## A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Don't tell me I'll have to thank you if ever you demolish my theory?! :0)

Mine is not demolished yet; there's surely an explanation and I'll find it. :-) Furthermore, that "light cut" instantly erasing the whole ray isn't part of my theory anyway. But it's a problem to be solve regarding "no distances" at light speed.

we constantly resist to our environment

That's an egocentric way of looking at things; reality is that it's the environment that changes; we only "endure" the changes as long as we can.

because we never get the feeling that we are resisting, whereas we can almost measure the resistance of others so much they resist

We don't get the feeling because we do not "resist"; and so doesn't "others". They seem to "resist" but that's only an impression. In fact, they keep being "viable".

Mutations are not necessarily recycled, they might also disappear if the individual that carries them cannot reproduce itself.

And then it's recycled"; they don't disappear, they're energy and energy never dissappear.

The mass that I am talking about is the one that we measure while accelerating

That mass, in acceleration, is always the same mass to which you have to constantly add energy in order to keep accelerating. That mass (rest mass) doesn't change; it doesn't have to. If you don't accelerate, then you don't have to add energy. On the other hand, accelerating augments "potential mass"; but it's not "observable" before you "block" the motion. Then that former "potential mass" becomes "real" and can "splash you" on the ground.

so if galaxies are really accelerating away from one another, what I doubt,

Think of a boat that you push onto a river. Gradually the boat will be accelerating until it goes at the same speed the river is flowing. To me, expansion is at light speed; whatever "objects" (galaxies) are "floating" in it, is gradually gaining speed until it gets to light speed. (where no distances in ever "present").
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

It’s interesting to see what came out since page 6. Some subjects are still unanswered:

1) I agree that space-time is the mathematical unification of space and time, (This is important because it really means that space (distance) and time are separated only in mathematic; not in “real life”).

2) Wavelengths’ captured by Planck satellite are microwaves. Redshift is related to their frequencies.

4) "Electromagnetic energy" cannot be the oldest form of energy since it is a "composed" energy (electronic and magnetic).

5) "Vacuum energy", "Cosmological constant" and “Dark energy”; are three names for one single thing nobody can define exactly and everybody accept never to be observed; but all 3 names have decent mathematical definitions.

6) Never to forget: In reality, we can specify that the "observer" creates is "interpretation" of the observation.

7) There are very few scientific observations (if any) that are not indirect to some degree.

8) Facts:
a) Planck satellite factual informations, in regards to
b) Einstein notion of gravity (space-time deformation),
c) Planck’s time and length constants,
d) the premise that quantity of energy doesn't decrease or increase,
e) the basic notion of BB, that indicates a "start" to everything, including space and time; which to me is "space-time", and
f) Kinetic energy is responsible of the movement of expansion (based on factual simple logic)

9) There is only one kind of "motion" which is "straight ahead" following the geometry of space-time.

10) Distance and time is exactly the same thing;

11) The universe is composed of 95% of "space" and 5% of "matter" that occupy" space". The total of "space" is 100%. And this is exactly what we all observe.

12) "Emptiness" is not "nothing" and "nothing" is not "nothingness". “Nothingness” is the negation of itself. It doesn’t even have the state of "not existing"; it doesn’t have any “state” at all.

13) Gravitation is the consequence of deformed geometry of space (collapsing of its metric); not of waves of energy.

14) Space is "something" that has a "volume". It has three dimensions. It is composed of unidimensional points like Euclid’s geometry describes it (our universe is euclidian). And it is that geometry that is "deformed" in volumes where we find matter.

15) "Space" contains bodies. Unless body doesn't "use" space?

16) The geometry of surrounding space is "deformed"; so whatever "travels through it, follows the "deformation" while always going "straight ahead". If you're that object, you won't perceive a "curved" trajectory. If I'm observing your trajectory, I'll perceive it "curved".

17) Matter is found inside the volumes of deformed space. Which doesn't mean at all that matter deforms space or reverses expansion.

18) Our universe is, today, an electromagnetic universe; which means that the universe is the same as a single big energetic photon in expansion. When you have an interaction between particles, it's an interaction between one particle and its electromagnetic environment. To do so, the particle "emits" or "absorbs" energy in or from its environment. The particle "interacting" is only "adjusting" its energy to the "diluting" energy of its environment (space).

19) There's no reason, whatsoever, that expansion can be slowed down by the presence of matter. Matter is "confined" energy inside a volume of space where motions are directed to its center of gravity. Gravitation doesn't have any energetic "power"; it's simply a "result" of deformed space; just like a mountain slope that seems to "pull" you to its bottom. The slope doesn't have any "energetic power, by itself.

20) Space-time geometric deformation is simply a gradual collapsing of its metric.

21) Light speed is a kind of "absolute" speed; it's the fastest speed possible. At this speed, distances are “non-existent” and time is "frozen". So a light-ray is "everywhere" along its path at the "same time". Which explains why light speed is a "constancy" (invariant) wherever it is manifested.

22) Mass or massless particles traveling through space have to follow the geometry of that space because there's no other "path" to follow.

23) Speed decides the importance of the "curve" of the trajectory. And THAT is why "space" is not "curved"; it's the geometry of "space" that is "deformed" (and not curved).

24) The deformation of geometry is the gradual "collapsing" of the metric of "space". It is the only logical explanation for the curve of a trajectory to depend of the speed of the object. If space was "really" curved, all objects would have the same trajectory whatever its speed.

25) Light can be affected by gravitation; so then, comes the problem of "mass attraction"; and since photons are massless down goes the Newton concept.

26) The ONLY geometry of space that can be deformed is its metric (there is nothing else in empty space).

27) Expanding space doesn't affect any particles. Particles do not expand. They are all "confined" inside "counter expanding volumes of space" starting at the level of galaxies down to Up quarks. These volumes of space are completely independent of expanding space. And the particles inside these volumes of "deformed geometry of space", either stay stable or collapse on themselves depending of their "mass energy" which is the kinetic energy directed (led or guided) to their center of gravity.

28) In flat space, light travels in straight trajectory at 360% around the source whichever it is. There is no distances between the photons going at light speed; so when the “light ray” is cut, the photons should disappears immediately. You cannot “mind experiment” light as you would normal mass particles. The light (rays) coming from the Sun is curved because it is following the deformed “geometry” of the volume of space surrounding it, plus the smaller volume of deformed geometry of space around the Earth. This (double) curve represents a travel of height minutes at light speed. The ray “source” isn’t “cut” before the “image” of the source goes lower than the horizon. If space was “flat” around the Sun and the Earth, the light rays should be cut instantly as the sun would go lower than the horizon.

29) In space there’s no “roads”; so speed decides the trajectory continuously according to environmental geometry.

30) Matter doesn’t deforms anything. "Mass energy" does though.

31) Expansion doesn’t have anything to do with gravitation. One is energy while the other is a simple “passive” non-energised consequence.

32) “Tau”, “Muon” and “electron” are the same particles with different masses; so they didn’t appear at the same time in the universe.

33) There’s no “distances” (space) between photons; because they go at light speed.

34) Mass is not equivalent to “mass energy”. Saying “mass = energy” doesn’t mean much. It’s like saying “ice = water” which is true; but we cannot say: “water = ice”. There's a difference between mass and "mass energy"; just as there's a difference between "mass" and "energy".

35) The space where we find gravitation doesn’t have the same origin, time wise, as the “flat space”. That “gravitational space” was added to “flat space” during inflation. That's why inflation is a completely different "event" than expansion.

36) The universe tries every possible things (possibilities) it can at the moment that is “present”, dismissing whatever is not “viable”. What is not viable is recycled to try something else, possible always at successive “presents”. That is why: energy is neither created nor annihilated (everything is energy). And since ALL possibilities are tested for “viability”, there’s no “by chance” and no “pre-established”; everything possible is “checked”. That explains why, if anything, during the course of evolution of the universe, had been with even a small difference than it had, we wouldn't exist. There's nothing "extraordinary" in the universe because it couldn't be anything else "viable". The history resulting of such a process is called "entropy".

37) Since there’s no “distances” between photons, when a light ray is cut (or shut) the whole ray should vanish instantly; but it doesn’t since burst of laser light sent to the moon comes back to Earth reflected by mirrors. What is the logical explanation of this event? I'm trying to find an experiment that shows the speed of the "tail" of a light ray. What we know about light is:
a) Its speed = 299 792 458 m/s at different wavelengths
b) It also behaves as both a wave and a particle.
c) It has no mass, but can still be absorbed, reflected, or refracted if it comes in contact with a medium.
d) The only thing that can truly divert it, or arrest it, is gravity.

38) The components of massive particles would be "confined" (without the need of any magical force) if they were "prisoners" of a volume of deformed space, where the movement of “mass energy” (kinetic) is directed to its center of gravity by geometric deformation (collapsing metric). Note that the end of collapsing should be the metric (distance) of Planck's length: 10^-33 m.

39) The proton is the only particle completely "viable" that the universe succeeded to produce after trying all possibilities with all quarks. Having succeeded this, it started to try to produce "viability" at the next level; which is the atomic level. Again, it seceded with the iron atom. It's now trying to attain "viability" at the next level.

40) Think of a boat that you push onto a river. Gradually the boat will be accelerating until it goes at the same speed the river is flowing. To me, expansion is at light speed; whatever "objects" (galaxies) are "floating" in it, is gradually gaining speed until it gets to light speed (where = no distances in ever "present"). But then, mass particles never can attain light speed; so…
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex wrote:Mine is not demolished yet; there's surely an explanation and I'll find it. :-)
That's what I also say to myself regarding the fact that electrons carry a mass without carrying any components. Theories will probably stay incomplete forever anyway, so what we should do is admit the contradictions instead of hiding them under the carpet like relativists often do.

Furthermore, that "light cut" instantly erasing the whole ray isn't part of my theory anyway. But it's a problem to be solve regarding "no distances" at light speed.
That problem isn't part of my theory, because it doesn't need time dilation and length contraction as far as inertial motion is concerned.

Andrex wrote:
we constantly resist to our environment
That's an egocentric way of looking at things; reality is that it's the environment that changes; we only "endure" the changes as long as we can.
You take the words out of my mind. :0) It is while applying the small steps to the evolution of species that I understood how hazard had to be part of the way particles could overcome resistance. The only way species can face a change in their environment is with mutations. If ever an individual happens to suffer the right mutation, he has more chances than others to reproduce itself, but the whole process takes time, so the rest of the specie has to survive long enough for the mutation to spread in the population. During that time, and as you pointed out, the specie has to endure the changes, and it is that time that we measure as mass when a particle faces a change in the direction or the length (speed) of its steps.

Andrex wrote:
because we never get the feeling that we are resisting, whereas we can almost measure the resistance of others so much they resist
We don't get the feeling because we do not "resist"; and so doesn't "others". They seem to "resist" but that's only an impression. In fact, they keep being "viable".
Particles also keep being viable, but we could not measure their mass is if they would not resit to their acceleration, because they would accelerate instantly.

Andrex wrote:
Mutations are not necessarily recycled, they might also disappear if the individual that carries them cannot reproduce itself.
And then it's recycled"; they don't disappear, they're energy and energy never disappear.
OK. But the individual might disappear, the specie might disappear, anything can disappear and never reappear after. Hazard is different from one scale to the other as quantum theory shows, but it always affects bodies in a way that they are actually not able to predict. The one that permits evolution happens at the scale of molecules, and it affects the scale of a specie. The one that causes car accidents happens between bodies of the same scale. The collision between two given molecules in a gaz is also unpredictable, but it doesn't destruct them as it does for cars. Hazard can be favorable to a particular individual, and unfavorable to another. You said previously "The other possibilities are "recycled". And that is why there's no "hazard". If that was true, we could consider that intelligence had to happen, but it is not what the mutation/selection principle means: it simply means that we are lucky to be here.

Think of a boat that you push onto a river. Gradually the boat will be accelerating until it goes at the same speed the river is flowing. To me, expansion is at light speed; whatever "objects" (galaxies) are "floating" in it, is gradually gaining speed until it gets to light speed. (where no distances in ever "present").
Light is a wave, so let's take water waves as an example instead of current, and let's consider that we have nothing faster than those wave to measure time. We can catch up with a water wave while accelerating in the direction it is moving, but once we get at the same speed, time will not stop. The frequency of the waves that travel in different directions than the one we are traveling with will still be measurable even if we are blind. With a pendulum, we could still compare the frequency of the waves traveling sideways to our motion to the frequency of those that are traveling against it.

While exchanging waves with somebody we are walking with, because of aberration, the waves that we are making would indicate our actual position even if they would necessarily have to be directed towards our future position to reach us. But their frequency would not change, so if we had to take that frequency as a standard of time, it would be the same for any other pair of people walking at any speed, which contradicts the light clock mind experiment. Einstein took for granted that the rays were really traveling directly between the mirrors of the light clock mind experiment, but it doesn't have to be so, it can only appear to be so.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Hazard can be favorable to a particular individual, and unfavorable to another. ...If that was true, we could consider that intelligence had to happen, but it is not what the mutation/selection principle means:

Intelligence had to happen; intelligence is only being conscient of an environment which is a "must" to have changes. So it appeared a lot before man appeared. And it's not a hazard that certain can be less favorable than others and have to hang on principles; like the "survival of the fittest" that they see as the "survival of the strongest" which is completely wrong. Just as the "survival of the wisest" is not at all the "survival of the smartest". It only depends on the acuity of conscience for the environment that one has.

the waves that travel in different directions than the one we are traveling with will still be measurable even if we are blind.

The waves you talk about are your environment. If you go to light speed, you will see that environment going to light speed, the same as when you go to 100 m/hr in your car, you see your environment around you going at 100 m/hr in the contrary direction. Then if you go at light speed you won't be able to measure anything of your environment because it will have no distances to measure (going itself at light speed in a counter direction). Now, if you are with a friend that is going to the same speed, for heaven's sake, I guess you'll be able to talk together; like when he's in your car going at 100 m/hr; what's the difference?

Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex wrote:Intelligence had to happen; intelligence is only being conscient of an environment which is a "must" to have changes. So it appeared a lot before man appeared.
I meant human intelligence, the one I think is based on hazard.

And it's not a hazard that certain can be less favorable than others and have to hang on principles; like the "survival of the fittest" that they see as the "survival of the strongest" which is completely wrong. Just as the "survival of the wisest" is not at all the "survival of the smartest". It only depends on the acuity of conscience for the environment that one has.
I agree with that, but I also think that chance has a lot to do with survival. As a nation, I think that we favor diversity because we subconsciously know that we have more chances to survive that way, and that's exactly what mutations are about: a larger genetic diversity distributed at random can protect us against a wider set of environmental changes.

Andrex wrote:
the waves that travel in different directions than the one we are traveling with will still be measurable even if we are blind.
The waves you talk about are your environment. If you go to light speed, you will see that environment going to light speed, the same as when you go to 100 m/hr in your car, you see your environment around you going at 100 m/hr in the contrary direction. Then if you go at light speed you won't be able to measure anything of your environment because it will have no distances to measure (going itself at light speed in a counter direction). Now, if you are with a friend that is going to the same speed, for heaven's sake, I guess you'll be able to talk together; like when he's in your car going at 100 m/hr; what's the difference?
The difference is that the sound in the car goes at the same speed as the car, because air does, whereas light never adds the speed of its source to its own speed. Your example makes me realize that I made a mistake: the sound exchanged between two planes traveling side by side at the speed of sound would never reach the planes, and I said that water waves could, but they can't either. So, if we would be traveling side by side at the speed of light, we wouldn't see each other, but if we were traveling in a car, we would hear each other. Of course, if it is impossible to accelerate at the speed of light, the mind experiment is wrong, but I find it interesting.

My small steps are about inertial motion and inertial mass, so I agree with the following point:

8-f) Kinetic energy is responsible of the movement of expansion (based on factual simple logic)

I am not satisfied with the way the steps apply to gravitation yet, but I have to look for steps too, which is a kind of metric in case you did not realize. So, if you agree, lets discuss the following point and see where it can bring us:

13)Gravitation is the consequence of deformed geometry of space (collapsing of its metric); not of waves of energy.

First, you have to understand that the steps are made in space but against light the same way our own steps are made in space but against the ground. Every step we make measures the distance we make against the ground, and every step an atom makes measures the distance it makes against light. The steps are in fact a very precise measurement of the distances that bodies travel in space. And the precision is close to infinite since the steps from particles of a given dimension are constantly justified by the more precise steps from their own components.

With the steps, a collapse of the metric of space is equivalent to a change in the frequency of the steps with time. Since a step is the result of an atom being forced to stay synchronized with other atoms, if its frequency increases with time for instance, and if the light that it emits doesn't change its frequency once emitted, then all the atoms of the universe will appear to expand away from it, and it will execute its steps to nullify this motion, which means that it will make its steps towards them, and that it will also have to accelerate towards them since the frequency of its own steps increases at a faster rate than the incoming light. The more the atoms are distant from one another, the more the frequency gap gets large, but the less the light is intense, so I think it respects the gravitation law.

The reason why I am not satisfied is that I am still looking for a mechanism to justify the increase in frequency. This increase means that the particles of my animation are shrinking with time, so that light travels less and less distance between them with time, which produces more frequent steps if light doesn't change its speed. You see, its almost the inverse of expansion, but I think that it still fits the observations. Does it fit your collapse of the metric of space a bit even if some kind of energy is involved?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

The steps are in fact a very precise measurement of the distances that bodies travel in space. And the precision is close to infinite since the steps from particles of a given dimension are constantly justified by the more precise steps from their own components.

Your steps are not related to the components; they are related to a "distance" (travel in space). So the smallest "step" you can "observe" as to be Planck's length: 10^-33 m (and not "infinite").

Since a step is the result of an atom being forced to stay synchronized with other atoms,

I've just said that your steps are related to distances and not to components; which means that your steps are related to the environment (space) and not the atoms. So "all" the atoms involved responds to each their own need to synchronize with the environment (surrounding space) and not with other atoms.

With the steps, a collapse of the metric of space is equivalent to a change in the frequency of the steps with time.

I understand only "partly" what you mean. As for "collapsing of the metric", it's evident that the more the metric collapses, the more the density of energy augments. It's the contrary of deluted energy density by expansion. So collapsing results in a change of density meaning augmentation of frequency for light waves.

if its frequency increases with time for instance,...

Its frequency will increase if your "object" is going toward a center of gravity; because it's traveling through "decreasing metric"; but the frequency will decrease if it's traveling through "expanding metric". In reality, there's no change in the "quantity" of the energy involed; it's the "space" available for the energy's manifestation that changes its "intensity".

The reason why I am not satisfied is that I am still looking for a mechanism to justify the increase in frequency.

That mechanic for increasing is "gravitation" (metric collapsing); for decreasing is "expansion" (streching of distances). So it involves the "space", not the particle.

This increase means that the particles of my animation are shrinking with time

Mass particles loose "mass energy" when emitting energy to "synchronize" with their environment. They don't "shrink"; their volume stays the same but their "inner energy" diminishes (since they "explelled" the exceeding energy). As for massless particles, their wavelength stretches, diminishing their "frequency" (diluting their energy); they don't loose "mass energy" since they don't have any.

Does it fit your collapse of the metric of space a bit even if some kind of energy is involved?

Since the steps are related to distances (space) and not particles, the only kind of energy involved is kinetic energy (or movement) and it fits the metric changes as I've explained myself just before.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

In reality, there's no change in the "quantity" of the energy involed; it's the "space" available for the energy's manifestation that changes its "intensity".

Think of dribbling a basketball while lowering your dribbling hand. The numbers of "to and fro" of the ball will augment whitout you augmenting the intensity of the "push" on the bal.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex wrote:Think of dribbling a basketball while lowering your dribbling hand. The numbers of "to and fro" of the ball will augment without you augmenting the intensity of the "push" on the bal.

Yes, that's what my small steps would do if the distance between them was shrinking, and if the speed of the light that they exchange would not change.

Your steps are not related to the components; they are related to a "distance" (travel in space).
Of course, but the distance traveled by an atom is justified by the distance traveled by its components, which is a billion times smaller, thus a billion times more precise, and that distance is itself justified by the distance traveled by their own components, which is again a billion times more precise than the precedent. In french, I say that the steps from different scales are "imbriqués les uns dans les autres", which I may translate by "enclosed ones into the others". It is out of that "imbrication" that I am looking for a mechanism to explain the increase in frequency of the steps with time. For instance, an atom could be forced to lose one of the billions of steps from its components each time it makes one of its own steps because of the limited speed of light, and its components too, so that the frequency of each scale would increase with time in the same proportion.

This might be due to the resistance to acceleration of the smaller steps between the components, because their length increases while they execute the first part of an atom's step, and it decreases in the second part. A change in length of a step means a change in speed of the particle that executes it since it cannot change its frequency, so it has to resist to that change the same way bodies resist to their acceleration. While resisting to those tiny accelerations, the billions of steps between the components that justify only one step between the atoms would take more time to be executed than light normally takes to travel the same distance, what would redshift the incident light and force the atoms to accelerate a bit towards one another, thus shortening their steps a bit. This may not be the right explanation, but it nevertheless shows how the steps might help us to link quantum theory to general relativity.

So the smallest "step" you can "observe" has to be Planck's length: 10^-33 m (and not "infinite").
We may not be able to observe what's happening beyond the Planck's length, but it doesn't mean that there is no particles under that scale.

I've just said that your steps are related to distances and not to components; which means that your steps are related to the environment (space) and not the atoms. So "all" the atoms involved responds to each their own need to synchronize with the environment (surrounding space) and not with other atoms.
It is true that it is with the incoming light that the atoms synchronize their steps, but if all the atoms of the universe do the same thing at the same time, I think we can conclude that they use that mechanism to stay synchronized throughout the universe despite the distance, which means that they might all be actually making their steps at the same time, and that they might all be actually emitting their light at the same time, a time that we call the present. As you can see, we can use the steps to better understand the underlying meaning of time, what the actual theories can't do. We use time to our own profit, but we did not realize yet that the atoms might already be doing so since the beginning of times.

That mechanic for increasing is "gravitation" (metric collapsing); for decreasing is "expansion" (stretching of distances). So it involves the "space", not the particle.
As long as we keep in mind that it is the particles that move closer to one another with time in the collapsing phenomenon, I don't mind saying that space is collapsing, but it means that the particles have to exchange some information at a certain speed, and you said your space is collapsing without information.

Since the steps are related to distances (space) and not particles, the only kind of energy involved is kinetic energy (or movement) and it fits the metric changes as I've explained myself just before.
A step is effectively kinetic energy, but it is made with regard to the light another particle has emitted some time ago, and light is another kind of energy. Maybe we could consider that this light is completely transformed into kinetic energy when the steps are constant, thus during constant motion, and that it escapes from the steps when they are accelerated from the outside, which is precisely what we observe when we accelerate particles. I think that if we stick to the observations, and if our two theories are right, they should be compatible, so let's test them this way. I don't know much about the standard model of particles, but at your contact, I'm learning.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

but the distance traveled by an atom is justified by the distance traveled by its components, which is a billion times smaller,

The distance traveled by the atom is the distance traveled by its center of gravity and so here the distance traveled by its components which moves around it. It doesn't change things very much but changes a lot in the way of "seeing" the event.

I say that the steps from different scales are "imbriqués les uns dans les autres", which I may translate by "enclosed ones into the others".

It's simply two different levels of reality; "components" and "composed".

For instance, an atom could be forced to lose one of the billions of steps from its components each time it makes one of its own steps because of the limited speed of light, and its components too, so that the frequency of each scale would increase with time in the same proportion.

Sorry; I don't get it. Are your "steps" simply "quantum" of energy?

but it nevertheless shows how the steps might help us to link quantum theory to general relativity.

General relativity, gravitation wise, is a "fact"; quantum theory is a "tool" to explain. Difficult to "link" one to the other.

We may not be able to observe what's happening beyond the Planck's length, but it doesn't mean that there is no particles under that scale.

One thing is certain; you cannot have a tridimensional particle (volumes); at the most, you get bi-dimensional particles (surfaces).

It is true that it is with the incoming light that the atoms synchronize their steps,

Not by the "incoming" light; by the "existing" density of energy in the environment of the particle; which is electromagnetic.

which means that they might all be actually making their steps at the same time, and that they might all be actually emitting their light at the same time,

That would be surprising since every volume of "deformed space" is independent.

We use time to our own profit, but we did not realize yet that the atoms might already be doing so since the beginning of times.

Time is a consequence of movement. Nothing "uses" it; everything is subjected to it; same as distance.

As long as we keep in mind that it is the particles that move closer to one another with time in the collapsing phenomenon

Getting closer for the particles, once again, is not an "action" it's a "consequence"; "matter" doesn't "act" in regard to itself, it "reacts" to its environment.

but it means that the particles have to exchange some information at a certain speed, and you said your space is collapsing without information

Particles don't exchange informations between themselves and the collapsing of the metric is a "result" of a "pressure" put on the center point of gravity.

A step is effectively kinetic energy, but it is made with regard to the light another particle has emitted some time ago

No.

I think that if we stick to the observations, and if our two theories are right,

They could both be wrong.

I don't know much about the standard model of particles, but at your contact, I'm learning.

If you keep putting the importance on particles instead of "movement" and "energetic density" of the environment, you'll need a lot of memory to learn all needed on the standard model and it's going to be hard to make something out of it. The universe is not "matter"; it's "movement" (energy) that creates space-time in expansion with some volumes "deformed"; nothing else important.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » January 14th, 2017, 11:47 pm wrote:
Inchworm wrote:but the distance traveled by an atom is justified by the distance traveled by its components, which is a billion times smaller,
The distance traveled by the atom is the distance traveled by its center of gravity and so here the distance traveled by its components which moves around it. It doesn't change things very much but changes a lot in the way of "seeing" the event.

I say that the steps from different scales are "imbriqués les uns dans les autres", which I may translate by "enclosed ones into the others".
It's simply two different levels of reality; "components" and "composed".

For instance, an atom could be forced to lose one of the billions of steps from its components each time it makes one of its own steps because of the limited speed of light, and its components too, so that the frequency of each scale would increase with time in the same proportion.
Sorry; I don't get it. Are your "steps" simply "quantum" of energy?
We are already used to imagine the particles as russian dolls with specific properties at different scales. The steps simply add a new one: the capacity to feel their environment and to act to stay on sync with it. That's what life does since the beginning, for instance while developing different night/day or summer/winter behavior. Our moves have to be on sync with our environment, and they have to be on sync with others too, beginning with those who are closer to us. It's difficult to imagine how two humans could be moving by steps like the two atoms of my animated molecule, but I really think they do. If we would try to, we may even be able to quantify those steps the same way we quantify the light emitted by the atoms.

Andrex wrote:
but it nevertheless shows how the steps might help us to link quantum theory to general relativity.
General relativity, gravitation wise, is a "fact"; quantum theory is a "tool" to explain. Difficult to "link" one to the other.
Isn't that what your own theory is trying to do?

Andrex wrote:
We may not be able to observe what's happening beyond the Planck's length, but it doesn't mean that there is no particles under that scale.
One thing is certain; you cannot have a tridimensional particle (volumes); at the most, you get bi-dimensional particles (surfaces).
About that, I don't agree that nature can start with a dimensionless point to develop volumes of space. We can imagine it, but we can't build it for real, and nature is about real things. The point is a mathematical tool, not a real thing. Real things have to carry real dimensions. The problem with the maths is that we have to stop the precision somewhere to be able to make a calculation. Nature is already infinitely precise if it is infinite, not maths. I have that problem with my steps: they can be infinitely precise if they really exist, but we can't make an infinitely precise simulation of them. You chose to develop things out of nothing, but nature is unable to do that. Why didn't you start with a real particle instead, a particle that has a dimension, thus that has components already distant from one another? Wasn't it enough to define space as the distance between the particles at any scale?

Andrex wrote:
It is true that it is with the incoming light that the atoms synchronize their steps,
Not by the "incoming" light; by the "existing" density of energy in the environment of the particle; which is electromagnetic.
I don't mind using the concept of density of energy, as long as that kind of energy is subjected to doppler effect, not only to distance.

Andrex wrote:
which means that they might all be actually making their steps at the same time, and that they might all be actually emitting their light at the same time,
That would be surprising since every volume of "deformed space" is independent.
What you mean is that it doesn't fit with GR's redshift, but I showed how, with the steps, redshift could as much be an effect as a cause for gravitation. If it is a cause, then gravitation is also a mean for the atoms to stay synchronized with one another at a distance.

Andrex wrote:
We use time to our own profit, but we did not realize yet that the atoms might already be doing so since the beginning of times.
Time is a consequence of movement. Nothing "uses" it; everything is subjected to it; same as distance.
Same as for redshift: we are, in the same time, subjects and users of time, because we can use it to organize ourselves on one side, and suffer from not being organized enough on another side. Time is an effect from my first atom's step, but it is also a cause for my second atom's step. In other words, the doppler effect produced by the first atom's step becomes a cause for the production of the other atom's step.

Andrex wrote:
As long as we keep in mind that it is the particles that move closer to one another with time in the collapsing phenomenon
Getting closer for the particles, once again, is not an "action", it's a "consequence"; "matter" doesn't "act" in regard to itself, it "reacts" to its environment.
You are the one to consider that space is contracting all by itself. I consider that particles move to stay on sync with the others, thus that they effectively move with regard to their environment, not with regard to themselves.

Andrex wrote:
but it means that the particles have to exchange some information at a certain speed, and you said your space is collapsing without information
Particles don't exchange information between themselves and the collapsing of the metric is a "result" of a "pressure" put on the center point of gravity.
With GR, particles exchange information with space, and space uses that information to tell particles what to do. Space is used as an intermediate, an intermediate that only serves to justify the observations on light. No need for space to explain the trajectory of particles, and the steps are executed by particles. Of course, the steps are mediated by light, but a light that is not curved by space, a light that goes directly to the particle and that suffers doppler effect and aberration at perception. Would you have to change your theory a lot if light did not have to be curved by gravitation?

If you keep putting the importance on particles instead of "movement" and "energetic density" of the environment, you'll need a lot of memory to learn all needed on the standard model and it's going to be hard to make something out of it. The universe is not "matter"; it's "movement" (energy) that creates space-time in expansion with some volumes "deformed"; nothing else important.
The only way to progress without knowing what is coming up is to proceed by trial and error. No need to know the particularities to do that, only the generalities. It's the first time that I try to apply my steps to cosmology, so it's normal that I grope around (que je tâtonne) a little. I count on you to show me the way. For the moment, I still don't see why our two theories would be incompatible.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

the capacity to feel their environment and to act to stay on sync with it.

You say "to act", I say "to react".

It's difficult to imagine how two humans could be moving by steps like the two atoms of my animated molecule, but I really think they do.

It's simply the result of "entropy"; from simplicity (atoms) to complexity (organism).

Isn't that what your own theory is trying to do?

It doesn't have to try; it does without the need of quantum gravity. Everything is consequent to GR "gravity" which is a consequence of the geometry of space-time.

About that, I don't agree that nature can start with a dimensionless point to develop volumes of space. We can imagine it, but we can't build it for real,

Which means that you don't agree with "evolution" or a "dynamic" universe. Funny that, up until now, whatever we "imagined" we did build. The only thing I can say is that 2 appears before 3 and 1 before 2. You can disagree if you want, it's your right.

The point is a mathematical tool, not a real thing. Real things have to carry real dimensions.

In a "volume" you have three dimensions; which one is not "real"?

Nature is already infinitely precise if it is infinite

"Infinite" cannot be "precise"; there's no "precision" at all in "infinite". As for "nature" it is not "infinite"; in fact it's very precisely "définite" and guetting more "definite" each day that passes.

You chose to develop things out of nothing, but nature is unable to do that.

Then you say that entropy doesn't exists; which means that the universe is "static" and the BB is impossible. As for your steps; you've just pour them down the drain by saying so; "static" means "no steps" possible.

an infinitely precise simulation of them. You chose to develop things out of nothing, but nature is unable to do that. Why didn't you start with a real particle instead, a particle that has a dimension, thus that has components already distant from one another?

Because "logic" is a must to explain things. I started with one "real" particle in the state of a "potentiality" that whent trough a "phase transition" that gave it a lot of "probabilities" which experienced another phase transition to become less "possibilities" in order to finaly become the "realisation" of its sole former potentiality which will be the "reality". As for "distant from one another", it wasn't logically possible with a starting unique particle that couldn't have "components" to be the "starting" state.

Wasn't it enough to define space as the distance between the particles at any scale?

You own phrase shows that "space" is not "distance". Between two particles you have a "distance" and around both particles, you have "space". They are not the same thing. As you can see, your mind knows it even if you're not aware of it.

I don't mind using the concept of density of energy, as long as that kind of energy is subjected to doppler effect, not only to distance.

Once again, your concept is "blurred". Density of energy is not energy. Frequency is the density of energy. The doppler effect is only an "effect" related to the distance of the source. In reality the amount of energy in the frequency doesn't change but the distance affect the wavelenght because the movement of the source is either "contracting" or "expanding" it.

What you mean is that it doesn't fit with GR's redshift,

No. What I mean is that there's no "communications" between volumes of "deformed space" seperated by "flat space" (between two "biggest" russian dolls). What occurs in one "deformed volume" is not related to what occurs in an another "deformed volume". The only universal relation is the electromagnetism of the whole universe which is "available" where and when needed.

Time is an effect from my first atom's step, but it is also a cause for my second atom's step.

That is "illogic". Time is not a "cause"; it's a "measure" of the movement of your first step; and so it is the measure of your second step.

You are the one to consider that space is contracting all by itself.

That would be an act of faith. And since I have no "faith" whatsoever, space doesn't contract by itself. At first, it doesn't even "contract" at all; it simply stop "expanding". Then, if the "mass energy" making "pressure", counter-expanding wise, on its "center of gravity", this "point" "backs up" (retrogrades) on the distance previously traveled in its "expanding metric" to a "smaller" metric. Pretty simple, isn't it? It can even "back up" to the point of producing a "black hole".

With GR, particles exchange information with space, and space uses that information to tell particles what to do.

So you say; but "deformed" or "flat" space is like a "curved" or "straight" road. Your car has to follow it without need of exchange of "informations" between the road and the car.

Of course, the steps are mediated by light, but a light that is not curved by space,

Where can your light pass without being influenced by the geometry of space? That is illogic.

Would you have to change your theory a lot if light did not have to be curved by gravitation?

What would have to change, is that gravitation wouldn't be a "consequence" of the deformation of the geometry of space. So GR wouldn't be a premise to my "theory" as you call it. I consider GR gravitation as a "fact" not a "theory".

The only way to progress without knowing what is coming up is to proceed by trial and error.

Funny that you mention it! Because you didn't accept that the universe was proceeding the same "only" way in its evolution (progress)???

I still don't see why our two theories would be incompatible.

It might be compatible at the "matter" level; which is the only one that you consider; but then it would be only 5% compatible.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » January 16th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:
the capacity to feel their environment and to act to stay on sync with it.
You say "to act", I say "to react".
I only say that to enhance the fact that my small steps are real motion executed by real atoms. It's the same with humans by the way: we react to things, but we still move by ourselves.

Andrex wrote:
About that, I don't agree that nature can start with a dimensionless point to develop volumes of space. We can imagine it, but we can't build it for real,
Which means that you don't agree with "evolution" or a "dynamic" universe. Funny that, up until now, whatever we "imagined" we did build. The only thing I can say is that 2 appears before 3 and 1 before 2. You can disagree if you want, it's your right.
If imagination is about mutations of ideas, then those mutations shouldn't work more often than genetic mutations. I agree with your evolutive universe by the way.

Andrex wrote:
The point is a mathematical tool, not a real thing. Real things have to carry real dimensions.
In a "volume" you have three dimensions; which one is not "real"?
None of them is real as long as the volume stays in our head, but a stone that anybody can hold in his hands is a real tridimensional volume.

Andrex wrote:
an infinitely precise simulation of them. You chose to develop things out of nothing, but nature is unable to do that. Why didn't you start with a real particle instead, a particle that has a dimension, thus that has components already distant from one another?
Because "logic" is a must to explain things. I started with one "real" particle in the state of a "potentiality" that whent trough a "phase transition" that gave it a lot of "probabilities" which experienced another phase transition to become less "possibilities" in order to finally become the "realization" of its sole former potentiality which will be the "reality". As for "distant from one another", it wasn't logically possible with a starting unique particle that couldn't have "components" to be the "starting" state.
To me, your logic works as long as we are looking for a beginning out of nothing, otherwise the logic would be that it is useless to look for a beginning. The universe might as well be inflating at the same time it is contracting, getting away from our scale in two opposite directions.

Andrex wrote:
Wasn't it enough to define space as the distance between the particles at any scale?
You own phrase shows that "space" is not "distance". Between two particles you have a "distance" and around both particles, you have "space". They are not the same thing. As you can see, your mind knows it even if you're not aware of it.
Our mind knows different directions but our eyes are oriented in one direction at a time, and it is so because we only move in one direction at a time. To know what's happening behind us, we use our ears, but they sweep a lot narrower volume of space than our eyes, and they don't tell the direction or the distance of an event as precisely as our eyes. For our mind, space is made of directions and distances towards a particular event, and it is also the case for my small steps.

Andrex wrote:
What you mean is that it doesn't fit with GR's redshift,
No. What I mean is that there's no "communications" between volumes of "deformed space" separated by "flat space" (between two "biggest" russian dolls). What occurs in one "deformed volume" is not related to what occurs in an another "deformed volume". The only universal relation is the electromagnetism of the whole universe which is "available" where and when needed.
You describe space as if it was massive. I'm going to have nightmares about a big chunk of space going in the wrong direction on the highway. :0)

Andrex wrote:
Time is an effect from my first atom's step, but it is also a cause for my second atom's step.
That is "illogic". Time is not a "cause"; it's a "measure" of the movement of your first step; and so it is the measure of your second step.
Just after that, I said "In other words, the doppler effect produced by the first atom's step becomes a cause for the production of the other atom's step." I could have erased the first phrase, but I left it to show that the steps were also a clock. When we move by habit, we move when it's time, without thinking, so timing is certainly a cause for these motions.

Andrex wrote:
With GR, particles exchange information with space, and space uses that information to tell particles what to do.
So you say; but "deformed" or "flat" space is like a "curved" or "straight" road. Your car has to follow it without need of exchange of "informations" between the road and the car.
What about the contact between the car and the road? Isn't it information?

Andrex wrote:
Of course, the steps are mediated by light, but a light that is not curved by space,
Where can your light pass without being influenced by the geometry of space? That is illogic.
I was talking of inertial steps, the ones between two atoms of the same molecule. Of course the steps between an atom from the sun and an atom from the earth are influenced by gravitation, but that influence doesn't need the intermediate of space if it is executed by steps, whereas the curving of light does. Light cannot send information to the sun while passing by like massive particles do. Curved space has been invented just for light, but to me, it has a damaging secondary effect: nobody is looking for a real mechanism to explain gravitation anymore.

Andrex wrote:
Would you have to change your theory a lot if light did not have to be curved by gravitation?
What would have to change, is that gravitation wouldn't be a "consequence" of the deformation of the geometry of space. So GR wouldn't be a premise to my "theory" as you call it. I consider GR gravitation as a "fact" not a "theory".
Too bad Einstein is not there anymore. I'm sure he would have appreciated that his theory was considered eternal. Is that what you hope for your own "ideas"? :0)

Andrex wrote:
The only way to progress without knowing what is coming up is to proceed by trial and error.
Funny that you mention it! Because you didn't accept that the universe was proceeding the same "only" way in its evolution (progress)???
I always agreed with your evolutive universe, but I think I never showed it.... Done! :0)

Andrex wrote:
I still don't see why our two theories would be incompatible.
It might be compatible at the "matter" level; which is the only one that you consider; but then it would be only 5% compatible.
I'm like Thomas, I need to put the finger in the wound to admit it is real. :0) I said previously that the redshift that we observe could be due to atoms slowly shrinking with time, what would increase their frequency in the same proportion. This way, no need to explain inflation since there is none, so no need either for dark energy to explain it. How much unobservable mass left with dark energy out of the equation?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

we react to things, but we still move by ourselves.

And so do particles.

None of them is real as long as the volume stays in our head, but a stone that anybody can hold in his hands is a real tridimensional volume.

So, however big is our head, a bridge doesn't exist until you use it to cross a river? What about the volume of that head?

To me, your logic works as long as we are looking for a beginning out of nothing, otherwise the logic would be that it is useless to look for a beginning.

And since "entropy" exist because we observe it, then it's logically "illogic" to refuse a "beginning" of "nothing" and very "logical" to accept the beginning of "something". But then, where and how would start that beginning of something to make appear that "something"?

The universe might as well be inflating at the same time it is contracting,

Then you could be wrong as well as being right. So we're discussing for absolutely nothing; right... or wrong? -Impossible to answer that; sorry.

getting away from our scale in two opposite directions.

This is illogic in regard of what you're basing it on. You should have said: "getting away while getting closer". That is the logical result of your description of the universe.

You own phrase shows that "space" is not "distance". Between two particles you have a "distance" and around both particles, you have "space". They are not the same thing. As you can see, your mind knows it even if you're not aware of it.

Our mind knows different directions

You were not talking about direction; you were talking about "distances between particles".

You describe space as if it was massive.

You use the word "mass" as if it was a "chunk of matter"; which it is not. So use the word "matter" until you find an adequate meaning for the word "mass". You also use the word "mass" when you mean "mass energy". You have to make sure of the meaning of the word used to be exactly in accordance with what you want to describe.

I'm going to have nightmares about a big chunk of space going in the wrong direction on the highway. :0)

It is going to be quite a nightmare, just to find which direction; because then, your highway will be in a "no-space" environment.

but I left it to show that the steps were also a clock.

"Steps are also a clock"; so a clock is also steps (your kind of "logical deductions). So since you have a clock, you make steps, and since you make steps, you have a clock. Why make steps if you have a clock and why have a clock if you make steps?

When we move by habit, we move when it's time, without thinking, so timing is certainly a cause for these motions.

Sure; because when it's time, we have the habit of thinking to move.

What about the contact between the car and the road? Isn't it information?

What about the exemple of the road? Doesn't it give you "informations"?

Of course the steps between an atom from the sun and an atom from the earth are influenced by gravitation, but that influence doesn't need the intermediate of space if it is executed by steps, whereas the curving of light does.

Which means that in your mind, gravitation doesn't need space between atoms to influence their "steps". How can "steps" be made if there's no "space" to make them? How can gravitation manifest itself in "no-space"? As for your two atoms inside a molecule; doesn't the molecule occupy "space", and isn't there "space" inside your molecule to install your atoms? Or even inside your atom, is there not "space"? What does "space" represents in your mind exactly? Is it nothing? If so, then there is "nothing" between your atoms. Ok; so how can you speak of distances If there is "nothing" between the starting and arriving points?

Too bad Einstein is not there anymore. I'm sure he would have appreciated that his theory was considered eternal.

So to you, a "fact" is "eternity" (eternal). You're very lucky; you need a lot less precise "definitions of words" than me to have a "conversation"; but I'm not sure if it can be useful in a "discussion" though.

I always agreed with your evolutive universe, but I think I never showed it

It is important for you to find out why you never showed it.

I'm like Thomas, I need to put the finger in the wound to admit it is real.

You have to understand that Thomas knew that he had "space" (and not "nothing") in the wound to put his finger in.

I said previously that the redshift that we observe could be due to atoms slowly shrinking with time, what would increase their frequency in the same proportion.

And I told you that atoms don't shrink; and that frequencies are increased by the gradual diminishing "metric" or, if you prefer, the gradual diminishing of the length of waves (wavelength); which is the result of gravitation. You certainly remember that "gravitation", which is the "consequence" of gradual collapsing of the "metric" of the space environment, we already talked about?

This way, no need to explain inflation since there is none, so no need either for dark energy to explain it.

Euh... inflation is not explained at all by dark energy; and inflation is not at all "expansion". You're peeling a potato with a carrot in one hand and a hammer in the other hand.

How much unobservable mass left with dark energy out of the equation?

Euh...It depends...How much potato peels you get from that carrot with your hammer.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » January 17th, 2017, 12:07 pm wrote:
we react to things, but we still move by ourselves.
And so do particles.
That's what my small steps mean, so why not say that they act?

Andrex wrote:
None of them is real as long as the volume stays in our head, but a stone that anybody can hold in his hands is a real tridimensional volume.
So, however big is our head, a bridge doesn't exist until you use it to cross a river? What about the volume of that head?
With imagination, we have to differentiate between the past and the future. We can imagine what we already saw, but we can also imagine something we never saw, and I think we do that while changing randomly what we know, so we absolutely have to try it for real to know if it works for real.

Andrex wrote:
To me, your logic works as long as we are looking for a beginning out of nothing, otherwise the logic would be that it is useless to look for a beginning.
And since "entropy" exist because we observe it, then it's logically "illogic" to refuse a "beginning" of "nothing" and very "logical" to accept the beginning of "something". But then, where and how would start that beginning of something to make appear that "something"?
I think that we will never observe the beginning or the end of things, so to me, it is useless to try to. Imagining the future is useful only if we can try our ideas for real, otherwise it might be useful psychologically, but not physically, like religions for instance. I use to say that imagining the future may work, but only in the short term.

Andrex wrote:
The universe might as well be inflating at the same time it is contracting,
Then you could be wrong as well as being right. So we're discussing for absolutely nothing; right... or wrong? -Impossible to answer that; sorry.
You're not as sorry as I am: I used the word inflation when I meant expansion. Not really accustomed to cosmology yet.

Andrex wrote:
getting away from our scale in two opposite directions.
This is illogic in regard of what you're basing it on. You should have said: "getting away while getting closer". That is the logical result of your description of the universe.
Expanding while contracting seems more precise to me, but I think we mean the same thing.

Andrex wrote:
You own phrase shows that "space" is not "distance". Between two particles you have a "distance" and around both particles, you have "space". They are not the same thing. As you can see, your mind knows it even if you're not aware of it.
Our mind knows different directions
You were not talking about direction; you were talking about "distances between particles".
I know, but following my small steps, I always consider that a distance comes with a direction: away or towards the other particle.

Andrex wrote:
You describe space as if it was massive.
You use the word "mass" as if it was a "chunk of matter"; which it is not. So use the word "matter" until you find an adequate meaning for the word "mass". You also use the word "mass" when you mean "mass energy". You have to make sure of the meaning of the word used to be exactly in accordance with what you want to describe.
When I think mass, I always refer to the steps' resistance to change speed or direction, and those steps are executed by sources of light composed of smaller sources of light ad infinitum, so I don't really see them as chunks of matter.

Andrex wrote: Why make steps if you have a clock and why have a clock if you make steps?
To move around. I see space as a light web where sources of light grab on pulses of light to move around. We do the same when we walk, except that our sources of light walk directly on the ground's sources of light.

Andrex wrote:
When we move by habit, we move when it's time, without thinking, so timing is certainly a cause for these motions.
Sure; because when it's time, we have the habit of thinking to move.
If we have to think before moving, then it is no more an habit. Our automatisms are defined as a subconscious behavior, and thinking is defined as a conscious one.

Andrex wrote:
What about the contact between the car and the road? Isn't it information?
What about the example of the road? Doesn't it give you "informations"?
There is not matter in your space, so there can't be no road to follow. How is your space influenced by matter? Instantly?

Andrex wrote:
Of course the steps between an atom from the sun and an atom from the earth are influenced by gravitation, but that influence doesn't need the intermediate of space if it is executed by steps, whereas the curving of light does.
Which means that in your mind, gravitation doesn't need space between atoms to influence their "steps". How can "steps" be made if there's no "space" to make them? How can gravitation manifest itself in "no-space"? As for your two atoms inside a molecule; doesn't the molecule occupy "space", and isn't there "space" inside your molecule to install your atoms? Or even inside your atom, is there not "space"? What does "space" represents in your mind exactly? Is it nothing? If so, then there is "nothing" between your atoms. Ok; so how can you speak of distances If there is "nothing" between the starting and arriving points?
As I said, to me, space is a web made of light, so between my two atoms, there is a light path.

Andrex wrote:
Too bad Einstein is not there anymore. I'm sure he would have appreciated that his theory was considered eternal.
So to you, a "fact" is "eternity" (eternal). You're very lucky; you need a lot less precise "definitions of words" than me to have a "conversation"; but I'm not sure if it can be useful in a "discussion" though.
To me, a fact is a data, and we have no more data from space than we have from dark matter. We get data directly from sources of light, not from the space between sources of light.

Andrex wrote:
I always agreed with your evolutive universe, but I think I never showed it
It is important for you to find out why you never showed it.
Not meticulous enough, I think.

Andrex wrote:
I'm like Thomas, I need to put the finger in the wound to admit it is real.
You have to understand that Thomas knew that he had "space" (and not "nothing") in the wound to put his finger in.
I think he simply thought he was dreaming, and that's what I would have thought too. :0)

Andrex wrote:
This way, no need to explain inflation since there is none, so no need either for dark energy to explain it.
Euh... inflation is not explained at all by dark energy; and inflation is not at all "expansion". You're peeling a potato with a carrot in one hand and a hammer in the other hand.
I reiterate that I meant expansion. What about redshift being caused by the frequencies increasing with time then? Would there still be a need for dark energy?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

We can imagine what we already saw, but we can also imagine something we never saw,

"Blurred" again. You're mixing "memory" with "imagination".

I think that we will never observe the beginning or the end of things, so to me, it is useless to try to.

As for myself I observe the beginning and the end of day very often; the end of a year, every year etc.

You're not as sorry as I am: I used the word inflation when I meant expansion. Not really accustomed to cosmology yet.

I was hoping that you would understand that it was illogic to say that the universe was expending while contracting. I'll have to wait for another opportunity.

Expanding while contracting seems more precise to me,

Ouf! I guess there will never be an opportunity.

I always consider that a distance comes with a direction: away or towards the other particle.

Those are two directions; not one; and they apply at the same distance.

When I think mass, I always refer to the steps' resistance to change speed or direction,

So you mean "rest mass". Could you tell me what "rest mass" is?

and those steps are executed by sources of light composed of smaller sources of light ad infinitum,

And I taught that those steps where made by your particles. What a shame. But how far "ad infinitum" does the light sources decrease?

Why make steps if you have a clock and why have a clock if you make steps?

To move around.

You need a clock to move around???

If we have to think before moving, then it is no more an habit.

So you don't have the habit of thinking. Well...I do.

There is not matter in your space, so there can't be no road to follow. How is your space influenced by matter? Instantly?

It was an exemple that was suppose to explain something to you; but it seems that it's not important. As for your question, once again I miss its logic. How can matter influence "my" space if there's no matter in "my" space?

As I said, to me, space is a web made of light, so between my two atoms, there is a light path.

It's easier to understand when you say it without explaining it. So space is a kind of electromagnetic web which indicates the path of your particles; is that it?

To me, a fact is a data, and we have no more data from space than we have from dark matter.

Well, we can observe "space"; nobody can observe "dark matter".

We get data directly from sources of light, not from the space between sources of light.

You see! You can "situate" the space between sources of light; which means that you can observe it.

It is important for you to find out why you never showed it.

Not meticulous enough, I think.

I don't think so; I think it's because you don't want to go at the beginning of that "evolution".

Euh... inflation is not explained at all by dark energy; and inflation is not at all "expansion". You're peeling a potato with a carrot in one hand and a hammer in the other hand.

I reiterate that I meant expansion.

Well, then, "expansion" is not explained at all by dark energy. So it doesn't change your situation.

What about redshift being caused by the frequencies increasing with time then?

Expansion is extending wavelengths; that is enough to explain redshift; because frequencies, then, decreases by expanding wavelength.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » January 17th, 2017, 6:48 pm wrote:
We can imagine what we already saw, but we can also imagine something we never saw,
"Blurred" again. You're mixing "memory" with "imagination".
The word imagination derives from the word image: both words mean something that we can see, one for real, the other in our head. We could have named that phenomenon soundation because we also hear words in our heads. Of course it takes memory to remind us what we see or what we hear, but how can we imagine something we never saw or never heard? I simply suggest that our memory suffers random mutations, and that those mutations are selected by the environment when we express them. Isn't that the way your evolutive universe works?

Andrex wrote:
I think that we will never observe the beginning or the end of things, so to me, it is useless to try to.
As for myself I observe the beginning and the end of day very often; the end of a year, every year etc.
I do too, but we will never be able to observe the macro-limit of our universe if it is expanding too fast, or the micro-limit of the particles if hazard avoids us to do so.

I was hoping that you would understand that it was illogic to say that the universe was expending while contracting. I'll have to wait for another opportunity.
If I understand well, you mean that galaxies could not be moving away from one another at the same time they would be shrinking. Why not?

Andrex wrote:
I always consider that a distance comes with a direction: away or towards the other particle.
Those are two directions; not one; and they apply at the same distance.
Two directions, but taken by two different atoms, which produces a motion in only one direction. One atom is approaching the other while the other is getting away from it later on, but you're right, both are traveling the same distance.

Andrex wrote:
When I think mass, I always refer to the steps' resistance to change speed or direction,
So you mean "rest mass". Could you tell me what "rest mass" is?
There is no rest mass with the steps. Mass only develops when the steps get accelerated from the outside, otherwise they only produce what we call inertial motion.

Andrex wrote:
and those steps are executed by sources of light composed of smaller sources of light ad infinitum,
They are, but we know that particles are made out of components, so these components also have to proceed by steps to justify the steps between the particles.

What a shame. But how far "ad infinitum" does the light sources decrease?
Why not as far as the universe expands?

You need a clock to move around???
We don't have the choice, we live on a planet that is a clock, so we have to synchronize our moves with it. We are not clocks the way the atoms are though, we have more ways to stay synchronized with others than them.

Andrex wrote:
If we have to think before moving, then it is no more an habit.
So you don't have the habit of thinking. Well...I do.
Can we say that suffering mutations is an habit for species? If not, then its not an habit to suffer mutations of ideas either. An habit is when things are reproduced the same for a moment, and it is not the case with mutations.

Andrex wrote:
As I said, to me, space is a web made of light, so between my two atoms, there is a light path.
It's easier to understand when you say it without explaining it. So space is a kind of electromagnetic web which indicates the path of your particles; is that it?
Exactly! Click on the button if you like! :0)

Andrex wrote:
To me, a fact is a data, and we have no more data from space than we have from dark matter.
Well, we can observe "space"; nobody can observe "dark matter".
I think that what you mean is that we can imagine space, while we can't imagine dark matter. As I said, we can imagine anything we want, whether it would be real or not. When we look at a star, we can imagine the other directions we have previously observed around it, and we can imagine that it is the same for the whole sky around the earth, but observing the space between the stars gives us no data. Except for the CMB, which is a remnant of real particles, there is nothing about that space on astrophysicists data sheets. There is a lot about distances, but not about space.

Andrex wrote:
We get data directly from sources of light, not from the space between sources of light.
You see! You can "situate" the space between sources of light; which means that you can observe it.
What I meant is that we cannot observe a light ray that is not striking our eyes, for instance we cannot observe the light that my two atoms exchange if we look at them sideways to their direction.

I don't think so; I think it's because you don't want to go at the beginning of that "evolution".
It's not that I didn't want to go there, it's that, each time I was reading about it on the net, it did not help me to progress. Since you think that the universe has evolved, and since I can link any kind of evolution to the way the steps change direction or length, I know that our two theories share a fundamental phenomenon. There is still a difference in the way we interpret hazard or randomness though. By the way, you did not tell me if you consider that genetic mutations happen randomly or not.

Well, then, "expansion" is not explained at all by dark energy. So it doesn't change your situation.
It's not what wiki says, so I gather that you're talking of your own theory. Can you remind me how it explains accelerated expansion?

Andrex wrote:
What about redshift being caused by the frequencies increasing with time then?
Expansion is extending wavelengths; that is enough to explain redshift; because frequencies, then, decreases by expanding wavelength.
Doppler effect is relative, so matter could as well be contracting instead of the universe being expanding, no?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

one for real, the other in our head.

You used them as one for the past and one for the future. We shouldn't jump from one subject to another.

but how can we imagine something we never saw or never heard?

You'll have to ask that to J.K. Rowling or to those who "observe" dark matter and dark energy.

I simply suggest that our memory suffers random mutations, and that those mutations are selected by the environment when we express them. Isn't that the way your evolutive universe works?

No, not exactly. My universe experiments everything that is "experimentable" at the actual moments and gets rid of wathever is not "viable" (time does that automatically). It doesn't choose "changes" to be made; it doesn't whatever it can do and "see" if it works.

but we will never be able to observe the macro-limit of our universe if it is expanding too fast, or the micro-limit of the particles if hazard avoids us to do so.

We can "observe" enough (or will be able) to have the answer to everything; otherwise, it's no use to use our brain.

If I understand well, you mean that galaxies could not be moving away from one another at the same time they would be shrinking. Why not?

Because, either there're shrinking which augments space between them, or space expands which make the galaxies seem to shrink. One of those is a "reality", the other one is an "impression".

Two directions, but taken by two different atoms, which produces a motion in only one direction.

We're not talking here of atoms; we're talking of distances. Can't we stay on a subject that we're talking about?

Mass only develops when the steps get accelerated from the outside, otherwise they only produce what we call inertial motion.

Then you'll have to define me "rest mass" and "inertial motion".

They are, but we know that particles are made out of components, so these components also have to proceed by steps to justify the steps between the particles.

So compare your moving particle with components to the moving solar system with its components to make me understand the process you're talking about.

What a shame. But how far "ad infinitum" does the light sources decrease?
Why not as far as the universe expands?

How can a light "source" decrease as far as the universe expands? Lightwaves , maybe but light "source" ?

We don't have the choice, we live on a planet that is a clock, so we have to synchronize our moves with it.

Here we go again! You're mixing a "clock" that is a tool with a "cycle" that is a "fact".

An habit is when things are reproduced the same for a moment, and it is not the case with mutations.

Then, by your definition, a "habit" is impossible; because nothing can ever be re-done in the same way in the same situation and in the same time.

It's easier to understand when you say it without explaining it. So space is a kind of electromagnetic web which indicates the path of your particles; is that it?

Exactly! Click on the button if you like!

Ok. What, then, was there before electromagnetic came to be? Because it cannot be the "origin" since it is "composed" of two different energies.

I think that what you mean is that we can imagine space, while we can't imagine dark matter.

Don't think what I mean; understand what I write. Space I can "see" between objects; I don'T imagine it. Dark matter is the result of imagination since it's to solve a problem coming from former "interpretations".

Except for the CMB, which is a remnant of real particles,

CMB is composed of real light particles (photons) or lightwaves (microwaves) from the distance realeted to 380 000 years after BB.

there is nothing about that space on astrophysicists data sheets. There is a lot about distances, but not about space.

That's why space is composed of "distances" and those distances, in a tri-dimensional universe, extend in every directions. And each distance is formed of "points" representing the "journey" of one position to another because our universe is "dynamic".

What I meant is that we cannot observe a light ray that is not striking our eyes,

Which doesn't mean it doesn't exists. It's like the bridge you don't see "yet" crossing the river.

we cannot observe the light that my two atoms exchange if we look at them sideways to their direction.

Right; becaue atoms don't exchange light.

It's not that I didn't want to go there, it's that, each time I was reading about it on the net, it did not help me to progress.

Don't use the net; use your brain; and when on a "road" (subject) don't jump around the "tracks".

By the way, you did not tell me if you consider that genetic mutations happen randomly or not.

Is "random" related to "hasard"? There's no "hasard"; I already demonstrated that.

It's not what wiki says, so I gather that you're talking of your own theory.

Not at all. I don't beleive in "dark energy". Wiki cannot say anything else then dark energy is responsible for the "acceleration" of the expansion; not the expansion itself.

so matter could as well be contracting instead of the universe being expanding, no?

At first glance, yess; but there are three sates of "motion" in the universe: expanding space, stable space and contracting space. So when we "observe" that, we cannot accept "contracting matter".
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » January 18th, 2017, 8:48 pm wrote:
one for real, the other in our head.
You used them as one for the past and one for the future. We shouldn't jump from one subject to another.
I was answering your argument about mixing "memory" with "imagination". To me, memory is about the past and imagination is about the future, so since the future is unpredictable if it hasn't reproduced itself for a certain time yet, mind has to proceed by trial and error, which is by definition a random process.

Andrex wrote:
I simply suggest that our memory suffers random mutations, and that those mutations are selected by the environment when we express them. Isn't that the way your evolutive universe works?
No, not exactly. My universe experiments everything that is "experimentable" at the actual moments and gets rid of wathever is not "viable" (time does that automatically). It doesn't choose "changes" to be made; it doesn't whatever it can do and "see" if it works.
So, it doesn't work as biological evolution, because I don't think that life has tried all the possible mutations. We can imagine that life didn't have the time to try them all because it is relatively young, but time being the same at any scale by definition, how could the particles have done so?

Andrex wrote:
but we will never be able to observe the macro-limit of our universe if it is expanding too fast, or the micro-limit of the particles if hazard avoids us to do so.
We can "observe" enough (or will be able) to have the answer to everything; otherwise, it's no use to use our brain.
Once we've found everything, what are we going to do? Watch on TV how exciting it was before? :0)

Andrex wrote:
If I understand well, you mean that galaxies could not be moving away from one another at the same time they would be shrinking. Why not?
Because, either there're shrinking which augments space between them, or space expands which make the galaxies seem to shrink. One of those is a "reality", the other one is an "impression".
It could also be half and half, no? For instance, expansion could be inertial and contraction gravitational.

Andrex wrote:
Two directions, but taken by two different atoms, which produces a motion in only one direction.
We're not talking here of atoms; we're talking of distances. Can't we stay on a subject that we're talking about?
Distances are traveled by bodies or by light, and it might be useful to imagine how those two principle work together from one scale to the other.

Andrex wrote:
Mass only develops when the steps get accelerated from the outside, otherwise they only produce what we call inertial motion.
Then you'll have to define me "rest mass" and "inertial motion".
Rest mass is a relativistic concept, it comes with the relativistic mass increase. It takes for granted that mass is intrinsic to particles, but my small steps show that it also depend on doppler effect, thus on light. No doppler effect, no mass, so when no acceleration is given, no mass develops. This way, mass is not intrinsic: it develops.

Andrex wrote:
They are, but we know that particles are made out of components, so these components also have to proceed by steps to justify the steps between the particles.
So compare your moving particle with components to the moving solar system with its components to make me understand the process you're talking about.
To compare the two scales, we have to add rotation to the steps, and it complicates them a bit. Try to imagine my two atoms revolving one around the other while going forward, and compare them to the way the earth revolves around the sun while going through the galaxy. The only difference is that my two atoms weight the same, so that they both revolve the same way, whereas the earth is almost the only one to revolve. While revolving, both systems are going forward, and my atoms are still executing their steps to do so. It's harder to imagine the year long steps of the earth/sun system, but we can still imagine that they are composed of the much shorter steps between their atoms. When two atoms make a step to execute a revolution one around the other, it has to be justified by the steps between their components, and it's the same for planetary systems.

Andrex wrote:How can a light "source" decrease as far as the universe expands? Lightwaves , maybe but light "source" ?
It's a matter of keeping the same proportions while the change happens: if the distance between galaxies can increase continuously, then the distance between particles can shorten continuously too, which means that, observing their light, they would appear to get closer to one another with time while the galaxies would appear to expand from one another in the same time. With the steps, such a mechanism would be inductive: shrinkage at the particles' scale would induce expansion at the galaxies' one and vice-versa. Look at the inertial steps again and imagine that the step of the left atom towards the right one induces the step away of the right one, and that this step away from the right one induces the step of the left one in return.

It's a bit more difficult to imagine, but the same thing is happening between scales: it takes time for light to travel between bodies of different scales too, and by the time it reaches them, they have already changed, so even if they execute their step to compensate for the difference, the compensation only serves to entertain the phenomenon.

Andrex wrote:
An habit is when things are reproduced the same for a moment, and it is not the case with mutations.
Then, by your definition, a "habit" is impossible; because nothing can ever be re-done in the same way in the same situation and in the same time.
I said for a moment, not forever. The steps are the best way to show what I mean: as long as nothing gets in their way, they will go on forever, so when something new happens, they have to adapt, and changing always takes more time than going on as it was. Why is it so? My answer is: because things always have to proceed randomly when change happens to them, and that it always takes more time to invent than to do as usual.

Ok. What, then, what was there before electromagnetic came to be? Because it cannot be the "origin" since it is "composed" of two different energies.
That's a huge leap, not a small step. :0) I'm inclined to think that, even if the universe is evolving, it has always been there. This way, no need for a final beginning or a final end, there will always be something before or after. Why are you looking for a final finality? Is it a psychological need? Do you consider that there is no invention, thus no randomness, in your own theory?

Space I can "see" between objects; I don't imagine it. Dark matter is the result of imagination since it's to solve a problem coming from former "interpretations".
If we could see the space between objects, then we could see it without them, and we can't. No objects to see means nothing to see. I wonder how blind people imagine space. They can touch the things around them, but they can't touch the background the way we see it. They have to rely on descriptions made by sighted people. How do they describe space? Distance between objects with no air in between? Volume between voluminous objects with no air in it?

Don't use the net; use your brain; and when on a "road" (subject) don't jump around the "tracks".
Try not to think that way, otherwise your gonna get disgusted and might jump off the bridge because of me. :0)

Andrex wrote:
By the way, you did not tell me if you consider that genetic mutations happen randomly or not.
Is "random" related to "hasard"? There's no "hasard"; I already demonstrated that.
Then how do you think mutations happen? It's all set from the beginning? Then what's the use for natural selection if everything is already set?

Andrex wrote:
It's not what wiki says, so I gather that you're talking of your own theory.
Not at all. I don't believe in "dark energy". Wiki cannot say anything else then dark energy is responsible for the "acceleration" of the expansion; not the expansion itself.
If you only mean inertial expansion, then how do you explain the increase in redshift with distance?

Andrex wrote:
so matter could as well be contracting instead of the universe being expanding, no?
At first glance, yes; but there are three states of "motion" in the universe: expanding space, stable space and contracting space. So when we "observe" that, we cannot accept "contracting matter".
Geometrically speaking, isn't contracting space the same as contracting matter?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

To me, memory is about the past and imagination is about the future

You're only repeating what I said in a different way; which means that you got the point. Good!

mind has to proceed by trial and error, which is by definition a random process.

It's not "random" if everything "possible" is tried.

So, it doesn't work as biological evolution, because I don't think that life has tried all the possible mutations. We can imagine that life didn't have the time to try them all because it is relatively young, but time being the same at any scale by definition, how could the particles have done so?

Once again you're shooting everything in sight. We where not talking about "life" but about "viability". And, furthermore, you're "imagining" about the "past"; which is the contrary that you said is normaly done. As for the time available, how many quarks particles succeeded to produce "normal" matter?The total possibilities where the combination of six particles, and the "issue" that was "viable" is only one single combination of two particles. No other possibilities "survived".

Once we've found everything, what are we going to do? Watch on TV how exciting it was before?

Bof! You"re already doing that and haven't found much yet.

It could also be half and half, no? For instance, expansion could be inertial and contraction gravitational.

For a diplomat maybe but not for a scientist. Furthermore, how could you explain the part of the universe that doesn't shrink nor expands that we call "stable"? Imagination has nothing to do in replacement of "facts".

Distances are traveled by bodies or by light,

We where not discussing the bodies or light traveling a distance; we where discussing "distances" in regard to "space". One subject at a time, please.

and it might be useful to imagine how those two principle work together from one scale to the other.

Which d... principles? Where do those come from?

Rest mass is a relativistic concept, it comes with the relativistic mass increase. It takes for granted that mass is intrinsic to particles,...

That doesn't say anything about what is mass. What is it? And what is "inertial motion"? Don't forget that one; or else we will be "conversing" (which I'm not fond of) and not "discussing".

To compare the two scales, we have to add rotation to the steps, and it complicates them a bit.

Jeez! I thought that we where talking about the particle that is composed of "inner" particles. Whatever "inner" particles you can talk about, they always "rotate" around the center of gravity of the "composed" particle. So just explain those "steps" made by all those particles. It should be rather simple.

Try to imagine my two atoms revolving one around the other while going forward,

That is not the subject; we are talking of ONE particle composed of "inner" particles that make "steps".

and compare them to the way the earth revolves around the sun while going through the galaxy.

The comparison doen't even match your "unacceptable" comparison, since the Earth is revolving around the Sun but the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. What kind of opinion can come out of such different wrong premisses?

When two atoms make a step to execute a revolution one around the other, it has to be justified by the steps between their components, and it's the same for planetary systems.

It's a matter of keeping the same proportions while the change happens: if the distance between galaxies can increase continuously, then the distance between particles can shorten continuously too,

The question then is: Does it?

which means that, observing their light, they would appear to get closer to one another with time while the galaxies would appear to expand from one another in the same time.

So the question becomes: Do all of them, sending light, get closer to one another while appearing to expand from one another in the same time?

With the steps, such a mechanism would be inductive:

You mean "imagined" without "facts" to support it. Then your "theory" cannot be wrong. I'm happy for you. You can rest.

Look at the inertial steps again and imagine that the step of the left atom towards the right one induces the step away of the right one, and that this step away from the right one induces the step of the left one in return.

I'm looking at it, and I can't figure out if the particle in the back is "pushing" the one in front or if it's the one in front which is "pulling" the one in the back. Now imagine the motion of the "inner" particles revolving around their center of gravity; they push or pull sucessively one another without me being able to explain how. Now if they follow "the light" of your electromagnetic "geometry" of space, the two "big particles" are following "straight light lines" and the inner particles are following "curved light lines". How can you explain those different light lines whitout saying that your electromagnetic geometry of space is straight while being curved? You're getting close to be accepted by actual "science". All you have to do is seperate "space-time" from "space" itself. You're getting there; congratulation!

it takes time for light to travel between bodies of different scales too, and by the time it reaches them, they have already changed, so even if they execute their step to compensate for the difference, the compensation only serves to entertain the phenomenon.

So there's no way to explain the phenomenon. We're stuck!!! Let's go watch TV.

I said for a moment, not forever.

So an "habit" lasts only for a moment. Like when I killed a moose once in my lifetime, I had the "habit" of killing moose. Ok; I won't argue.

as long as nothing gets in their way, they will go on forever,

Which is only a "moment" if I remember right. Ok I won't argue.

so when something new happens,

Like another "habit"; ok.

they have to adapt, and changing always takes more time than going on as it was.

So a "moment" to adapt takes more time than an "habit" forever; if I understand correctly.

Why is it so?

Search me!

My answer is: because things always have to proceed randomly when change happens to them, and that it always takes more time to invent than to do as usual.

Great inductive reasoning; I must admit. Really a feat of randomly mixed imagination. What more can I say.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » January 19th, 2017, 7:08 pm wrote:
To me, memory is about the past and imagination is about the future
You're only repeating what I said in a different way; which means that you got the point. Good!
Good also! But I didn't copy your point. It's a deduction I made from my small steps a few years ago.

Andrex wrote:
mind has to proceed by trial and error, which is by definition a random process.
It's not "random" if everything "possible" is tried.
OK, I think I finally understand what you mean. You mean that, even if genetic mutations were random, they could nevertheless have run through all the combinations. I don't think it is statistically possible even in a billion years, but the problem is the urgency. When a climate change happens, the species do not have a billion years to evolve, so only the mutations that happen at that short moment will participate to the selection. It's the same for our ideas: only the mutations that happen on the ideas that we already have when the change occurs will participate to the selection. Moreover, species can try many mutations at a time whereas our mind can try only one.

Once again you're shooting everything in sight. We where not talking about "life" but about "viability".
I'm talking about why any kind of evolution is possible, and I am comparing them to extirpate the constants.

Andrex wrote:
It could also be half and half, no? For instance, expansion could be inertial and contraction gravitational.
Furthermore, how could you explain the part of the universe that doesn't shrink nor expands that we call "stable"?
Where is that part you are talking about? Between the two others?

Imagination has nothing to do in replacement of "facts".
A fact is an observation that has reproduced itself long enough for us to predict it will do so next time we will make it. It is a fact that night happens between each day for instance. But an idea that reproduces itself in our mind is also a fact for our mind, and it has something to do with imagination since it takes imagination to test new ideas, and that old ideas always come from new ideas that have been tested. It is while telling our new ideas to others that we test them, so that our imagination can try new possibilities if they don't seem to work.

Andrex wrote:
Rest mass is a relativistic concept, it comes with the relativistic mass increase. It takes for granted that mass is intrinsic to particles,...
That doesn't say anything about what is mass. What is it? And what is "inertial motion"? Don't forget that one; or else we will be "conversing" (which I'm not fond of) and not "discussing".
Mass is the result of sources of light of intrinsic frequency trying to adapt to the frequency of incident light.

Andrex wrote:
Try to imagine my two atoms revolving one around the other while going forward,
That is not the subject; we are talking of ONE particle composed of "inner" particles that make "steps".
A step from one atom being composed of billions of steps between its components is the same as a wave being composed of smaller waves. The steps have a sinusoidal shape: they have a beginning and an end, and in between, they get to a maximum intensity, which is their speed for the steps, thus their length since their frequency doesn't change. The more the speed gets important, the more the length of the steps gets long. We can do the same if we want to walk faster while not increasing the frequency of our steps. Now, imagine that the length your foot has to travel is made of the billions of lengths the steps that one of its atoms has to travel. And just to show that it is not as simple as it may appear, try now to imagine that the steps that this atom will have to make will be longer when your own foot will be going faster, which is right when it will cross you other foot standing on the ground. A step is an acceleration followed by a deceleration, and it is composed of smaller steps made of smaller accelerations followed by smaller decelerations. Now try to figure out what the light that would get out of all those steps may look when they get accelerated from the outside.

the Earth is revolving around the Sun but the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. What kind of opinion can come out of such different wrong premisses?
It's not quite true that only the earth moves around the sun. What is true is that the earth is too light to make an observable difference. For instance, the moon does make a difference since we can observe that the center of rotation of both bodies is at a few thousand km from the center of the earth.

Andrex wrote:
When two atoms make a step to execute a revolution one around the other, it has to be justified by the steps between their components, and it's the same for planetary systems.
Here is a drawing I made a few years ago about that. Its dusty, its been a long time since people have gotten that far in my small steps. :0) It shows two identical atoms A and B revolving one around the other at constant distance. The vector Rp (black arrows) represents the length and direction of their inertial steps, and the vector Rs represents the length and direction of their gravitational ones. The light from one of the atoms is directed towards the future position of the other atom (colored arrows), and it suffers aberration when it strikes it (dotted lines), which indicates the direction the gravitational steps have to take for them not to interfere with the inertial ones, what suggests that aberration may have been selected to permit orbital motion.

Andrex wrote:
It's a matter of keeping the same proportions while the change happens: if the distance between galaxies can increase continuously, then the distance between particles can shorten continuously too,
The question then is: Does it?
What we observe is a difference in frequency, but I think that both phenomenon could produce it.

which means that, observing their light, they would appear to get closer to one another with time while the galaxies would appear to expand from one another in the same time.
So the question becomes: Do all of them, sending light, get closer to one another while appearing to expand from one another in the same time?
It might be impossible to tell the difference, but it would imply that accelerated expansion is only an illusion, so no need for dark energy to explain it.

You can rest.
No rest for me! I don't believe in rest frames! :0)

I'm looking at it, and I can't figure out if the particle in the back is "pushing" the one in front or if it's the one in front which is "pulling" the one in the back.
It's simple, all you have to understand is that the information on the motion to be executed by the molecule is situated in the wave between the two atoms, not inside them. I incidentally think it is the same for our neurons: I think the information is situated in the wave that travels between them, not inside them.

Andrex wrote:
it takes time for light to travel between bodies of different scales too, and by the time it reaches them, they have already changed, so even if they execute their step to compensate for the difference, the compensation only serves to entertain the phenomenon.
So there's no way to explain the phenomenon.
It is important that I analyze that concept further a bit as far as redshift is concerned, and thanks to you, it is the first time a discussion on the steps goes that far, so I hope you won't mind if I insist. So, even if the two atoms of my animation execute their steps to stay on sync with the other atom, all they succeed to do is forcing the other atom to make a step later on. yet, I can also imagine that, instead of going forward, my two atoms are actually executing their steps one towards the other to nullify the redshift that would cause their shrinking, but I must not forget that, in the same time, this motion would produce a blueshift that would dampen the future redshift between them. It's too tricky for my imagination, I'll have to think twice, and make some drawings.

Great inductive reasoning; I must admit. Really a feat of randomly mixed imagination. What more can I say.
You already said too much, now I know that you got enough. :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

so only the mutations that happen at that short moment will participate to the selection.

And they are "all the possibilities" to be tried. That's exactly what I mean: no randomness.

It's the same for our ideas: only the mutations that happen on the ideas that we already have when the change occurs will participate to the selection.

Except that you have only "one idea" at a time. It's your memory that makes a "bunch" of propositions in which you choose your decision.

Where is that part you are talking about? Between the two others?

Where we find ourselves; between a galaxy level and an hydrogen atoms level; where things don't decrease or increase.

A fact is an observation that has reproduced itself long enough for us to predict it will do so next time we will make it.

A fact is simply something that is passed, is stable and cannot be changed.

But an idea that reproduces itself in our mind is also a fact for our mind

A fact has nothing to do with our mind. It is a "fact" whether you're aware of it or not.

Mass is the result of sources of light of intrinsic frequency trying to adapt to the frequency of incident light.

That doesn't "explain" anything; it's only your definition that I have to "believe" without explanations. Sorry.

A step from one atom being composed of billions of steps between its components is the same as a wave being composed of smaller waves.

Waves composed of "smaller" waves don't exist. Electromagnetic waves are "composed" of two kinds of waves of the same "size" as the electromagnetic wave.

The steps have a sinusoidal shape: they have a beginning and an end, and in between, they get to a maximum intensity, which is their speed for the steps, thus their length since their frequency doesn't change.

And you relate that to light where frequency is changed by expanding of the wavelength's expansion. What you imagine has to be correlated with observations otherwise...

The more the speed gets important, the more the length of the steps gets long.

Not for light. light speed is "invariant". In regard to light, your "steps" seem to be the "wavelength". I get all mixed up like a bee jumping from a flower to another without reasons.

We can do the same if we want to walk faster while not increasing the frequency of our steps.

But if the length of your step is expanded (by expansion), you will have a "dilution" of the energy you put in making your steps; it will be distributed in the length of your step. Like when you dribble a basketball and changing the length of the rebound. So the frequency has to change.

Now, imagine that the length your foot has to travel is made of the billions of lengths the steps that one of its atoms has to travel.

That's not the way it works. Each "unity level" is independent "motion wise". My horse runs around the racetrack while the Earth rotates on itself, orbiting around the Sun inside the solar system that goes around the galaxy. Those rotations are made around a center of gravity and it's each of those centers of gravity that travels.

try now to imagine that the steps that this atom will have to make will be longer when your own foot will be going faster,

The atoms are not running after my foot; they "compose" my foot. There "motion" is "static" in regard to my steps.

A step is an acceleration followed by a deceleration,

Only when you're limping; not when you're "gliding" (stepping smoothly).

Now try to figure out what the light that would get out of all those steps may look when they get accelerated from the outside.

Light is an "invariant".

It's not quite true that only the earth moves around the sun. What is true is that the earth is too light to make an observable difference.

Getting "blurred" again. You used the Earth and Sun system as an exemple for two particles orbiting around each other. I know it's not possible; but it's your proposition and your example. Glad that you came back with the "barycenter".

The vector Rp (black arrows) represents the length and direction of their inertial steps, and the vector Rs represents the length and direction of their gravitational ones.

Newton would have love it.

The light from one of the atoms is directed towards the future position of the other atom (colored arrows),

Light source sends light at 360o (all around them).

which indicates the direction the gravitational steps have to take for them not to interfere with the inertial ones, what suggests that aberration may have been selected to permit orbital motion.

To me the aberration is only "gravitational" and "inertial" steps. I still don't know what they are.

The question then is: Does it?

What we observe is a difference in frequency, but I think that both phenomenon could produce it.

That doesn't answer the question; and the next question will be: Which one does it actually?

So the question becomes: Do all of them, sending light, get closer to one another while appearing to expand from one another in the same time?

It might be impossible to tell the difference, but it would imply that accelerated expansion is only an illusion, so no need for dark energy to explain it.

Impossible to tell the difference is not an acceptable answer. When we meet "impossibilities" we agree that it's impossible to be. As for dark energy, it's not an acceptable explanation either; it's a "faith" in imagination out of the blue.

It's simple, all you have to understand is that the information on the motion to be executed by the molecule is situated in the wave between the two atoms, not inside them.

That notion is the same as "attraction" between "masses". Like I said, Newton would love it; but he, himself, didn't believe it.

It is important that I analyze that concept further a bit as far as redshift is concerned, and thanks to you, it is the first time a discussion on the steps goes that far, so I hope you won't mind if I insist.

I don't mind; I only hope that by repeating the "facts" I base my objections on, they will finally make it trough your mind. Your imagination could serve you well if it was base on "facts". Which means that you have to base your theory on "facts"; not on imagination.

You already said too much, now I know that you got enough.

Like I said: "Really a feat of randomly mixed imagination".
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex wrote:
so only the mutations that happen at that short moment will participate to the selection.
And they are "all the possibilities" to be tried. That's exactly what I mean: no randomness.
I think we agree on the idea that mutations happen at random, and it already means that hazard exists. But you seem to resist to the idea that it exists at other scales, while you think the evolution of the universe is a selective process. For selection to be needed, a random process has to be selected. This is the name of the game. So if you agree with that, only the idea that all the possibilities can be executed is left in the balance. I think we need the opinion of a statistician here. We need to calculate the time it takes for a specie to execute all the genetic possibilities for a particular change in phenotype by random mutations. Of course, if there is a solution, it has more chances to be found before all the possibilities are explored, but it would at least give us a maximum time. I don't believe that our mind works like that though, because we would not be as fond of randomness as we are. I think that randomness is really part of intelligence, I even think it is the key to intelligence for robots.

Except that you have only "one idea" at a time. It's your memory that makes a "bunch" of propositions in which you choose your decision.
Memories cannot be used as they are to account for a change, they have to be changed, and unless we know the future, we cannot know in advance how to change them.

Andrex wrote:
Where is that part you are talking about? Between the two others?
Where we find ourselves; between a galaxy level and an hydrogen atoms level; where things don't decrease or increase.
We are on the ground, and we already feel the increase. Are you sure we need that intermediary space state?

Waves composed of "smaller" waves don't exist. Electromagnetic waves are "composed" of two kinds of waves of the same "size" as the electromagnetic wave.
Here is what I mean. It's a photon, from wiki.

Andrex wrote:
The more the speed gets important, the more the length of the steps gets long.
Not for light. light speed is "invariant". In regard to light, your "steps" seem to be the "wavelength". I get all mixed up like a bee jumping from a flower to another without reasons.
You're mixed up because you didn't understand the steps yet, so you don't see the reason why I use them at different scales. The steps' length is of course independent from the length of the light waves that escape from them, only their frequency is the same.

Andrex wrote:
We can do the same if we want to walk faster while not increasing the frequency of our steps.
But if the length of your step is expanded (by expansion), you will have a "dilution" of the energy you put in making your steps; it will be distributed in the length of your step. Like when you dribble a basketball and changing the length of the rebound. So the frequency has to change.
There is no change in the length of the steps if there is no change in the speed of expansion. It is to explain the accelerating redshift that I imagined their increase in frequency with time. This way, the light from younger atoms far away from us would appear redder than the light from the ones that are close to us without the need for dark energy. The closer the atoms are from one another, the less the redshift is important between them, so there is almost none between the two atoms of my animation. Nevertheless, we must imagine what would happen to their steps if they had to account for it, because one way or another, they have to.

Andrex wrote:
Now, imagine that the length your foot has to travel is made of the billions of lengths the steps that one of its atoms has to travel.
That's not the way it works. Each "unity level" is independent "motion wise". My horse runs around the racetrack while the Earth rotates on itself, orbiting around the Sun inside the solar system that goes around the galaxy. Those rotations are made around a center of gravity and it's each of those centers of gravity that travels.
Then take the center of gravity of your foot, and imagine that the step it makes is made of the steps from the center of gravity of all the atoms that your foot is made of. It's the same as for the orbital motions you are talking about: all these motions have to be executed in the same time. While we move around the earth, we also move around the sun and around the galaxy. Its our atoms that execute those moves, and they have to execute them in the same time.

try now to imagine that the steps that this atom will have to make will be longer when your own foot will be going faster,
The atoms are not running after my foot; they "compose" my foot. There "motion" is "static" in regard to my steps. That's one possibility, the other is that it is them that execute the motion of your foot after having resisted to their acceleration.

Andrex wrote:
A step is an acceleration followed by a deceleration,
Only when you're limping; not when you're "gliding" (stepping smoothly).
Any kind of step starts at zero speed with regard to the ground, it gets to a top speed in the middle, and gets back to zero speed at the end. So it's always an acceleration followed by a deceleration.

Andrex wrote:
The vector Rp (black arrows) represents the length and direction of their inertial steps, and the vector Rs represents the length and direction of their gravitational ones.
Newton would have love it.
It depends if he thought that gravitation was instantaneous or not. His equations do not show any time gap between bodies though, and my own theory is all about time gaps.

Andrex wrote:
The light from one of the atoms is directed towards the future position of the other atom (colored arrows),
Light source sends light at 360o (all around them).
Of course, why not?

I only hope that by repeating the "facts" I base my objections on, they will finally make it trough your mind. Your imagination could serve you well if it was base on "facts". Which means that you have to base your theory on "facts"; not on imagination.
My own theory is based on doppler effect, which is a fact for any wave, and it explains mass, which hurts when it strikes us. In comparison, your space is empty, nothing to observe, nothing to strike us.

Like I said: "Really a feat of randomly mixed imagination".
I wouldn't have dared to throw that kind of ball, but since you did, I can't resist to play with it. :0) We're all on the same boat when facing the unknown, hazard is the only way out. It's impossible to evaluate the chances a specie has to evolve instead of disappearing, and so is it for our own speculations. Your theory relies on the concept of a mechanical space, but that concept is the result of a speculation since the beginning. To me, it is at least as speculative as dark matter. Do you really think that your own theory is not speculative? Don't answer yes, because that's exactly what Donald Trump thinks. :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

I think we agree on the idea that mutations happen at random, and it already means that hazard exists.

I just told you there was no "randomness". How can you think "we agree"?

while you think the evolution of the universe is a selective process.

Quite a "selection": everything is tried and whatever is "viable" subsists. If that's your way of selecting, you're sure to win at the loto (by bying all the tickets).

We need to calculate the time it takes for a specie to execute all the genetic possibilities

No you don't have to calculate; because the "time" is at the "present" as soon as the possibility emerges.

Of course, if there is a solution, it has more chances to be found before all the possibilities are explored,

It doesn't matter; everything is tried anyway.

Memories cannot be used as they are to account for a change, they have to be changed, and unless we know the future, we cannot know in advance how to change them.

Everything that as been momently "viable" is re-tried more precisely; it's a continuous process.

We are on the ground, and we already feel the increase. Are you sure we need that intermediary space state?

Here is what I mean. It's a photon, from wiki.

Yeah; I know. It's a "french" photon (they don't show it in english). Here is what they say (in French): A photon is a "concept" to explain interactions between elctromagnetic radiation and "matter". We can talk about a photon as a particle only at the moment of the interaction. Beside that moment of the interaction, we cannot know what kind of "radiation" it is. So we cannot talk about the "localisation" of a photon and neither of a "trajectory" of a photon. And it also apply to its "wave" aspect.

I guess that settle it.

The steps' length is of course independent from the length of the light waves that escape from them,

And now, the light waves come from the steps and not from the particles? So the light waves comes from that "electromagnetic net" that gives the direction to motion. This is getting to be a "conversation".

There is no change in the length of the steps if there is no change in the speed of expansion. It is to explain the accelerating redshift that I imagined their increase in frequency with time.

If there's no change in the length of the step there's an increase of "energy" for acceleration; which means an increase of frequency. You cannot get out of that "fact". Light speed is still an "invariant".

It is to explain the accelerating redshift that I imagined their increase in frequency with time.

Science calls it "dark energy. And it's not explainable. On the other hand, science says that the "length" increases in an acceleration. That's what explains their accelerating "redshift".

It's the same as for the orbital motions you are talking about: all these motions have to be executed in the same time. While we move around the earth, we also move around the sun and around the galaxy. Its our atoms that execute those moves, and they have to execute them in the same time.

I'm explaining you that those moves are indepenrant from one another. The atoms "move" around a center of gravity, wich, itself, move around another center of gravity which, itself, etc. The horse running on the racetrack doesn't go faster coming back to the starting point then getting away from it, because the Earth is turning.

That's one possibility, the other is that it is them that execute the motion of your foot after having resisted to their acceleration.

Where are the "facts"?

Any kind of step starts at zero speed with regard to the ground, it gets to a top speed in the middle, and gets back to zero speed at the end. So it's always an acceleration followed by a deceleration.

That's me going up the stairway these days because I've got a bad knee; otherwise I go up "fluently".

My own theory is based on doppler effect, which is a fact for any wave, and it explains mass, which hurts when it strikes us.

Sorry; a doppler effect is an impression; not a "fact" You don't have any doppler effect if you follow the "source" at the same speed, in the same direction it goes. Mass doesn't hurt at all; my body has mass and it doesn't hurt me. What "hurts" is a "collision" between volumes of matter.

We're all on the same boat when facing the unknown, hazard is the only way out.

The only way out is "facing facts that we know" and not facing whatever we can "imagine" of the unknown.

It's impossible to evaluate the chances a specie has to evolve instead of disappearing, and so is it for our own speculations.

Incorrect. It's a fact that a specie evolves as long as it is "viable"; when it becomes not "viable" it disappears. There's no "chance" involved.

Your theory relies on the concept of a mechanical space,

What the h... is that?

but that concept is the result of a speculation since the beginning. To me, it is at least as speculative as dark matter.

So my "starting unity as a potentiality" is a spéculation and your dark matter is not a "speculation"? What can I say?

Do you really think that your own theory is not speculative? Don't answer yes, because that's exactly what Donald Trump thinks.

Don't tell me that Donald Trump talked to you about my theory??? Really??? Wow??? That man has brain!!! America is sure to be great again.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » January 22nd, 2017, 12:06 am wrote:
I think we agree on the idea that mutations happen at random, and it already means that hazard exists.
I just told you there was no "randomness". How can you think "we agree"?
Then, how do you call the way mutations happen? No quantum hazard either?

Andrex wrote:
while you think the evolution of the universe is a selective process.
Quite a "selection": everything is tried and whatever is "viable" subsists. If that's your way of selecting, you're sure to win at the loto (by bying all the tickets).
No need to by any ticket if I understand well, we're here because we had to be here?

Andrex wrote:
Memories cannot be used as they are to account for a change, they have to be changed, and unless we know the future, we cannot know in advance how to change them.
Everything that has been momently "viable" is re-tried more precisely; it's a continuous process.
Researchers and artists that succeed always say they were lucky. What do they mean exactly? What is the meaning of thanking or praying god if it doesn't exist? Isn't that hazard that we are invoking?

Andrex wrote:
We are on the ground, and we already feel the increase. Are you sure we need that intermediary space state?
The accelerated increase.

I'm explaining you that those moves are independent from one another. The atoms "move" around a center of gravity, wich, itself, move around another center of gravity which, itself, etc.
There is two kinds of moves in this case: the one towards the gravity center, and the one around the gravity center. Gravitational moves are made in the same time: the moon is accelerating towards the earth at the same time it is accelerating towards the sun at the same time it is acceleration towards the galaxy center. It is not the gravity centers that are accelerating, it is the massive bodies that accelerate one towards the other, and they all do that at the same time all over the universe. Of course it takes time for the information about all their moves to travel between them, but that's what we have to deal with when we build our theories.

And it's the same for their motions around the centers of gravity: they all have to be executed in the same time. The moon moves around the earth at the same time it moves around the sun at the same time it moves around the galaxy. The center of mass is a calculation, it doesn't have any property of its own, it doesn't move by its own means.

Andrex wrote:
Any kind of step starts at zero speed with regard to the ground, it gets to a top speed in the middle, and gets back to zero speed at the end. So it's always an acceleration followed by a deceleration.
That's me going up the stairway these days because I've got a bad knee; otherwise I go up "fluently".
I knew something was wrong. You were observing your head while I was talking of your foot. Of course our heads travel fluently while we walk, but not our feet.

Sorry; a doppler effect is an impression; not a "fact" You don't have any doppler effect if you follow the "source" at the same speed, in the same direction it goes.
Not true as far as sound waves are concerned: we know there is doppler effect between two observers moving side by side in air even if they cannot observe it, because the only sound that they will hear is the one that was already aiming towards their future position when it was emitted, thus at an angle to their direction, which immediately causes blueshift. The reason the blueshift is unobservable for the other observer is that he strikes the wave at exactly the same angle, which causes a proportional redshift. It should be the same for any wave that is independent from the motion of bodies, and light is.

Andrex wrote:
We're all on the same boat when facing the unknown, hazard is the only way out.
The only way out is "facing facts that we know" and not facing whatever we can "imagine" of the unknown.
Do you really think that your theory had to happen exactly the way it does? Don't you ever think that you are lucky to think the way you do?

Andrex wrote:
Your theory relies on the concept of a mechanical space,
What the h... is that?
Einstein's space has mechanical properties that are normally attributed to massive bodies.

So my "starting unity as a potentiality" is a speculation and your dark matter is not a "speculation"? What can I say?
I try to explain accelerated expansion a real way, with real particles and real doppler effect, whereas dark energy is only an imaginary addition. About your mother unity, how can it split in two daughter unities of twice their mother volume without the mother growing in between like bacteria?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Then, how do you call the way mutations happen? No quantum hazard either?

No.

No need to by any ticket if I understand well, we're here because we had to be here?

"We" has nothing to do about it; we are a stage of evolution; nothing else.

The accelerated increase.

I don't feel any accelerated increase. Sorry.

There is two kinds of moves in this case: the one towards the gravity center, and the one around the gravity center.

Oh yess!!! Is that so? According to Newton,the one falling toward the gravity center is the one provoking the one falling around that center. So there's only one move involved even for Newton. Sorry.

It is not the gravity centers that are accelerating, it is the massive bodies that accelerate one towards the other,

And the massive bodies don't have a gravity center; right? And, by the way, where can you observe two massive bodies accelerating toward each other?

Of course it takes time for the information about all their moves to travel between them, but that's what we have to deal with when we build our theories.

To build a theory the only information needed is the ones in our brain. But we have to make sure to consider them logically.

And it's the same for their motions around the centers of gravity: they all have to be executed in the same time. The moon moves around the earth at the same time it moves around the sun at the same time it moves around the galaxy. The center of mass is a calculation, it doesn't have any property of its own, it doesn't move by its own means.

Even Newton wouldn't make that kind of "observation".

I knew something was wrong. You were observing your head while I was talking of your foot. Of course our heads travel fluently while we walk, but not our feet.

That's why I prefer using my head to analyse my feet. To bad if it's wrong.

Sorry; a doppler effect is an impression; not a "fact" You don't have any doppler effect if you follow the "source" at the same speed, in the same direction it goes.

Not true as far as sound waves are concerned:

Wrong. You'll ear always the same sound "pitch".

Do you really think that your theory had to happen exactly the way it does?

A theory doesn't happen.

Don't you ever think that you are lucky to think the way you do?

It wasn't "luck"; I can assure you. It involved a lot of work and thinking; not only "conversation".

Einstein's space has mechanical properties that are normally attributed to massive bodies.

About your mother unity, how can it split in two daughter unities of twice their mother volume without the mother growing in between like bacteria?

Do mother bacterias grow in between their two daughter? That's new to me.

You've got good questions of which you should try to find the exact answer after thinking about it.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » January 22nd, 2017, 10:16 pm wrote:
Then, how do you call the way mutations happen? No quantum hazard either?
No.
OK! Then no hazard nowhere is a premise for you, and hazard everywhere is a premise for me. I wonder which one is right, but you don't seem to care, so I will not insist.

Andrex wrote:
No need to by any ticket if I understand well, we're here because we had to be here?
"We" has nothing to do about it; we are a stage of evolution; nothing else.
It's the same. What I think you meant is that things that exist had to exist anyway. It's a Karma concept.

Andrex wrote:
The accelerated increase.
I don't feel any accelerated increase. Sorry.
Don't tell me you're levitating all the time! Good for your knee! :0)

According to Newton,the one falling toward the gravity center is the one provoking the one falling around that center. So there's only one move involved even for Newton.
Motion and mass are two different concepts. What is equivalent is gravitational mass and inertial mass, not the motions that they involve.

where can you observe two massive bodies accelerating toward each other?
Where you see them levitate, I see them falling to the ground.

That's why I prefer using my head to analyze my feet. To bad if it's wrong.
I said that I felt something was wrong, not that you were wrong. I didn't understand that you were talking of the upper part of your body, and you didn't understand that I was talking of the feet only. Analogies are not perfect, but they nevertheless help to understand what we mean.

Sorry; a doppler effect is an impression; not a "fact" You don't have any doppler effect if you follow the "source" at the same speed, in the same direction it goes.Not true as far as sound waves are concerned:
Wrong. You'll hear always the same sound "pitch".
What I mean is that we know that the sound waves that are doppler shifted would look shifted if we could see them. If we produce doppler effect on water waves for instance, we will see that they do not have the same length as if they were not doppler shifted. Of course they will have the same frequency if we travel at the same speed and in the same direction as the source, but if we compare their length to the length of the water molecules, it will not be the same if they are doppler shifted or not.

Andrex wrote:
Don't you ever think that you are lucky to think the way you do?
I can assure you. It involved a lot of work and thinking; not only "conversation".
Me too, but in addition, I believe I am lucky to exist. It seems to be a question of characters. You don't seem to be authoritarian though. Funny how characters are subtile.

Andrex wrote:
Einstein's space has mechanical properties that are normally attributed to massive bodies.
Newton's theory was based on instant communication, not Einstein's, and not mine either.

Andrex wrote:
About your mother unity, how can it split in two daughter unities of twice their mother volume without the mother growing in between like bacteria?
Do mother bacteria grow in between their two daughter? That's new to me.
OK, then I inverse my question: do the two daughters grow as large as the mother unity after a while? And if so, what do they eat? Space molecules? :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

OK! Then no hazard nowhere is a premise for you,

No; not a "premise"; but a logical deducted "fact".

and hazard everywhere is a premise for me.

Right!

It's the same. What I think you meant is that things that exist had to exist anyway.

Because it's the ONLY viable evolution path.

It's a Karma concept.

Karma could be a misunderstood concept of that "fact"; it's possible.

Don't tell me you're levitating all the time!

And because I don't levitate, it means that I feel "accelerating increase"??? You have a "funny" logic. When I stand on a balance, my weight doesn't increase; it's "stable".

Motion and mass are two different concepts.

Maybe; but they're one single fact though.

What is equivalent is gravitational mass and inertial mass, not the motions that they involve.

I'm not the one who said: "There is two kinds of moves in this case: the one towards the gravity center, and the one around the gravity center." and now say that their "motions" are not equivalent.

where can you observe two massive bodies accelerating toward each other?

Where you see them levitate, I see them falling to the ground.

To what question do this answer apply? It doesn't "fit" with my question.

I said that I felt something was wrong, not that you were wrong.

Then you feel the same thing as I do. Good! I'm not wrong but something is; which leaves... what you say.

Of course they will have the same frequency if we travel at the same speed and in the same direction as the source, but if we compare their length to the length of the water molecules, it will not be the same if they are doppler shifted or not.

There will be no doppler effect if you go at the same speed in the same direction. There will be a doppler effect if you're "stationary" or go in different direction. So nothing (no fact) "is" doppler shifted; it's only an "impression" caused by different speed and direction. It's not a "fact".

You don't seem to be authoritarian though.

What would support any authority from my part? What "is", is normal to be. Why would I oppose?

Newton's theory was based on instant communication, not Einstein's,

For Einstein SR, you're right; but not for GR. Newton's gravity is "mechanical"; Einstein's gravity is "geometrical".

do the two daughters grow as large as the mother unity after a while?

Yess; so they "occupy" twice as much "space" than their "mother" (at the ;level of the quarks, that's what provoked "inflation" between 10^-36 sec and 10^-32 sec after BB).

And if so, what do they eat?

You're attributing the same "aptitudes" we have, to bacteria. Might as well ask me how many of them had mustaches.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » January 24th, 2017, 12:11 pm wrote:
OK! Then no hazard nowhere is a premise for you,
No; not a "premise"; but a logical deducted "fact".
and hazard everywhere is a premise for me.
Right!
OK! I change my term premise for the term fact, because the way you use the term fact, hazard is also a logical deducted fact for me. Now, let's play heads and tails to know who is right. :0)

Andrex wrote:
It's the same. What I think you meant is that things that exist had to exist anyway.
Because it's the ONLY viable evolution path.
Not necessarily, not for me at least, and I think that most of the geneticists do not think this way.

And because I don't levitate, it means that I feel "accelerating increase"??? You have a "funny" logic. When I stand on a balance, my weight doesn't increase; it's "stable".
An increase in speed is not an increase in acceleration.

There will be no doppler effect if you go at the same speed in the same direction. There will be a doppler effect if you're "stationary" or go in different direction. So nothing (no fact) "is" doppler shifted; it's only an "impression" caused by different speed and direction. It's not a "fact".
If we produce doppler effect on water waves by dropping stones while moving with regard to water at a certain height over the surface, and if we then measure the waves while traveling with them, we will measure a different wavelength than if we would have dropped the stones without moving with regard to the water. It means that the doppler effect that we observe is due to a real change in the length of the waves, not only to a change in frequency. It is so for material waves, and I think it is also the case for light.

Andrex wrote:
Newton's theory was based on instant communication, not Einstein's,
For Einstein SR, you're right; but not for GR. Newton's gravity is "mechanical"; Einstein's gravity is "geometrical".
How do you explain that SR is based on the speed of the information, and that GR, which is supposed to be a generalization of SR, is no more based on that speed? How could the idea that light takes a certain time to travel through an accelerated elevator become a theory on space curving the trajectory of things as if it did not take any time to do so?

Andrex wrote:You're attributing the same "aptitudes" we have, to bacteria. Might as well ask me how many of them had mustaches.
No more than half of them can grow a mustache, because only male bacteria do so. :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Because it's the ONLY viable evolution path.

Not necessarily, not for me at least, and I think that most of the geneticists do not think this way.

Did geneticists were able to "create" something "viable" that wasn't "natural"?

An increase in speed is not an increase in acceleration.

The accelerated increase.

I guess that "accelerated increase" is an "increase of speed" and when it's continuous it is called "acceleration" which means "accelerated increase". No? And if not, what is an increase in acceleration?

and if we then measure the waves while traveling with them,

Then you're traveling away from the source. Wrong example once again.

It means that the doppler effect that we observe is due to a real change in the length of the waves, not only to a change in frequency. It is so for material waves, and I think it is also the case for light.

What you think doesn't change the "fact" that the change in frequency is due to the "elongation" of the wave. But the total amount of "energy" stays the same. That is the "fact" in electromagnetism.

How do you explain that SR is based on the speed of the information, and that GR, which is supposed to be a generalization of SR, is no more based on that speed?

I told you. GR is the geometric theory of gravitation (which includes SR); SR is regarding the relationship between space and time.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

I just found this. It might interest you Inchworm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Andrex
Member

Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

PreviousNext