Andre Lefebvre

Do you now? Well I'll repeat: "I'm saying that during Plancks epoch, energy was accumulating by the gradual adding of unidimensional particles producing a circular surface responding to the centrifugal and centripetal effects." The speed of light you are talking about was define at the Big bang. As for your question, when you talk of the speed of light you talk about that speed relative to what? Maybe I don't understand; but you don't seem to grab the idea that it's the speed (traveling) that produces the universe; ot the universe that produces speed. What does the speed of light have to do with gravity? Especially when gravity doesn't exist yet? Sorry I don't drink at all. But I'm pretty sure, since it's normal to make "projections" that you can give us a good description about being drunk.

I agree with you. But I'm trying too much so I have to take a break once in a while.

No; I'm saying that during Plancks epoch, energy was accumulating by the gradual adding of unidimensional particles producing a circular surface responding to the centrifugal and centripetal effects. To immobility at time = zero I don't have to discard it; at Plancks epoch gravity doesn't exist. And that distance increase because of constant emerging of unidimensional points of 0+ energy at its center. From Plancks information the distance is (10^-35 m /2) from the centre. And that's when everything went "kaboum". Where the first unidimensional point 0+ energy appeared. The initial phase was a "non changing state"; it was "static". It was a simple "potentiality". It changed only when the first motion started because of the 0+ energy that manifested itself and transformed its potentiality into a probability. The whole picture is an "expedition". It has a starting point where nothing moves, and an end issue where everything is done and the expedition is finished. So motion is the only thing involved. Before motion, you get a no distance and no succeeding time situation. In other words: "static present". And when the maximum of motion/movement is attained, you are at light speed where distances disappear and time freezes. Which brings you, once again in a "static present" situation. In fact it become a new realized potentiality. It's a mathematical model to explain movement in entropy. I'm not describing how it works; I'm stating an interpretation from the second law of thermodynamics (which I don't think exact anyway). I'm not finish reading it and actually, I'm starting to find him interested in playing with words instead of ideas like I hoped he did. And you're right I didn't see any mathematics yet. But that's not a reference. The he can't be all bad. I'll finish is book. 10 - 4 !

1) There's no "rate change" when time, distance, temperature and everything is at "zero". 4) There's no more "rate change" when time freezes and distances disappear. 2) This transition phase starts with the first motion (start of a rotation). Let's say that the rotation is counter clock wise. It means that its arrow points toward the past; which is normal since you're during the first rotation and nothing else exists (is expressed) but the "past" part of that rotation. At the Big bang, the parts of half the surface which are projected in a straight line in all directions determine a traveled distance that is the "past" but its trajectory defines also an arrow of time toward the future; while the other half of the previous surface starts to motion again in a clockwise rotation. Since the underlying laws of physics are time-reversal symmetric, there is no way for them even to distinguish between what we call the past and what we call the future. They offer no temporal orientation. Furthermore, the second law of thermodynamics actually says that if at any given moment of interest, a physical system happens not to possess the maximum possible entropy, it is extraordinarily likely that the physical system will subsequently have and previously had more entropy. It tells us that the entropic arrow of time is double-headed. From any specified moment, the arrow of "entropy increase" points toward the future and toward the past. Strange seems to see everything existing at the same time. Is problems would disappear if he saw events happening successively. Which is easily deduced from the time arrow indicated in the evolution process described in the basic concepts in probability. "The nearer the sum of probability of an event is to zero, the less possibility exist that the event is (or becomes) a reality". So zero becomes abstract "potentiality" and One is the "reality". Between the two lies probability that follows "possibility" toward reality. The "trajectory" is: Potentiality --> probabilities --> possibilities --> Reality which are the four phases I presented earlier.

You're right Strange. I corected it leaving my error in place. Thanks. Light To that phase of the universe. That's why I wrote: "The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure". The "or" here is quite important.

In the meantime, this is what all my ideas are based on; and this is what I want to add maths to eventually : Our total universe Just by thinking a few minutes about the standard model, which gives a beginning to our universe, we can understand and describe the following phases of its history starting from time = zero to (Who knows when everything will have light-speed, if ever): 1) Universe before movement (Potentiality state condition) Unidimensional universe 2) Universe between time = 0 and 10-43 second (motion) Two-dimensional universe 3) Universe between 1rst translation and light-speed (movement) three dimensional universe 4) Universe span time is conditioned by light-speed (Realized state condition) The word “State” here means: The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure. So the word “condition” in the definition means “situation of… at the time of…”. We see that number 1 is in a “state” of no movement, thus no space and no time. While number 4 has the maximum velocity (light speed) that also results in no space and no time for that “level” of universe. The “states” are the same for the universe in both situations. Number 2 is the embryonic phase of universes “life” when particles where “probabilities” of “translations”; which limits them to “motion” without translation. We can consider here the motion of “rotation” or “vibration”. But a “rotating phase of that universe” is more exact because it results in defining two “things” being: centripetal (which will become gravitation) and centrifugal (which will become expansion) “effects”. Its issues are mirrors particles and what will affect one will effect the other contrarily. The motion of that universe produces time in both directions: past and future. That is why they are entangled. The “present” was created only at the Big bang when past and future were ripped from one another giving the opportunity to the “present” to install itself between the two. This is the event that gave a single direction to the time arrow; toward the future. Number 3 is the “living” phase of the universe. “Translation” governs that period; it produces distances and directs the time arrow toward the future. We call it “space-time”. This is the phase where we live today. So these are the 4 basic phases of the structure for the story of the total universe. To my point of view that is; I could be wrong evidently.

I'm reading right now "The fabric of the cosmos . space, tlme, and the texture of reality" by Brran Greene. Came to it by accident. Quite interesting.

I sure didn't get everything on the first lecture; I'll work on it. It will surely help; at least it's good information. Thank you.

This is where I fall on my knees in front of my own picture: If I'm not there to observe and measure, the universe doesn't exist. I'm a man that needs a fork, a knife, a tea spoon and a tablespoon to eat whatever I want. And now, to talk physics, I feel as if I'm invited to an aristocratic dinner where there are four different forks, five knives, and six kind of spoon around my plate. I'm ready to learn what to do with each; but it's even worse than that; because if I ask what are we having for dinner? I'm answered: "It depends of the cutlery we'll have around our plate". Either, it's too serious or it's not serious at all. I'll wait to make up my mind.

Thanks mordred.

Because the universe is Euclidean and Euclidean volume are made of unidimensional points which forms it's "fabric". If I want to be logical, I cannot make geodesic as a consequence of the direction of movement; I have to give direction to movement with something that exist somewhere before that movement is manifested. And the only possibility is that to imprint it in the basic component of universe which is formed by the unidimensional Euclidean points. This is what I call the "fabric" of the universe. They are the basic components of Euclidean geometry. Well If I stop at that "Period", I don't have problem. But if I try to get the notion of mass versus inertia, problems start: 1)Inertia is one of the primary manifestations of mass, which is a quantitative property of physical systems. Isaac Newton defined inertia as his first law: “The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.” 2)Einstein proceeded to develop his general theory of relativity which ultimately provided a unified theory for both inertial and noninertial (accelerated) reference frames. However, in order to accomplish this, in general relativity Einstein found it necessary to redefine several fundamental concepts (such as gravity) in terms of a new concept of "curvature" of space-time, instead of the more traditional system of forces understood by Newton. As a result of this redefinition, Einstein also redefined the concept of "inertia" in terms of geodesic deviation instead, with some subtle but significant additional implications. 3)In general relativity, geodesic deviation describes the tendency of objects to approach or recede from one another while moving under the influence of a spatially varying gravitational field. 4)But mass, as related to the 'inertia' of a body, can also be defined by the formula: (It didn't copy!!!) Here, F is force, m is inertial mass, and a is acceleration. By this formula, the greater its mass, the less a body accelerates under given force. Masses defined by formula (1) and (2) are equal because formula (2) is a consequence of formula (1) if mass does not depend on time and velocity. Thus, "mass is the quantitative or numerical measure of a body’s inertia, that is of its resistance to being accelerated". 5)There is no measurable difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass. The gravitational mass is defined by the quantity of gravitational field material a mass possesses, including its energy. The "inertial mass" (relativistic mass) is a function of the acceleration a mass has undergone and its resultant speed. 6)At high speeds, relativistic mass always exceeds gravitational mass. If the mass is made to travel close to the speed of light, its "inertial mass" (relativistic) as observed from a stationary frame would be very great while its gravitational mass would remain at its rest value, but the gravitational effect of the extra energy would exactly balance the measured increase in inertial mass. Now I gues I'll need a lot of studying to match your "mass is resistance to inertia" to those six definitions. It looks to me, that mass is not something very specific in physics. I love that list of question you made. I’ll work on it in the next days and give you all the answers next week. And I'll try to use the correct terminology; so I'll have to make quite a lot of verifications. But those questions are what I needed. Thanks. No. I mean expansion. At the moment the "pressure" is applied to the point, there's no deformation at all. The deformation appears gradually while expansion continues. The expansion gradually defines the deformed volume. The deformation is a gradual developing consequence of blocking a point during the expansion of surrounding space. It doesn't appear instantly; it forms gradually until the resistance of the point that was stopped is equalized by the intensity of the space-time deformation (we can see it as a dilution of the effect). Then the size of the deformed space-time stops increasing. That pressure on the point I'm talking about is "mass energy". I will. I hope those field equations are not based on "gravitational force" but on deformation of space-time. Now if topology is not the "picture" of a volume of deformed space-time, I'll start to make my own vocabulary!!! And if geodesic is not the trajectory of an object in regard to its velocity inside this topology, I quit trying to use physics terms. I hate talking with "blurred meaning" of words. "Mass" is enough for now. With respect to what? With respect to "reality". We are not "dreaming" the universe; we are living in it and occupying a portion of its space during a certain time lap. No absolute "notion" of motion , maybe; but it means (with GR) that there's not absolute "immobility (at rest) definitly. I will; and by the same time I'll check if I already explained how mass appeared in our universe at 10-36 sec; which will supply the last information regarding the space-time deformations we just talked about. Everything is related; we can't cut the universe in pieces to analyse it.

Mass is not a thing; mass is an amount of motion energy trapped in a topology whose geodesic sends the energy to one specific center point. The pressure on that point stops its expansion movement deforming the space around it because the other points are slowed gradually up to a certain distance around that point. That's how a deformation of space-time is caused. I think. Here's how it looks: I understand that. So what is the universe? And it's a great tool to work with; but the tool is not the universe. It's something to understand things behind the observations made with that tool. Let's say that I agree that the gluon mediate the strong nuclear force. That force is observer dependant. Would you agree that it's possible that the action field of a gluon as a geodesic directing everything to its center which would explain that observed "glue" characteristic that observers call the nuclear strong force? Nothing is material, everything is energy's expression; including quantity of matter. That's for an observer point of view. If there's no observer (everybody is dead after a cataclysm) will you say that energy or mass don't exist? That's not very hard to understand. What is harder to understand is that those properties apply to nothing (no things). That link is interesting; I'll search further o the subject. Thank you.

And movement is observer dependant and speed is observer dependant; I understand this and I also understand that this is the notion behind all actual physic. That is why I will need to know mathematics. But we have to accept the fact that the observer sees something which doesn't come out of is elucubrations. But let's talk about where, I think, this way of seeing things started. Galileo, in the bottom of a boat, started pouring whatever, in a cup while the boat was at sea. He remarked that the pouring was occurring as if the boat was not moving. My question is: Was the damn boat moving? My answer is yes it was. And his observation didn’t mean that it was not. So I always take care when an observer makes me a report even with mathematical proof. Imagine what I think when an observer says: “I didn't see it but it smelled like if what we're looking for was there”. And it's going to do so until somebody finds out what mass is and where it is from. Mass is not given to a particle because it's slowed down by a dense crowd at a party.

I don't see how momentum without mass can deform space-time. It can make "pressure" where it "strikes" but before "striking" something, I can't see that it has any effect. But I'll check don't worry; I started already but didn't find either production or not of gravity yet. So all I am allowed to do is fall on my knees and say "Alleluia!" To many people do that already. Who wants to be accepted here as a “know it all”? I make suggestions only. I know …without mathematic; but only suggestions just the same. I hope being able to add maths someday. GR is not even accepted now. Gravity is not accepted as a "consequence of space-time deformation; it's still a "farce", sorry a “force” called "interaction", when a deformed space-time cannot interACT. It's "passive. It's the DM I don't like. : Usually, people see what they want to see. Being objective when interest is at stake is difficult. But it's still foam And since energy doesn't exist on its own, our universe is made of foam. I don't know what "runaway inflation" is (probably as "uncontrolled") but I'll check. As for current inflation models, I agree they don't fit because you don't need it to make the universe flat. It's flat since the beginning; that radiative epoch. I have enormous gratitude toward you Mordred. I appreciate your comments and descriptions a lot; including all the links with information. You're one of the best if not the best. Thanks a lot.

ajb The topology that is created by stopping a point of the expanding universe while the surrounding points keep on expanding to a ratio of their distance from the said blocked point. So that topology is made at the level of the metric of space-time. It's not a "downward" topology it's a "collapsing" topology. That is why when an object travels through that topology, its geodesic (trajectory) is gradually deflected toward the "blocked point» (center of gravity) and when it passes that point, is deflected from it (see the graphic higher). It's not a geometric "fall", it's a "dimensional" fall. Mordred When I had people working for me that wanted to make the least action, I sent them home; when I had an employee that did a work the easiest, the simplest and the fastest way it could be done, I gave him a raise. I'd say that geodesic is defined by the shortest path; the action involved is only a consequence. It won't be easy, I agree; but a lot easier, for me, than to conceiving that energy is a consequence (do not exist on its own), gravity is a "force" (instead of a consequence of geometry deformation) or that the universe doesn't have a base length when Plancks length is the smallest length possible that can be measured (which, in reality, means "can exist"). Without mentioning the opinion that the radiation of a massless particle traveling at the speed of light in a volume that doesn't have any existing circumference can produce pressure. So I'm pretty confident. Energy curves space-time; I agree; but not any kind of energy; mass energy. In Einstein equation E = Mc2 . It's Mc2 that is mass energy. E is kinetic energy. And none of the sides of equation is "at rest". At sufficiently small scale, you're talking of Plancks length (at Plancks time), where you imagine a flat surface of energy in a graduated glass box, where that energy is animated with "fluctuations". When the energy is at, what you call, "rest", it's placed at zero "thickness" in the graduated box. You don't even see it means a two dimensional surface. Then you "activate" the fluctuation and for you that "zero thickness" acquires some thickness because it fluctuates up and down in the graduated glass box, Waves on a lake "fluctuate"; but a wave doesn't have any thickness; it's a two dimensional "surface". So, in your mind, before starting to expand in all directions, your fluctuating energy at Plancks time was a "surface"; a two dimensional "foamy character", that existed on its own at that time, but doesn't anymore exists on its own, when it doesn't suit you affterward. And I'm an ignorant because I don't accept all that lack of logic?

But now I know thanks to you Strange; and I thank you sincerely very much. So where I wrote "topology", it's geodesic and where I wrote "geodesic" it's topology. Great". That's one thing that is settled. (By the way; it's throw not throe) But it doesn't change the picture.

In my mind, the geodesic is the geometry of a volume of deformed space-time; I could be mixing up with topology, which is for me what the trajectory follows. So a trajectory follows the topology of a geodesic (in my mind; am I mixing up terms?). Maybe not. How do you call the different intervals of 10^-35 meter that space-time went through while expanding? What is the name of the equivalent, in space-time, of the increasing wavelength of electromganetic?

We're talking about the geometry of space-time. The basic lenght is 10^-35 meter. This lenght define the "intervals" of the metric. The actual metric of the universe is its size (diameter) in lightyears; all the previous "sizes" have been a metric of the universe. It's the velocity of an object that defines the metric it travels. And the object follows the shortest trajectory according to its velocity. Density of a deformation of space-time isn't increased by objects orbiting around the main object of the deformation. Simply because the center of gravity of the orbiting object (moon) isn't "merge" with the center of gravity of the main object (Earth). That's one of the "inexactitudes" caused by the notion of "attractive forces". There is no such "active" force. On the drawing I made, any object can take an orbit around the center of the deformation in accord with its velocity. If it's not fast enough, it directs itself to the center of gravity because of the topology an not because of "attraction"; and when it gets there it increase the mass energy (pressure) on the center of gravity which results in increasing the "size" of the deformation and pushes that center point further back in the previous metric. On the other hand, density increases with the decreasing of metric; so how can the object keep the same speed? That's the best argument you have and I can't answer to it (for now). I'll think about it. Thanks a lot Mordred.

Thank you Mordred; Meanwhile here is what happens when an object travels through the metric of a space-time deformation with speed superior to escape velocity: Naturally, If the geodesic of the deformation has a metric of 10-35 meter, the trajectory of the object will be a curve trajectory. If you think about it, while the object is going through decreasing metric, it seems to increase velocity and time seems to slow down; while passing through increasing metric, it seems to decrease velocity and time speeds up; but in fact, the object always keep the same velocity and comes out at the same speed as when he entered the space-time deformation.

Mordred; I want to ask you a simple question: If the universe started at a diameter of 10^-35 meter and from that point on began expanding, wouldn't 10^-35 meter a basic metric to mesure the universe in regard of the ratio of expansion and elapsed time, since it's the smallest lenght possible to exist?

You're right An I'm not 5'10'' cause lenght is only mathematics. So everything is settled thanks everyone. Except that it's the metric that causes a curved trajectory. If ever you have time draw a decreasing metric and make a particle travel through it. You'll see.

Let’s try our best and come back to some things we already saw to analyse it: But first: @ ajb I don’t think you are. Because you said: “From the local geometry you can look at topologies that are consistent with this, but generally you cannot determine the topology exactly. So you usually if needed stipulate some fixed topology » and whatever metric (and not topology) you define, you’ll always have that illusion of increasing/decreasing velocity. We’ll see what defines topology further down in this post. Mordred said: 1) Then it’s passive and I agree; because “can cause” doesn’t mean it is “active”; it means that the result is a consequence of a passive state (situation of curvature) and not of an active force. 2) Everything in the universe is “in movement”; nothing is immobile. So nothing we can observe is passive. 3) If a deformation of space is a decrease of its metric, the observed acceleration could be a "constant speed" traveling through a decreasing metric, which gives the impression of acceleration and slowing of time. Then, acceleration and deceleration are only impressions; in fact object have definite stable proper (personal/intrinsic) speed. 1) Those forces exists only if there’s no metric that exists. If metric exists, there’s no change in velocity; only changes in metric. So the forces are illusions. 2) Expansion (Increase of the metric) of the original “size of the universe” (10^-35 meter) produces all possible “intervals” (metrics) between original and actual “size of the universe”. And it’s the velocity of an object that defines the metric that supplies the topology it responds to (trajectory). 3) Which means that whatever the results given by considering forces, it doesn’t explain, or even informs us, what the events we observe are about. All those results are false information because the basic of the notion behind them is wrong. Forces don’t exist. Then it’s passive and I, again, agree. But if forces don’t exist because metric exists, then we have no clue whatsoever of what gives the different velocities to particles. And that brings back what I said previously: A) So if metric exists, the only difference of velocity of particles observed, have to be related to the “quantity of movement” contained in a particle; since a particle is now a “curved space” containing movement. We know that this contained movement (energy) is mass energy. B) Since there’s nothing else than those two kinds of movements that exist, they’re the only things that can really interact in the universe. C) So this mass energy of a particle (contained movement) would define its velocity in a free movement space-time. That would be the production of its “proper” velocity. Conclusion: If, like you already agreed with me, that "expansion" is an increase of metric and gravity is a decrease of metric, the universe is composed of: 1) Free movement, with no pressure possible, producing flat space-time. 2) Curved spaces containing movement which are mass particles with “proper” velocity in that flat space-time. Particularities of each events: a) The flat space-time is in expansion. b) The curved spaces tend to join together increasing the size of its curved volume. c) Increasing volume of curved space-time increases the accretion of particles. Last question remaining is: Does accretion of particle slows down the velocity of those particles? My answer is yes for the translation; but no for movement. Because since their translation is transferred into a rotation (because the accretion of particles produces a rotation of the group of particles around its center) the movement (energy) accumulated can’t decrease and the total movement (energy) stays equivalent. What did I miss? I'm sure I did.

Let's look at it another way. Physics says that energy doesn't exists on its own. And it's right when you take the premises physics takes. But reality says that the whole universe is essentially energy (in fact: only energy). And this energy translates itself simply in movement. Everything in the universe is “in movement”; nothing is immobile. The proof is that you have to immobilise whatever point of referential you need, to analyse the movements of other things. Are you ready to say that the universe doesn't exist on its own? To this day, there's only 4,7% of matter that is observed and identified; the rest is energy; and since matter is also energy... Furthermore this Brownian motion (movement) of the universe separates in two kinds of movements: 1) Free movement (flat space) and 2) Contained movement (curved space). Coming back to your question; what is "measurable gravity"? Gravity is an "outcome" of deformation of space-time. When a particle (in fact its own center of gravity) enter such a deformation, it gains speed when going toward the center of gravity of the deformation it entered (and looses back that acceleration while coming out). But even that is not absolutely certain. If a deformation of space is a decrease of its metric, the observed acceleration could be a "constant speed" traveling through a decreasing metric, which gives the impression of acceleration and slowing of time; and the apparent lost afterward could be always the same "constant speed" traveling through incteasing metric. So if, like you already agreed with me, that "expansion" is an increase of metric and gravity is a decrease of metric, what do we do with acceleration and deceleration in a gravity field? And not only collection of particles cause deformations to have measurable gravity; one single mass particle does the same thing. The mesurable gravity field of a proton is 10-15 meter. There's only one answer possible; it comes from Planck's epoch.

Maybe you're right. But force is active and deformation of space is passive. And that changes the comprehension of the event. If you get rid of all forces, the only thing left is topology of space-time; and giving two contrary motion resulting of it resolves about all the problems to explain the universe evolution. Have energy following these two topologies and you get kinetic energy (which transforms in other kind of energy) and mass energy. It can't be simpler than that. Whatever equations are needed to explains the events that occurred during the time evolution changed things is something else. But those equations have to come from the original source of everything; the two topologies we observe in the universe: expansion and gravitation. That's all I'm saying. And that's why I'm interested in the mathematic notions you talk about. There should be a simple equation to describe this original source of everything. E = Mc2 could be it. If we understand it right.

Which "gravitational force" are you talking about? "Attractive" force or "consequence of deformation of space-time"? Because you won't understand the event the same way with those two different concepts. This is the only thing I always talked about. And if that problem isn't solved I'll never understand anything.