So, at the Big-bang, we had one volume of 10^-35 meter in diameter and 10^-43 second later, we had 12 additional volumes of 10^-35 meter in diameter surrounding the first volume that had appear.
This is the “reproduction ratio” (which is not a “speed”), for each basic volume of space; and every one of them has 10^-35 meter in diameter. So the reproduction ratio is “12 for 1” per 10^-43 second.
To be perfectly clear, the “speed” of expansion of each space volumes is constant at lightspeed; but the “ratio” of reproduction of basic space volumes is: 12 for 1 volumes per 10^-43 second.
This is a “fact” that can be “seen” only with geometry. Mathematics cannot show this undisputable “fact”; at least I don’t think so. On the other hand, mathematics can most surely supply a formula that can calculate the future results implied by such a “ratio”.
And these results are going to be far greater than what redshift gives for type 1a supernovae; because type 1a supernovae have “inertness” that prevents them to have “lightspeed”; and even if they had lightspeed, the “ratio” of reproduction of space volumes represents, after a certain distance in space (or time), a growth of that distance far superior to what lightspeed can travel.
It will also give à result exceeding enormously what we are actually accrediting to the expansion rate, on which scientists still do not agree. See:
Furthermore, the so named “acceleration” between type 1a supernovae and us is a “deceitful” expression. “Acceleration” is related to “speed”; but the observed event is related to the “space reproduction” ratio; which isn’t a “speed” at all.
Fortunately, this “fact” relieves us of a big problem; because we don’t have to search for any added “dark energy”, coming out of nowhere, to explain the wrong notion of this expanding “acceleration”. There’s a great economy involved here. Economy of dollars which could serve for more serious research.
Comments