Andre Lefebvre

I agree; but I had to put everything at least once because they relate to each other in the "big picture".

 

Even when you agree; for example with no: 1; There's a lot to be said in regard to that center of gravity. For example: the interaction between the center of gravity of the deformation containing Jupiter which can "displace" the center of gravity of the deformation containing our solar system.

It's not the centers of gravity of the quantity of matter of both objects that is involved but the center of gravity of both deformations of space-time. Am I correct in the way of seeing that event?

Thank you Mordred.

 

I really appreciate you taking time to argue those 30 topics,

 

 

How in the world can you use the statement false notion gravity then state you accept GR:?:

Because GR is not based on attractions of quantity of matter.

 

 

 

Post absolutely zero zip mathematics and expect professional Scientists to consider your ideas??:? Come on get real.

 

Professiomal scientists? Well them too, but I'm a person that has developped an opinion on the evolution of the universe that seems (to me) more descriptive of the reality involved to undestand it. I'm adressing myself to anybody that want's to debate on it.

 

 

 

Your personal feelings means nothing to professional Scientists.

I repeat; I don't have any personal feelings on physics or anything else for that matter. My personal feelings are oriented to my inner personal being. Everything exterior I live with; and nothing else.

 

 

 

Which is what your stating about the Higgs field. I don't accept it because I don't understand it.

 

Sorry it' not the case. I don't accept Higgs boson because it's not logical and nobody can explain it logically.

 

Thanks for the links I'll look on it.

the last link with articles is very interesting thank you. Further more the articles are very clear.

 

 

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

It's hard for me to discuss Higgs interactions since I don't believe that Higgs give mass. So those "explanations" are not to be taken in consideration. Nobody can explain how Higgs works. They fall back on Higgs field. Nothing convincing.

 

 

 

I never ever reply on a forum a non mainstream answer.

 

Which I appreciate as I already said. And I always say why I disagree.

 

 

 

Far more professional scientists in far greater number and knowledge than anyone on this forum, have tried to disprove both.

But not with my arguments. That "battle" has to be fought with every means and "facts" available; you cannot accept debating only on one side rules. Specially when those rules are based mostly on false notions (gravity).

 

 

 

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.

Except that there is a second generation of gluon that isn't accounted for and there is a surplus of Down quarks not accounted for either. Those are two more predictions to come. As a matter of fact, that particle that showed itself at 125 GeV could be that second gluon; the time range and energy range are about exact.

 

 

 

GR is extremely well tested, so is LCDM.

 

Gr I agree; LCDM I don't. Results of CMB is enough for me.

 

 

 

This is done via the mainstream understanding despite your personal feelings

Once again, it's not personal feelings; I'd prefer that everything official was right. That would be a lot less problems for me. But I can't accept what's not logical, what's "magical" and what's "imagined" to solve problems according to prefixed opinion positions.

 

 

 

If your trying to convince me your model is better.

 

I'm not trying to convince nobody; I' stating what doesn't work and suggesting something that should.

 

 

 

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

I don't feel anything about mainstream physics, I feel bad about its anomalies. So the point would be to determinate those misconceptions which I think, maybe, you tried to do, but did not succeed if you did. Giving interpretations as being facts is not acceptable however complicated are the explanations.

 

 

 

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

That "outside" source they could "jump" from, is Planck's epoch which nobody knows about and on what only scientists have the right to speculate on; it seems.

 

 

 

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

Sorry impossible for me to understand that phrase. Would you please explain?

 

 

 

Yet you refuse to accept the Higgs which can account for chirality.

 

Higgs doesn't account for anything. Higgs does what scientists want him to do. It gives mass to Z and W bosons, for others it gives mass to every particle and on top of that it accounts for chirality. What else will it do before the next decade? Dark matter accounts for the surplus of speed of stars far from a center of galaxy but nobody mentions the problem of identical speed of a great part of stars before even getting to those stars. Dark energy accounts for expansion acceleration when referential objects are massive and have inertia and surely proper velocity. And you say that what I suggest has no sense whatsoever?

 

I don't say you couldn't be right for the most part of mainstream physics but you're surely wrong where it's nonsense.

 

 

 

The lake statement doesn't make any sense.

It was made by astrophysicists in the sixties. I didn't make it up. And it didn't mean there was no fluctuations on that "surface of lake".

 

 

 

All particles are both particle like and wavelike.

The particles came out of the surface of the lake. Today you put that energy in a graduated box at a thickness of zero and you show fluctuation (waves) going up and down each side of that zero. But you don't remember that those waves don't have any thickness even if they fluctuate. So who is showing nonsense there?

 

 

 

GR is highly successful in that false notion you refuse to accept.

The false notion doesn't belong to GR; it belongs to Newton's gravity. Mass don't attract each other! End of the problem.

 

 

 

If you did then why do you have a problem understanding the space time relation of gravity and pressure relations???

 

I don't have any problems there since gravity is the base producing pressure, density, temperature etc. But gravity doesn't have any effect on the general curvature of space-time. The proof is that it is confirmed flat and all indications since 30 years ago tends to support this flatness.

 

 

 

Your light diffusion analogy is another case. Which I had to correct you on.

 

I'm not the one to be corrected, you have to correct the scientists of Planck that came with this as a new factual information.

 

 

 

then use the force carrying gluon in your descriptive. Did the term vector gauge boson not indicate anything to you?

 

Any particle called a "vector" is a particle that "carries" something out of nowhere meaning "not explained". That is obvious in the word "vector" itself.

 

 

 

What is energy, "the ability to perform work"

 

Exactly. And what is "work"? Its always a movement of some sort. So at the base of every "work" performed, is kinetic energy. All kind of energy comes from kinetic energy. That's not news.

 

 

 

what is force. "In physics, a force is any interaction that tends to change the motion of an object.

So a "force" is energy. No problem there. But who needs a "force" when it has energy available?

 

 

 

a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity

 

No. The real fact is: Energy can cause an object with inertia to change its velocity.

 

 

 

Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull.

Sure. "Push" and "Pull" are good physics terms. In fact it represents the characteristic of dark energy and gravitation in the mind of many.

 

 

 

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

 

Did I ever say that energy existed on its own. Everywhere I suggested energy, there was something that was "manifesting" it. But that something was not the energy. The gluon is not your nuclear energy so what is your nuclear energy that is not the gluon? You have to separate the gluon from the nuclear energy, and you're the one who says it doesn't exist on its own?

 

What I say is the topology of the gluon directs things to its center and the "pressure" (you love the word) given to that point stops it from expanding producing a space-time deformation that has gravity as a consequence. Where do you find my energy "on its own" in all this. All I have is expansion and the consequence gravitation. Furthermore I described to you a possibility of origin of the kinetic energy that explains the Big bang. But instead of evaluating it you jump to the conclusion that it's nonsense. So your own energy "on its own" that can't exist "on its own" is not nonsense to you? Nowhere do I have energy on its own in what I suggested. Sorry about that.

 

 

 

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

Which particle influences another? All particles do is try to be in equilibrium with its environment. They simply eject or accept quantum of energy to do it.

 

 

 

So tell me how does your model possibly describe how matter moves

 

I already explained it. Proper (personal) velocity (or speed) of massless particles (objects) had been propelled in our space-time. Gaining mass slowed all of them at first because of gained inertia. Speed was, for some of them more decreased by accretion, and for other increased by tidal wave effect when brushing against deformation around them. But those proper velocity had nothing to do with expansion. In fact all mass particles have nothing to do with expansion.

 

@ Strange

 

 

 

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.

That's because it's not a particle. It's an expanded imprint in the "fabric" of the universe. In fact it's that first Russian doll I talked about earlier. And it englobes all matter without giving it mass.

 

 

 

You are claiming that theories are wrong because you don't believe in them.

 

Can't you read? I said the reason was I didn't believe in "magic".

 

 

 

Don't be so childish. Newton developed mathematical models for his theories.

 

Who's childish here? Newton didn't believe in his notion but acquiesced that it worked to explain events observed at the time.

 

 

 

That doesn't make much sense.

 

It's not my fault if you can't see it.

 

Mordred

 

 

 

Yet you claim your model works better than GR and indirectly indicated particle physics.

I don't claim it works better, I say it clarifies it.

 

 

 

Does it matter if the universe is curved or flat prior to inflation?

The question doesn't apply, it's flat.

 

 

 

With such a huge change in volume, pressure, density and temperature.

Which pressure? There's no opposition neither to expansion or inflation. Pressure start appearing on particles when mass particles appeared and that's during inflation. That "pressure" didn't have any effect on expansion. Even inflation didn't have any effect on expansion which continued while space-time was inflating. Just like today, the quantity of massive objects don't have any effect on expansion. Gravity and expansion are separate entities.

 

Expanding space-time has been flat since the beginning and deformed space-time has been deformed in each volume containing matter whit mass energy since the appearance of mass (energy).

 

What can I tell you more? Mass don't "attract" themselves. And that's where the problem starts.

So this is what we should have seen if I have had the occasion to say everything and since I don’t think I’ll have the opportunity I’ll put it right away so you can debate on it:

 

1) Curvature of space-time extends down to the center of gravity of the space-time curvature.

 

2) Quantity of matter occupies space-time; it doesn’t replace it.

 

3) Quantity of matter doesn’t curve space-time; mass energy does

 

4) Since space-time is deformable, it has to have a “fabric”.

 

5) The deformation is not in a “downward” direction, but in a “backward” direction in the space-time metric.

 

6) A black hole is not a “hole” it’s a “ball” (volume). If it’s rotating, it has the form of a football; if not, the form of a basketball.

 

7) Expansion is the gradual growth of space-time metric.

 

8) A black hole is a collapsing of space-time metric.

 

9) To prompt collapsing you have to add mass energy to a deformation. The only way to do it is add matter particles that contains mass energy, on the surface of the object you want to collapse.

 

10) Quantity of matter is not mass energy. The total of each is not identical.

 

11) Gravity supply a direction toward a definite point; expansion supply a direction toward every points. These directions are exactly contrary from one another.

 

12) Our universe is definitively flat; confirmed by Planck’s satellite.

 

13) Space-time deformation occurs when mass energy stops a point from keeping expanding; so surrounding points gradually recover expansion “ratio” depending of their distance from the “blocked point”.

 

14) The two contrary movements are identical as the centrifugal and centripetal effects from rotation. But our universe doesn’t rotate. So gravity and expansion comes from before the birth of our universe “volume”.

 

15) Gravity zero at the center of a sphere is on a “fictional point” because pressure from all sides equalizes itself. Space-time points are not fictional; so the pressure on a centered point of gravity is far from zero. It feels the total pressure from all sides.

 

16) Weight is the difference of velocity between two objects that joins centers of gravity. It determine the pressure made by the less mass energy object on the surface of the biggest mass energy object.

 

17) Matter is only a “passenger” of the volume of a space-time deformation. It’s not a “main player” in cosmological events. The fact is that it counts for 4, 7% of the universe. But matter contains a great quantity of kinetic energy imprisoned in it which we call “mass energy”.

 

18) Left handed massless neutrinos are responsible of the perception of distances and time (space-time) because their helicity slows them from light speed. They originated from Planck’s epoch and were propelled in all direction at the Big bang, thus giving depth to the previous surface.

 

19) At the Big bang, gluons being too small to manifest themselves, stayed in Planck’s epoch rotating and continuing slowly to gain size. It acquired the size of 10^-35 meter when space-time had expanded to 10^-15 meter. That’s when it appeared in our universe. The time was 10^-36 sec after time = zero and it naturally adopted a “field of action” of 10^-15 meter. Which is the size of a nucleus.

 

20) The appearance of the gluon in our space-time, rapidly followed by its disintegration (decay) into successive mass particles (quarks) caused what we call the inflation. It lasted from 10^-36 sec until 10^-32 sec during which period, all mass particles (quarks) were created by successive decays.

 

21) Different moment of appearance of neutrino and gluon separated the “effect” of each from one another. The topology of the “fabric” of expanding space-time was contrary to the topology of gluon’s “action field” (space-time). Inflation was something different from expansion; even though both have almost identical “effect” on the volume of the universe. They are not identical events and don't have the same cause.

 

22) Mass particles appeared during inflation period; but they appeared successively proportionally to the density of energy of their environment. Which means that even during inflation, expansion was still diluting the density of energy of the flat (neutrinos) universe. The mass particles (quarks), while decaying, adopted gradually less mass energy to get equilibrium with their “outside world”. They finally got this equilibrium in reuniting three by three in the “action field” of the former gluon. This tells us that “entropy” is the result of a universe that tries to acquire equilibrium; not aiming at chaos.

 

23) This also tells us that the “action field” of the gluon stayed imprinted in the fabric of this “action field” even after the disintegration of the gluon. It also means that the “intensity” of mass energy of succeeding mass particles where also imprinted on top of the pervious prints. Giving a kind of Russian dolls structure to those impressions.

 

24) Space-time deformation’s effects, of that period of early universe, had to be proportional to the surrounding density of energy. So its effect on events of that time was naturally proportionally equivalent to its effect on today’s events. Which means that gravity of that far back period had the same effect as today’s gravity. This is a natural “fact” deduction; not a deduced hypothesis from “tools” used for interpretations.

 

25) Expansion pulled the two front and back faces of the surface gluon from one another; creating two “sides of surfaces” mirror of each other.

 

26) Mass energy particles have kinetic energy imprisoned in its volume of space-time where topology is contrary to expansion. It acquired this kinetic energy when being only a “one side surface”. Kinetic energy responding to its topology pushed on the point topology was targeting and made the “one side surface” particle curl up and trap that kinetic energy inside its newly made volume.

 

27) Strong nuclear force doesn’t exist as a “force”; it’s a consequence of the topology inside the field action of a gluon. The notion of “force coming out of nowhere” doesn’t have its place in physics; regardless of the quantity of “explanations” you add to cover its unknown origin.

 

28) The rotation of cosmological objects starts when the first two particles that merges their center of gravity and tries to occupy that center of gravity. Pushing one another results in both revolving around their common center of gravity. Added particles increased the speed and the pressure on centered particles increasing mass energy and increasing the “action field” of its space-time deformation.

 

29) Chemical bonding could be a consequence of “tidal effect” of two deformations of atoms where the valence shell electronic cloud of both atoms are pulled toward each other until the energy of both valence shells stabilizes. Which eliminates another “mysterious force”.

 

30) To explain the origin of our tri-dimensional universe, we have to consider the two-dimensional of Planck’s epoch. Composed of unidimensional points, based on the fact, now proven, that our universe is Euclidian. An initial point of 0+ energy “virtualised” itself by starting to rotate. Centrifugal effect obliged it to duplicate. The following points always arose from where the initial point had appeared; adding 0+ kinetic energy every time, which compensated for the farther points increasing speed. At a certain tension of the stress on the surface, it separated in two, projecting one part in all directions and the other part in a bundle that reversed it rotation. The “all directions” projected particles gave depth to half of the original surface creating our tri-dimensional universe.

 

 

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.

I did say

 

 

 

Gluons disintegrate in quarks and antiquarks Top. Remember?

Desintegrate is a synonyme of decay; I grant you.

 

 

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!

 

 

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.

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

Despite your model though the Higgs boson is a confirmed particle. This is confirmed not just at Cern but several LHCs.

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.

Thank you for all the links Mordred. I'll see if there's anything new I never read about.

 

 

 

There is no professional answer to what happens at t=0 to t=10^-45 seconds that is beyond speculative models

 

Then what are String theories doing then?

 

 

 

Our physics breaks down at this era into what is known as the big bang singularity state of unknown size and origin.

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.

 

 

 

Also we cannot observe anything prior to the surface of last scattering on the CMB. Photon light path has too short a mean free path due to other particle interference.

I thought everybody knew that. But you're right we never repeat enough.

 

 

 

Prior to last scattering is the dark ages. It's hoped detecting the cosmic neutrino background will help gather data before the last scattering surface.

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.

 

 

 

All multiverse model proposals are hoping to find evidence of a previous interaction in the CMB.

Mine does; and it's simply because it's not a multiverse proposal it's a single evoluting universe proposal.

 

 

 

Any knowledge we have prior to the surface of last scattering is based upon thermodynamic, GR, the ideal gas laws and particle physics tests not upon actual observation.

 

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.

 

 

 

So any of the models I've posted are all valid until proven invalid...
They all make testable predictions otherwise they wouldn't be a model.

Then I can say: "So is mine". Thank you.

 

 

 

So there is no mainstream professional answer to your question.

In fact I was passed the question situation.

 

 

 

Quantum foam itself was essential proven inaccurate

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.

 

 

 

Also the tests that were done showed no evidence of space being lumpy as opposed to smooth.

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

 

 

 

By the way GUT happens to be a field I enjoy studying.

I agree with you; it's a fascinating field of research.

 

 

 

Note these articles all intensily involve the Higgs field metastability Mexican hat potential.

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.

 

I'll check the Pati-Salam model Thank you very much.

 

 

 

The Phenomenology of Right Handed Neutrinos

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". But I'll read your links. Thanks a lot.

 

 

 

 

Well I can't really state a 5d dimension is impossible.

 

Mordred

 

I'm not talking of a 5d dimension at all; I'm talking of time = 0 whith a unidimensional point (inobservable) that represents the first dimension. That point start to rotate because his energy is 0⁺ .

 

Its rotation makes it "expand by adding a new uni-dimensional point and both keep rotating; both two unidimensional points become a bidimensional "event" and the rotation makes it a surface which represents a bi-dimensional "dimension" (virtual universe); and this bi-dimensional dimension expands to the point where it splits in half with all its points (in fact half of them) are projected in all directions. The center of the bi-dimensional surface had "exploded"; so the movement in all directions, giving depth to the former surface, resulted in a tri-dimensional universe. Our universe is the result of movement. That movement produces "distances" and "duration" which we now call space-time. So I'm talking of a three dimensional space plus the time dimension. Nothing more.

 

When I was young, scientists use to explain Planck's time like if someone would pull a three dimensional fish from the surface of a lake that had no depth. Which is pretty close to a two dimensional "universe". Today we talk about a fluctuating "foam" that as zero thickness. I guess we can say it's the same "picture" for Planck's time.

 

 

 

I should however note the Planck dataset measurements specifically state the observations do not support this model. I'm sure there is other possible alternates.

All this happened beforme Planck's time of 10^-45 sec. This hapenned during Planck's epoch.

 

 

Have you watched the Krauss "Universe from Nothing" video linked earlier?

Yes I have; and I also have read the opinion of scientists that oppose Krauss affirmation which they say are not based on facts of science.

 

 

 

I think it shows that questions like "what came before that, and what was the cause, and why?" don't need to have answers.

I think that if those kinds of question had been eliminated at the beginning of history of science, we would still be tenderizing meat with a rock. Any question that arises in a mind deserves an answer. At least, mine.

 

 

 

Imagine a one-dimensional universe embedded on the equator of a rotating sphere. Different centrifugal force and preferred direction would be seen on the surface of the sphere, depending on phi coordinate or latitude. The center of rotation is on the r coordinate. In "flatland" style, the 1D beings seeing only the equator would see no preferred direction or center, and inertia/centrifugal force would appear as a homogeneous, isotropic expansion force.

 

That's a good remark. I'll think about it. Since in my speculation the starting point is a "unidimensional point" that produces a surface, it has to have duplications of that unidimensional point emerging from the center of the rotation (axis) to make a two dimensional surface. Surfaces and volumes are made of unidimensional points in Euclidian geometry; and since our univers is Euclidian...Adding "points" could change the "game" maybe.

 

If I take the example of skaters, and start with one skater rotating at a constant speed with his arms streched. Then, you and me, we start skating and join the lonely skater, each of us taking one of his hands. We are skating quite a bit faster than the shoulders of our former lonely skater are rotating. If we keep on adding skaters at each ends of the line (in reality one new point was taking place in the center making the hole surface wobble), there will be a moment where they won't be able to hold the hand of their previous skater; and if they do (wich is what happens when there's no place to be ejected to; space doesn't exist yet), it's the original lonely skater that will have his arms torned from him. That's what happened at 10^-45 sec after time = zero. The "line" (surface of multiple points) split in two, the rotation of both new lines reversed and...bang! the motions of the ejected skaters in all directions created space-time, resulting from their "movement", which represented the sum of kinetic energy attained before the "splitting" of the line (surface).

 

Three dimensional space-time was born.

 

Space-time is the product of movement (kinetic energy).

Thank you.

 

I'm only trying to find a way that increases kinetic energy from zero to maximum so it explodes in a Big bang at 10^-45 sec.

 

If it's impossible to create energy in the Planck epoch, it's impossible to have a Big bang at 10^-45 sec

 

The only possibility to get it will be to install a "conscience" rated 0⁺ that wants "to be" instead of "not to be" and increases its "will" at the rate of evolving. Like if all I want is money and as I get some, I want more and more etc. But that's far from science speculation.

 

So I'll let the idea settle by itself for a while.

 

Thanks to all,

Mordred

 

I have a question for you. if you please, naturally.

 

You asked me prebiously:

 

 

 

So how did you increase the energy without violating conservation of energy laws

 

My question is:

 

If a "virtual" surface in rotation has a certain speed that is constant, will centrifugal effect extend its surface? (Like a pizza we throw in the air in a rotation to extend its surface).

 

If the answer is yes, the de length of the radius increases and the speed of the edge of the surface also increases. Just like a skater, at the end of a line of five skaters, as to skate faster than all the preceding ones up to where the first one rotate slowly on himself. So the more the surface extends, the more speed its edge gains. That would be an increase of kinetic energy; would it not? The same as if we had a sixth, seventh and eight skater. Each one of them will have to skate faster than the precedent?

I'm working right now on Barbera Rydens " Introductory to Cosmology" . It's very interesting. She brings us trhough the history of astrophysics and physics where we have the "decisions" taken by science to push forward. It's important to compare the new results of observations to those "decisions" I think. That's what I'm doing now. Thanks for the info.

Thanks for your time Mordred.

The way I see it, supplying isn't needed in a rotation. Let's say that the energy is installed at the center of de rotating surface (disc). That energy is not spent when the first rotation is done; it is still there in the center; otherwise the rotation would stop and you would have annihilated energy which is impossible. So the same amount of energy as at the start of the rotation is still there at the end of the rotation. That rotation takes place in a bidimensional universe where there's no "volume". This is a "virtual" universe.

 

So that energy manifests itself once more adding to the kinetic energy of the speed already gained by the first rotation. That's why the speed doubles, the surface extend (centrifugal) for the second time and the centripetal force appears for the first time. And now, the energy at the center of the rotating surface is doubled because it has to be equal to the speed of the disk.

 

 

So how did you increase the energy without violating conservation of energy laws to go from 0+ to over 10^16 GeV? Or 10^27 Kelvin?

The 0⁺ energy starts the rotation. That energy gives a rotation speed of 0⁺. At the end of the first rotation speed is 0⁺ but the original energy still apply so at the start of the second rotation energy doubles (original energy + kinetic energy of the spêed of the firts rotation). Energy is now (0⁺)² . At the end of the second rotation energy is (0⁺)⁴ and so on. Because energy is conserved, it increases exponentially.

 

 

The closest you get is inflation. Ever stop and wonder why it includes a quasi particle ? The inflaton.

 

This is because energy does not exist on its own. It is a property in this case of particles.

Couldn't it be simply the neutrino?

 

 

 

Why would you need rotation ?

Because I have to increase exponentially the size of the point 0⁺ and the kinetic energy of 0⁺ up to 10^-35 meter and the actual total energy of the universe by increasing exponentially the rotating speed up to the point reached at 10^-45 sec after time = zero, when everything "exploded" because centripetal force couldn't anymore hold everything together since the small difference between it and centrifugal force had also increase exponentially. Centrifugal force manifested itself at the beginning of the first rotation while centripetal force manifested itself only at the end of that first rotation. .

 

 

 

Rotation has a center and a preferred direction.

If you supply me the formula needed, I'll tell you the direction of the rotation and what happens to the center of the surface created when everything explodes at 10^-45 sec.

 

 

 

Have you heard of Lawrence Krauss "Universe from nothing" mathematically it works but it misses one key detail. It takes energy to form virtual particles.

 

No I haven't. Thanks for the tip. But in a rotation, all it needs is a "non-null" energy at the start; and from a unidimensional point you access to a surface after the first rotation.

 

 

 

The inherent problem is where does the energy come from without violating the conservation of energy laws

The non-null energy could come from the dilemna "to be or not to be".

A 0⁺ energy is enough for a start. It's the least quantity of energy that can exist at the zero point.

But that problem doesn't exist when we are talking of Planck's era when energy increased until it reached its maximum at 10^-45 sec after time = zero. We are talking of a period where volume didn't exist. It was a two dimensional universe period.