In the first article for the Performance Theory section, we explored a change, value, behavior, and performance theory, where we advocated that each of us is an agent of change -- facing greater prevailing external and internal changes -- changes each of us gives values to.
Then we observed that our behaviors often mirror the values we give changes -- which has since been explained by our primate hypothalami research -- which explained how the values allocated by our hypothalami, result in parasympathetic or relaxed, dopey, and/or loving behavior or motivations, satiated/satisfied and/or scarcity/unsatisfied behaviors or motivations, and/or fight or flight sympathetic behavior or motivations, clearly affecting our mood and conduct.
We also posited that our performance -- which is our ability to adapt to changes to survive and grow -- often mirrors our behaviors (which often mirrors the valuations we assign to changes), which more simply boils down to the valuations we give to change affect our ability to adapt to those changes to survive and grow.
We have also explored the nature of worldviews as valuations provided to changes, and how the same has shaped our historical behaviors, misbehavior, performances, and/or failures to perform.
One of the many different worldviews we have explored (and reconciled with faith-based worldviews using general relativity and the equations for thermodynamics as an argument for a shared infinitely changing power-based faith) is the scientific worldview.
Astrophysicists and particle physicists have been struggling with the valuation of one of the four forces of nature, specifically gravity, in that they have yet to fully understand the true nature of gravitons, and yet they have the universal gravity equation that can be used to measure the gravity between any two mass particles across the observable universe and/or beyond.
In a similar manner, physicists have also struggled with the nature of dark energy, which has been assigned as a placeholder to describe the observation that the distance between galaxies is accelerating away from the center of the "big bang", in a manner scientists have been struggling to explain or provide a value to that change.
The visible universe only accounts for about 5% of the observable universe – “In the standard lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the mass–energy content of the universe is 5% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter, and 68.2% a form of energy known as dark energy.[4][5][6][7] Thus, dark matter constitutes 85%[a] of the total mass, while dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the total mass–energy content.[8][9][10][11]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Accordingly, almost 70% of the observable universe has been allocated to a placeholder known as dark energy.
Because there is much more dark/invisible matter and/or dark/invisible energy than visible matter, if we want to discover the elusive graviton, and better understand the lambda-CDM (associated with the rate at which galaxies move away from one another), density parameter (related to lambda-CDM, dark matter, dark energy, and seeking to answer whether the universe is flat, closed, and/or open and/or infinite), dark matter (for example a black hole), and/or dark energy (alleged to be the driving force behind lambda-CDM, or the rate at which galaxies pull away from one another after the big bang), then we must better understand the relationships between these concepts in astronomy.
As referenced below, some researchers have postulated that dark matter may be the elusive gravitons behind gravity, and where this has in part been supported by Hawking calculations regarding micro black holes.”In an early speculation, Stephen Hawking conjectured that a black hole would not form with a mass below about 10−8 kg (roughly the Planck mass).[2] To make a black hole, one must concentrate mass or energy sufficiently that the escape velocity from the region in which it is concentrated exceeds the speed of light.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-dark-real-misunderstood-gravity.html
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-massive-gravitons-viable-dark-candidates.html#google_vignette
Again, dark energy has been reasoned as the driving force behind the lamba-CDM movement of galaxies away from one another as a sort of missing piece of the puzzle, but what if that driving force wasn’t just a push force due to the big bang, but a pull force from much more mass outside of the visible universe pulling on exploded matter from the big bang?
Said differently, what if there is no dark energy pushing galaxies apart but rather and/or much more dark matter outside of the observable universe pulling the observable universe apart in an overlapping manner with the push from the Big Bang? Said differently, what if dark energy is actually the force of gravity of dark matter outside of the observable universe?
The illustration above explains the nature of this theory, and where an analogy is small beads of metal (the matter found within the sphere of the observable universe) surrounded by giant magnets (the much, much greater dark matter anticipated outside of the observable universe, which is only as far as we can see with our best telescopes).
The closer the beads (matter) are to any giant magnets (dark matter), the stronger the magnetic force on the beads of metal, and where just like each metal atom of the magnet exerts a force on each metal atom in the medal beads, gravity works much in the same way, where the closer a small mass (the contents of the observable universe or contents of the "big bang") is to a larger mass (the anticipated much greater mass found outside of what our best telescopes and equipment can see, the greater the force of gravity, and where each particle of mass within the larger mass exerts a force of gravity on each particle of the smaller mass, and vice versa.
Accordingly, the force of gravity between any two particles found within and between the larger and smaller masses differs based on the distance between them, such that a metal atom on one side of the larger mass or magnet exerts a different force with the metal atom on the other side of the smaller mass or metal bead, and the forces between particles within the larger mass or smaller mass are even greater, because of the much smaller distance between them.
And so it is the sum of all of particles in each mass and the distance-based force between each pair of particles that results in magnetic or gravity force between the two masses.
By extension, if the observable universe is only as far as our best technology will ever be able to see, then based on how small our best telescopes and technologies can ever be relative to the size of the observable universe, there is likely much, much more mass outside of the universe that we can't see, and the mass particles making the same, and surrounding our big bang event are each pulling on every particle within our observable universe. And even though each force of gravity between each particle within and beyond the observable universe has a very weak pull, the sum of these forces pulls different parts of the universe together, which by default demands that the same is pulled away from other parts of the universe in what resembles a tug-of-war, and where a satellite falling to Earth is a good example of the same, because as it falls towards the Sun exponentially increasing the force of gravity, the force of gravity between the same satellite and the moon exponentially-decreases, because the distance between the moon and satellite are increasing as the distance between the Earth and the satellite are decreasing, increasing the force of gravity.
In a similar manner, the matter from our "big bang" event, also known as the observable universe, are "big bang" satellites falling towards the much greater mass anticipated outside of the observable universe due to the sum of the gravity of all mass particles outside of the observable universe, exponentially increasing their gravitational pull on ejected "big bang" matter as the ejected "bing bang" matter closes the distance between the center of the "big bang" and all of the much greater anticipated mass found outside of the observable universe. The same might well result in an acceleration, as that distance from the center of the "big bang" to the much greater anticipated mass outside of the observable universe decreases.
More simply, the sum of the gravity of all dark matter found outside of the observable universe may actually be the otherwise inexplicable (an increase in energy from the center of the "big bang" required to exponentially increase the distance between galaxies seemingly violates conservation of energy and other laws of thermodynamics, creating an energy source where there is none, having already dissipated to a lower state of energy) dark energy increasingly-pulling on the ejected "big bang" matter of the observable universe, explaining the acceleration.
Conceptually, the greater the mass, the greater the gravity.
Black holes and other heavy objects generate a gravitational pull on other objects, to the extent that stars in galaxies like ours revolve, swirl, and/or orbit around black holes, and to the extent that light particles can’t escape these bodies (which would refute that dark matter and light can’t interact, and where in a grand unified theory, they would need to, and also refuted by the bending of light near dark bodies).
Dark energy or the alleged driving force behind the lambda-cdm expansion constant is assumed to have to explain why supernovae and galaxies are drifting apart post a big bang-like event, as a sort of missing piece to the mass of the observable universe, but lambda-cdm and/or dark energy could be misinterpreted as not being dark matter, and not being gravity or gravitons, applying a Friedman density parameter where “Ω is less than unity, they are open; and the universe expands forever”, unless met by the first law of thermodynamics, where a body in motion tends to stay in motion until some other force acts on the same.
Applying a Friedman density parameter where “Ω is less than unity, they are open and the universe expands towards forever ” from a mega-supernovae-like event, matter and energy in space would diffuse in different directions until they meet another force, for example another atom in space, where then universal gravity attracts any two masses, but where based on the radius between the two celestial masses, one from an exploding mass and another from another mass, gravity would be increasingly weaker the farther two objects are apart, but with an exploding object, there is a period of acceleration, until what explodes slows to a velocity due to friction, collision, and/or some other force, but, if the explosion’s acceleration and/or velocity are enough to move the mass close enough within universal gravity radius between the exploded object and another object, for example an event horizon of a black hole or any other dense mass, then the exploded object that may or may not have lost its acceleration and/or decelerated may then see an increase in acceleration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations
“Per the Friedman equations regarding density parameter, “This term originally was used as a means to determine the spatial geometry of the universe, where ρc is the critical density for which the spatial geometry is flat (or Euclidean). Assuming a zero vacuum energy density, if Ω is larger than unity, the space sections of the universe are closed; the universe will eventually stop expanding, then collapse. If Ω is less than unity, they are open; and the universe expands forever. However, one can also subsume the spatial curvature and vacuum energy terms into a more general expression for Ω in which case this density parameter equals exactly unity. Then it is a matter of measuring the different components, usually designated by subscripts. According to the lambda-CDM model, there are important components of Ω due to baryons, cold dark matter and dark energy. The spatial geometry of the universe has been measured by the WMAP spacecraft to be nearly flat. This means that the universe can be well approximated by a model where the spatial curvature parameter k is zero; however, this does not necessarily imply that the universe is infinite: it might merely be that the universe is much larger than the part we see.”
“If Ω is less than unity, they are open; and the universe expands forever” and if the universe is infinite, then beyond what we can see is much more mass than we can see”, which if displaced by an event like a big bang and/or about an event like a big bang, could conceivable have much larger dark body objects than we can see.
Under this hypothesis, and with sufficient distribution of large dark bodies beyond the horizon of what we can see, like a strong multi-magnetic sphere-like multi-gravitational field about the big bang if the big bang were made of metals attracted to those magnets – the gravity of the large dark body masses being the magnets – mass from the big bang, of the dark bodies would be large enough, and would have a gravitational pull on the mass from the big bang, to result in acceleration of big bang events or mega-supernovae, and thus doing away with the need for a dark energy or lamba-CDM force to drive galaxies apart, explained by much larger dark bodies about our big bang and their gravitational pull on the mass from the big bang attracted to the much larger dark bodies outside of the observable universe.
Common sense or a law of polymers and substrates or a law of chips off old blocks and old blocks made of chips would be apparent, supporting that there isn’t just one grain of sand in the universe, nor one water molecule, nor one particle in the universe, nor is there just one star, nor just one planet, nor just one moon, nor just one black hole, and so why would there be just one big bang?
Similar events seem more obvious than non-similar events, and also as the Mandelbrot number set and chaos theory illustrate there are similar events at many scales (also proven by stars and black holes at many scales), and so silicon dioxide is not unique but comes from a larger block of silicon dioxide and other things, known as a grain of sand, and that grain of sand is similar to other grains of sand, which come from a pebble of silicon dioxide any other things, which are also similar, and come from a similar rock, which comes from a similar boulder, which comes from a similar mountain, which comes from a similar planet, which comes from a similar star, which comes from a similar galaxy, cluster, supercluster, filament, universe, and multiverse.
Common sense let’s us know that our universe is similar to other bordering universes (if not an infinite universe) we can’t see (and thus can’t readily test), and common sense per observations let’s us know that there are scales of universes, and within them scales of dark bodies, exerting a gravitational pull on the relatively smaller bubbles or universes therein, much like all of the grains of sand in a boulder exert gravity on the grain of sand closer to the middle of the boulder, all attracted to the Earth, all attracted to the Sun, all attracted to the dark body in the middle of our galaxy, all attracted to much larger dark bodies outside of the observable universe, and where our observable universe is like a grain of sand in a boulder, attracted to all of the other universes outside our observable universe, clearly pulling our universe apart aided by the energy of the big bang. In which case, lambda-CDM could = dark matter = dark energy = universal gravity = gravitons.
Many theories on the nature of the big bang focus on a pull force towards a big shred, a bounce force towards an oscillation, and/or a big crunch towards reunification of all that big banged. It seems important to add a theory where there is a scaling infinitely larger universe outside of what we can see, accelerating the rate at which our universe is pulled apart for reunification with what we big banged into, similar to how the sound barrier is air rushing back, or how a drop of mud (big bang) from a leaf over a lake temporarily displaced the lake water (unobservable universe) and forces it apart, but then the mud drop quickly diffuses and becomes part of the lake, like a fresh brave pea in an old soup, the pea (big bang) eventually becoming part of the old soup (the much, much larger and heavier unobservable universe surrounding the much, much smaller and lighter diffusing big bang event or mega-supernovae).
But per the laws of thermodynamics energy can’t be created nor destroyed, and so wouldn’t the acceleration of the expansion of the universe require an exponential increase in the dark energy attributed to universal expansion, and if so, where is this exponentially increasing dark energy coming from after a 13.78 billion year old explosion in the context that energy diffuses over time from higher states of energy to lower states of energy?
Common sense and physics suggest that this dark energy is not coming from nowhere, and if the big bang is viewed as a sphere, then it likely isn’t coming from the center of the sphere 13.78 billion years later in an exponential manner, the energy from the center of the big bang having already dissipated for as long a period.
More simply, dark energy doesn’t make a lot of sense other than to fill in the blank or to serve as a placeholder from what is actually causing galaxies to behave like satellites towards Earth in the same manner as explained by the universal gravity equation.
Additional research supports this theory above.
“Or as lead study author Jan Ambjørn, a physicist at the University of Copenhagen's Niels Bohr Institute, told LiveScience:
"The main finding of our work is that the accelerated expansion of our universe, caused by the mysterious dark energy, might have a simple intuitive explanation, the merging with so-called baby universes, and that a model for this might fit the data better than the Standard Cosmological Model."... The paper is more or less a mathematical exercise, but pieces of it are compelling nonetheless. For one thing, as LiveScience points out, it accounts for the intense inflation that our universe experienced in the first few milliseconds after the Big Bang. The accepted theory is that a hypothetical field, commonly referred to as the "inflaton," was responsible; conversely, this new study suggests that our universe, then a "baby" itself, could have simply been blob-devoured by another, older universe.
That would explain immediate rapid growth — without the need for the hypothetical inflation.
"The fact that the Universe has expanded … in a very short time, invites the suggestion that this expansion was caused by a collision with a larger universe," the researchers write in the study, "that is, it was really our Universe which was absorbed in another 'parent' universe."”
More simply, like a sphere of satellites around the Earth crashing onto the Earth at roughly the same time, a sphere of exploded matter (the big bang or observable universe) is accelerating towards the much larger mass outside of the observable universe within which the big bang exploded in such a manner that like a sphere of satellites crashing into Earth, is a sphere of exploded big bang matter crashing into the much larger mass outside the observable universe.
One way to think of this is that the Earth and/or black holes are mostly made up of space between fundamental particles, and yet the fundamental particles separated by all of that space exert a gravitational force on other fundamental particles, like satellites, meteorites, comets, asteroids, light, and/or other particles separated by great distances.
In a similar manner, many more fundamental particles outside of the observable universe collectively exert a force on the big bang exploded particles in such a manner as to cause the exploded particles to accelerate towards the collectively much greater mass found outside of the observable universe.
In such a scenario, there would be no difference between gravity, dark energy, inflation, lambda-CDM.
Furthermore using the analogy of the Earth and satellites, the equation for universal gravity is such that the individual particles composing the satellites are both attracted to themselves making the satellite, and each particle composing the satellite is also attracted to the individual particles composing the Earth, in such a manner that the attracting of the satellite particles are respectively and collectively attracted to the respective and collective particles of the Earth.
In a similar manner, the respective and collective particles of the big bang are respectively and collectively attracted to the much greater mass or particles found outside of the observable universe, and inflation (a.k.a. Universal gravity) is the evidence of the same, and as the radius between the center of the big bang and the unobservable universe decreases with time, the exploded matter and energy from the big bang accelerates towards a much greater mass outside of the observable universe.
Accordingly, though the force of gravity between any two particles in or out of the observable is weak, just as the force of gravity between a particle in a satellite and a particle on the Earth is weak, the sum of the vector forces between every particle everywhere is such that the sum of particles will cause less concentrated vector forces (for example a satellite or big bang) to be attracted to greater concentrations of vector forces (for example the Earth or the much larger mass outside of the observable universe), respectively.
From this perspective, the big bang was more like a mega-supernova and/or mega black hole, which exploded – which makes sense from the perspective of thermodynamics, because energy can’t be created nor destroyed, and so dark energy didn’t just come from nowhere from the center of where the big bang exploded in order to increasingly accelerate universal expansion, which would require more and more energy in order to accelerate, which thus can’t be coming from within the big bang as a push force, and thus by default has to be coming from outside the big bang as a pull force – and where the universe seeks to go from higher states of energy to lower states of energy, and so it has been billions of years since the big bang and the energy from the big bang has diffused, and thus the energy driving inflation or universal expanison cannot have increased over time in a manner that could explain the force behind alleged and improbable dark energy – which is seemingly more likely to be the gravitational pull by many more particles from outside the observable universe, on the many fewer particles composing the observable universe from the big bang, and inflation and universal expansion seem to be testable evidence of the same, because the exploded matter from the big bang is accelerating towards the much larger unobservable universe.
Further supporting that gravity = dark matter = dark energy = lambda-CDM, but not limited to the same, are the following additional considerations.
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-dark-real-misunderstood-gravity.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
Margot M. Brouwer et al, The weak lensing radial acceleration relation: Constraining modified gravity and cold dark matter theories with KiDS-1000, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2021). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040108
From this perspective, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, lambda-CDM, universal expansion, and the like all seem to be explained by gravity, or gravitons, and where the sum of the vectors between all particles, governs which particles move towards which other particles, with fewer particles always attracted to more particles, because more particles are relatively more anchored in space-time relative to “lighter” or less concentrated particles attracted to the same, expressed as universal gravity, in a manner analogous to giant magnets, when compared to the small metal beads between them, resulting in the beads rolling faster and faster towards the magnets, and not the magnets not sliding towards the beads.
This further proposes that the Friedmann equations solves the density parameter, where Ω is less than unity, or an open universe, and towards a big shred scenario, unless the much greater mass found outside of the universe is better represented by a bubble in a bathtub, which once popped, exploded, or supernovaed, the surrounding air, water, and/or unobservable universe, eventually comes flooding back in with the earliest cast off and/or all of the matter that made the Big Bang and more, in which case a big crunch or oscillation are also possible, and thus not solving for Ω.
One of the questions that comes from this line of thinking is can we use the rate at which inflation increases as a measure of the mass outside of the observable universe resulting in that rate of inflation acceleration and/or the distance of that mass required to result in that rate of inflation? But what would we be measuring here? The closest and/or most concentrated matter to the Big Bang only -- and/or all matter outside of the observable universe?
Returning to the exploration of this theory above, one has to remember that the Sun is much larger than the Earth, and yet the moon rotates around the Earth, and not the much larger Sun.
Accordingly, the distance between two masses significantly affects the force of gravity as specified in the universal gravitation equation r squared, but this doesn’t mean that the mass particles that make the Sun don’t also exert a force on the moon, because they do, because the moon also goes around the Sun like the Earth, but at the same time the moon goes around the Earth.
That said, the moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth, but there is no “drifting” force in nature, but rather pull and push forces, and so the Sun is pulling on the moon, and/or centripetal force is pushing away the moon.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/moon-moving-away-earth/620254/
All of this is apparently moot, because even though the moon is drifting away from the Sun, the Sun will increase its luminosity and boundary to eventually consume the Earth and moon, from which they came, as the Sun progresses along the course of stellar evolution, in about 7.5 billion years. But in 4 billion years the Earth will be so hot as to melt the same, and in 1 billion years the Earth will be so hot that the carbon cycle will end, and all of the water on Earth will evaporate. In about 600 million years, the Earth will be so hot that all plants will die followed by all animal life on Earth. Accordingly, unless we can escape all of the same outside of the reach of the expanding Sun, then we will be returned to the Sun, in the context that the Earth and other planets were cooled matter that blasted off a much larger version of our Sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet
And so as UpRights News explores the nature and limitations of worldviews and universal truths, it seems that eventually all of the values, meanings, and worldviews humanity has assigned to understand the nature of truth and the change, will eventually return us to our makers in one manner or another, with many different flavors for many different and overlapping makers.
Accordingly, it doesn't seem to matter what value or worldview any human being associates with any change, nor how many behaviors will mirror the same, because none of that will seemingly change how we perform, or adapt to change to survive and grow.
That said as Emile de Chatelet elucidated out of Isaac Newton's work, we are made of something that can't be created nor destroyed -- energy -- and as such we have always existed, and will only exist, but we will never to rarely exist in the same or similar manner, summarized by Heraclitus the Greek, who remarked that no person will wash their foot in the same river twice, because it's never to rarely the same foot and it's never to rarely the same river, with our feet and the water changing with every passing moment.
For people of faith, all of the changing energy everywhere, from which we come, are a part of, and return to divided by all of the changing time is the equation for all of the infinitely changing power we come from, are a part of, and return to, which some of us refer to as God(s), and how science and faith-based worldviews are united in a shared worldview.
In 4-5 billion years, our Milky Way Galaxy -- which is moving at an estimated million miles per hour towards the South -- will slam into the neighboring Andromeda Galaxy, forming a new mega-galaxy, whose stars will create new life is a reasonable inference, given that for every five stars in the Milky Way Galaxy alone, there is an Earth-like planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
https://www.planetary.org/articles/earth-like-worlds