higg's boson couldn't give mass to the Top quark which has more mass than Higg's boson. Other scientists say that Higg's boson doesn't give particle energy but only a "form". What does that mean? The scientist that told me couldn't explain i

If your talking about the top quark theory. That theory died when the Higgs boson was discovered. Sorry .

 

Let's clarify one aspect. Particle decay isn't determined by the rest mass of a particle. It's determined by its total energy. Rest mass and inertial mass.

Very well I'll see what I can do Thanks!

Here particle physics aspect of Cosmology isn't the easiest field to pick up. I don't know how strong your differential geometry is. So here is a very handy set of articles to help teach the mathematics of particle physics.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2

 

Article one is primarily the differential geometry. Part two delves into relativity.

Another two excellent textbooks is

Griffiths Introductory to particle physics. And Quarks and Leptons by Francis Halzin.

http://www.amazon.com/Quarks-Leptons-Introductory-Particle-Physics/dp/0471887412

 

Roads to Reality by Sir Roger Penrose is also handy for learning the mathematics. (Non model specific)

Another good textbook on Cosmology that also does an excellent job covering the Coupling constants in GUT theory is "Fundamentals in Cosmology" by Muchanov

 

Introductory to Cosmology by Matt Roos does one of the better jobs in teaching the correlation between the FLRW metric to the Einstein field equations. He also has a down to Earth explanation on the stress energy tensor and how it is responsible for space time curvature relations.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

Due to dark matter.

That's quite a relief for an explanation. Isn't it?

 

 

 

Why would you think or even gluons jumped into our universe? No theory ever stated this occurs.

Really? No theory never said it? Shame on me. So I shouldn't say it. Sorry but the information regarding the successive appearance of particles (nobody said that either) tells me that massless particles appeared before massive particles. Curiously massless gluon disintegrates in massive quarks. But I guess that "fact" is negligeable. So if we have to limit to previous existing interpretations (theories) I beleive that God created the universe 6,000 years ago and whatever was discovered afterward had no right to be mentioned.

 

 

 

The quark/gluon plasma is always there at the beginning of the timeline of the BB model.

Sorry; not at the Big bang. Gluons disintegrate in quarks and antiquarks Top. Remember?

 

 

 

Fine show your source, provide citation.

 

"Citation": "The helicity of a particle is right-handed if the direction of its spin is the same as the direction of its motion. It is left-handed if the directions of spin and motion are opposite."

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics)

 

 

 

The proper term is helicity

 

Isn't that right? Thats exactly the term I used and that you copied/posted two minutes ago.

 

 

 

regardless of your personal beliefs thermodynamics involves density as well as pressure. It is fundamental in Every cosmology application. Its also involved in GR. (Stress energy momentum tensor)

 

Did I say that density wasn't involved? I sais that it is the factor we should consider instead of temperature like use to do alchemists.

 

 

 

Let's clear up one point space time is not made up of some mysterious substance.

 

"Mysterious" existence is not my bag. That's why I don't believe in "mysterious" dark matter or "mysterious" dark energy. A unidimensional point is nothing mysterious; it's the base of Euclid's geometry. As a matter of fact, unidimensional "strings" are a lot more "mysterious" than unidimensional point, really; since you need two points at least to make a string.

 

 

 

Pop media articles refer to terms such as space time fabric. This is a misnomer.

 

That is not exactly the fact. The explanation that space-time is not a "fabric" is that space and time are not "tangible things" as water or air. So if you think that a unidimensional point is "tangible" as water or air, then you're right that point cannot compose the fabric of the universe. But if you think that space-time is "deformable" by mass then you'll have to accept that it as something that can be deformed other than mathematics definitions.

 

 

 

Space is just volume.

I can't argue with that. The question is : "A volume of what?" The answer is : "a volume of something that isn't tangible but that can be deformed". Pick your choice: strings or points.

 

 

 

Space time is any geometric (coordinate) system which uses time as a coordinate or vector.

 

Well then, when a star or a planet gets in place, I hope it doesn't "discoordinate" your abstract system.

 

 

 

the quanta of photons is identical, just a slightly difference in wavelength.

 

This is what I call logic. My sister, when I was young, told me : "André I've seen a cat just like ours; except it was black". She was logic too.

 

 

 

 

The variations and timing of the Sachs Wolfe effect dictates which version is used and when.

 

Does it give the direction of light? That's what has been given by Planck satellite's photo. Or so those scientist say. I've endure a 2 hours lecture on it, by one of their specialists, to finally learn it.

 

 

 

All physics mathematics today rely upon the four forces. Regardless of Your opinion

 

It's not regardless of my opinion; it's exactly my opinion. And it's an error. Using "force" notion is just as using "God's power" coming out of nowhere. Even Newton didn't believe it, But like he said : " It works so..."

 

 

 

f your talking about the top quark theory. That theory died when the Higgs boson was discovered. Sorry

 

I didn't know anything about a Top quark theory, I'll look into it. But no I wasn't talking about that theory. I was just stating that a Top quark had more mass than a Higgs boson so it would have difficulty to supply it with mass.

 

 

 

Let's clarify one aspect. Particle decay isn't determined by the rest mass of a particle. It's determined by its total energy.

 

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Anyway the mass energy of a particle is the total mass energy of that particle. No doubt about it.

 

 

 

particle physics aspect of Cosmology isn't the easiest field to pick up.

 

I agree but I try to stick to facts not interpretations. I'll look into it that's for sure. Thank you.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Strange]

That's quite a relief for an explanation. Isn't it?

 

Another appeal to incredulity?

 

Really? No theory never said it? Shame on me. So I shouldn't say it.

As you don't have a theory that predicts it, no you shouldn't say it. Because you are just making stuff up for no reason.

 

Note that "making stuff up" is not a theory. A mathematical model that makes testable predictions is required.

 

"Citation": "The helicity of a particle is right-handed if the direction of its spin is the same as the direction of its motion. It is left-handed if the directions of spin and motion are opposite."

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics)

 

Where does that say: "It's the left handed helicity that makes it slower" ?

 

 

But if you think that space-time is "deformable" by mass then you'll have to accept that it as something that can be deformed other than mathematics definitions.

 

Nonsense.

[Mordred]

Gluons disintegrate in quarks and antiquarks Top. Remember?

 

Did I say that density wasn't involved? I sais that it is the factor we should consider instead of temperature like use to do alchemists.

 

 

"Mysterious" existence is not my bag. That's why I don't believe in "mysterious" dark matter or "mysterious" dark energy. A unidimensional point is nothing mysterious; it's the base of Euclid's geometry. As a matter of fact, unidimensional "strings" are a lot more "mysterious" than unidimensional point, really; since you need two points at least to make a string.

 

 

That is not exactly the fact. The explanation that space-time is not a "fabric" is that space and time are not "tangible things" as water or air. So if you think that a unidimensional point is "tangible" as water or air, then you're right that point cannot compose the fabric of the universe. But if you think that space-time is "deformable" by mass then you'll have to accept that it as something that can be deformed other than mathematics definitions.

 

I can't argue with that. The question is : "A volume of what?" The answer is : "a volume of something that isn't tangible but that can be deformed". Pick your choice: strings or points.

 

Does it give the direction of light? That's what has been given by Planck satellite's photo. Or so those scientist say. I've endure a 2 hours lecture on it, by one of their specialists, to finally learn it.

 

Gluons do not decay into quarks. They mediate the color interactions.

 

There is several aspects you seem to keep missing.

 

Mass, density, pressure and temperature are not independent quantities. Change any one of these properties and you change the other.

 

You stated before in your earlier post you will work in density but not thermodynamics as you feel temperature is an outdated concept.

 

That is complete rubbish. Temperature is a well known and measurable property.

 

You increase density, you will increase temperature.

 

Why do you think we can correlate the density of the CMB from its temperature measurements. Its because of the ideal gas laws. Not light dispersion.

 

The Sache Wolfe effect uses redshift. This is a change of wavelength not dispersion of the photon path. Google gravitational redshift or cosmological redshift. Or read this article.

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion

 

The formulas are also posted in the peer reviewed links I already provided.

 

dark energy and dark matter isn't as mysterious as people like to think.

 

One has to actually study the problems they solve. As well as the observational evidence. To fully appreciate their importance.

 

Again this is also supplied in the links I already posted.

 

I also tried explaining the GR space time curvature requires mass density, shear stress, and pressure. What determines how space curves is defined by the stress energy tensor.

 

You keep missing the point though. Gravity can only influence particles.

 

It doesn't curve volume. It is a geometric description of the strength of influence upon particles.

 

I don't know how I can make that any clearer. I already tried describing it. Both verbally and by showing the mathematics.

String theory does not state otherwise either. Neither does QFT

 

Where does that say: "It's the left handed helicity that makes it slower" ?

 

 

This is what I asked you to provide citation for. Helicity doesn't determine velocity.

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

Gluons do not decay into quarks. They mediate the color interactions.

 

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/25/3/25-3-carithers.pdf

"The q and q- fuse briefly into a gluon, the carrier of the strong force, and then rematerialize as t and t- quarks traveling in roughly opposite directions."

 

In other papers, you'll find that this desintegration comes in 75% per cent of the cases.

 

 

 

That is complete rubbish. Temperature is a well known and measurable property.

I didn't say it wasn't known; I said that it was a consequence of density. So might as well "work" with the cause instead of the "consequence".

 

 

 

You increase density, you will increase temperature.

And if you want to increase both, just increase mass energy by adding mass particles. The increased deformation of space-time will take care of the rest.

 

 

 

Why do you think we can correlate the density of the CMB from its temperature measurements. Its because of the ideal gas laws. Not light dispersion.

 

Did I say that the correlation of density wasn't temperature measurements? I'm sure I didn't. As for light polarisation, that another kind of "analysis" that came after. They analysed the polarisation of those temperature's differences.

 

 

 

The Sache Wolfe effect uses redshift. This is a change of wavelength not dispersion of the photon path.

Are we talking about redshift on the Planck's photo? That's new to me.

 

 

 

dark energy and dark matter isn't as mysterious as people like to think.

 

Well, what I can't see and what our technology can't discern is quite mysterious to me.

 

 

 

You keep missing the point though. Gravity can only influence particles.

 

So I'm missing the point. Gravity isn't responsible of "tidal effect"? And a "tidal effect" is not the result of space-time deformations as I explained quite a while ago. I guess an effect is a particle. It's that "effect" that influences particles. If there's no particles involve, theoretically the "effect" is still there. And what about the "frame dragging effect" that GP-B mesured?

 

 

 

It doesn't curve volume. It is a geometric description of the strength of influence upon particles.

Gravity doesn't curve volume of space-time. Who in god's name said it did? Try to get this: "Gravity is a result (consequence) of the deformation of the geometry of space-time. Before space-time is deformed, there's no gravity. Is that so hard to understand? Further more it's geometric!!! Isn't that a pain?

 

 

 

I don't know how I can make that any clearer.

Neither do I, actually.

@ Strange

 

 

 

 

 

Another appeal to incredulity?

 

No; in fact it's an appeal to FAITH.

 

 

 

 

 

As you don't have a theory that predicts it, no you shouldn't say it. Because you are just making stuff up for no reason.

 

If I remember right we where talking of gluon appearing in our universe at the time of inflation; and the reason was that it's a massless particle that has the characteristic of "holding" whatever is in its "action field" (opposite direction of expansion). And it appeared just as , at the end of inflation, mass particles where present. That's a lot of "predictions, to my point of view. Now, if you prefer a magical force coming from nowhere that is ever present, what can I tell you? Except asking: who's making up things out of the blues, actually?

 

 

 

Note that "making stuff up" is not a theory. A mathematical model that makes testable predictions is required.

 

Well then, get rid of your superpowered nuclear force and give a topology to gluon that will explain how it keeps things together and all your problems regarding bla bla will be resolved and you'lu be able to simplify your equations.

 

 

 

 

Where does that say: "It's the left handed helicity that makes it slower" ?

 

Sorry about that:

https://universe-review.ca/R15-13-neutrino.htm

 

"...theoretically an observer can move in a speed faster than the left-handed neutrino, overtakes this neutrino and sees a right-handed anti-neutrino."

 

I guess it means that left handed neutrinos are slower than right handed neutrinos and mass has noting to do with it. But I’ve seen it for the first time in a paper made by Majorana who's neutrino was massless.

 

 

But if you think that space-time is "deformable" by mass then you'll have to accept that it as something that can be deformed other than mathematics definitions.

Nonsense.

 

That's an "untouchable" argument if I ever read one. Bravo!

Edited July 6, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

 

Sorry; not at the Big bang. Gluons disintegrate in quarks and antiquarks Top. Remember

.

Ah that's what you meant by this. You needed to be a little clearer.

The term dintegrate threw me off lol. My mistake I prefer to think of gluons interactions as mediates. My mistake on that

Edited July 6, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

I did say

 

 

 

Gluons disintegrate in quarks and antiquarks Top. Remember?

Desintegrate is a synonyme of decay; I grant you.

[Mordred]

 

 

Sorry about that:

https://universe-review.ca/R15-13-neutrino.htm

 

"...theoretically an observer can move in a speed faster than the left-handed neutrino, overtakes this neutrino and sees a right-handed anti-neutrino."

 

I guess it means that left handed neutrinos are slower than right handed neutrinos and mass has noting to do with it. But Ive seen it for the first time in a paper made by Majorana who's neutrino was massless.

 

This however is a specific decay. Its not due to velocity itself as per se.

 

This area is still under research so not much is truly known. The left hand neutrino and right hand neutrino form via different W bosons. The two neutrinos may also interact differently with the Higgs field via the seesaw mechanism. ( keep in mind this is still under research and ties to the B-L assymmetry.)

helicity doesn't imply one side being slower than the other in the case of photon velocity. This is due to being massless.

massive particles however is a different case. Neutrinos electrons etc. Yes mass is involved. due to the Higgs interaction.

 

The mass of the right hand neutrino is still unknown.

 

What your looking at here is chirality. It's also observer dependant.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics)

 

It's also why I wanted the citation (I suspected this was what you were describing, but needed clarity).

 

Now onto Sache Wolfe effect on CMB.

 

This Sean Carroll article nicely covers it. When you read the paper think of graviational redshift. In particular climbing in and out of gravity wells. ( All particles not just photons gain or lose energy climbing in and out of gravity wells. Normally they gain and lose the same amount as the average density before and after is the same. However if the average mass density changes while in transit. The effect is less loss climbing out to a lower density than when the particle first entered.

 

http://preposterousuniverse.com/teaching/371/papers06/stricker-371paper.pdf

I still find it somewhat amusing you argue against the term force. However the Gluon is a force mediator. Specifically the strong force. However not all mass is due to the strong force. For example 1% the mass of the Proton is due to the mass of the quarks. The rest is via the strong force (gluon binding energy).

 

A typical mistake is thinking mass is one source in all cases.

 

Try this for example the neutrino doesn't interact with the strong force. So it cannot gain mass from it. Hence the Higgs field. I guess thinking of just gluon interactions didn't make all our problems go away.

Then you have electromagnetic mass. Also atomic mass.

 

Get the picture. Mass is defined simply as "resistance to inertia". Any form of binding energy generates mass.

 

Here is a suggestion Google each boson, look at the known interactions on wiki. Then Google the Neutrino and dark matter. Note not all particles interact with the electromagnetic, strong and weak force. Also note photons do not directly interact with gravity.

Example electron interacts with weak, electromagnetic and gravity. Not the strong force.

 

Neutrinos weak, gravity.

Photons electromagnetic

Gluons strong

W an Z bosons weak.

Electromagnetic strong weak gravity.

Sterile neutrinos. Weak, gravity.

Dark matter weak, gravity

 

Note the similarities on neutrinos to dark matter. Neutrinos can pass through 1000 light years of lead without an interaction.

 

So ask yourself this question, how does the electron, neutrino and W and Z bosons gain mass if they don't interact with gluons (strong force or gravity in two cases?)

Understand why the Higgs field became so important?

 

 

Here I located for you a very recent article on Chirality. Here is a key passage.

 

"The Standard Model (SM) is a chiral theory, where right- and left-handed fermion fields transform differently under the gauge group. Extra fermions, if they do exist, need to be heavy otherwise they would have already been observed. With no complex mechanisms at work, such as confining interactions or extra-dimensions, this can only be achieved if every extra right-handed fermion comes paired with a left-handed one transforming in the same way

under the Standard Model gauge group, otherwise the new states would only get a mass after electroweak symmetry breaking, which would necessarily be small (∼ 100 GeV). Such a simple

requirement severely constrains the fermion content of Grand Unified Theories (GUTs). It is known for example that three copies of the representations 5 + 10 of SU(5) or three copies of the 16 of SO(10) can reproduce the Standard Models chirality, but how unique are these

arrangements? In a systematic way, this paper looks at the possibility of having non-standard mixtures of fermion GUT representations yielding the correct Standard Model chirality. Family unification is possible with large special unitary groups for example, the 171 representation

of SU(19) may decompose as 3 (16) + 120 + 3 (1) under SO(10)."

 

key note if they exist....

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.03695

 

As you can see its viable in the mathematics. Still requires evidence such as finding right hand fermions in the first place

(Remind ya of supersymmetry??)

That article is Apr 2015.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Mordred

[Strange]

Well, what I can't see and what our technology can't discern is quite mysterious to me.

 

We can observe and measure the effects of dark matter. The only mystery is what it is made of.

 

(cf Neptune and neutrinos, the dark matter of their day)

 

@ Strange

 

No; in fact it's an appeal to FAITH.

 

Which also has no place in science. You should follow the evidence, rather than your personal beliefs.

 

 

If I remember right we where talking of gluon appearing in our universe at the time of inflation; and the reason was that it's a massless particle that has the characteristic of "holding" whatever is in its "action field" (opposite direction of expansion). And it appeared just as , at the end of inflation, mass particles where present. That's a lot of "predictions, to my point of view.

 

These are not predictions, they are guesses. (Unless you would like to show us the calculations, and the quantitative, testable predictions.)

 

 

Well then, get rid of your superpowered nuclear force and give a topology to gluon that will explain how it keeps things together and all your problems regarding bla bla will be resolved and you'lu be able to simplify your equations.

 

Not understanding/believeing an existing theory does not falsify that theory. If you have an alternative mathematical model, why not present it?

 

 

Sorry about that:

https://universe-rev...13-neutrino.htm

 

"...theoretically an observer can move in a speed faster than the left-handed neutrino, overtakes this neutrino and sees a right-handed anti-neutrino."

 

I guess it means that left handed neutrinos are slower than right handed neutrinos and mass has noting to do with it.

 

OK. So the problem is that you cannot understand what you read. That explains a lot.

 

That passage says NOTHING about the relative speed of left and right handed neutrinos. It is about their chirality.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Strange

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

This however is a specific decay. Its not due to velocity itself as per se.

Overtaking something to see something farther is defining velocity.

 

 

 

keep in mind this is still under research

I do; but while speculating I don't use events that don't fit. It would be like searching my lost keys near a light bulb because I can see. I'de rather search where it "fits" to find them.

 

"Massless particles may exist in just one helicity state. Neutrinos only exist in negative helicity states, known as left handed states, and anti-neutrinos in positive helicity, right handed states."

 

http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~jpc/all/ulthesis/node12.html

 

 

 

helicity doesn't imply one side being slower than the other in the case of photon velocity.

We're talking of neutrinos (half spin); not photons (full spin).

 

 

 

What your looking at here is chirality. It's also observer dependant.

That doesn't change the facts.

 

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1111/whats-the-difference-between-helicity-and-chirality

 

 

 

All particles not just photons gain or lose energy climbing in and out of gravity wells.

I'll look at it; but I'll keep in mind that going through a diminution of metric of space-time might affect the wavelenght of light which could result in redshift. I'll see what comes out of it. Thank you.

 

 

 

I still find it somewhat amusing you argue against the term force.

To me it's not amusing at all!

 

 

 

For example 1% the mass of the Proton is due to the mass of the quarks. The rest is via the strong force (gluon binding energy).

 

That's an example I gave you myself. And the gluon binding ability could simply be an "intern topology", instead of a "force coming from nowhere. But origins of things, you said, was not the object of physics.(or was it you that said that?). You now can see the importance of it (I hope).

 

 

 

A typical mistake is thinking mass is one source in all cases.

 

Are you talking of quantity of matter or mass energy? To which one do you attribute the typical mistake?

 

 

 

I guess thinking of just gluon interactions didn't make all our problems go away.

Then you have electromagnetic mass. Also atomic mass.

 

Those are not my problems. They are problems coming from the notion of "forces". To me "forces" don't exist; so no problems of the sort.

 

 

 

Get the picture. Mass is defined simply as "resistance to inertia".

Which links it to kinetic energy. I know.

 

 

 

Any form of binding energy generates mass.

 

There are only to kinds of opposite energy in the universe, kinetic energy and gravitational energy. One sends everything in all directions (disperses) and the other binds thing to one definite point, called center of gravity (focuses). All events in the universe depends of those to "facts", whatever interpretation we give them. I guess that's simple enough for Occam's razor.

 

 

 

 

Here is a suggestion Google each boson, look at the known interactions on wiki.

Geez! Do you mean to insinuate that I've never heard of interactions? That I didn't study them seriously? Be serious at least a little bit. My non accepting of "magical" forces coming from nowhere as the same basic as Newton's non believing in the basic of his notion of gravitational force. It's not logical, meaning "senseless", and it's not explainable. End of definition.

 

 

 

Note the similarities on neutrinos to dark matter. Neutrinos can pass through 1000 light years of lead without an interaction.

 

Right! And if dark matter is an illusion, it could even pass through neutrinos. Isn't that marvelous.

 

 

 

So ask yourself this question, how does the electron, neutrino and W and Z bosons gain mass if they don't interact with gluons (strong force or gravity in two cases?)

 

You talking about leptons; so let's talk. Higgs boson gives mass to Z and w bosons via the density of Higgs field. But how can you explain a Higgs field that is denser than the universe at 10^-36 second? I can't. So Z and W bosons didn't need Higgs field to obtain mass. The density of the universe of the time was enough "incitation". Furthermore it couldn't be denser which close the subject on Higgs field.

As for neutrino's mass nothing is clear yet except that actual explanation needs it to have mass. So if left handed helicity slows it speed, everybody will jump at the occasion to say that neutrinos have mass. That about sums it. What is "seen" is what is "needed to be seen".

 

You need a "force" to back up an appearance of acceleration of expansion? You imagine a new indiscernible "force". You need matter that nobody can see to explain the speed of outer stars of the gakaxies? You imagine an "invisible" matter whit negative "pressure" if necessary. Anything else you need? -Oh yes, I forgot; I also need a "mass vector". -No problem will find you a signature of a particle at great density of energy that's going to do the trick. -Thank you very much.

 

 

 

Understand why the Higgs field became so important?

 

Yes I do; do you?

 

 

 

Here I located for you a very recent article on Chirality. Here is a key passage.

 

Interesting. Might I suggest that since there are two "families of fermions, each family could add differences between them. Furthermore, a massless fermion could have some similar characteristics to massless bosons. Only to open a door to such possibilities, let's repeat that right handed neutrinos aren't proven existing still. So a different approach of the subject in your key passage is possible and probably needed to explain what is not in this approach.

 

Talking of "confining interactions or extra-dimensions" and "non-standard mixtures of fermion" instead of studying what is there, and try to understand it, regardless of prefixed positions in opinions, is not "reseach"; it's mostly "justifying" actual opinions.

 

 

 

As you can see its viable in the mathematics. Still requires evidence such as finding right hand fermions in the first place

(Remind ya of supersymmetry??)

 

And that's why I'll look into it. Once again, thank you.

 

@ Strange

 

 

 

We can observe and measure the effects of dark matter. The only mystery is what it is made of.

 

An "effect" doesn't say who or what made it; so the "mystery" is : "What really made that "effect"?

 

 

 

Which also has no place in science. You should follow the evidence, rather than your personal beliefs.

We were talking of the "invisible dark matter. I'm not the one who believes it exists; so there's no faith involved of my part.

 

 

 

These are not predictions, they are guesses. (Unless you would like to show us the calculations, and the quantitative, testable predictions.)

Well, and this is also another guess, I think that's the only argument you can have; because reasoning wouldn't surely prove your point.

 

 

 

Not understanding/believeing an existing theory does not falsify that theory.

It's not a question of understanding or believing; it's a question of existence of "magic". Like I said even Newton didn't believe is notion of mass attracting force without physical connection.

 

 

 

If you have an alternative mathematical model, why not present it?

Always the same argument. Ask Newton's reasons not to believe in his notion.

 

 

OK. So the problem is that you cannot understand what you read. That explains a lot.

That passage says NOTHING about the relative speed of left and right handed neutrinos. It is about their chirality.

You could be right; but only if by going faster than a left handed neutrino you would "at the same time" overcome both neutrinos. But, oh wonders of physics, you overcome the right handed neutrino farther in front of the former neutrino. Since the fable of the rabbit and the turtle doesn't apply i suspect that right handed neutrino are faster than the left handed neutrino.

[Mordred]

Why do you keep missing the key aspects on the replies. Are you doing so intentionally. We were specifically talking about the chirality theory in regards to possible different Higgs interactions leading to different momentum.

 

We weren't questioning whether or not helicity exists.

That'd the part that is still debatable. If the Higgs interaction varies sufficient enough on the right hand velocity. You effectively generate heavy fermions. Aka supersymmeyric particles. Come on mate I posted you a paper specifically discussing that. Evidently you didn't bother looking at it.

 

Particles are defined by their momentum, mass, charge and spin. Change any one of those properties you have a different particle.

Try to read some of the links I supply. I never ever reply on a forum a non mainstream answer. I leave that to those that disagree and more often than not don't truly understand why current models state what they do.

 

Regardless of your feelings towards dark energy and dark matter. Far more professional scientists in far greater number and knowledge than anyone on this forum, have tried to disprove both.

 

Good luck trying to do the same.

The standard model of particle physics has been and still is incredibly successful of previously predicting never before seen particles and then finding them later on.

 

GR is extremely well tested, so is LCDM.

 

This is done via the mainstream understanding despite your personal feelings

If your trying to convince me your model is better. You better get cracking on the mathematics.

 

 

Then what are String theories doing then?

 

I hope than you saw that I was trying to give you a proposition that tries to describe the origin of the singularity that stands at 10^-43 sec with a size of 10^-35 meter that would be a "surface" before it "explodes". My proposition explains a lot more than what I said already. But I guess I won't have time to tell you since I've got so much things to read before doing it.

 

 

Information from CMB by Planck does give a lot to think about that refers to the big bang. Especially on the original "radiance" after 10^-45 sec followed by inflation where appeared the first gravitational "fields" containing massive particles like quarks and so on.

But even if my proposition dates more than ten years ago, it says that "radiance" (in fact, movement of left hand neutrinos instead of "inflaton") was the only existing particle in the universe. That at 10^-36 sec the gluon particle "jumped" in our universe from Planck's epoch and started disintegrating in massive particles starting the inflation. And so on.

 

My proposition explains why particles appeared with antiparticles. It explains why space-time at the Big bang was a "flat universe" and still is. It explains how gravity works and what is "mass" and "mass energy". In fact I didn't find anything yet it doesn't explain. But it doesn't explain anything that bases itself on the false notion that mass is attracted by mass. Sorry.

 

.

 

 

Too bad. Mine is based on observation, physics law (including thermodynamics'), GR. SR, standard model and doesn't interfere with any science information that doesn't come from the false notion of gravity. All is based on Einstein's notion that gravity is a consequence of the deformation of the geometry of space-time.

 

I'm glad to hear that. I hate that model. And it's not "my model" like you say. It's the model scientists present as the fluctuation epoch of the universe before Planck time. It's not an accurate description anyway.My model is the surface of a lake without depth and "almost" no waves, from where tridimensional universe emerges.

 

Which means that my model is the right one. Thanks.

 

 

Well, even if I agree that there was the "signature" of a particle found at 125 GeV, in my proposition, I don't need Higgs particle to explain mass a lot better than the Higgs field.

 

 

 

The right Handed Neutrino should have light speed; the Left Handed Neutrino would have a bit less speed which permits distances and time "to be".

The misconceptions in this thread clearly tells me how little you feel about mainstream physics.

 

As stated before gluons don't jump into our universe. There is no outside source for them to jump from.

 

Yet you state your universe is singular. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

There is no proven evidence the left or right hand neutrinos have different velocies. In point of detail the mathematics support the opposite. Not right hand being faster than the left hand. Yet you refuse to accept the Higgs which can account for chirality.

 

The lake statement doesn't make any sense. All particles are both particle like and wavelike.

So how do you not have waves ie frequency waves and still have particles? You can't.

 

GR is highly successful in that false notion you refuse to accept. Despite explaining how curvature is correctly described, which you later on stated you understood in the first place. If you did then why do you have a problem understanding the space time relation of gravity and pressure relations???

 

Your light diffusion analogy is another case. Which I had to correct you on. With the peer reviewed articles.

You wish to describe mass without using either force or curvature, then use the force carrying gluon in your descriptive. Did the term vector gauge boson not indicate anything to you?

 

What is energy, "the ability to perform work"

 

what is force. "In physics, a force is any interaction that tends to change the motion of an object. In other words, a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull.

 

Force carrying particles are needed. As energy DOES NOT exist on its own.

There is no way one particle can influence another without a mediator particle.

 

So tell me how does your model possibly describe how matter moves without using as you stated" The outdated force"?

Edited July 6, 2015 by Mordred

[Strange]

 

 

We can observe and measure the effects of dark matter. The only mystery is what it is made of.

 

An "effect" doesn't say who or what made it; so the "mystery" is : "What really made that "effect"?

 

Yes. That is exactly what I said.

 

Although "dark matter" could require a change to the way gravity works, more and more evidence is pointing to it being matter. As in many examples in the past, we haven't yet detected the particle.

 

 

We were talking of the "invisible dark matter. I'm not the one who believes it exists; so there's no faith involved of my part.

 

You are the one who mentioned faith. As you choose to ignore evidence, this is obviously a religious thing, not science.

 

 

Well, and this is also another guess, I think that's the only argument you can have; because reasoning wouldn't surely prove your point.

 

I'm simply pointing out that you don't have a model and therefore can't make testable predictions. Therefore you are not doing science.

 

 

It's not a question of understanding or believing; it's a question of existence of "magic".

 

You are claiming that theories are wrong because you don't believe in them. That is not science.

 

 

Always the same argument. Ask Newton's reasons not to believe in his notion.

 

Don't be so childish. Newton developed mathematical models for his theories. You haven't. You seem more interested in beliefs than science.

 

 

You could be right; but only if by going faster than a left handed neutrino you would "at the same time" overcome both neutrinos. But, oh wonders of physics, you overcome the right handed neutrino farther in front of the former neutrino. Since the fable of the rabbit and the turtle doesn't apply i suspect that right handed neutrino are faster than the left handed neutrino.

 

That doesn't make much sense. And it doesn't change the fact that the paragraph in question doesn't say what you claim it does.