Andre Lefebvre

Like I already insinuated: all I can say for now is: Your'e right. Now, if I could find a mathematician that is ready to create a formula that takes a 0+ kinetic energy of a point of 0+ size, that will describe an exponantial increase of both by rotating at exponantial speed, starting at 0+ speed, then we could talk about the origin of the universe. He would have to consider centripetal and centrifugal force in the process; naturally. Before that moment, you will always be right.

As long as people will think that quantity of matter floating in space has an influence on the expansion of the universe (and keep using the formulas that they say "proves" it), we will get nowhere. The critical density notion was devised at a time when everyone thought that mass (of matter) were attracting themselves so it had to slow down expansion and was (by the same token) curving space-time. When it was discovered that it wasn't at all, the fact of the non observed curvature (flat space-time) was explained by the existence of matter we didn't see, that brought up matter density very near to critical density. Nobody dared say and probably even thought saying that expansion didn't have anything to do with gravitation; mainly because gravitation "had to be" universal even if we observed that it was not. The fact is that matter, spread in the universe, has just as much effect on the expansion as fishes, spread in a river, have the possibility to stop or reverse its flow (ever expanding universe or a Big crunch). As for clusters and super clusters of galaxies, they all have better chances to be "formed" by the expansion of space-time in between the filament structures we see at large scale. Those "empty" spaces are so great that they expand exponentially more faster than the filaments which contains all the matter of the universe. As a matter of fact, if you take the picture of CMB made by COBE and you imagine the expansion of the "blue spots" (no matter) expanding faster than the "red spots" (where there's matter), after 13 billions years you get the filament styructures we see at large scale universe. But what can I say more that all this? I've been "studying" astrophysics (not learning by heart what others were saying) for 60 years; so I know its trajectory of development it as adopted and the only thing I can say is that all that development was based on an imaginary notion which dates 328 years. A notion that even its owner couldn't beleive. But like he said: "It works" So..." But it doesn't work anymore; but no one will admit it; so...

Distant galaxies held together can be explained by something elses than gravity; and so are the "filament" structures at large scale of the universe. All you have to do is consider the expansion of space-time between the filaments. Dark matter solves that dilemma That's a "gratuitous affirmation". You'll have to explain it to me; because those stars are not suppose to have the same speed according to the gravitation's formula. I'd say that it's mass that is not a well define term. In fact science doesn't seem to know what mass really is. So then, let's discuss it. What does Higgs boson do and how does he do it? I'll try right away. http://public.planck.fr/notre-univers/contenu-univers.pdf It's in French but the first two top circles (with dots) concerns the Big bang when the only matter particle is said to be the "inflaton" which is simply the name given by Hawking to the vector of inflation (so a vector that approaches the idea of movement). But it's evident that whatever other kind of matter did'nt exist before inflation. The only thing present is 100% "radiance". Geez! I know that expansion is given by the ratio of 68,7 km per second per megaparsec; but the reason is that the space-time involved is too great to put it in miles per hours. So if you add all the megaparsecs of the universe, the total expansion cannot exceed light speed, and it doesn't. Because if you take Hubble's constant and multiply it with the number of megaparsec of the universe, you'l get a universe of a diameter of 27,6 billion light-years. It's so wrong but you cannot say where it' wrong. I'll tell you were it's wrong. It's wrong, in your option because, to put it simple, when you look at a photo of CMB, you think that while the photon travelling at 300,000 km/sec during 13,8 billion years, the space-time it was going through was expanding behind it. So that the "place" that the picture represents, today, is much farther away than when its photon started is trip. You would be right if light speed didn't eliminate distance and stop time. So the photon that left that "far away" place, "instantly" got to Planck satellite. Whatever you think of the time that was spent for the trip is irrelevant to the photon that made the picture. The balloon analogy use to represent more than what is explained in the link. At the epoch that everybody was sure that space-time was curved, the surface of the balloon represented this curvature of space that everything had to follow to get from one point to another. So nobody could ever get inside the balloon. Only speed could modify the curvature of space-time. But since space-time his proven flat, everybody (every gravitational deformation of space-time) "lives in the balloon. Expansion is exactly the changing of the metric of space-time. A goog analogy (in fact a reality) of the changing of that metric is when you look at a graphic of the electromagnetic spectrum and the gradual expansion of its wavelength. As for inflation, it's completely separate from expansion; even if it involves the sudden growing of space-time. The best image I can imagine is Archimedes tired of waiting that is bathtub gets full, jumps in it when it's 3/4 full. The volume of water suddenly inflated as much as the volume of the body of Archimedes which was immerge. That's inflation and it manifested itself when gluon jumped in our universe (around 10^-36 sec) and almost instantly started disintegrating in massive particles in succession.

Thank you Mordred.

I think you should look at the result analysis of 2015 of Satellite Planck. Before inflation there wasn't any matter whatsoever. As for the size of the entire universe we know that the observable universe goes back to 10^-43 sec. Imagine that expansion was produced at the speed of light. A year after Big bang the radius of the universe would have been 1 light-year. After 13,8 million years it would be 13,6 billion years and the diameter would be 27,2 billion years. Expansion would not have the time to produce more space-time or, for that matter, unobservable universe more than what stands behind those 10^-43 sec. So we've got a good idea of the size of the universe if we keep being logic. There definitely was expansion starting for the Big bang; and it never stopped as for inflation, it is completely independent to expansion. That's for sure since expansion is the contrary of gravitation. I can't understand why you cannot visualise a universe at the beginning with nothing more than kinetic energy manifesting in a movement of expansion where there is no pressure involved because there is no opposition to that expansion. To have pressure you need opposition. Further more at that time there was no gravity involved. The first gravity that appeared in the universe was the deformations of space-time around quarks and antiquarks Top; first massive particles to appear.

That is an evidence. But a universe when starting in a Big bang could be composed of one thing only: the total energy of actual universe being kinetic energy that provoques expansion. That original kinetic energy would afterward transform itself in other forms of energy depending of events. The temperature at the Big bang would then be only a consequence of the total actual energy contained in a small universe only beginning its expansion. That kinetic energy would produce expansion of a flat universe without the presence of anything that could give it a curvature. And it would still be mainly flat today except where events would have demanded otherwise. Density of the universe doesn't produce "pressure" since the expansion produces space-time. So there's no "pressure" involved in a flat expanding universe.

It's not flat from galaxies to atoms. Everybody agrees on that. Mesurement say one thing but "facts" couls say different. For example the center of gravity of a sphere sums up to zero; but what does the particle at the center of a colapsing neutron star thinks about that zero gravity? It's not that way according to measurements employed; bur "facts" shows different. What about those stars orbiting around a galaxy at practically the same speed? Do this "fact" is an evidence of consistency with accepted theoretical physics?

I wonder what would be the formulas we would use today if Newton had perceive the recession of galaxies instead of the falling of an apple? He would have certainly deduce that mass was "repulsing" themselves instead of "attracting" themselves. I agree. All we need to know now is if there are places where there's no "mass energy"? I agree with that; we don't observe expansion. Which means that where we do observe expansion, we don't observe gravity. I stick to "facts". Maybe not; but in a galaxy, its "effect" doesn't comply to diminishing at the square of the distance; since a lot of stars starting from a certain distance of the center of the galaxy up to the farthest orbiting stars have practically the same speed. Something's wrong somewhere. I didn't say it couldn't be use; I said that its using was not a "sine qua non" condition. I must construct bad phrases in English; I'm a French speaking person. What I said is that "mass" wasn't a quantity of matter; that it rather was "energy". And I also said that my opinion was based on Binding energy. Which you said was the main source of mass in an atom. So we agree (I guess) that mass is energy and not a quantity of matter. But after saying energy is the main source of mass, you come back saying that mass is a quantity of matter. I then can understand that you cannot. It's not an explanation if mass is energy; it could be if mass is a quantity of matter, so that a Higgs boson would simply give a "form" to a quantity of energy without giving it energy (to that form). That would mean that, to you, theoritical physics is not physics.

@ Strange I've read it a few times in "scientific popularisation"; but I'm sorry. You're right it's special relativity that describes local space-time. But, on the other hand, since most of the universe is flat, gravitation does seems to manifests itself only in spécific places. The last analysis of polarisation B on Planck’s photo of CMB shows that where there is matter (gravity) it focusses polarity; and where there's no matter it disperses it. But it doesn't really change anything because where gravity is weaker than expansion we don't observe gravitational effects. So in regards to facts, gravity is local; in regards to theory it's not. But even if we would eliminate the notion of universality of GR, it wouldn't change anything in observations (and probably not in the theory either). The special relativity eliminated "instantaneity of Newtons gravitation but did not eliminate its universality. Maybe Planck’s photos will. But in facts universality is not a "sine qua non" condition to GR, I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong. Since Planck’s results in 2015; it doesn't simply "appear" flat`; it is "flat". For which the importance in regard to the universality of GR. Funny because that answer of yours was to my statement: « Exactly; but “mass” is not a quantity of matter in physics; it's energy”. So I certainly didn’t say that “quantity of matter” was “energy”. Further down, you say that when I state that “mass” isn’t a “quantity of matter”, you respond by: “Simply repeating that doesn't make it any less wrong.” So give me a final answer: Is “mass” a quantity of matter or is it “energy”? I’m ready to accept that “mass” is a quantity of matter and mass energy is the quantity of energy attribute to that quantity of matter. Would that solve the problem between us? The only reason I was saying that mass is not energy is because of “binding energy” in an atom. (Sorry but I hate hearing about religion and philosophy while talking about science. It looks to much like a "last resort" argument) So no wonder that Higgs boson gives mass to particles; it doesn’t need to be explained how it does so and where that mass is from. The same occurs with fundamental forces; all that as to be done is explain something with it and there’s no problem with the fact that it’s a “free invention” that came from imagination. Like Newton said: “It’s not logical, but it works!”. That clarifies a lot of problems; really. But like I said, I’m not teaching what is known; I’m only trying to understand where things come from and what their interactions to produce what we observe is. I don’t really need anybody to describe me what I can see. Rarely is one interpretation better than another one beside the logic and observations backing it. And since I'm heading toward the unknown, which is the fascinating part about physics, let's say that I will have to rest myself on "facts" observed and logic. That's all I can do.

I really have noting else to add since only the afirmation part is reproduced without the explanation part. It would be nice to point out where my statements "appear" to be inconsistent with GR. Maybe where you say that GR is universal; but everybody knows that it describes local space-time. Furthermore I took notice that you skipped the part of my argument saying that "universe is falt" which doesn't give it a lot of gravity. But I don't think that this conversation will continue from my part. I like discussions to be honestly for understanding not confronting. Anyway, what I think doesn't change anything in the world of people around me; only the world i, myself, understands it. Have a nice confrontation with somebody else. I wih you a very nice day.

Exactly; but “mass” is not a quantity of matter in physics; it's energy Sorry; but I’m not confuse at all since I don’t think that deformation of space-time is not in the shape of a funnel. The one confused are those who think that it is in a shape of a funnel. I visualise it more in a collapsing of its metric, actually. Like I said “mass” is not a quantity of matter. Energy involved in gravity has to be “mass energy”. Pressure comes from the “mass energy” and momentum has to be defined so we understand your meaning. Which remains to be seen. We have no explanations on the “origin” of strong nuclear force. All we know is that it has a “vector”: the gluon which is not an explanation at all. But let’s imagine that a gluon has an "intern" “topology” (flow of direction) that sends everything to its center (which would explain the "gluing" effect) then we would have a natural explanation of the strong nuclear force. I prefer this idea of topology instead of “strong nuclear force” which comes from nowhere for the glue. Mainly because it’s natural and it’s simple. Furthermore, we have a lot more informations now, than what was known in 1935, when Yakawa and others suggested a strong nuclear force, to keep stable ordinary matter. I agree that this idea eliminates one of the four fondamental forces but gravitation isn’t a force either; it’s a consequence of space deformation. So the superforce, instead of being, four at the beginning but brought down to only three, by Einstein, are now left to two. So what? Specially since the two remaining forces where joined in the "electroweak" force. Some day we will be able to eliminate those last two somewhat “magical” forces by an observed natural and simple "consequence". You should add: “locally”. Einstein field equation describes local space-time not universal space-time. As a matter of fact, universal space-time is "flat". Let’s note that a “flow of direction” imprinted in the gluon would be imprinted in the space-time fabric itself. As you can see I’m not trying to teach what we know; I’m trying to understand what we don’t know. I didn't mention "spherical"; I mentioned "volume". I don’t have to live with it since I understand that it’s not a “hole”. It’s people that are told it is a “hole” that have that problem. The causes "might" be completely different; but I’m not explaining the causes of the liberation or the capture of photons; I’m just making a parallel of both situations. The causes are not exactly known since we don’t exactly know what happens at the horizon of a black hole. What we have are mostly speculations. On the other hand, if collapsing of a black hole is the collapsing of the volume of its metric that had been expanding, chances are that my visualisation of the event is pretty close to reality; I would say. Why? Saying “wrong” is not enough; I’m sorry. When I talk about “our finding”, I’m talking about the reflection above, not of the speculations in vogue. Nobody is talking about throwing out the theory of General Relativity since it is exact. We might just have to get rid of the intuitive influence of the notion that “masses are attracted to each other” and start considering “attraction” as being “tidal effects” between space-time deformations. Hope this will reduce the bad perception my first message made. I don't want to aggress anything and nobody. All I try to do is find answers where information seems to be turning in a circle.

I read quite a few of the preceding posts regarding black hole but I couldn't find any clear description of a black hole. From what I know, a Black hole is the maximal déformation of the geometry of a certain volume of space-time. That déformation of the volume of space-time extends way down to its center of gravity. Which seems to mean that the deformation in question is the result of something acting on the center of gravity itself. And that means that de déformation is not, at all, caused by the presence of a ball of matter floating in space, like a bowling ball placed on a mattress. If you look, for example, at the M31 galaxy (Andromeda) where there is a black hole in its center, the galaxy doesn't have the form of a funnel. You can get in the Black hole from either side of the galaxy. And you certainly whon't get trough and emerge on the other side. The first consideration we must do is accept that; if its not the quantity of matter that deforms space-time it has to be the next best bet: the mass energy of that quantity of matter. And we can had that, the "mass energy" directs itself toward the center of gravity of that quantity of matter. To support this view, just think that the mass of a proton consist of its three internal quarks for 1% and its inner energy for 99%. So what kind of space-time deformation are we talking about? The only possibility is that the deformation is in the fabric of space-time itself and not at all in the fabric of matter. First of all, the déformation of space-time is not in a downward direction; so the name Black "hole" is physically inappropriate. It is not a "hole". Instead, we should talk about a "Black ball"; because the circular event horizon of a Black hole doesn't represent a pancake; it represents a volume of space-time: a"ball". So, again, what can we say about the fabric of space-time? We can only say that it has a metric. And, it's easy to understand that the expansion of the universe is exactly the progressive growth of that metric. But what does that mean? What does it looks like? To find out, lets say we choose a metric (a lenght) of one foot. The continuous growth of that metric will result in the fact that our foot will gradually become a foot that mesures 13 inches-> 14 inches -> 15 inches and so on, but will still be "a foot". That is the expansion of the metric of the universe. The whole thing started when the universe had a diameter of 10^-35 meter; and the date was: 10^-43 sec after time = zero. And the universe of that epoch is still de same universe today. So what happens if we choose one precise point of the frabic of the universe and we block the growth "movement" at that point? I'd say that the expansion of space-time will stop for that point and a deformation will occur around it because the surroundings of the point will continue to expand. Lets say that we stopped the expansion of our chosen point at the moment where our metric had grown to the size of two feet. In stopping its growht, we have obtained a metric of space-time that is now "stable". That part of space-time doesn't change its metric anymore; even though the rest of the universe still expands. That is exactly the situation in which we observe our space-time from the level of the galaxies down to the level of the atoms. We live in a volume of space-time where its metric is stabilized. That volume of stable space-time is our galaxy. Now; lets choose a déformation of space that is occupied by a great big star. The point "center of gravity" of that deformation is blocked like the rest of the galaxy where this star is located and the "mass energy" of the star is what stabilises its volume, gives its form etc.. What we now are going to do is add "mass energy" to that star. To do so, all we have to do is accumulate matter particles, containing mass energy, on the surface of the star so that the energy of those particles joins the mass energy of the star. Adding mass énergy increases the action on the centre of gravity of the deformation of its space-time so gradually, or point "center of gravity" start to "back up" in its metric. This is called "collapsing". When we will have added enought mass energy to our star, its metric will collapse with all the matter it contains (passing trough opposite reactions encountered) back to the size of the original metric it started from : The one wich has (or had) the size of 10^-35 meter. We have now obtained a "Black hole" with its singularity that everybody cannot describe. We can even make a parallel between the photon liberation at 380,000 years after Big bang and the horizon of a Black hole where we find the limit of "free" photons near a Black hole. With these informations, we can now start again breaking our brain on problems created by Black holes. Our actual finding, above, is that the production of a Black hole is exactly the reverse process of the production or the evolution of the universe. So whatever mathematics says that doesn't correspond to the evolution of the universe since 13,7 billion years has great chances to be wrong..