Andre Lefebvre

Which would mean that it's the object that produces kinetic energy. So the object "at rest" decides to move in order to produce kinetic energy. This doesn't seem logical to me; whatever the definition of the word "kinetic energy". I hope I'm wrong. The question is what causes the movement to appear? I'm not invoking my model; I'm invoking that "attraction" is not a "force" but a "consequence" of the "tidal wave" produced by the "touching of two space-time deformations. Space-time deformation is nothing else than a geometric figure. How can we say that? The proper (peciliar) movement of both galaxies sends one toward the other. Where is the proof of a gravitational bound? If their movement where in a contrary direction wouldn't they move away from each other?One thing is certain: there’s not “mass attraction” of each galaxies toward the other. If gravity manifests itself, it has to be as a "tidal wave effect". And "tidal wave effects" are not from my personal model originally The motions of individual galaxies show they move away from each other; how can gravity keep them "bundled up"? There has to be another explanation. I suggested one; it could be an error. But not as bad as the gravitational explication. Which means you're saying that expansion did not dilute density of the universe, since gradually going back further in the past doesn't increase the density of the universe. Geez! I'm not talking of increase or decrease of energy; I'm talking about increase or decrease of the "DENSITY" of energy. But the change in volume changes the DENSITY of energy, so the more it's dense, the more it's hot. We agree on that point. But somewhere in the copy of the paper, its says: ... represent integration over an ensemble of different universe realizations. These inhomogeneities are like waves in the space-time metric. When matter fell in the troughs of those waves, To me "when matter fell in the troughs of those waves" means that the waves where already there before matter fell on it. So matter is something apart of the waves. And this is not from my personal model either. Sorry.

Mordred; I’d like to show you the way I work. I’ll take, as example, what I did with the text that your first link gave me: http://arxiv.org/pdf...h/0004188v1.pdf:"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido My personal notes are in red. Cosmology was born as a science with the advent of general relativity and the realization that the geometry of space-time, and thus the general attraction of matter, is determined by the energy content of the universe. (Attraction of matter is not in GR and matter energy is not “working” the same way as Kinetic energy). Except for peculiar velocities, i.e. motion due to the local attraction of matter, galaxies do not move in coordinate space, it is the space-time fabric which is stretching between galaxies (peculiar velocity is not due to local attraction of matter since matter doesn’t attract itself). One may be puzzled as to why do we see such a stretching of space-time. Indeed, if all spatial distances are scaled with a universal scale factor, our local measuring units (our rulers) should also be stretched, and therefore we should not see the difference when comparing the two distances (e.g. the two wavelengths) at different times. The reason we see the difference is because we live in a gravitationally bound system, “decoupled” from the expansion of the universe: local spatial units in these systems are not stretched by the expansion (which means that the volume of universe we live in is not subject to the “flat” universe. Our environment doesn’t respond to the same physic laws). So far I have only discussed the geometrical aspects of space-time. Let us now consider the matter and energy content of such a universe. One can also define a critical density ρc, that which in the absence of a cosmological constant would correspond to a flat universe (doing so is using the physic laws that work in our gravitationally bound system and applying them to the universe we are “decupled” from. It cannot apply. Critical density is a notion that is attached to Newton’s notion of “attractive masses”, which is a false notion. That “apparent” attractiveness of mass is a “tidal effect” when deformed volume of space-time touches each other; if they don’t “touch” there’s no “tidal effect” and masses stay completely independent from one another for example: galaxies). Brief thermal history of the universe In this Section, I will briefly summarize the thermal history of the universe, from the Planck era to the present. As we go back in time, the universe becomes hotter and hotter and thus the amount of energy available for particle interactions increases (But since temperature is the result of density, this increase of temperature while going back in time is the result of a backward trip through expansion of the universe which has been diluting energy since the beginning of Planck’s time. This explains the increasing amount of energy available for particles as we proceed in the past). At the end of inflation, the huge energy density of the “inflaton field” was converted into particles (From this we learn that particles and antiparticles appeared during inflation and that they originated in the “inflaton field” which is completely independent of the “expansion field”. Expansion was still going on while inflation was happening. They are two different and separated events even if both change the volume of space-time). Since then many different experiments have confirmed the existence of the microwave background. The most outstanding one has been the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite, Note: In the lower figure we can see that there is more “energy” on the left side (more green) of the figure than on the right side (more blue) of the figure. This difference of energy was confirmed by both WMAP and Planck’s satellite afterward. (I couldn’t put here a copy of that photo; sorry; but it is shown in the link you gave me). Soon after COBE, other groups quickly confirmed the detection of temperature anisotropies at around 30 µK and above, at higher multipole numbers or smaller angular scales (which means that the universe of that epoch was not (anymore) homogeneous). Furthermore, the anisotropies observed by the COBE satellite correspond to a small-amplitude scale-invariant primordial power spectrum of inhomogeneities where the brackets (·) represent integration over an ensemble of different universe realizations. These inhomogeneities are like waves in the space-time metric. When matter fell in the troughs of those waves, it created density perturbations that collapsed gravitationally to form galaxies and clusters of galaxies, with a spectrum that is also scale invariant (What is said here is that matter was created “on top” of space-time metric; that it exists on the troughs of space-time metric’s waves. This means that matter isn’t integrated in space-time metric and thus is not sensible to expansion; which means that equalizing expansion and gravity for a flat universe is irrelevant. It also means that it cannot have any “slowing down” effect on expansion so the notion of “critical mass” is also irrelevant). From these observations one can infer that most galaxies formed at redshifts of the order of 2 − 6; clusters of galaxies formed at redshifts of order 1, and superclusters are forming now. That is, cosmic structure formed from the bottom up: from galaxies to clusters to superclusters, and not the other way around. This fundamental difference is an indication of the type of matter that gave rise to structure (Since matter doesn’t influence space-time and expansion is present between galaxies, no type of matter whatsoever can be responsible of those structures. The only logical explanation is that those structures are the consequence of the expansion of the “blue” spots on WMAP representing less gravity presence, which expanded exponentially faster than the red spots where gravity was present. That would create the filament distribution of matter in large scale space-time observation after a period of 13 billion years. No dark matter is needed to explain those structures). So this is the way I work with those information. I simply put in what, I think, the real meaning of what is written, or bring my reasons why I disagree. And like you can see, there’s quite a bit of disagreements. L Furthermore the desagreements are not regarding the definitions of the terms but in the notions behind those definitions. That is where my problem stands.

Thank you. A simple question: Why does neutrino have so little mass going at almost light speed? I'll read those articles for sure.

Ok I won't worry ...for now Because when the base itself of a "deduction" us wrong, I keep it in mind. So I might worry later.

I' had to take a break. My mind was swirling and at the end, my neurons where hanging holding on to my ears. But I'm back to work. I've got to tell you though. Most of those papers make me nervous. As I read their opinion based on "attraction of masses" (most of them in the introduction) instead of “space deformation”, I feel like reading science before 1915 and I have difficulty accepting deductions and interpretations almost all based on that old and false notion. Another thing that comes to my perception is that all basic formulas used today seem to have been made at the end of the 19th and the first quarter of 20th century (except newton’s gravity 328 years ago). I get the impression that I'll have to cut a forest with a tomahawk instead of, at least, a chainsaw. I hope this impression will disappear. Mordred; in your link to STATISTICAL PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY I've found something that caught my interest greatly. It's the Fluid Equation. It's going to take me some time but I've got to understand it perfectly. So I'll be working on it until I do. Surprisengly the last phrase of the chapter doesn't bother me very much even though it says: "So Newtonian theory suffices for a study of homogeneous cosmological models-a fact on which the viability of this course depends!" I guess I'm improving.

That's about my technique also. I copy what I feel important and don't let it go until I understand it getting information and explications wherever I can find them. I add those info to my copied text. So I'll be having a lot of work to do.

I'm getting to it right now. Thanks.

Thanks a lot Mordred.

Is there any easy accessible links I could find that quantum descriptive? I've got problems with tensors but I'll teach my mind to let them have their right "to be". In my mind mathematic needs them but universe doesn't. That the most difficult part for me to accept them. But I will if I have to.

Ok I get it; by increasing and decreasing pressure you compress or extend the wavelength so, increase or decrease frequency without changing the particle. In fact, for particles of matter you're changing the particle, but the law has to be general including light wavelength. Thanks No thank you. When I swim I like to keep my head out of the water as much I can. But I'm still sorry to leave out kinetic energy. To me it is the source of everything that exists. But then, I'll have to wait if ever we get to it.

So here is the "round up" of the informations: Gas laws results in The Combined Gas Law or General Gas Equation: This can also be written as With the addition of Avogadro's Law, the combined gas law develops into the Ideal Gas Law: where p is pressure V is volume n is the number of moles R is the universal gas constant T is temperature (K) where the proportionality constant, now named R, is the Gas constant with a value of 0.08206 (atm∙L)/(mol∙K). An equivalent formulation of this Law is: where p is the pressure V is the volume N is the number of gas molecules k is the Boltzmann constant (1.381×10−23 J·K−1 in SI units) T is the absolute temperature This law has the following important consequences (my previous comments en red, my new questions in blue): If temperature and pressure are kept constant, then the volume of the gas is directly proportional to the number of molecules of gas. (I’d say that the amplitude of the movement of the particles (kinetic energy) is stabilised so volume is thus determined). Could it be possible to use the amplitude of movement of each particles instead of "number of particles" in the formulation of the law? If the temperature and volume remain constant, then the pressure of the gas changes is directly proportional to the number of molecules of gas present (So you have to add particles to change the pressure while keeping the volume. Then you’re changing the pressure by changing the density of the gas. It’s like heating the gas on the stove to change the temperature (exterior addition). No question here since exterior addition is irrelevant. If the number of gas molecules and the temperature remain constant, then the pressure is inversely proportional to the volume (inversely proportional to... the volume of space for the movement (kinetic energy) of particles). Again we're in front of the amplitude of kinetic energy (movement) of each particles. Could that be define in the formulation of the law? (This could be the same difining the same thing as my first question). If the temperature changes and the number of gas molecules are kept constant, then either pressure or volume (or both) will change in direct proportion to the temperature (If there's no adding of outside energy, temperature changes is caused by a change in pressure which needs a diminution of volume). No question here; but "diminution of volume" is again changing the amplitude of movement (kinetic energy) of each particles. Another detail: “however you don't need the portion seemed increased. Increase of pressure also increases temperature. Temperature is an increase in average kinetic energy. Key note average.” I’d say that temperature is an increase "in the measurement" of average kinetic energy. You can’t “create” energy. Example: The expansion of the universe is diluting its energy; not eliminating part of it. Gravitation is compressing energy, not creating energy. So there’s no real “increase” of kinetic energy in pressurising the gas. It’s a kind of illusion. At least the way I see it. So it seems to me that this (or these) gas law leaves "in the dark" the factor "kinetic energy" (movement of each particles) which cannot describe the real factors involved in the event and so the real event itself. I'd like to "let pass" this detail; but I cannot unless I have very good reasons to understand it wouldn't modify further interpretations that could be related to it. The question is: Is the factor of defining the individual kinetic energy (movement) of the particle important for future interpretations? For now, I'd say it is. The next question would be how would it change the formulation of the law?

Thank you I'll do that. Thanks and like I said: Take care.

No problem. But now I'm asking myself if pressure is giving me trouble and why or where? But the reasons I see are not exactly the same as the units definitions. I'll try to compare with more precision. But it's going to be tomorrow. I'm falling asleep. Take care.

Are you saying that increasing pressure doesn't increase temperature? My number two was:

That's why I said that to increase the number of mole of particles, you have to, either change the molecules for heavier ones, or add some of the same molecules you already have. There's something I don't catch here I guess.

Let's go through that again: 1)If you increase the number of moles of particles you increase its density and the number of collisions. If the number of collisions is constant heavier particles will deliver more force per collision. How can you increase the number of moles without increasing the number of particles or putting in "heavier" particles? 2)If you increase the Temperature the particles gain kinetic energy so the number of collisions also increases. If you increase temperature by putting the container of gas on the stove, you give it energy from the stove, so the particles move faster and the collisions increase. The only other way to increase the temperature is by increasing the pressure. Then you're not adding energy; you're just diminishing the space availlable for particles movement (increasing density). So their movements are shorter thus faster; and their energy seemed increased. 3)If you increase the volume the number of collisions decreases. That's normal; you increase the space for particles to move (decrease density); so the energy, even if the same, is diluted in their lenght of the movement (space). The same as expansion dilutes the energy of the universe. a)If temperature and pressure are kept constant, then the volume of the gas is directly proportional to the number of molecules of gas. I'd say that the amplitude of the movement of the particles is stabilised so volume is thus determined. b)If the temperature and volume remain constant, then the pressure of the gas changes is directly proportional to the number of molecules of gas present. So you have to add particles to change the pressure while keeping the volume. c)If the number of gas molecules and the temperature remain constant, then the pressure is inversely proportional to the volume. inversely proportional to... the space for the movement (energy) of particles. d)If the temperature changes and the number of gas molecules are kept constant, then either pressure or volume (or both) will change in direct proportion to the temperature. If there's no adding of outside energy, temperature changes is caused by a change in pressure which needs a diminution of volume. This is what comes from my logic. I'll check the two links you gave me. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll take note of it and think about it. I want to understand perfectly without any "blurred" spots. That's an evidence. I agree. That's a fact; but what force moves them (massive particles)? I think it's their "peculiar" (proper) energy which is either "restrainded" by pressure or "liberated" by space increase. Any pressure increases temperature so all particles are "restrained in their "proper" movement. I'll check the link tomorrow. and I'll see if I understand perfectly.

OK Here it is: Taking the U-tube manometer as an example, It works on the same principle as a water level used in a hose. If I have a “bubble” of air (gas) in the water of the hose, the level at each end is not at the same height because the gas in the bubble is pressurised by the weight of the water and is not situated at the center of the length of the hose. Nevertheless the pressure of the air (gas) in the bubble is due to the weight of the water pressing on each side of the air bubble; and is different from the “weight” (Pressure) of the “free” air (gas) coming at each end of the hose. But I agree that inside the air “bubble” the pressure is “homogeneous”. Regarding the temperature (my comments are in red): We can make two observations: 1. Increasing the temperature broadens the distribution and shifts the peak to higher velocities. This means that there are more ‘fast’ particles at higher temperatures, but there will still be many ‘slow’ ones as well. (It also mean that each particle movement is “using” more space so it increases pressure of the total space) 2. Decreasing the mass of the gas particles (is either decreasing the number of particles (diluting the gas, so diminishing the pressure) or changing for another gas whose each particle mass is less) has the same effect as increasing the temperature i.e. heavier particles have a slower, narrower distribution of speeds than lighter particles. (But the heavy gas particles have more space to use (less pressure on them) and so move faster; or the less mass particles move faster than the previous particles for the same reason. Finally, decreasing the mass of the gas (or of the particles) is decreasing the pressure). Which explains why decreasing the mass doesn't change the temperature. I must be wrong somewhere?

I'll wait till I get to the topic. I'd like to know where I was "missing something" in the remarks I made earlier (post 04.04) or if I was on the mark? Before i put more remarks on futher information of the first article. Which, I must say is a marvelous source of understanding the subject.

You'll find it at this link: http://alpha.sinp.msu.ru/~panov/LibBooks/SMOLIN/Lee_Smolin-Three_Roads_to_Quantum_Gravity-Basic_Books(2002).pdf "By the way +1 for showing a strong interest in studying" Thank you. I see it as personal reseach; being doing it for 60 years.

Thank you. I'm on it. One thing though. I'm keeping in mind your suggestion that in flat space-time something applies pressure on the curvature of the universe because of gas laws, which says having the same pressure wherever you check in the gas. Taking the U-tube manometer as an example, It works on the same principle as a water level used in a hose. If I have a “bubble” of air (gas) in the water of the hose, the level at each end is not at the same height because the gas in the bubble is pressurised by the weight of the water and is not situated at the center of the length of the hose. Nevertheless the pressure of the air (gas) in the bubble is due to the weight of the water pressing on each side of the air bubble; and is different from the “weight” (Pressure) of the “free” air (gas) coming at each end of the hose. But I agree that inside the air “bubble” the pressure is “homogeneous”. Regarding the temperature (my comments are in red): We can make two observations: 1. Increasing the temperature broadens the distribution and shifts the peak to higher velocities. This means that there are more ‘fast’ particles at higher temperatures, but there will still be many ‘slow’ ones as well. (It also mean that each particle movement is “using” more space so it increases pressure of the total space) 2. Decreasing the mass of the gas particles (is either decreasing the number of particles (diluting the gas, so diminishing the pressure) or changing for another gas whose each particle mass is less) has the same effect as increasing the temperature i.e. heavier particles have a slower, narrower distribution of speeds than lighter particles. (But the heavy gas particles have more space to use (less pressure on them) and so move faster; or the less mass particles move faster than the previous particles for the same reason. Finally, decreasing the mass of the gas (or of the particles) is decreasing the pressure). Which explains why decreasing the mass doesn't change the temperature. I must be wrong somewhere?

Weinberg I read along time ago. I also like is wrinting.

Thank you very much. I took a break and I'm now reading Lee Smolin's Three roads to quantum gravityIt's quite interesting actualy Take care

Thank you. To my point of view, the simpler is always the better. So if it's possible, let me have it.

Thanks I'll try to get that in. And then, I hope I'll have my answer to my question.