Hi Nereid, I will try to respond to your comments in order.

Writing to the internet is like making an ongoing draft. My choice of words is always subject to change. Regarding ‘some current theories of the nature of the universe’, I am referring to statements to the effect that an ’explosion of space and matter’ characterizes the early universe. The idea of a ‘hotter’ and ‘denser’ early universe is also an idea I would characterize as a ‘current theory of the nature of the universe’. I believe there is also an assumption of finiteness of mass/energy which troubles me, and an assumption that ‘all’ this mass/energy exploded into existence over a certain time period. Whether or not these characterizations must be applied to GR or QFT as being the current ‘state of play’ in cosmology, I do not know. I have nothing against either one; what I could say about them would be only a hazy generalization. But I continually come up against statements that imply a separate existence for something called ‘space’ and something called ‘matter’ - and a messy relationship between something called ‘energy’ and something called ‘mass’. If you know of good observational results that put ‘space’, ‘energy’ and ‘mass’ in their proper place in a coherent explanation for universal evolution, let me know too.

I think the ‘unquestioned assumption’ I am referring to regarding spatial expansion is the assumption that ‘space’ can be both a measuring tool, used only to relay information about real events, and a physical entity which itself can expand. I have read too often that “space itself is expanding” to believe that whoever says this regards ‘space’ only as a measuring tool. The dual use of ’space’ as background metric and physical player leads to ’expanding confusion’. The physical expansion of space is an unquestioned assumption precisely because to probe into that physical system threatens the use of ‘space’ as a background metric. In other words, it is a place no one seems to want to look. I have no problem with expanding or curved space, nor with spatial (time and distance) measurements to describe events. But I have a problem if they are used interchangeably, and I believe they are.

I see that as you read my ‘word salad’ at ‘space‘ and ‘mass‘ (which seems to have an unfinished either/or in it) you begin to understand what I am getting at. (The unfinished ‘or’ would be - “or that space be described in terms of a force.”)

An accelerated expansion in the current ‘state of play’ appears to require an evolution where at different times different forces - the ‘force’ of inflation (expanding space par excellence), radiation pressure, and gravity - interact with each other, as ‘space‘ flies apart(?), in such a way that in one epoch one dominates and in our epoch another dominates. I don’t know enough science to call it questionable. I am only suggesting a scenario in which matter is constantly created in a constantly expanding universe, providing a self-made purpose: growth. Why would the universe not expand at an increasing rate? Because you would have a hard time figuring out any relationship between mass and energy, let alone the apples and oranges relationship that already exists when people say “the universe” is ‘4 percent normal matter, 23 percent dark matter, and 73 percent dark energy’. Scientists are okay with this? Let someone tell me how faultless logic leads to the kind of cosmological miscegenation above - and give me a physical entity that logically defines 100 percent of “the universe“ as it is ‘known’.

The growth of the universe from a single path - spatial expansion - to an endless number of paths can be traced from the creation of particles to atomic systems to molecules to cells to humans. All universal evolution can be pictured as being powered by the ability to expand. And there is no switch to turn off the power. Good paths are characterized by harmony: what fits. Paths that are not so good do not fit so well. Like poison, etc.

It may be this this scenario resembles inflation, but it is a never-ending and constant inflation, not an exponential inflation.

I hope someone with more mathematical ability than me will see fit to graft this idea onto a framework in which spatial expansion is constant and the relative motion of bodies takes place according to a space curvature geometry within this frame.

In this scenario, the radius of the expanding field increases constantly at c.

The idea is that a rotating volume, since it is constantly accelerated, does not expand at all. In other words gravitational ‘space’ does not expand.

The formula for the volume of a sphere is (I hope) 4/3 pi r^3. So a sphere of radius 1 will have a volume of 4/3 pi (which I hope is the number I gave - my calculator is faulty.)

I will leave it to you to figure out the eight combinations; I have drawn the motions laboriously on paper. There are two distinct patterns of spin, neither of which shows a complete rotation. If you are interested enough in this scenario to look at them, I will try to get hold of them but I believe there is only one copy of these drawings and I don’t have it. I don’t know whether it can be done on a PC. Once I approached a supercomputer facility about it but got the brush off; they were too busy doing ‘renderings’ for animated movies. There is a theorem, Euler’s rotation theorem, which apparently provides for any rotation being given as a composition of rotations about three axes representable by a 3 x 3 matrix operating on a vector (not my words). Maybe that would do it.

In this scenario it looks like what is created is neutrinos. I am not a scientist, I don’t know. I don’t know about flavors and colors. A photon may be a collection of neutrinos or a disturbance in the spatial ‘medium’. I don’t know that either. But I do know that those three-axial spins are interesting!

If a particle is a rotating energy storage device, it takes energy from the field. If two particles are close together, they may find their spins are compatible (they can spin harmonically together). There may develop a temporary deficit in the field energy, in which case the particle combination emits energy to the field, causing a temporary deficit in the particle combination, etc. ‘Breathing’ ensues.

Torque is the twisting energy of the field in maintaining the spin of the particles. The numbers come from the quantum formula for energy, E=hf, where in the Planck regime the f is 1.