## 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

Andrex » January 24th, 2017, 7:55 pm wrote:Did geneticists were able to "create" something "viable" that wasn't "natural"?
No, but the only way they can develop new viable things is by trial and error, the same way any thing in the universe can develop new things. So visibly, we agree on that, but again, we don't agree that the trial and error process is a random process.

Andrex wrote:
An increase in speed is not an increase in acceleration.
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?
What I meant is an increase in speed anyway.

Andrex wrote:
and if we then measure the waves while traveling with them,
Then you're traveling away from the source. Wrong example once again.
I would be traveling at the speed of the waves, and I could measure a difference in the length of the doppler shifted ones compared to the ones that are not doppler shifted, so I conclude that light waves would behave the same. By the way, this is the only way my small steps are possible, and they sure are possible since we can see them in action.

Of course, I knew about that, and as I already said, I found a guy that redid the calculations of the Michelson/Morley experiment, the ones that disproved the aether, and he got a null result too, but in the calculations themselves, so maybe we discarded it a bit too fast.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

So visibly, we agree on that, but again, we don't agree that the trial and error process is a random process.

And my reason to say so is that every possibility is tried and then accepted (by its viability) or recycled. Randomness always involves a determination of one , voluntary or not, (choice) out of many possibilities; and since ALL possibilities are experienced then there cannot be "randomness".

What I meant is an increase in speed anyway.

Ok; then we forget "accelerated increase" and just remember that an increase in speed can be continuous (acceleration) or can be "time length" (burst).

I would be traveling at the speed of the waves, and I could measure a difference in the length of the doppler shifted ones compared to the ones that are not doppler shifted,

And the frequency of the wave (on your lake) would gradually diminish the same way as light waves. I agree; but the energy represented by that frequency wouldn't disappear. It would be distributed either in the lake or in the space. The difference between the waves would be differences between two "moments of the observation" (before and after, or two waves, here and there) as long as the waves exists; which means as long as its energy is not completely diluted in the environment . What does it prove?

I just found this. It might interest you Inchworm:

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

Of course, I knew about that,

The reason I mentioned it is that a "tissue" of space composed of light doesn't work because light (electromagnetism) came after the appearance of "space". On the other hand it works with a "tissue" composed of unidimensional points because "Euclidian space" is composed of unidimensional points, and our universe is Euclidian.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Andrex » January 25th, 2017, 1:33 pm wrote:
So visibly, we agree on that, but again, we don't agree that the trial and error process is a random process.
And my reason to say so is that every possibility is tried and then accepted (by its viability) or recycled. Randomness always involves a determination of one , voluntary or not, (choice) out of many possibilities; and since ALL possibilities are experienced then there cannot be "randomness".
As I said, I don't think that all the possibilities can be tried given a certain time to try them. A possibility cannot become a reality if it happens before or after the change in the environment happens, it has to happen during the change.

What does it prove?
It shows that doppler effect is not really a relativity effect, otherwise my small steps could not work. It also shows how the motion of waves is in dependent from the motion of bodies, and it means that, if light works the same, then the inertial frame principle is true for bodies, but it is wrong for light. On a lake, a wave would not be traveling directly between two observers moving side by side on the water, it would take time for it to reach the observers, and by the time it would reach the place where the were, they wouldn't be there anymore. If the inertial frame is wrong, then the relativity principle is wrong, and the whole relativity is wrong, so your idea to take as a fact that space expands and contracts instead of bodies acting to get closer or farther from one another might be wrong too since a concept of space with similar properties is already part of general relativity.

The reason I mentioned it is that a "tissue" of space composed of light doesn't work because light (electromagnetism) came after the appearance of "space". On the other hand it works with a "tissue" composed of unidimensional points because "Euclidian space" is composed of unidimensional points, and our universe is Euclidian.
I read that light was already there at the beginning, but that it could not get away because of density. Wrong? I have a big problem with your unidimensional point, to me, a point either has no dimension and it is mathematical, or it needs three to be physical.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

A possibility cannot become a reality

A possibility NEVER becomes a reality. Possibilities evolve in better defined possibilities and it keeps on defining better possibilities (entropy we observe) until it reaches the only definition of the "reality" possible (up until now, only proton and iron atom are realities). At that point, it stops evolving. The "time" involved is the time a possibility is able to "subsist"; in other words: its "viability" aptitude. The reality lasts forever.

It shows that doppler effect is not really a relativity effect

What's a "relativity effect"?

It also shows how the motion of waves is in dependent from the motion of bodies, and it means that, if light works the same, then the inertial frame principle is true for bodies, but it is wrong for light.

Motion of waves INDEPENDANT of bodies??? You should look at de wave-particle duality. Both "ways" of looking at one object is correct; but you have to choose one of those ways to describe the object's behavior. It's exactly the same as "time" and "distance" which represent the same thing which describes what is "space". So then, what is the "inertial frame"?

On a lake, a wave would not be traveling directly between two observers moving side by side on the water, it would take time for it to reach the observers,

Imagine two boats going side by side on a lake and making waves. Those will never reach the boats.

so your idea to take as a fact that space expands and contracts instead of bodies acting to get closer or farther from one another might be wrong too since a concept of space with similar properties is already part of general relativity.

I must be dumb because I don't understand what you mean here.
How can you describe the "universe" with "bodies", when "matter" composes only 5% of that universe. It's like describing the way I dress by studying the buttons of my shirt.

What we know is:
1) Space expands (we call it expansion); it's an observation.
2) In that expanding space, there are some "volumes" of it that don't expand (galaxies) it's an observation.
3) And in some of those "non-expanding" volume of space, there are smaller volumes that contract (collapse); in those collapse volumes of space we find neutron stars etc.. It's an observation. Those are "facts".
4) and those "facts" are observed happening in what we call "space".
5) and that "space" is Euclidian. This is another "fact",
6) The whole space today is an electromagnetic environment since the appearance of the gamma rays with the wave length of 10^-14 m that kept on expanding ever since.

This is all we have to work with. Whatever "interpretation" came out of it is irrelevant. You have to start from "scratch" with the "facts" not with the former "opinions" given before all of those facts became known.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Andrex » January 25th, 2017, 4:09 pm wrote:
A possibility cannot become a reality
The reality lasts forever.
I see. Your definition is different than mine. To me, reality is what lies in between two changes. For the moment, Einstein's relativity is a reality for us for instance. Another way around is considering that what is real resists to change. This way, we both are real, and our ideas too. :0) On the contrary, space is not real because it does not resist to change, and it produces no change that we can observe.

Andrex wrote:
It shows that doppler effect is not really a relativity effect
What's a "relativity effect"?
An effect that is relative to the motion between observer and source. If we can observe the doppler effect while the waves are in between source and observer, then the effect is only due to the motion of the source.

Andrex wrote:
It also shows how the motion of waves is independent from the motion of bodies, and it means that, if light works the same, then the inertial frame principle is true for bodies, but it is wrong for light.
So then, what is the "inertial frame"?
Here is wiki's definition, and what I say is that it doesn't work for light, only for bodies. It's the same as Galileo's definition, with light as a plugin, but a plugin that bugs.

Andrex wrote:
On a lake, a wave would not be traveling directly between two observers moving side by side on the water, it would take time for it to reach the observers,
Imagine two boats going side by side on a lake and making waves. Those will never reach the boats.
Same with sound if you go faster than sound. Water waves are so slow that they help us meditate.

Andrex wrote:
so your idea to take as a fact that space expands and contracts instead of bodies acting to get closer or farther from one another might be wrong too since a concept of space with similar properties is already part of general relativity.
.... You have to start from "scratch" with the "facts" not with the former "opinions" given before all of those facts became known.
This is what I did too, but I only kept the proposition that light moves independently from the motions of bodies, which was a premise to SR, whereas you kept the conclusion of GR, which is that space has properties of its own, and the conclusion of QT, which is that particles can get in and out from void. You discarded the Higgs, but replaced it with nothing since your contracting space can't offer a resistance to anything. Your analysis is interesting to me because it helps me to understand the ins and the outs of the particles' story, but it lacks the substance that my Thomas' mind needs to understand things. You say redshift is a proof that space expands, I say it would only be a proof that galaxies move away from one another. That's what Hubble thought, but since we observed that the motion was accelerating, we stopped calling it a motion, to replace it with an expansion. To me, that was cheating. Tell me how it is possible that we can measure mass out of your contracting space. How is it possible that space can develop a force?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

I see. Your definition is different than mine. To me, reality is what lies in between two changes.

Those TWO changes are related to yourself only (you change continuously); but there a 7 billion people on Earth that, each, have two changes also; plus all the animals and all the vegetation etc. Everything is either evolving or recycling. Like I said; all possibilities are tried and sorted. That's a "fact", and not an "opinion".

Another way around is considering that what is real resists to change. This way, we both are real, and our ideas too.

You think so? In fact you're changing even in your idea. Every now and then I can read that you're saying what I previously said with different words which changes slightly (or better define if you prefer) that theory of yours. In fact, it's evolving while we discuss. And I , myself, find better comparisons to support my opinion. So none of us is real we are both members of the "improving possibilities". If it wasn't so, I wouldn't loose time in discussions.

On the contrary, space is not real because it does not resist to change, and it produces no change that we can observe.

Here goes that logic of yours again. If we cannot observe changes in "space" how can you affirm that space does nor resist to change? Your objections are illogic but your first affirmed conviction is unmovable. You automatically come back to it whatever the improvement it gained while discussing. So you say anything that backs it up, even what doesn't.

If we can observe the doppler effect while the waves are in between source and observer, then the effect is only due to the motion of the source.

No. The effect is due to the difference of speed between the observer and the wave. If you go to the same speed in the same direction, you don't see waves; you'll see one single "bump" standing by your side. That's what relativity is all about.

Here is wiki's definition, and what I say is that it doesn't work for light, only for bodies.

You keep an affirmation that I proved wrong in my previous tread. Don't you read what I write?

Same with sound if you go faster than sound.

You don't have to go faster; just "as fast" is enough because, then the sound keeps behind you; just as the waves behind the boats; they don't go "faster" than the waves. It wouldn't be "logic" because the boats would eventually "loose" the wave far behind them. I hope you cannot "imagine" that?

and the conclusion of QT, which is that particles can get in and out from void.

QT didn't conclude that; it proposed it because of certain observations. So it's only an "interpretation" of observation; not at all a "conclusion" whatever is said.

You discarded the Higgs, but replaced it with nothing

I don't have to replace it. It's based on illogic premises and "blurred" concept; furthermore, it's not "observed". So like Feynman said: "If a theory isn't backed by observation, this theory is "shnoot", kaput, no good, whatever the person or the "name" that makes it".

since your contracting space can't offer a resistance to anything.

Jeez! How can a "contracting something" offer "resistance"? It's "contracting" which means "encounter no resistance". It does, eventually, meet resistance though on the center of gravity; and that is what stops the collapsing. But the stage before collapsing is "stability"; which is not at all a resistance to anything; it's only an existing volume of space presenting a topology contrary to the topology of expansion.

Your analysis is interesting to me because it helps me to understand the ins and the outs of the particles' story,

My analysis of the "story" of particles is related solely to their origin and to their evolution in regard to the density of energy of their mutual environment at a precise moment of the history of the universe. Which isn't hard to observe. Nothing else.

You say redshift is a proof that space expands

Did I say that? That is surprising; because redshift can only be, if rightly interpreted, the result (consequence) of expansion; just as most galaxies move away from ours (but not all; which is another problem easy to solve with my opinion, but not really solved by offical opinion).

but since we observed that the motion was accelerating, we stopped calling it a motion, to replace it with an expansion.

Really? As for myself, expansion is a "motion"; and so is "collapsing". Sorry. Furthermore, "expansion" is not a replacement of the word "motion"; it's a precision on what kind of "motion" we are talking about. It means a "motion" that "drives away" things from an observers position. And it was called "expansion" a long time before its accelertion was "observed". That is why it is said that the "expansion" we use to observe, is "accelerating". If expansion meant "acceleration" of the "driving away from things", we wouldn't have to qualify expansion as "accelerating". The "expansion" of the universe is not the same thing as its "acceleration"; just as the "cruising" speed of your car is not the same as is "acceleration".

To me, that was cheating.

You must meet a lot of that with the "unprecise" way you "conceptualise" what you read.

Tell me how it is possible that we can measure mass out of your contracting space.

It depens of what you mean by the word "mass". If it is a simple "volume of matter", you add the particles it compose; if you mean "mass energy", you add the energy of the particles which is not always identical to the amount of particles.
And, for your information, what influences "space" geometry is the "mass energy"; not the "volume of matter".

How is it possible that space can develop a force?

What the h... is a "force". Where does it come from? "Force" is a "religious" concept. An "influence" coming out of "nowhere"; more precisely, from where only "God" stand, which is outside of the universe (because he "created it"). And since the universe is everything "that is" (that exists), "out of the universe" is somewhere that "is not" (doesn't exist). And that takes care of God, just as much as of your "forces". Forces don't exist; they are "impossibilities" in evolution. The only things possible are "effects" resulting of "something" previous to that effect. Forces are "consequences" like Einstein said a 100 years ago. So forget that "force" concept that dates, in physics, from 300 years ago, and 4000 years ago in religion.

Too bad you didn't mention the 6 "facts" I enumerated in my previous post. We could have found a few more together supplied by the lasts observations of Planck satellite. But; it's not really important at this stage of the discussion. Eliminating that concept of "forces" is a lot more important in order to advance in the comprehension of the universe.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Andrex » January 26th, 2017, 1:55 pm wrote:
I see. Your definition is different than mine. To me, reality is what lies in between two changes.
Those TWO changes are related to yourself only (you change continuously); but there is a 7 billion people on Earth that, each, have two changes also; plus all the animals and all the vegetation etc. Everything is either evolving or recycling. Like I said; all possibilities are tried and sorted. That's a "fact", and not an "opinion".
It's not quite what I meant. To me, a change is similar to an acceleration, and reality is what happens after a change, thus after an acceleration. What happens after an acceleration for atoms is their small steps, and they stay constant as long as no other acceleration happens. Constancy is a property of reality, we admit as facts events that reproduce themselves constantly. This way, some events are real for everybody, and some others are only real for us. An event reproducing constantly only in our head has to be observed by everybody to get real for everybody. I admit that things are evolving or recycling all the time, but they can only do so if they resist to change. My small steps would never change direction or length without having previously resisted to change for instance, and they also can do that without having tried all the possibilities. If an atom had to try all the possibilities it has with regard to all the other atoms of the universe before making an uncertain step, I'm afraid that atom couldn't decide itself.

So none of us is real, we are both members of the "improving possibilities". If it wasn't so, I wouldn't loose time in discussions.
Things may also be improving while staying real. For instance, some members of a specie may be improving because they suffer an advantageous mutation, while the other members may stay the same, so that the specie stays the same while it changes. Evolution is a transformations process, and to me, this process is part of reality.

Andrex wrote:
On the contrary, space is not real because it does not resist to change, and it produces no change that we can observe.
Here goes that logic of yours again. If we cannot observe changes in "space" how can you affirm that space does nor resist to change?
Because to me, resisting to change is a body to body observation as far as physics is concerned: if a ball would not resist to its acceleration, we simply could not throw it away.

Andrex wrote:
If we can observe the doppler effect while the waves are in between source and observer, then the effect is only due to the motion of the source.
No. The effect is due to the difference of speed between the observer and the wave. If you go to the same speed in the same direction, you don't see waves; you'll see one single "bump" standing by your side. That's what relativity is all about.
Yes, but that bump will not measure the same length as the one that has not been doppler shifted. With water waves, we can see the doppler effect at work, so we can see that, in that particular case, it only depends on the speed of the source, not on the observer's one.

Andrex wrote:
Here is wiki's definition, and what I say is that it doesn't work for light, only for bodies.
You keep an affirmation that I proved wrong in my previous tread. Don't you read what I write?
I do read what you write, but I may have forgotten. On the other hand, I doubt that I would have forgotten a proof that I was wrong. What is that affirmation again?

Really? As for myself, expansion is a "motion"; and so is "collapsing". Sorry. Furthermore, "expansion" is not a replacement of the word "motion"; it's a precision on what kind of "motion" we are talking about. It means a "motion" that "drives away" things from an observers position. And it was called "expansion" a long time before its acceleration was "observed". That is why it is said that the "expansion" we use to observe, is "accelerating". If expansion meant "acceleration" of the "driving away from things", we wouldn't have to qualify expansion as "accelerating". The "expansion" of the universe is not the same thing as its "acceleration"; just as the "cruising" speed of your car is not the same as is "acceleration".
To me, the idea that galaxies expand from one another follows that other idea that matter has exploded at the BB. This way we can understand that galaxies are on inertial motion and that they could be slowing down because of gravitation. No need to add that space is expanding if we can understand that it is the galaxies that are moving. Now that something seems to be pushing them away, we had to find another way to describe it, and Einstein's mechanical space was the perfect tool. No need to question ourselves anymore, space is doing the job at our place.

Andrex wrote:
To me, that was cheating.
You must meet a lot of that with the "unprecise" way you "conceptualise" what you read.
You want me to tell you how imprecisely you conceptualize what I write? :0)

Andrex wrote:
Tell me how it is possible that we can measure mass out of your contracting space.
It depens of what you mean by the word "mass". If it is a simple "volume of matter", you add the particles it compose; if you mean "mass energy", you add the energy of the particles which is not always identical to the amount of particles.
And, for your information, what influences "space" geometry is the "mass energy"; not the "volume of matter".
What about inertial mass, the one that we get from accelerating particles, either while measuring the speed they get in an electric field or the curve they make in a magnetic one? How is this volume of matter able to resist to its acceleration as it does?

Andrex wrote:
How is it possible that space can develop a force?
.... So forget that "force" concept that dates, in physics, from 300 years ago, and 4000 years ago in religion.
What about the force between two colliding bodies, the one that we use to measure mass? Vanished too?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

and reality is what happens after a change

Which means that, to you, the reality is "what is" at the "present moment". That is also acceptable when we talk "time wise" (or in a conversation); but when describing the evolution process, the "reality" is the final stage attained by évolution.

What happens after an acceleration for atoms is their small steps,

I don't know. The only thing I can say is that, at least your "theory" was developed "step by step".

Constancy is a property of reality,

Constancy in motion is certainly not "step by step". Constancy in "steps" could be though. So you're describing "steps" and not "motion".

we admit as facts events that reproduce themselves constantly.

During evolution not one single event is exactly the same as another; so events do not reproduce themselves at all.

This way, some events are real for everybody, and some others are only real for us.

That's in a "conversation"; not in "evolution". I'm beginning to think you cannot make the difference between "conversing" and "discussing".

An event reproducing constantly only in our head has to be observed by everybody to get real for everybody.

That is why one must, himself, see clearly that "event" in order to be able to "explain" it perfectly, so others can "observe" it in their own head. To do that you have to, first, find by yourself all the objections possible to that "event", before explaining it to anybody. After that you just follow the "logic" of the explanation so that you don't have to repeat constantly an affirmation just to "bypass" an objection.

I admit that things are evolving or recycling all the time, but they can only do so if they resist to change.

In that case, you sure are "evolving" quite a bit; because you're "resisting" to any change.

My small steps would never change direction or length without having previously resisted to change for instance, and they also can do that without having tried all the possibilities.

Yeah; Monday can never become Tuesday without resisting all day until midnight. Furthermore, it had only one single possibility of the seven days of the week which "evolve" step by step of 24 hours long. Now we just found the "real" proof of your Theory. So I rest "your" case!.

If an atom had to try all the possibilities it has with regard to all the other atoms of the universe before making an uncertain step, I'm afraid that atom couldn't decide itself.

Atoms don't decide anything; their "personal aptitude" versus their environment decides. Furthermore, they don't even "converse" with one another.

Things may also be improving while staying real. For instance, some members of a specie may be improving because they suffer an advantageous mutation, while the other members may stay the same, so that the specie stays the same while it changes.

So the first Monday of June 2016 was the same as the first Monday of December 2016. I don't agree. Even the Earth was not at the same place around the Sun on those dates.
Attaining an "advantageous mutation" makes them more "viable"; so they will "last longer" than the "other ones" that stay the same. The "mutants" will then be the "standard" stage of evolution through which another "advantageous mutation" will augment the "viability" of a percentage of them, and so on...

Evolution is a transformations process, and to me, this process is part of reality

This evolution process is a "fact" and doesn't have anything else to do with "reality" except being the only process to attain it. Stop "conversing".

if a ball would not resist to its acceleration, we simply could not throw it away.

So a flashlight cannot "throw" light waves, since light doesn't accelerate which means they don't have any possibility to resist acceleration?

Yes, but that bump will not measure the same length as the one that has not been doppler shifted.

You will see only "one single bump" (water wave) beside you and it will diminish gradually because its energy will dilute in the lake. So you'll get a "redshift" even if you don't have a doppler effect.

With water waves, we can see the doppler effect at work, so we can see that, in that particular case, it only depends on the speed of the source, not on the observer's one.

So you think that if the source is "stationary" and you pass by it in a car; you won't observe a doppler effect?

What is that affirmation again?

You should know, you keep repeating it: "It doesn't work for light, only for bodies". So what doesn't work exactly? You answer: "It shows that doppler effect is not really a relativity effect, otherwise my small steps could not work. It also shows how the motion of waves is in dependent from the motion of bodies, and it means that, if light works the same, then the inertial frame principle is true for bodies, but it is wrong for light." And when I ask What is a "relativity effect"? You answer: "An effect that is relative to the motion between observer and source. If we can observe the doppler effect while the waves are in between source and observer, then the effect is only due to the motion of the source". And that brings my question about the "fixed" source as you're passing by. But you will start going round and round again with your base affirmation that "it doesn't work for light".

To me, the idea that galaxies expand from one another follows that other idea that matter has exploded at the BB.

The "fact" is that the BB wasn't an explosion of "matter"; it was an explosion of "space" (tridimensional) created by the simple motion of "exploding" (in all directions). We're way passed the epoch of the concept of the "original big atom" presented by Georges Lemaître.

This way we can understand that galaxies are on inertial motion and that they could be slowing down because of gravitation.

But they are not slowing down; they where observe "accelerating". So that "understanding" his wrong.

No need to add that space is expanding if we can understand that it is the galaxies that are moving.

The "fact" is that space is expanding AND, on top of that, galaxies are moving. The proof is that some of them are moving toward us. But out of those, some, even if "coming toward us", are getting farther away from us, while others are getting closer to us. Think about all those "facts" and you will need Galaxies "moving" PLUS "expanding" space to explain it.

Now that something seems to be pushing them away, we had to find another way to describe it, and Einstein's mechanical space was the perfect tool.

You'll have to explain that to me; because I don't see any "Einstein's tool" describing anything of "expansion".

You want me to tell you how imprecisely you conceptualize what I write?

That could help.

That was a Galileo concept; before we knew what "mass" is. In fact we still don't know what mass is officially.

the one that we get from accelerating particles,

The mass that augments while accelerating is a "potential" mass; it cannot be an "inertial mass".

How is this volume of matter able to resist to its acceleration as it does?

To understand that you have to find what weight is. "Weight" is not "mass" but, officially, we don't know what weight is; just like what mass is. I think I explained what "mass" and "weight" are in the first 5 pages of this discussion; and I did explain it in my book if you read it as you say.

What about the force between two colliding bodies, the one that we use to measure mass?

What "force" are you talking about in that "event"? Are you "conversing" again? There's no "force" that I detect in a collision.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Andrex » January 27th, 2017, 12:33 pm wrote:
and reality is what happens after a change
Which means that, to you, the reality is "what is" at the "present moment". That is also acceptable when we talk "time wise" (or in a conversation); but when describing the evolution process, the "reality" is the final stage attained by évolution.
On one side of the mouth you say that evolutions never end, and on the other side you say that some of them have a final stage. I'm sure your mouth looks twisted.

Andrex wrote:
Constancy is a property of reality,
Constancy in motion is certainly not "step by step". Constancy in "steps" could be though. So you're describing "steps" and not "motion".
Are you mixing constancy with continuity?

Andrex wrote:
we admit as facts events that reproduce themselves constantly.
During evolution not one single event is exactly the same as another; so events do not reproduce themselves at all.
OK, then where is the final stage you're talking about?

Andrex wrote:
This way, some events are real for everybody, and some others are only real for us.
That's in a "conversation"; not in "evolution". I'm beginning to think you cannot make the difference between "conversing" and "discussing".
It's snowing here, do you like snow? :0)

Andrex wrote:
An event reproducing constantly only in our head has to be observed by everybody to get real for everybody.
That is why one must, himself, see clearly that "event" in order to be able to "explain" it perfectly, so others can "observe" it in their own head. To do that you have to, first, find by yourself all the objections possible to that "event", before explaining it to anybody. After that you just follow the "logic" of the explanation so that you don't have to repeat constantly an affirmation just to "bypass" an objection.
You're assuming that you can predict all the possibilities. Even the NASA couldn't do that. Trump thinks he can, and he is preparing war to prove it. Are you? I'm really surprised because I thought that that kind of thinking did not touch those who were creative, and you are. Maybe it has more to do with memory than creativity then, because you do have a lot and I almost have none. I saw an SF film yesterday about memory, it's called Embers. A virus that erases short term memory has invaded earth, and people still succeed to live minute by minute, but we can see that it won't last very long. We realize that even animals have to carry short term memory to survive.

Andrex wrote:
I admit that things are evolving or recycling all the time, but they can only do so if they resist to change.
In that case, you sure are "evolving" quite a bit; because you're "resisting" to any change.
I know I'm resisting because I can feel your resistance, so I know we're actually evolving one way or another. We cannot feel our own resistance, we can only deduct it from others' resistance.

Andrex wrote:
If an atom had to try all the possibilities it has with regard to all the other atoms of the universe before making an uncertain step, I'm afraid that atom couldn't decide itself.
Atoms don't decide anything; their "personal aptitude" versus their environment decides. Furthermore, they don't even "converse" with one another.
Maybe it's humans that don't decide anything, which means that it could also be their environment that decides. And if conversing only serves to move and to resist to change, then atoms are already doing that since the beginning of times.

Andrex wrote:
Evolution is a transformations process, and to me, this process is part of reality
This evolution process is a "fact" and doesn't have anything else to do with "reality" except being the only process to attain it. Stop "conversing".
Stop telling god what to do! :0)

Andrex wrote:
if a ball would not resist to its acceleration, we simply could not throw it away.
So a flashlight cannot "throw" light waves, since light doesn't accelerate which means they don't have any possibility to resist acceleration?
Waves do not resist to their acceleration because they cannot be accelerated to begin with. They have only one speed: theirs.

Andrex wrote:
Yes, but that bump will not measure the same length as the one that has not been doppler shifted.
You will see only "one single bump" (water wave) beside you and it will diminish gradually because its energy will dilute in the lake. So you'll get a "redshift" even if you don't have a doppler effect.
No redshift because it's frequency will stay the same, only it's height will diminish, what we call intensity for other kinds of waves.

Andrex wrote:
With water waves, we can see the doppler effect at work, so we can see that, in that particular case, it only depends on the speed of the source, not on the observer's one.
So you think that if the source is "stationary" and you pass by it in a car; you won't observe a doppler effect?
Of course that doppler effect will be produced by an observer's speed with regard to the wave, but I was only talking of the one caused by the motion of the source.

Andrex wrote:
What is that affirmation again?
You should know, you keep repeating it: "It doesn't work for light, only for bodies". So what doesn't work exactly? You answer: "It shows that doppler effect is not really a relativity effect, otherwise my small steps could not work. It also shows how the motion of waves is independent from the motion of bodies, and it means that, if light works the same, then the inertial frame principle is true for bodies, but it is wrong for light." And when I ask What is a "relativity effect"? You answer: "An effect that is relative to the motion between observer and source. If we can observe the doppler effect while the waves are in between source and observer, then the effect is only due to the motion of the source". And that brings my question about the "fixed" source as you're passing by. But you will start going round and round again with your base affirmation that "it doesn't work for light".
I was going to write "are you reading what I write", but I changed my mind since you don't seem to be. :0)

Andrex wrote:
To me, the idea that galaxies expand from one another follows that other idea that matter has exploded at the BB.
The "fact" is that the BB wasn't an explosion of "matter"; it was an explosion of "space" (tridimensional) created by the simple motion of "exploding" (in all directions). We're way passed the epoch of the concept of the "original big atom" presented by Georges Lemaître.
The only way to prove that would be to rerun the BB again but with nothing in it. I wonder what our detectors would be detecting!

Andrex wrote:
No need to add that space is expanding if we can understand that it is the galaxies that are moving.
The "fact" is that space is expanding AND, on top of that, galaxies are moving..... Think about all those "facts" and you will need Galaxies "moving" PLUS "expanding" space to explain it.
We say the same thing then, except that you think they are really accelerating, while I think they are not. We cannot just decree that space is expanding to explain how galaxies are accelerating away from one another, we have to find an observable underlying mechanism, one that uses real particles and real light.

I don't see any "Einstein's tool" describing anything of "expansion".
It's Einstein that first allowed mechanical properties to space, so it's his fault if others applied it to expanding galaxies. You're pardoned! For your penance, pray that my theory is accepted. :0)

Andrex wrote:
You want me to tell you how imprecisely you conceptualize what I write?
That could help.
In this particular case, I'm really not sure you read what I wrote!

Andrex wrote:
That was a Galileo concept; before we knew what "mass" is. In fact we still don't know what mass is officially.
You don't know because you don't want to know: mass is the result of particles having to stay synchronized with one another.

Andrex wrote:
the one that we get from accelerating particles,
The mass that augments while accelerating is a "potential" mass; it cannot be an "inertial mass".
Try to read me my way instead of reading me your way. I am talking of inertial mass, not relativistic mass. (Did you notice, I began talking your way. You like? It's my chameleon side. :0))

Andrex wrote:
How is this volume of matter able to resist to its acceleration as it does?
To understand that you have to find what weight is. "Weight" is not "mass" but, officially, we don't know what weight is; just like what mass is. I think I explained what "mass" and "weight" are in the first 5 pages of this discussion; and I did explain it in my book if you read it as you say.
Here is the link to your specific post about mass. You begin by saying that "we have to admit that nobody knows what mass is", and later on, you develop a way to explain gravitation using the gluon properties, but not inertial mass, which is the one that I am talking about, the one that we can feel when a ball resists to its acceleration.

Andrex wrote:
What about the force between two colliding bodies, the one that we use to measure mass?
What "force" are you talking about in that "event"? Are you "conversing" again? There's no "force" that I detect in a collision.
The force I am talking about is the phenomenon that developed the last time you put your finger between the hammer and the plank you were nailing. Forces leave traces of their passage, so you should still see a scar on that finger. The trace left when two massive bodies collide is their direction and their speed. We can use them to locate the origin of the force. Oups... I'm conversing again! Let's get serious, what about talking sex? :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

On one side of the mouth you say that evolutions never end, and on the other side you say that some of them have a final stage. I'm sure your mouth looks twisted.

But in the middle of the mouth I say that the path of evolution is : Potentiality-> probability -> possibility -> reality (which is the accomplishment of the former potentiality). So stay "mouth centered". "Potentiality" is the start and reality is the end.

Are you mixing constancy with continuity?

Is constancy continuous?

OK, then where is the final stage you're talking about?

When evolution attains its goal which is complete "viability".

You're assuming that you can predict all the possibilities.

Not at all. You're the one assuming that I'm assuming it. And I wonder how you can "deduce" that.

Trump thinks he can, and he is preparing war to prove it.

Trump is not a politician; he's a biseness man; he deals with "wealth" (at home), not "war", to get "power". Previous government dealt with "war" (elsewhere) to gain power. It's a new method in USA (ever since its beginning); we'll see where it leads.

Are you? I'm really surprised because I thought that that kind of thinking did not touch those who were creative, and you are.

I hope you see that your "deduction" (interpretation) is wrong. You'll see it if you think instead of "beleive".

Maybe it has more to do with memory than creativity then, because you do have a lot and I almost have none.

Wrong again; I don't have memory; I have to "think" every time I read one of your posts. But I "understand" my opinion (theory) perfectly from start to finish. So I compare what you affirm to the evolution story of the universe. It's pretty easy and simple. When I need numbers or definitions, I have to check the internet.

I know I'm resisting because I can feel your resistance,

I don't resist; I just try constantly to "fit" logically what you affirm with what I think of the universe and it doesn't fit. Then I ask myself if I'm not misunderstanding what you're telling me and I try to understand it so that maybe it could "fit". I'm not succeeding. Sorry.

Maybe it's humans that don't decide anything, which means that it could also be their environment that decides. And if conversing only serves to move and to resist to change, then atoms are already doing that since the beginning of times

This is an example of my problems in understanding you. You say: Maybe it's humans that don't decide anything...it could also be their environment that decides. And this nest one shows you don't understand what I wean: And if conversing only serves to move and to resist to change... Conversing is only "talking for talking"; it doesn't lead anywhere is my meaning. Then you finish with: then atoms are already doing that since the beginning of times. I ask myself what fun you have (beside conversing) to suppose that atoms are "conversing" since the beginning of time.

Stop telling god what to do!

Tell him to keep out of our discussion if you can.

Waves do not resist to their acceleration because they cannot be accelerated to begin with.

So how come your dopple effect? Because previously you said: With water waves, we can see the doppler effect at work But before that you explained: "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." And even before, you saifd: "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." How do you want me to understand all that...?

You will see only "one single bump" (water wave) beside you and it will diminish gradually because its energy will dilute in the lake. So you'll get a "redshift" even if you don't have a doppler effect.

No redshift because it's frequency will stay the same, only it's height will diminish, what we call intensity for other kinds of waves.

Sorry; no "go". The height of the wave cannot diminish without difference in the frequency (energy); either the energy diminishes and the wave "drops" or the energy stays the same and the frequency augments as the wave "drops". Like the dribbling basketball or stopping dribbling it.

Of course that doppler effect will be produced by an observer's speed with regard to the wave,

Not the wave; but the source.

The only way to prove that would be to rerun the BB again but with nothing in it. I wonder what our detectors would be detecting!

I don't know about the detectors; but I know that Planck satellite detected an exclusive "radiating" period (no matter whatsoever) at the very beginning of the universe.

We cannot just decree that space is expanding to explain how galaxies are accelerating away from one another,

Expansion is defined by a "rate" (67,9 km/sec/mpc); galaxies acceleration is defined by "redshft". The more you have megaparsecs, the "faster" the galaxy speeds "away" whiout accelerating. The problem is that science say that it was "observed" accelerating. The the rate is not an "invariant" (constant).

It's Einstein that first allowed mechanical properties to space,

No it was Newton. Einstein defined geometrical properties to space.

You don't know because you don't want to know: mass is the result of particles having to stay synchronized with one another.

That's not an explication; that's an affirmation. I told you that mass is not known "officially" and I added that I explained what I thought mass and weight where in the first 5 pages here.

(Did you notice, I began talking your way. You like? It's my chameleon side. :0))

I rather think it's to evade objections :-)

You begin by saying that "we have to admit that nobody knows what mass is", and later on, you develop a way to explain gravitation using the gluon properties, but not inertial mass, which is the one that I am talking about, the one that we can feel when a ball resists to its acceleration.

What you feel is the result of "gravitation"; which is called "weight" (even if it's not really "weight") not "mass".

The force I am talking about is the phenomenon that developed the last time you put your finger between the hammer and the plank you were nailing.

You mean the "energy" I applied to the hammer. There's no "force" there.

The trace left when two massive bodies collide is their direction and their speed. We can use them to locate the origin of the force. Oups... I'm conversing again!

You sure are! A car coming from Montreal and another car coming from Quebec collide in Drummondville. Where the hell is the "force"? - The Police force is on its way; it won't be long, sir.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Andrex » January 28th, 2017, 8:31 pm wrote:
Are you mixing constancy with continuity?
Is constancy continuous?
Not to me. Our steps are constant but not continuous for instance. Frequencies are constant, space is continuous.

Andrex wrote:
OK, then where is the final stage you're talking about?
When evolution attains its goal which is complete "viability".
Complete here means eternal. But if our universe is not eternal, there shouldn't be any final stage.

Andrex wrote:
You're assuming that you can predict all the possibilities.
Not at all. You're the one assuming that I'm assuming it. And I wonder how you can "deduce" that.
Because you are evolving, and you said that things that evolve were trying all the possibilities.

Andrex wrote:
Are you? I'm really surprised because I thought that that kind of thinking did not touch those who were creative, and you are.
I hope you see that your "deduction" (interpretation) is wrong. You'll see it if you think instead of "believe".
I believe that there is no way to think without believing. That's exactly why I say that mind probably uses randomness to think. When we say we believe, we say that we are not sure of what we think, and that we are actually checking out that possibility.

Wrong again; I don't have memory; I have to "think" every time I read one of your posts. But I "understand" my opinion (theory) perfectly from start to finish. So I compare what you affirm to the evolution story of the universe. It's pretty easy and simple. When I need numbers or definitions, I have to check the internet.
You like history, so it means that you probably have a lot more memory than me.

Andrex wrote:
I know I'm resisting because I can feel your resistance,
I don't resist; I just try constantly to "fit" logically what you affirm with what I think of the universe and it doesn't fit. Then I ask myself if I'm not misunderstanding what you're telling me and I try to understand it so that maybe it could "fit". I'm not succeeding. Sorry.
I do the same thing, with the same result. Resistance is simply the time it takes to change direction or speed, so it has nothing to do with consciousness or will.

Andrex wrote:
Maybe it's humans that don't decide anything, which means that it could also be their environment that decides. And if conversing only serves to move and to resist to change, then atoms are already doing that since the beginning of times
This is an example of my problems in understanding you. You say: Maybe it's humans that don't decide anything...it could also be their environment that decides. And this nest one shows you don't understand what I wean: And if conversing only serves to move and to resist to change... Conversing is only "talking for talking"; it doesn't lead anywhere is my meaning. Then you finish with: then atoms are already doing that since the beginning of times. I ask myself what fun you have (beside conversing) to suppose that atoms are "conversing" since the beginning of time.
Because, contrary to you, I believe that atoms need to be exchanging information with their environment to make their moves, which is exactly what we do. I don't believe that the planets follow geodesics in space to stay around the sun, I believe that it is their atoms that do the job while responding to the information from the sun's atoms.

Andrex wrote:
Waves do not resist to their acceleration because they cannot be accelerated to begin with.
So how come your doppler effect? Because previously you said: With water waves, we can see the doppler effect at work But before that you explained: "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." And even before, you said: "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." How do you want me to understand all that...?
I don't know exactly what you don't understand, otherwise I would have found the right answer. That's precisely one of the resistance I think hazard can overcome. You may have an intuition or I may have one and everything could become clear in an instant. Its the same for your theory by the way.

Sorry; no "go". The height of the wave cannot diminish without difference in the frequency (energy); either the energy diminishes and the wave "drops" or the energy stays the same and the frequency augments as the wave "drops". Like the dribbling basketball or stopping dribbling it.
There is two ways to measure the energy of waves: their frequency or their intensity. Waves all lose the same intensity with time, it diminishes with the square of the distance, but they never lose their frequency if their propagating medium doesn't change.

Andrex wrote:
Of course that doppler effect will be produced by an observer's speed with regard to the wave,
Not the wave; but the source.
We say that because waves are always directly going away from their source, but we know that water is still on a lake, and that the waves travel through it, so we know that if we are traveling with regard to the water, we are also traveling with regard to the waves. It is also true for sound waves, so I extrapolate it to any kind of wave that needs a medium to propagate.

Andrex wrote:
The only way to prove that would be to rerun the BB again but with nothing in it. I wonder what our detectors would be detecting!
I don't know about the detectors; but I know that Planck satellite detected an exclusive "radiating" period (no matter whatsoever) at the very beginning of the universe.
Light without a source is like a hen without an egg. That mystery is finally solved. :0)

Expansion is defined by a "rate" (67,9 km/sec/mpc); galaxies acceleration is defined by "redshift".
Constant rate or accelerated rate both produce redshift, and it is impossible to tell the difference, so why do you attribute that name to accelerated rate? Wiki doesn't make that choice.

Andrex wrote:
It's Einstein that first allowed mechanical properties to space,
No it was Newton. Einstein defined geometrical properties to space.
Newton thought that the interaction was instantaneous, not that space was curved.

Andrex wrote:
(Did you notice, I began talking your way. You like? It's my chameleon side. :0))
I rather think it's to evade objections :-)
That's exactly the thinking I was chameleoning.

Andrex wrote:
You begin by saying that "we have to admit that nobody knows what mass is", and later on, you develop a way to explain gravitation using the gluon properties, but not inertial mass, which is the one that I am talking about, the one that we can feel when a ball resists to its acceleration.
What you feel is the result of "gravitation"; which is called "weight" (even if it's not really "weight") not "mass".
I was talking of the resistance we feel when throwing a ball. Are you evading objections? :0)

You mean the "energy" I applied to the hammer. There's no "force" there.
Of course there is! Whenever we accelerate something, it resists to its acceleration, so we have to force it to do so.

A car coming from Montreal and another car coming from Quebec collide in Drummondville. Where the hell is the "force"?
The force develops when they collide. The cars decelerate, so they resist to that deceleration, but they nevertheless succeed to decelerate, so it means that they were forced to.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

Is constancy continuous?
Not to me. Our steps are constant but not continuous for instance.

Could you elaborate a bit? Aren't you constantly "stepping"?

Complete here means eternal. But if our universe is not eternal, there shouldn't be any final stage.

Just re-read what I sublined and tell me if it's logical. You say that "the end" wouldn't be a "final stage".

Beside that, why does "complete" means "eternal"? A baby becomes a lawyer; is potentiality is "completed"; but nothing prevents him to become a judge, and after that is "completed", become a politian or a retired judge. Where is your "eternity"? I wrote down "completed" because I didn't mean "eternal"; if I did, you can probably guess what word I would have use...I hope.

Not at all. You're the one assuming that I'm assuming it. And I wonder how you can "deduce" that.

Because you are evolving, and you said that things that evolve were trying all the possibilities.

Once again you don't read what I write (which means: you read what you think) I didn't say that one thing tried all possibilities; I said that nature (the universe) tried every possibilities, sorting out more "defined" (more precise) viable possibilities.

I believe that there is no way to think without believing.

Well, stop "believing" and start "thinking". Believing is base on "faith" while thinking is a proces of the "intelligence".

When we say we believe, we say that we are not sure of what we think, and that we are actually checking out that possibility.

Buy another dictionary; the one you use is mixing everything up.

You like history, so it means that you probably have a lot more memory than me.

History is successive events related logically and chronologically to one another. I don't have to use very much memory to know that my great grandfather was born before my grandfather which was born before my father before me.

I do the same thing, with the same result. Resistance is simply the time it takes to change direction or speed, so it has nothing to do with consciousness or will.

I don't think that time will make us change opinion. Will and consciousness might though.

Because, contrary to you, I believe that atoms need to be exchanging information with their environment to make their moves,

This is not "contrary" to me; it's contrary to what you first said which was that atoms where exchanging informations with one another. Now you say "with their environment"...like I say. Is that against your will or is it "inconscious"?

I don't believe that the planets follow geodesics in space to stay around the sun, I believe that it is their atoms that do the job while responding to the information from the sun's atoms.

There your saying the contrary of what you just said before. To you atoms exchange informations between them and not with their environment. It seems it was "inconscious" and against your will. You will never be able to change your opinion. But then, if it is "viable" it will last; if not it will be recycled. Even then, it could take a lot of "time"; because you say one thing and its contrary without discernment.

I don't know exactly what you don't understand,

Just tell me if you understand what I wrote in stating what you said? I don't.

Its the same for your theory by the way.

Then tell me what is not clear in my explanation of my "theory" that you do not understand? But then, you'll have to read attentively what I wrote in the first 5 pages of this discussion.

There is two ways to measure the energy of waves: their frequency or their intensity. Waves all lose the same intensity with time, it diminishes with the square of the distance, but they never lose their frequency if their propagating medium doesn't change.

There are too much inexact infos in this phrase to correct everything. But "diminishes with the square of the distance" is the worst. Nothing diminished exactly with the square of the distance. That's a "belief" based on inaccuracy; not a "fact".

Not the wave; but the source.

We say that because waves are always directly going away from their source,

The doppler effect is related to the "source"; it's the redshift that's related to the "wave".

but I know that Planck satellite detected an exclusive "radiating" period (no matter whatsoever) at the very beginning of the universe.

Light without a source is like a hen without an egg. That mystery is finally solved.

Here we go again! Who said that the "radiating" process during that epoch was "light"? Hold your intellectual horses and try to control them, please; nevermind the chickens.

Constant rate or accelerated rate both produce redshift, and it is impossible to tell the difference,

That is because redshift doesn't have anything to do with whatever "rate"; it's related to the "distance" traveled by the wave. As for "constant" and "accelerating", it should be simple to observe the difference since it's the same we get with "static" and "moving". That, again, is a principle in "general relativity".

so why do you attribute that name to accelerated rate?

Difficult to answer that since you don't say which "name" you're talking about.

Wiki doesn't make that choice.

Wiki doesn't explain clearly and exactly how was observed the acceleration of the expansion. Their explanation is based on "expansion rate" between objects and doesn't explain the acceleration of that "rate". The acceleration their discribe applies with the "constant" rate of expansion.

Newton thought that the interaction was instantaneous,

Instantaneity doesn't have anything to do with "mechanic".

not that space was curved.

Einstein didn't say "space was curved"; he said that the geometry of space was "altered" (or deformed if you prefer). Nothing "mechanic" in there. Sorry. Unless you think that water going down a funnel is "mechanical". Who knows; maybe you do think that.

I was talking of the resistance we feel when throwing a ball. Are you evading objections?

It depends. If you think that the resistance of the ball is not is "weight", you could think I am.

You mean the "energy" I applied to the hammer. There's no "force" there.

Of course there is! Whenever we accelerate something, it resists to its acceleration, so we have to force it to do so.

:-) :-) Applying energy to augment acceleration is a "force". So to you using "force" to make something is the definition of "force" in physics. We're not out of the wood yet! Which "force" could I use to make you comprehend things? The "hammer force"? I'm using it and it doesn't work. The nail keeps bending and coming back to its original position.

A car coming from Montreal and another car coming from Quebec collide in Drummondville. Where the hell is the "force"?

The force develops when they collide. The cars decelerate, so they resist to that deceleration, but they nevertheless succeed to decelerate, so it means that they were forced to.

Lucky they were force to decelerate; otherwise they would have gone through one another and keep on driving. Furthermore it was good that the deceleration went right to the point of stopping for the same reason. To bad, though, that their resistance to decelerate wasn't great enough; because then, nothing bad would have happened. What we can say is: you can't fool around with a "force". CQFD.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Andrex » January 29th, 2017, 2:31 pm wrote:
Is constancy continuous?
Not to me. Our steps are constant but not continuous for instance.
Could you elaborate a bit? Aren't you constantly "stepping"?
The frequency of my steps may be constant, and their direction too, but there speed cannot, because it is a stop and go motion. Constant motion appears continuous, but my small steps show that it might not be.

Beside that, why does "complete" means "eternal"? A baby becomes a lawyer; his potentiality is "completed"; but nothing prevents him to become a judge, and after that is "completed", to become a politician or a retired judge.
So the final stage of all the final stages is death if I understand well.

I didn't say that one thing tried all possibilities; I said that nature (the universe) tried every possibilities, sorting out more "defined" (more precise) viable possibilities.
OK, then if we cannot try all the possibilities, how do we proceed to make a choice?

Andrex wrote:
I believe that there is no way to think without believing.
Well, stop "believing" and start "thinking". Believing is base on "faith" while thinking is a process of the "intelligence".
I don't think that people who do not believe in god think differently than those who do so. Believers believe in something they cannot apprehend by their senses, and that's exactly what we do when we believe our theory is right.

Andrex wrote:
I do the same thing, with the same result. Resistance is simply the time it takes to change direction or speed, so it has nothing to do with consciousness or will.
I don't think that time will make us change opinion. Will and consciousness might though.
Will can only help us to defend what we believe, and consciousness has been shown by Dennet to manifest itself after the decision has been made subconsciously.

Andrex wrote:
Because, contrary to you, I believe that atoms need to be exchanging information with their environment to make their moves,
This is not "contrary" to me; it's contrary to what you first said which was that atoms where exchanging information with one another. Now you say "with their environment"...like I say.
To me, an atom's environment is made of all the other atoms of the universe.

Andrex wrote:
I don't believe that the planets follow geodesics in space to stay around the sun, I believe that it is their atoms that do the job while responding to the information from the sun's atoms.
you say one thing and its contrary without discernment.
Stop thinking that, its not true, and it is also useless to point it out because everybody has the same feeling.

Nothing diminished exactly with the square of the distance. That's a "belief" based on inaccuracy; not a "fact".
Waves do diminishe exactly with the square of the distance, its written everywhere, so why do you think its inaccurate?

Who said that the "radiating" process during that epoch was "light"?
Plank's satellite, he only understands the light language.

Andrex wrote:
so why do you attribute that name to accelerated rate?
Difficult to answer that since you don't say which "name" you're talking about.
Redshift.

Andrex wrote:
I was talking of the resistance we feel when throwing a ball. Are you evading objections?
It depends. If you think that the resistance of the ball is not its "weight", you could think I am.
Here is the definition of weight from wiki:

"In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity."

As you can see, in this definition, gravity has nothing to do with the resistance we feel while throwing a ball.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

Constant motion appears continuous, but my small steps show that it might not be.

Constant "stepping" and constant "motion" is not the same thing; but they're both "constant". So are you "moving" or are you "stepping"?

So the final stage of all the final stages is death if I understand well.

OK, then if we cannot try all the possibilities, how do we proceed to make a choice?

You try to "survive".

I don't think that people who do not believe in god think differently than those who do so.

Thinking is thinking; I'll grant you that. But the path of thinking of an atheist doesn't follow the same path as a "beleiver"; so they think differently.

Believers believe in something they cannot apprehend by their senses, and that's exactly what we do when we believe our theory is right.

A scientific theory is the logical development of an explanation based on "facts". A religion is the illogic development of an explanation based on "myths". I don't think it's the same; and I sure don't think that a scientific does the same as a priest (some teachers do though). Only the ones he talks to, can "believe" what he says without verification; they then act "religiously".

Will can only help us to defend what we believe,

I'm talking about "will to find the truth" (related to honesty); not "hardheadedness".

and consciousness has been shown by Dennet to manifest itself after the decision has been made subconsciously.

Are you saying that you believe you don't make choices? I tought you said that you did.

To me, an atom's environment is made of all the other atoms of the universe.

Well, then, your theory is based only on 5% of the universe. Are you sure to be right?

you say one thing and its contrary without discernment.

Stop thinking that, its not true, and it is also useless to point it out because everybody has the same feeling.

I'm not thinking it and I don't "feel" it. I "saw" it and I'm making you observe the contradiction in your two affirmations.

Waves do diminishe exactly with the square of the distance, its written everywhere, so why do you think its inaccurate?

Certainly not because it's written everywhere; that's for sure. It's because Newton's concept is wrong and is formula is inaccurate. And that is proven by the stars in galaxies and galaxies in super clusters. But since "it's written everywhere" many think it is better to "imagine" dark matter than find the real explanation.

Plank's satellite, he only understands the light language.

But it can say a lot using the light "language". Exactly like when using any language; you really don't believe that you're restricted to talk only of grammar.

so why do you attribute that name to accelerated rate?

Difficult to answer that since you don't say which "name" you're talking about.

Redshift.

Because the observations seem to be more "redshifted" than they should. That's how they explain the acceleration of the expansion. The waves have less "frequency" that they should. As you know precision in color depends of the frequency and not the wavelenght.

"In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity."

But I would find weight in flat space standing on a balance that doesn't have the same speed as I have. And there's no gravitation there.

As you can see, in this definition, gravity has nothing to do with the resistance we feel while throwing a ball.

I see. So you can throw a 5 ounces ball without more resistance than a 50 pounds ball.

By the way; it's fun to "converse" but what do you think of my "theory", which is the subject of this discussion?
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Andrex » January 29th, 2017, 8:39 pm wrote:
OK, then if we cannot try all the possibilities, how do we proceed to make a choice?
You try to "survive".
And sometimes we make mistakes. But your idea that we only have to try all the possibilities to survive implies that it's our fault if we do not succeed. Do you believe in good and evil?

Andrex wrote:
I don't think that people who do not believe in god think differently than those who do so.
Thinking is thinking; I'll grant you that. But the path of thinking of an atheist doesn't follow the same path as a "believer"; so they think differently.
To understand what I mean, we have to compare two kinds of beliefs, social and individual. God is a good example of a social belief, and a theory that has not yet spread in the population is a good example of an individual belief. Notice that what links them is the fact that both concern an idea that has not yet been proven. For us to be able to hold to such unproven ideas, we both have to believe in them. This way, we can defend them if they are attacked. Why this crazy behavior about uncertain ideas? Because mind has discovered that it sometimes pays to stick to our crazy ideas, so it added a particular pleasure to that behavior, the same pleasure we have while buying a lotto ticket, which is about taking chances, the direct contrary to your idea of trying all the possibilities.

Andrex wrote:
and consciousness has been shown by Dennet to manifest itself after the decision has been made subconsciously.
Are you saying that you believe you don't make choices? I thought you said that you did.
Dennet did not show that we did not make choices, he showed that we made our choices before we got conscious of them.

Certainly not because it's written everywhere; that's for sure. It's because Newton's concept is wrong and his formula is inaccurate. And that is proven by the stars in galaxies and galaxies in super clusters. But since "it's written everywhere" many think it is better to "imagine" dark matter than find the real explanation.
That waves' intensity diminishes with the square of the distance they travel is an observed fact, it is not a theory. If we throw a stone on a calm water surface, we can see the height of the waves diminishing with distance, and we can also see that their length stays the same, which means that their frequency doesn't change.

Andrex wrote:
"In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity."
But I would find weight in flat space standing on a balance that doesn't have the same speed as I have. And there's no gravitation there.
Its not weight if there is no gravitation, it's resistance to change speed, and it's inertial mass that is the cause, not gravitational one.

Andrex wrote:
As you can see, in this definition, gravity has nothing to do with the resistance we feel while throwing a ball.
I see. So you can throw a 5 ounces ball without more resistance than a 50 pounds ball.
A more massive ball will not get the same speed if we throw it with the same strength, or it will take more strength to give it the same speed.

By the way; it's fun to "converse" but what do you think of my "theory", which is the subject of this discussion?
I'm actually studying the difference in our thinking, which is very important for me to be able to understand properly what you mean. If we don't look for a link between our two theories, then our discussion may stay sterile. I still think that you could replace your space metric by my small steps without changing anything to the rest of your theory though. Striding across space with small steps is also a metric you know.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

But your idea that we only have to try all the possibilities to survive implies that it's our fault if we do not succeed.

It's hard to answer that question in regard of our exchange. You've just mentionned Dennet implying that we don't make concious choices. So if you say that you make choices, you're not making them conciously; then you cannot be able to say that you make choices since you're not conscious of it. So how can you ask such a question?
As for "all the possibilities", if it applies, normally we have only two choices: 1) "do it" and 2) "don't do it". Ask Dennet what he thinks about it, since you "beleive" what he says.

Do you believe in good and evil?

I don't believe in anything. Good and evil is relative. In a society where killing is the normal reaction to an insult, only braking an arm is a act of goodness. In a society where protecting lives of others is the normal behavior, saving a kid from drowning is nothing to make a fuss about.

To understand what I mean, we have to compare two kinds of beliefs, social and individual.

Social belief is the compilation of the beliefs of the majority of individuals. You cannot compare those two kinds of beliefs as equals.

God is a good example of a social belief,

Depending of the society you talk about. In a society with no gods, the example doesn't apply.

For us to be able to hold to such unproven ideas, we both have to believe in them. This way, we can defend them if they are attacked.

Maybe for you, but not for me. I don't "believe" in my theory more than I "believe" in yours. I just think that mine is simpler to understand and more logic in regard to the "facts" we start with. And I will always defend what is logic in your theory. Which doesn't mean I accept it and certainly not "believe" it.

the same pleasure we have while buying a lotto ticket, which is about taking chances, the direct contrary to your idea of trying all the possibilities.

The universe buys "all" the loto tickets; it's a "win-win" situation for it. You buy only one loto ticket which means you're taking a "chance", out of millions, to win. Furthermore, you're participating in the universe "win-win" situation by trying one of all the possibilities it has. You could say we are the guinea pigs of the universe.

Dennet did not show that we did not make choices, he showed that we made our choices before we got conscious of them.

So how can you say you make choices if you're not conscious of making them? Unless you're conscious of making unconscious choices, which exceed my power of comprehension. In a way, consciousness defines the "present" moment; and we always are at that "present moment". So whatever happens before consciousness is irrelevant to it. If I understand Dennet right, after a choice as been made, the only thing we can say is: "What the hell happened here!!!" :-)

That waves' intensity diminishes with the square of the distance they travel is an observed fact, it is not a theory.

Then tell me where that "fact" comes from and on what it is based?

throw a stone on a calm water surface, we can see the height of the waves diminishing with distance, and we can also see that their length stays the same, which means that their frequency doesn't change.

Are you sure of the underline part? Look at this:

As you can "see", the wavelenght diminishes while drawing away from the source.

Its not weight if there is no gravitation, it's resistance to change speed,

Sorry but it's not "resistance". It's a difference in speed. What you "see" as resistance in only an "impression" or, an "interpretation" of the event; it's what it looks like (its appearence) but the real "event" is a difference in speed between the two objects. And that is the "event" which results in what is called "weight".
For example; your "weight" on Earth is the difference of your speed (your proper kinetic energy) toward the center of gravity of the planet, and the speed (the proper kinetic energy) of the ground going toward the same center of gravity (that planet's center goal that is mutual to your own center of gravity and all centers of the particles composing the planet). In this "event", gravitation (the altered geometry of space) only "directs" you to that center of gravity; it doesn't "act" (it's not energetic). It's only the topology of the space surrounding you that guides you to the center of Earths gravity. That is the result of "altered" space geometry that Einstein proposed; so forget Newton once and for all.

I see. So you can throw a 5 ounces ball without more resistance than a 50 pounds ball.

A more massive ball will not get the same speed if we throw it with the same strength, or it will take more strength to give it the same speed.

So if you cannot use the same strength, it means that you don't have the same "resistance"; no?

I'm actually studying the difference in our thinking, which is very important for me to be able to understand properly what you mean.

The only difference in our thinking results only from our different development of our neuronal connections due to our different experiences in life. And this "fact" should be a "plus" for both of us. But it's almost irrelevant in our theories. Let us base ourselves on "facts" that are acceptable to both of us. Then we should be able to understand each other.

If we don't look for a link between our two theories, then our discussion may stay sterile.

And the only links possible are the facts we both accept.

I still think that you could replace your space metric by my small steps without changing anything to the rest of your theory though

You're probably right if your steps are only "topological" and don't have "energy". The atoms are something else worth only 5% of the whole picture. Now if you seperate the steps from the particles, you get a "basic" step of 10^-33 m which, to me, is the "basic" metric of the universe. How about starting from there?
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Andrex wrote:I don't believe in anything. Good and evil is relative. In a society where killing is the normal reaction to an insult, only braking an arm is a act of goodness. In a society where protecting lives of others is the normal behavior, saving a kid from drowning is nothing to make a fuss about.
Same for me.

Social belief is the compilation of the beliefs of the majority of individuals. You cannot compare those two kinds of beliefs as equals.
A social belief has succeeded to transmit itself, whereas an individual one has not yet succeeded: that's the only difference. Both are only ideas that are not yet proven.

I don't "believe" in my theory more than I "believe" in yours.
Do you believe in your theory more than you believe in god?

You buy only one loto ticket which means you're taking a "chance",
If we can do that, then it means that we get pleasure from taking chances. Do you think that animals can feel that pleasure?

So how can you say you make choices if you're not conscious of making them? Unless you're conscious of making unconscious choices, which exceed my power of comprehension. In a way, consciousness defines the "present" moment; and we always are at that "present moment". So whatever happens before consciousness is irrelevant to it.
I define consciousness as the perception of a change occurring while our brain is executing an automatism. For instance, we can drive without paying attention to what we do when driving has become an automatism, and if ever something doesn't coincide with the way that automatism has been developed, then we automatically get conscious of what is going on, otherwise we can think of something else than driving. But I think we do the same when we imagine something: to me, imagination is about perceiving a change in our ideas, which also become automatisms with time, so that change can only come from mixing them differently or from them suffering some kind of random mutation.

That waves' intensity diminishes with the square of the distance they travel is an observed fact, it is not a theory.
Then tell me where that "fact" comes from and on what it is based?
Here is wiki about the inverse square law.

Andrex wrote:
throw a stone on a calm water surface, we can see the height of the waves diminishing with distance, and we can also see that their length stays the same, which means that their frequency doesn't change.
Are you sure of the underline part? Look at this: As you can "see", the wavelenght diminishes while drawing away from the source.
You're right, it doesn't work exactly the same for water waves because of dispersion, because then, shorter waves travel more slowly than longer ones, so we would need a constant vibration to observe the phenomenon on water.

Sorry but it's not "resistance". It's a difference in speed. ... For example; your "weight" on Earth is the difference of your speed (your proper kinetic energy) toward the center of gravity of the planet, and the speed (the proper kinetic energy) of the ground going toward the same center of gravity ( planet's center goal that is mutual to your own center of gravity and all centers of the particles composing the planet). In this "event", gravitation only "directs" you to that center of gravity; it doesn't "act" (it's not energetic). It's only the topology of the space surrounding you that guides you to the center of Earths gravity. That is the result of "altered" space geometry that Einstein proposed; so forget Newton once and for all.
When we measure weight, no speed is involved: we use a balance and compare the unknown weight to a known one.

So if you cannot use the same strength, it means that you don't have the same "resistance"; no?
Resistance is directly proportional to mass, so of course, a more massive ball automatically means more resistance.

Let us base ourselves on "facts" that are acceptable to both of us. Then we should be able to understand each other.
I think that's exactly what we are doing.

Andrex wrote:
I still think that you could replace your space metric by my small steps without changing anything to the rest of your theory though
You're probably right if your steps are only "topological" and don't have "energy".
The only energy they carry is kinetic, which is nothing if the steps are executed in space because there is nothing to encounter, and thus nothing to spend that kind of energy.

The atoms are something else worth only 5% of the whole picture.
For the moment, I think we can consider that we only use our usual atoms to make our observations, so I think that we should thrust them before they get angry. :0)

Now if you separate the steps from the particles, you get a "basic" step of 10^-33 m which, to me, is the "basic" metric of the universe. How about starting from there?
I never took that viewpoint, I instinctively took the viewpoint of atoms, and exported it to smaller and larger scales, but it might be useful to try the exercise. If I understand well, at 10^-16cm, quarks are a lot larger than 10^-33m, so that scale might be the one of their own small steps, or even the one of their components' steps. Can you start there or do you have to get down to your dimensionless particle?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

A social belief has succeeded to transmit itself, whereas an individual one has not yet succeeded

What about the individual belief that composes the social belief; as it been transmitted? :-)

Do you believe in your theory more than you believe in god?

I don't believe in anything. But my theory is more logical that the existence of God; to my point of vue. Stop talking about God; I don't like "forces" that comes from "nothingness".

If we can do that, then it means that we get pleasure from taking chances. Do you think that animals can feel that pleasure?

The chance taken for "survival" is pleasing only when it succeeds. I guess animals feel the pleasure of succeeding to feed themselves and don't feel pleased when starving.

I define consciousness as the perception of a change occurring while our brain is executing an automatism.

What are you using to be aware consciously if not your brain?

For instance, we can drive without paying attention to what we do when driving has become an automatism,

"Automatism" doesn't mean "not aware" (not conscious); otherwise there wouldn't be any problems in "texting" while driving.

But I think we do the same when we imagine something: to me, imagination is about perceiving a change in our ideas,

To me, imagining is an "action" that I provoke to find if I have to change my idea; not the passive result of a change in my idea. So it's not an automatism.

Here is wiki about the inverse square law.

Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, and Newton was officially the first one to use it; and we know it is not "completely precise".

As you can "see", the wavelenght diminishes while drawing away from the source.

You're right, it doesn't work exactly the same for water waves because of dispersion, because then, shorter waves travel more slowly than longer ones, so we would need a constant vibration to observe the phenomenon on water.

But it does work exactly the same as water waves because it is the "energy" of the wave that is "spreaded" (diluted) in the lake; the same as the energy of a lightwave is "diluted" in "space". Don't forget the dribbling basketball. If you diminish the energy on (or of) the ball, the "high" it reaches diminishes just as the "high" of whichever wave we talk about.

When we measure weight, no speed is involved:

Sorry; speed is involved. Your "involved speed" is the one you have intrinsically (kinetic energy) of which the motion is "blocked" by the ground (or by a scale). Your body wants to go to the centre of gravity of the Earth but the ground is blocking its motion. If you want the "proof", dig a hole to eliminate the blockage and stand on top of the hole; you'll find out fast.

and compare the unknown weight to a known one.

Unknown or known is irrelevant; weight is weight.

Resistance is directly proportional to mass, so of course, a more massive ball automatically means more resistance.

What about the weight? When you push a car that doesn't want to start; is the resistance cause by the mass of the car or the weight of the car? Saying "Resistance is directly proportional to mass" is not at all what we find by pushing or throwing (if you can) a car.

Let us base ourselves on "facts" that are acceptable to both of us. Then we should be able to understand each other.

I think that's exactly what we are doing.

I'm not sure. But to make me sure, enumerate the basic "facts" you use (with numbers 1-2-3 etc) and we'll go through them.

You're probably right if your steps are only "topological" and don't have "energy".

The only energy they carry is kinetic,

I think your mistaking. The kinetic energy is not carried by the steps but by your particles. They are the ones that "move"; the steps do not.

which is nothing if the steps are executed in space because there is nothing to encounter, and thus nothing to spend that kind of energy.

So, to you, a satellite moving in flat space doesn't have kinetic energy?
Furthermore if that kinetic energy was "spent" by motion, an object traveling in flat space would eventually loose all its kinetic energy and gradually stop in its course. Bur since this is not the "fact" that we observe with galaxies, we find that kinetic energy is not "spent" by motion. Note that "energy" is something else we don't know what it is exactly.

The atoms are something else worth only 5% of the whole picture.

For the moment, I think we can consider that we only use our usual atoms to make our observations, so I think that we should thrust them before they get angry.

They can get angry if they want; I've got 95% of the universe to protect me.

Now if you separate the steps from the particles, you get a "basic" step of 10^-33 m which, to me, is the "basic" metric of the universe. How about starting from there?

I never took that viewpoint, I instinctively took the viewpoint of atoms, and exported it to smaller and larger scales, but it might be useful to try the exercise.

I think it would. Specially if we are considering the "lenght" of the steps which doesn't have anything to do whit the particles themselves.

If I understand well, at 10^-16cm, quarks are a lot larger than 10^-33m,

In fact, that is the "new limit" for the size of a quark; it's not its size. The size of an atom's nucleus is around 10^-15m and that nucleus is compose af at least 3 quarks. So the limit leaves a rather large margin. But, yess 10^-15m is awfully a lot bigger than 10^-33m. To get an idea of the number it represents, let's say, starting at 10 seconds, 10^+33 sec. is longer than the age of the universe. So you can hardly imagine the size of the fraction of lengh that represents 10^-33 m of 10 meters. You mustn't forget, also, that we are dealing here with exponentials. Think of the story of one grain put on the first square of a chessboard dubbling the quantity of grains on every succeding squares. When you get to the 64th square you cannot find enough grain in Canada to put on that last square.

or even the one of their components' steps.

Quarks don't have components; I think, personally, they are "bubbles" of kinetic energy. But that is not an official "fact" yet. :-)

Can you start there or do you have to get down to your dimensionless particle?

To consider your theory, we can start at the Big bang which is the "first" manifestion of our tridimensional space since "space" is a "volume". And the date of that Big bang was 10^-43 sec after time zero. And even if you don't believe in the Big bang, we can start at that stage, on the condition that space was already expanding at that moment. Which means that your first step as to have the length of 10^-33m which is the longest diametric of that universe (volume) possible.

Tell me if you agree or don't. Then we'll see from there.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Andrex wrote:What about the individual belief that composes the social belief; as it been transmitted? :-)
Beliefs are transmitted the same way knowledge is transmitted: to accept the transmission, we have to believe it is right, so it's a lot easier to convince children.

The chance taken for "survival" is pleasing only when it succeeds.
Not for us. We like to take chances because we can anticipate an eventual reward. It takes memory to do that, so that we can extrapolate the past to the future, but I think it also takes hazard, so that the reward stays uncertain.

Andrex wrote:
I define consciousness as the perception of a change occurring while our brain is executing an automatism.
What are you using to be aware consciously if not your brain?
Nobody is using our brain except our brain itself. Consciousness is about our brain perceiving a change in its own information. It's a self-inducing process.

"Automatism" doesn't mean "not aware" (not conscious); otherwise there wouldn't be any problems in "texting" while driving.
As long as we keep our eyes on the road and our hands on the wheel, we can think of anything while driving. We can do so while walking too, or while executing any automatism. Our automatisms can all be executed subconsciously. This is the only way we can develop new ones, because we cannot concentrate on two different things at a time, and because we need to be conscious of the new things we are doing while still executing properly the old ones.

Andrex wrote:
But I think we do the same when we imagine something: to me, imagination is about perceiving a change in our ideas,
To me, imagining is an "action" that I provoke to find if I have to change my idea; not the passive result of a change in my idea. So it's not an automatism.
Imagination is an intrinsic property of the mind, but our automatisms are not since our mind has to develop them. You say you are the cause for your actions, not your imagination, but then, what is the cause for you?

Andrex wrote:
Here is wiki about the inverse square law.
Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, and Newton was officially the first one to use it; and we know it is not "completely precise".
No need for Einstein to put satellites on orbits, Newton and his inverse square law is enough.

But it does work exactly the same as water waves because it is the "energy" of the wave that is "spreaded" (diluted) in the lake; the same as the energy of a lightwave is "diluted" in "space". Don't forget the dribbling basketball. If you diminish the energy on (or of) the ball, the "high" it reaches diminishes just as the "high" of whichever wave we talk about.
What spreads is the intensity of the waves, not the frequency. By the way, the lower you keep your basketball, the higher the frequency will be, which is not what you wanted to prove.

Andrex wrote:
When we measure weight, no speed is involved:
Sorry; speed is involved. Your "involved speed" is the one you have intrinsically (kinetic energy) of which the motion is "blocked" by the ground (or by a scale). Your body wants to go to the centre of gravity of the Earth but the ground is blocking its motion. If you want the "proof", dig a hole to eliminate the blockage and stand on top of the hole; you'll find out fast.
Force is not motion. We can push on a car without being able to move it.

Andrex wrote:
and compare the unknown weight to a known one.
Unknown or known is irrelevant; weight is weight.
I don't know any other way to measure weight than to compare an unknown weight with an etalon weight.

Andrex wrote:
Resistance is directly proportional to mass, so of course, a more massive ball automatically means more resistance.
What about the weight? When you push a car that doesn't want to start; is the resistance cause by the mass of the car or the weight of the car? Saying "Resistance is directly proportional to mass" is not at all what we find by pushing or throwing (if you can) a car.
You are introducing friction in the discussion. Theoretically, without friction and providing we have a support, we could move the universe. (Archimedes)

I'm not sure. But to make me sure, enumerate the basic "facts" you use (with numbers 1-2-3 etc) and we'll go through them.
To me, a fact is simply a data, a measure, and what we measure is the information emanating from massive particles.

Andrex wrote:
You're probably right if your steps are only "topological" and don't have "energy".
The only energy they carry is kinetic,
I think your mistaking. The kinetic energy is not carried by the steps but by your particles. They are the ones that "move"; the steps do not.
You are right, but since the steps between the particles are made of the steps between their components, it is difficult to say that it is the particle itself that makes its own steps. In fact, with the steps, the biggest part of the kinetic energy is made of the steps between the tiniest components, to which we add the steps between the bigger components those tiny components are part of, and so on until we get to the scale of the bigger bodies we are studying. When we move a body, all those steps resist to change direction or length according to their own scale.

Bur since this is not the "fact" that we observe with galaxies, we find that kinetic energy is not "spent" by motion.
I didn't say it was spent by motion, I said that it was spent during a change in direction or speed, thus when the body encounters another body, which is not the case in space when there is nothing but space to encounter.

They can get angry if they want; I've got 95% of the universe to protect me.
You will have to convince that 95% to do so. Try to convince it to manifest itself to begin with. :0)

I think it would. Specially if we are considering the "length" of the steps which doesn't have anything to do with the particles themselves.
Can your virtual point make the same kind of steps my particles make? Which is while accelerating from zero speed, getting to a top speed, and decelerating to zero speed?

To consider your theory, we can start at the Big bang which is the "first" manifestation of our tridimensional space since "space" is a "volume". And the date of that Big bang was 10^-43 sec after time zero. And even if you don't believe in the Big bang, we can start at that stage, on the condition that space was already expanding at that moment. Which means that your first step has to have the length of 10^-33m which is the longest diametric of that universe (volume) possible.
I can consider expansion, but only the one we have a logical explanation for, which is the one that doesn't accelerate. Can we begin with this one?

At the 10^-33 scale, I think the BB theory says that there was only radiation, and in my theory, radiation also moves by steps, so we still can use them to describe its motion. The only thing that doesn't work the same is resistance to change direction or speed. Radiation does not change direction or speed if its propagating medium doesn't change. I know that Feynman used colliding gamma photons to explain observations, but it doesn't make sense to me. Do we absolutely have to start with radiation or can we start with massive particles of the same scale instead?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

Beliefs are transmitted the same way knowledge is transmitted: to accept the transmission, we have to believe it is right, so it's a lot easier to convince children.

What I was implying was that social beliefs where the result of transmission of individual beliefs.

Not for us. We like to take chances because we can anticipate an eventual reward. It takes memory to do that

All rewards are attractive because of their link to "survival". Memory is a very partical tool.

but I think it also takes hazard, so that the reward stays uncertain

If you tangle all possibilities, you escape hazard and assure the reward.

Nobody is using our brain except our brain itself

So you have a "brain-tool" and a "brain proprietor". I seperate those in giving the tool to the owner which is me.

As long as we keep our eyes on the road and our hands on the wheel, we can think of anything while driving. We can do so while walking too, or while executing any automatism. Our automatisms can all be executed subconsciously.

And you can't prevent accidents, tripping etc. The only "automatisms" that are acceptable are "heartbeats", "breathing" and similar.

This is the only way we can develop new ones, because we cannot concentrate on two different things at a time,

So why not do perfectly one thing at the time with our whole concentration?

and because we need to be conscious of the new things we are doing while still executing properly the old ones.

If you are concentrating in doing new things, you shouldn't be doing old ones.

Imagination is an intrinsic property of the mind, but our automatisms are not since our mind has to develop them.

You say you are the cause for your actions, not your imagination, but then, what is the cause for you?

The environment is the cause of my actions; otherwise I'd stay put. The cause of me was part of my environment; namely my mother and father.

No need for Einstein to put satellites on orbits, Newton and his inverse square law is enough.

Sure. But you need small corrections during the launching.

What spreads is the intensity of the waves, not the frequency.

Yeah; you mean the "energy intensity" of the wave. Be conscious that the energy of the wave provoque its frequency just like the energy on the basketball provoque the dribbling. So diminishing the energy diminishes the dribbling etc.

By the way, the lower you keep your basketball, the higher the frequency will be, which is not what you wanted to prove

By the other way; the lower you keep your basquetball WITH THE SAME INTENSITY OF ENERGY, the higher the frequency; which is what I wanted to prove.

Force is not motion. We can push on a car without being able to move it.

If I press on the gaz the car will get away and you will fall on your face. So what you call "force" and I call "energy" is a motion that is blocked. If unblocked, motion is liberated and manifested. Forget the word "force" it's always inappropriate whenever we use it. And, by the way, don't think like Newton, that when you push a wall, it's pushing you back. Bcause if it's right, when you stop pushing you might get crushed.

I don't know any other way to measure weight than to compare an unknown weight with an etalon weight.

Measuring weight doesn't tell you what weight is; it tell you how much weight an object has. Stay concentrated on the subject; you're using to much "automatism" inappropriately.

Saying "Resistance is directly proportional to mass" is not at all what we find by pushing or throwing (if you can) a car.

You are introducing friction in the discussion. Theoretically, without friction and providing we have a support, we could move the universe. (Archimedes)

!) Friction has nothing to do with you pushing the car since it doesn't move.

2) Archimedes never mentioned "friction"; he was talking of the possibilities of a lever in Archimedes law.

To me, a fact is simply a data, a measure, and what we measure is the information emanating from massive particles.

So your theory is not based on facts but on whatever informations you get from particles?

I think your mistaking. The kinetic energy is not carried by the steps but by your particles. They are the ones that "move"; the steps do not.

You are right, but since the steps between the particles are made of the steps between their components, it is difficult to say that it is the particle itself that makes its own steps.

It doesn't matter since we are talking of "steps" and not "particles". You should be able to "concentrate" (limit your consciousness) on the steps and forget the particles for a while (I hope). If you "gulp" a bowl of soup in one shot, you'll never be able to sort out the ingredients.

In fact, with the steps, the biggest part of the kinetic energy is made of the steps between the tiniest components,

The kinetic energy is not "made OF the steps" but "PROVOKE the steps" whatever the "components" involved.

to which we add the steps between the bigger components those tiny components are part of, and so on until we get to the scale of the bigger bodies we are studying.

Let's start from scrath and analyse the smallest step possible made by the smallest component possible.

When we move a body, all those steps resist to change direction or length according to their own scale.

How can "steps" resist? It's illogical; what resits is the "weight" of the components. You said that you "instinctively" put your attention to the particles and you've been talking ever since giving the carcteristics of the particles to the steps. What do you want me to say?

You will have to convince that 95% to do so. Try to convince it to manifest itself to begin with.

I don't have to convince it; it is expanding so I can escape.

Can your virtual point make the same kind of steps my particles make?

How do you think a line is made? How do tou think space is produced? What do you think your particles are made of?

Which is while accelerating from zero speed, getting to a top speed, and decelerating to zero speed?

My virtual point starts at zero speed and gets to light-speed in 10^-43 sec; which puts it in the same "state" as zero speed, After that it's on "cruise control".

I can consider expansion, but only the one we have a logical explanation for, which is the one that doesn't accelerate. Can we begin with this one?

I don't accept the acceleration of expansion either; on the other hand expansion is manifested at light-speed. If you agree we can start there; at 10^-43 sec.

At the 10^-33 scale, I think the BB theory says that there was only radiation, and in my theory, radiation also moves by steps, so we still can use them to describe its motion.

It's at 10^-43 sec that the radiating period started; it stopped being "exclusive" at 10^-36 sec when "inflation" manifested itself. But at the radiating epoch, since expansion was at light-speed, which is an invariant, you don't have steps that accelerates, decelerates and stops; you have a fluid motion at light-speed; there are no particles existing yet. So to "see" steps in that motion, you have to cut the distance in the smallest distance possible (the original one) which is 10^-33 m. Then your steps become the basic metric of space.

Radiation does not change direction or speed if its propagating medium doesn't change.

That's why space was "flat" at the beginning and as been ever since, except some places where its geometry was "altered" at a precise moment in its history.

I know that Feynman used colliding gamma photons to explain observations, but it doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know what you're talking about.

If we do, you'll never understand what mass is, how particles appeared in the universe, what is energy, what are the implications of "altered" geometry of space, what is "time" etc. Might as well play snooker with your particles. If you agree we'll use the white one as "main ball" like in the normal game.

But seriously; if you want to apply the scale to your particles you have to identify the scales and it was not the first scale that appeared in space that applies to "volumic" particles.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

So lest's skip the "conversation" and go to "discussion".

I’ll draw (with words) the picture of the universe at 10^-43 sec after time = zero, and we’ll see what we can do from there.

Here goes:

The universe had just been through a transitional phase you won’t talk about, and space was produce with its three dimensions; the first “volume” appeared.
The date was 10^-43 sec after time equals zero, which is called "the Big bang".

All the actual energy in the universe had to manifest itself at that moment, since we know that energy doesn’t change "quantity" and only transforms itself in other kinds of energy. The “fact” is that we cannot “create” energy and we cannot annihilate energy. So the appearance of energy in the universe had to be at the moment of the appearance of the universe.

We are now forced to accept the following "facts":

1) The total energy of the universe manifested itself and

2) was the cause of (provoke) the appearance of the universe. Just like motion is the cause of (provoked by) kinetic energy.

3) The universe that appeared was expanding (dynamic). And “expansion” being a motion toward everywhere, we have also to accept that:

4) it was kinetic energy that was responsible of the appearance of the “volume” called universe.
Furthermore, since ALL the existing energy, at the time being kinetic, manifested itself, we have to accept that

5) the expansion was produced at the maximum rate possible; which, as we know, is at light speed.

But then we have a problem; because at light speed, time freezes and distances are null. So how come the universe can be observed?

The answer is that the universe can be observed if its distances are defined by something going at less than light speed. The question becomes: Do we know of such a particle?

It’s called the neutrino. It has a half spin, it’s massless and it goes slightly less than light speed because of its left-handed helicity (we will see further on that “mass” just couldn’t be present at the time and original right-handed neutrinos were never observed). So we then have to accept that :

6) the universe is observable because the neutrino doesn’t move exactly at light speed.

What does this tells us?

It says that the neutrino going slightly less than light speed, produces an "observable distance" slightly less than null. Max Planck showed us that that distance was 10^-33 m. So we have to accept that

7) the first distance that was possible in our tridimensional universe was Planck’s length. And that was the beginning of the "radiating period" observed by satellite Planck.

Do you agree to all this?
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Andrex » January 31st, 2017, 6:15 pm wrote:
Beliefs are transmitted the same way knowledge is transmitted: to accept the transmission, we have to believe it is right, so it's a lot easier to convince children.
What I was implying was that social beliefs where the result of transmission of individual beliefs.
I know, but since a social belief has begun with people that are already dead, they are no more there to transmit it. Either it is transmitted from mouth to ear, either it is written, but both ways, it has to be learned before being transmitted, and convincing children to learn it is the easiest way. It is because beliefs are taught to children that they are so difficult to erase. Once learned, an automatism is not easy to change.

Andrex wrote:
but I think it also takes hazard, so that the reward stays uncertain
If you tangle all possibilities, you escape hazard and assure the reward.
The pleasure we get when we buy a lottery ticket is not to be certain to win, it is to be uncertain. When we watch a hockey game too. If we knew the winner in advance, we wouldn't have any pleasure to watch the game. We get some pleasure to execute things out of being uncertain they will work, otherwise we get bored. Where does that come from?

Andrex wrote:
As long as we keep our eyes on the road and our hands on the wheel, we can think of anything while driving. We can do so while walking too, or while executing any automatism. Our automatisms can all be executed subconsciously.
And you can't prevent accidents, tripping etc. The only "automatisms" that are acceptable are "heartbeats", "breathing" and similar.
I was talking of learned automatisms, not intrinsic ones. Those ones are impossible to change.

Andrex wrote:
This is the only way we can develop new ones, because we cannot concentrate on two different things at a time,
So why not do perfectly one thing at the time with our whole concentration?
To learn new things, we have to rely on old ones. If we have not learned how to move our hands properly, we cannot learn to drive a car. A baby has to concentrate on his hands to learn how to move them properly, and once he has learned, he doesn't have to think of them anymore. Nevertheless, if something unusual happens to his hands, like if they burn for instance, his attention will automatically get back to them. The same thing happens when we drive: our attention automatically gets back to driving if something unusual gets in our visual field.

Andrex wrote:
and because we need to be conscious of the new things we are doing while still executing properly the old ones.
If you are concentrating in doing new things, you shouldn't be doing old ones.
Idem.

Andrex wrote:
No need for Einstein to put satellites on orbits, Newton and his inverse square law is enough.
Sure. But you need small corrections during the launching.
No need for Einstein to make that kind of correction either.

Andrex wrote:
By the way, the lower you keep your basketball, the higher the frequency will be, which is not what you wanted to prove
By the other way; the lower you keep your basquetball WITH THE SAME INTENSITY OF ENERGY, the higher the frequency; which is what I wanted to prove.
No need to give energy to the ball, once you let it fall, it will bounce on the floor faster and faster, which is not the way waves move. You seem to need that waves on lakes get less frequent with time, does it have anything to do with redshift?

Andrex wrote:
Force is not motion. We can push on a car without being able to move it.
If I press on the gaz the car will get away and you will fall on your face. So what you call "force" and I call "energy" is a motion that is blocked. If unblocked, motion is liberated and manifested. Forget the word "force" it's always inappropriate whenever we use it. And, by the way, don't think like Newton, that when you push a wall, it's pushing you back. Because if it's right, when you stop pushing you might get crushed.
Astronauts are pushed back when they throw objects in space, especially if they try to throw their ship away.

Friction has nothing to do with you pushing the car since it doesn't move.
Not true.

Andrex wrote:
To me, a fact is simply a data, a measure, and what we measure is the information emanating from massive particles.
So your theory is not based on facts but on whatever information you get from particles?
My theory is based on data, which are always true, but it doesn't mean that the theory is right.

Andrex wrote:
In fact, with the steps, the biggest part of the kinetic energy is made of the steps between the tiniest components,
The kinetic energy is not "made OF the steps" but "PROVOKE the steps" whatever the "components" involved.
Kinetic energy is proportional to mass and speed, and the steps develop speed when they suffer no acceleration, and mass when they suffer some, so I think we can say that kinetic energy is due to the mechanism of the steps, which I call "the steps" to simplify the wording.

Andrex wrote:
When we move a body, all those steps resist to change direction or length according to their own scale.
How can "steps" resist? It's illogical; what resits is the "weight" of the components. You said that you "instinctively" put your attention to the particles and you've been talking ever since giving the characteristics of the particles to the steps. What do you want me to say?
I always said that it was the steps that were resisting to change their length or their direction, but maybe you didn't notice. With the steps, there is no weight inside a particle, mass develops only when the steps it makes are forced to change their length or their direction.

I don't accept the acceleration of expansion either; on the other hand expansion is manifested at light-speed. If you agree we can start there; at 10^-43 sec.
To me, only light could expand at light speed, but I think you mean that it is space that would be expanding at light speed. Then how do you figure out the way particles and light would be expanding in this expanding space?

Andrex wrote:
At the 10^-33 scale, I think the BB theory says that there was only radiation, and in my theory, radiation also moves by steps, so we still can use them to describe its motion.
It's at 10^-43 sec that the radiating period started; it stopped being "exclusive" at 10^-36 sec when "inflation" manifested itself. But at the radiating epoch, since expansion was at light-speed, which is an invariant, you don't have steps that accelerates, decelerates and stops; you have a fluid motion at light-speed; there are no particles existing yet.
You can't have a radiation without waves, so that first radiation had to be made of waves, which are also a stop and go motion, because they also have a beginning and an end. Waves on a lake have a beginning and an end, but those two ends travel the same distance at the same time, whereas the small steps of my two atoms also travel the same distance but not at the same time. What I suggest is that they would be emitting a photon each time they make a step, a photon that would be absorbed by the other atom if it executes its own step freely, but that wouldn't be absorbed completely if something would force it not to execute it freely, what would give the light that we observe. There is not much place for space in that concept, except if we admit that, in our universe, space has been filled with photons already traveling in all directions.

Andrex wrote:
Radiation does not change direction or speed if its propagating medium doesn't change.
That's why space was "flat" at the beginning and has been ever since, except some places where its geometry was "altered" at a precise moment in its history.
I went through wiki about the shape of the universe again, and I still did not succeed to understand what flat universe means. Does it mean expanding straight line? And if so, why don't they use that wording?

if you want to apply the scale to your particles you have to identify the scales and it was not the first scale that appeared in space that applies to "volumic" particles.
You start with a dimensionless point, and you end up with a metric. It's illogical. In this world, we must always start at a given dimension to build up other dimensions.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

it has to be learned before being transmitted, and convincing children to learn it is the easiest way.

I don't agree. It has to be "awareness raised" to be transmitted; just "learned by earth" doesn't lead anywhere. Understanding is the whole secret. So you have to learn the children how to think logically before filling them with knowledge; because they have to understand that knowledge and be able to object to it logically if they think they have to. That's the only way to add to our global knowledge.

Once learned, an automatism is not easy to change.

You're mixing "taming" or "domesticating" with "learning".

The pleasure we get when we buy a lottery ticket is not to be certain to win, it is to be uncertain.

That's a pleasure the universe doesn't have. In fact the universe doesn't have any pleasure or displeasure at all. So it doesn't get bored.

I was talking of learned automatisms, not intrinsic ones. Those ones are impossible to change.

Fine; then we can stay focus on what we're doing.

A baby has to concentrate on his hands to learn how to move them properly, and once he has learned, he doesn't have to think of them anymore.

A baby has to learn how to use his hands properly and concentrate on that subject. When that subject is mastered, he can concentrate on other ones which doesn't mean that he doesn't keep concentrating on the way he uses his hands. I would never show you the Moon by pointing at planet Mars. The capacity of concentration augments with practice; it's not stable and directed to specific object exclusively; concentration is "including" while developing "precision". "Defining" is not "excluding" what was gained.

Sure. But you need small corrections during the launching.

No need for Einstein to make that kind of correction either.

No; not Einstein. But the ones sending the rocket in space to a definite point are better to make those corrections though.

No need to give energy to the ball, once you let it fall, it will bounce on the floor faster and faster, which is not the way waves move.

Not faster at all; but it's path will shorten gradually making the repetition of the "thuds" on the floor accelerate because the energy of the ball is gradually "diluted" in the floor and the ball goes less higher. And so will the waves do, less the "thuds".

You seem to need that waves on lakes get less frequent with time, does it have anything to do with redshift?

The frequency "inside" a wave is not how frequent the waves are produce on the lake. You're still "conversing". The redshift has to do with the frequency "inside" the wave; its "inner energy".

Astronauts are pushed back when they throw objects in space, especially if they try to throw their ship away.

Naturally; but there's no "forces" involved; only energy transferred by the arm of the astronaut which was gained by swallowing whatever was inside that toothpaste tube he had for dinner.

Friction has nothing to do with you pushing the car since it doesn't move.

Not true.

Friction is the resistance of solid surfaces, fluid layers, and material elements sliding against each other The car is not sliding so I didn't introduce "friction" in my example. Sorry.

My theory is based on data, which are always true,

Sorry but some datas might be wrong. There was once a data stating that the Earth was "flat". That data was proven wrong. So you better stick to "facts" that are proven right.

Kinetic energy is proportional to mass and speed,

That's a "data"; what's the "fact"?

the steps develop speed when they suffer no acceleration, and mass when they suffer some

That's another "data"; what's the "fact"?

so I think we can say that kinetic energy is due to the mechanism of the steps, which I call "the steps" to simplify the wording.

And so I'm the one that created my "mother" when she gave birth to me; otherwise she wouldn't be a "mother". This is your kind of logic that gives you your kind of "datas"; but let's stick to "facts" and be aware that it's "giving birth" that makes a mother, not the child born. It's just as "simple" and on top of that, it's a lot more accurate.

I always said that it was the steps that were resisting to change their length or their direction, but maybe you didn't notice.

Even if you always said it doesn't make it exact. When you throw your ball, the resistence you feel in throwing it is not the distance the ball is going to cover. At least I don't think so. Must I repeat? It's the "giving birth" that makes the mother; not the child.

With the steps, there is no weight inside a particle, mass develops only when the steps it makes are forced to change their length or their direction.

Then, I guess I'll have to accept that expansion of the universe is made on foot.

To me, only light could expand at light speed, but I think you mean that it is space that would be expanding at light speed.

Light is electromagnetism and it didn't exist at the beginning of the universe. The simplest reason is that electromagnetism is the result of the junction of two "waves" 1) electronic and 2) magnetic. As for light speed, consider it as a speed of a little less than 300,000 meter per second. That is the speed of space expansion's 2 inches "border". Infinity in length is impossible since we accepted Planck's length as "basic".

Then how do you figure out the way particles and light would be expanding in this expanding space?

Light doesn't expand; the light waves expand because they are "dragged" by the expansion of the metric of space. Light travels at light speed (an invariant) and the particles travel at each their own proper speed. Why talk of particles at an epoch where they didn't exist? Let's keep "focus"!

You can't have a radiation without waves,

Says who? You know what kind of "radiating" was happening at 10^-43 sec in "flat" space?

Waves on a lake have a beginning and an end,

We are not talking of the forming of the waves; we are talking of the forming of the lake (the universe). You don't think that lakes are formed by waves, I hope. If so we stop right here!!!

because they also have a beginning and an end.

But you don't believe that the universe had a beginning; so how come your waves have one?

whereas the small steps of my two atoms also travel the same distance but not at the same time.

Irrelevant! There's no atoms yet!!! Can't you be aware of that?

what would give the light that we observe.

We will get to that in due time. There was no light at that epoch; and there was no "poutine" or "boeing 747" either. So if you agree to start at the beginning at 10^-43 sec instead of today in 2017 AC, we might find the path that the universe went through to get as it is today. One "step" at a time!!! You should understand that.

There is not much place for space in that concept, except if we admit that, in our universe, space has been filled with photons already traveling in all directions.

There you go again; you can't see that one precedes two and two precedes three. Light is a "composed" object; so it cannot be "elementary". And, furthermore, what the hell means "already traveling in all directions" before filling the universe? Where were those snb photons traveling before space was "born"???

I went through wiki about the shape of the universe again, and I still did not succeed to understand what flat universe means. Does it mean expanding straight line? And if so, why don't they use that wording?

Congratulation for not being able to understand them! It's impossible to do. The reason is because they're using "datas" instead of "facts". So they can't understand and they can't explain it to you. That's why you can't succeed in understanding what they say. They don't understand it clearly themselves because they mix the shape of the whole universe with its "inner geometry". So, here is the "fact": a flat universe is a universe that has a "inner" flat topology whatever is its "whole" shape. Which means that "inside itself" it cannot produce a "curved" trajectory whatever direction a motion has. Everything in a flat universe is "straight" without any possibility of "curving". Do you get that?

You start with a dimensionless point, and you end up with a metric.

Jeez! You're the one that wouldn't let me start with a unidimensional point; so don't bring it up or you'll get me upset. I started with Plancks length which cannot be smaller for the diameter of the first volume at 10^-43 sec after time = zero. That is the basic metric I'm talking about. That "metric" has a length of 10^-33 meter. This is where we start and that's according to your own specifications. Whatever happened before 10^-43 second you don't want to talk about; so skip it.

In this world, we must always start at a given dimension to build up other dimensions.

You didn't want me to start building first, then second and third dimension. You are the one that required a tridimensional volume as a starting point. Are you fooling with me or what?
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Going through the 7 "facts" I enumerated in the post of February 1st, 2017, 10:41 am; there is one "correction" you could have ask:

At no 6 : "It says that the neutrino going slightly less than light speed, produces an "observable distance" slightly less than null. Max Planck showed us that that distance was 10^-33 m."

It should have been " slighly MORE than null"

So let's accept the correction. Sorry for that mistake.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Andrex » February 1st, 2017, 5:36 pm wrote:
it has to be learned before being transmitted, and convincing children to learn it is the easiest way.
I don't agree. It has to be "awareness raised" to be transmitted; just "learned by heart" doesn't lead anywhere. Understanding is the whole secret. So you have to learn the children how to think logically before filling them with knowledge; because they have to understand that knowledge and be able to object to it logically if they think they have to. That's the only way to add to our global knowledge.
That's how knowledge should be transmitted, but that's not how beliefs are actually transmitted. Besides, we still have to believe in what is presented to us to be able to learn it, even if it is knowledge, and children are still more inclined than adults to believe anything that is presented to them by an adult.

Andrex wrote:
Once learned, an automatism is not easy to change.
You're mixing "taming" or "domesticating" with "learning".
I'm talking about any kind of learning that turns out to be executed automatically. Besides, driving is one of them and it is not a taming.

Andrex wrote:
A baby has to concentrate on his hands to learn how to move them properly, and once he has learned, he doesn't have to think of them anymore.
A baby has to learn how to use his hands properly and concentrate on that subject. When that subject is mastered, he can concentrate on other ones which doesn't mean that he doesn't keep concentrating on the way he uses his hands. I would never show you the Moon by pointing at planet Mars. The capacity of concentration augments with practice; it's not stable and directed to specific object exclusively; concentration is "including" while developing "precision". "Defining" is not "excluding" what was gained.
I didn't say we had to stop executing our former automatism, on the contrary, I said we had to go on executing it to be able to develop the new one. Our automatisms depend on one another for us to be able to execute complicated things.

Andrex wrote:
No need to give energy to the ball, once you let it fall, it will bounce on the floor faster and faster, which is not the way waves move.
Not faster at all; but it's path will shorten gradually making the repetition of the "thuds" on the floor accelerate because the energy of the ball is gradually "diluted" in the floor and the ball goes less higher. And so will the waves do, less the "thuds".
Waves do not lose frequency with time, it is written everywhere, you don't believe it?

Andrex wrote:
You seem to need that waves on lakes get less frequent with time, does it have anything to do with redshift?
The frequency "inside" a wave is not how frequent the waves are produce on the lake. You're still "conversing". The redshift has to do with the frequency "inside" the wave; its "inner energy".
The reason for redshift is expansion, but water waves do not expand, and the light from the stars either, so why do you need that those waves lose frequency with time?

Andrex wrote:
Astronauts are pushed back when they throw objects in space, especially if they try to throw their ship away.
Naturally; but there's no "forces" involved; only energy transferred by the arm of the astronaut which was gained by swallowing whatever was inside that toothpaste tube he had for dinner.
Why do you need to discard the concept of force.

Friction is the resistance of solid surfaces, fluid layers, and material elements sliding against each other The car is not sliding so I didn't introduce "friction" in my example. Sorry.
It is friction that avoids us to move the car. In space, it would move very easily.

Andrex wrote:
My theory is based on data, which are always true,
Sorry but some datas might be wrong. There was once a data stating that the Earth was "flat". That data was proven wrong. So you better stick to "facts" that are proven right.
There was no data of the sort, on the contrary, it was well known that boats would disappear on the horizon before their masts. What you take as a fact was a belief. That the earth was the center of the world was also a belief.

As for light speed, consider it as a speed of a little less than 300,000 km per second. That is the speed of space expansion's 2 inches "border". Infinity in length is impossible since we accepted Planck's length as "basic".
Does it mean that light has actually expanded more than the galaxies?

Andrex wrote:
You can't have a radiation without waves,
Says who? You know what kind of "radiating" was happening at 10^-43 sec in "flat" space?
Then why call it radiation? Because it is considered to have spread at light speed?

Andrex wrote:
because they also have a beginning and an end.
But you don't believe that the universe had a beginning; so how come your waves have one?
I said I could support the idea that redshift is due to inertial inflation, not the accelerated one.

Where were those snb photons traveling before space was "born"???
Why the need for a birth of space? Don't we have enough data to collect out of the the birth of particles and light?

Everything in a flat universe is "straight" without any possibility of "curving".
Fine!

I started with Plancks length which cannot be smaller for the diameter of the first volume at 10^-43 sec after time = zero. That is the basic metric I'm talking about. That "metric" has a length of 10^-33 meter. This is where we start and that's according to your own specifications.
OK!

Andrex wrote:
In this world, we must always start at a given dimension to build up other dimensions.
You didn't want me to start building first, then second and third dimension. You are the one that required a tridimensional volume as a starting point. Are you fooling with me or what?
No I'm not, but you seem to be angry a bit. I hope its only a false data! We're just exchanging ideas, nothing is going to harm us for that. :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

Besides, we still have to believe in what is presented to us to be able to learn it,

On the contrary; we have to doubt what is presented to really learn it.

I'm talking about any kind of learning that turns out to be executed automatically. Besides, driving is one of them and it is not a taming.

:-) Which means that "practicing" doesn't mean "taming" a difficulty.

The reason for redshift is expansion, but water waves do not expand,

Relative velocity provoke doppler effect and that is in regard to wavelenght. Redshift is a tendancy toward the red frequency when moving away from the observer and toward the blue frequency when moving closer to the observer. Redshift is a "tendancy toward" blueish or redish; while doppler effect is changes in wavelenght and frequency (definite color). If you use the official description of Doppler effect versus Redshift, there's no real differences specified except that redshift is said to be use for mesuring the relative velocity.

As for water waves not expanding tell me if these water wave expand:

Waves do not lose frequency with time, it is written everywhere, you don't believe it?

With time, no; but with expansion, the energy is distributed in the "added space". The energy stays the same but the manifestation of that energy is diluted. The same as in sound. The frequency of a sound wave is called its pitch. High frequency sounds are said to be "high pitched"; low frequency sounds are said to be "low pitched". So when you get away from the sound source, expanding the sound waves, the "pitch" changes and gets "lower" which means that the frequency changes. The reason that light waves don't "lose" frequency is that it travels at light-speed where time is frozen to the present; so you can observe those lightwaves at different wavelenghts; meaning that the different wavelenghts are all there in its "present" (they have no past and no future). You can look at a star in the microwave lenght just as in ultraviolet wavelenght. In fact, frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength so if the wavelenght changes, the frequency changes.

Differents wavelenght all existing at the same "time".

The reason for redshift is expansion, but water waves do not expand, and the light from the stars either,

Just compare the two sublined parts of your phrase.

Why do you need to discard the concept of force.

Because I don't need imaginairy "datas" that don't exist. Fondamental forces don't exist.

It is friction that avoids us to move the car. In space, it would move very easily.

You could also say that the car is "pushing you back" at the same intensity that you're pushing it (and if it was right, in space the car wouldn't move either); where would, then, be the friction. Friction is provoke by "sliding"; what prevents it from sliding is its weight, if you push hard enough the car will "slide" with the brakes on.

What you take as a fact was a belief. That the earth was the center of the world was also a belief

And the attraction of masses is not a "data/belief"? And dark matter is not a "data/belief"? And dark energy is not a "data/belief"? A "belief" is a data that is not "observed". A "fact" is something observed. The Earth being a sphere si a fact ever since it was "observed". Before that, whatever was the opinion, was a "data/belief".

Does it mean that light has actually expanded more than the galaxies?

Galaxies don't expand. But the universe has expanded at light speed more faster than the observable universe. Because what makes the universe observable goes less than light speed. But whatever extention that could exist past the observable universe is irrelevant, since it doesn't have neither time, nor lenght, because at light-speed time freezes and distances are null. So that portion of the unobservable universe is "nothing" or rather, "eternal present"; which, in fact, is the actual "state" of the universe as a "whole". "Further" than that is "nothingness".

Then why call it radiation? Because it is considered to have spread at light speed?

Did I call it "radiation"? I thought I said "radiating epoch". This is the official use of wording. I would rather use "strictly motion epoch". It spreads at lightspeed because all the actual energy of the universe is already present at the time; which has to manifest the maximum speed possible of the motion produced.

But you don't believe that the universe had a beginning; so how come your waves have one?

I said I could support the idea that redshift is due to inertial inflation, not the accelerated one.

Why the need for a birth of space? Don't we have enough data to collect out of the the birth of particles and light?

The universe is "dynamic" which means it's not "static" and it's not the particles that expand; it's the space. Moreso, it evolves getting more specific in its own definition. Evolving means getting from one previous "state" to a more precise and effective one. Don't you think we have to begin at the start before using the "data" from the flight of a Boeing 747?

No I'm not, but you seem to be angry a bit. I hope its only a false data!

Not angry at all; impatient a bit maybe?

Everything in a flat universe is "straight" without any possibility of "curving".

Fine!

That "metric" has a length of 10^-33 meter. This is where we start and that's according to your own specifications.

OK!

So let's start from there.

1) We have a universe with a "flat" topologie, where curved trajectories are impossible.
2)The diameter of the volume of that universe is 10^-33 meter.
3) that universe has the same "amount" of energy as there is today in the universe. That amount of energy never changed; energy can only transforms itself in different types of energy, never dissapear.
4) Since this epoch of the early universe is a period of strictly "manifested motion", we have to accept that the energy it disposed of was strictly "kinetic".
5) No "matter" whatsoever existed at the time.
6) Finaly, we have to concede that if nothing else happens in that kind of universe the only "evolution" it can have is "expanding".

Those are "facts"; do we agree?
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

I began reading the discussion you had eight years ago with Dave and Burt on page 5. That stuff about the universe is weird. I don't even understand yet what a light cone represents. I figure it's a definition similar to the one about flat space, that we can resume to straight ahead, but I can't resume that one. I never tried to understand that because it didn't affect my small steps. Now, I have to if I want to understand what you say.

Andrex » February 2nd, 2017, 3:20 pm wrote:
Besides, we still have to believe in what is presented to us to be able to learn it,
On the contrary; we have to doubt what is presented to really learn it.
Again, it would be better if we were taught to question the theories, but nevertheless, we would still have to believe in our own theories for a certain time to have the time to test them.

Andrex wrote:
I'm talking about any kind of learning that turns out to be executed automatically. Besides, driving is one of them and it is not a taming.
:-) Which means that "practicing" doesn't mean "taming" a difficulty.
I think you're having a hard time to imagine that most of our moves are made on the automatic pilot, but that's nevertheless what recent studies about mind are telling us.

As for water waves not expanding tell me if these water wave expand:
They do, but what I meant is that that kind of expansion does not produce redshift.

Different wavelength all existing at the same "time".
These wavelengths were not produced by the same motion though. There are different wavelengths at the same time too on water for instance.

Andrex wrote:
The reason for redshift is expansion, but water waves do not expand, and the light from the stars either,
Just compare the two sublined parts of your phrase.
Sorry, I meant neither, not either.

Andrex wrote:
Why do you need to discard the concept of force.
Because I don't need imaginary "data" that don't exist. Fundamental forces don't exist.
I understand that you want to replace forces by expansion or contraction of space, but then, what has forced space to expand? Nothing? Is that nothing still forcing it to expand? If so, then where is it?

Andrex wrote:
It is friction that avoids us to move the car. In space, it would move very easily.
You could also say that the car is "pushing you back" at the same intensity that you're pushing it (and if it was right, in space the car wouldn't move either); where would, then, be the friction. Friction is provoke by "sliding"; what prevents it from sliding is its weight, if you push hard enough the car will "slide" with the brakes on.
I understand again that you want to replace friction by something else, but you did not specify what it was, and I can still answer you that friction is not necessarily due to weight, that it also manifests when we want to unscrew a tightened screw for instance.

Andrex wrote:
What you take as a fact was a belief. That the earth was the center of the world was also a belief
And the attraction of masses is not a "data/belief"? And dark matter is not a "data/belief"? And dark energy is not a "data/belief"? A "belief" is a data that is not "observed". A "fact" is something observed. The Earth being a sphere si a fact ever since it was "observed". Before that, whatever was the opinion, was a "data/belief".
To me, a fact is a measure that stays the same anywhere it is made.

Andrex wrote:
Does it mean that light has actually expanded more than the galaxies?
Galaxies don't expand.
They expand away from one another, and that's what I meant.

But the universe has expanded at light speed faster than the observable universe.
What we see and what is actually happening is different. What I want to know is if light is actually traveling alone in space with no matter around because it is a lot faster than matter and it has left matter behind.

Andrex wrote:
But you don't believe that the universe had a beginning; so how come your waves have one?
I said I could support the idea that redshift is due to inertial inflation, not the accelerated one.
I answered. I agreed that expansion had a beginning as long as it wasn't accelerating in the beginning.

Not angry at all; impatient a bit maybe?
Fine. I have my own character too! I think I'm too "astineux", and also too imprecise! :0)

So let's start from there.

1) We have a universe with a "flat" topology, were curved trajectory are impossible.
2)The diameter of the volume of that universe is 10^-33 meter.
3)that universe has the same "amount" of energy as there is today in the universe. That amount of energy never changed; energy can only transform itself in different types of energy, never disappear.
4)Since this epoch of the early universe is a period of strictly "manifested motion", we have to accept that the energy it disposed of was strictly "kinetic".
5)No "matter" whatsoever existed at the time.

Those are "facts"; do we agree?
Let's call them postulates, but I have a problem with your fourth one. Motion needs something to be moving, and your kinetic energy is pure energy with nothing moving in it. It's a bit what happens when I try to define a beginning to my small steps: I can't. So I don't look for it, I try to stay in the limits of my own imagination. If I had your idea to develop, I would start with the smallest possible massive particles, and try to imagine their amalgamation into wider and wider bodies while the local energy is cooling because of expansion. It's not what you are doing, so I suppose that it doesn't fit your idea that space can replace forces. Tell me why.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

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

I began reading the discussion you had eight years ago with Dave and Burt on page 5. That stuff about the universe is weird.

What's more weird is that eight years ago I wasn't anywhere here. Give me the link.

I never tried to understand that because it didn't affect my small steps. Now, I have to if I want to understand what you say.

Just start the discussion where we just decided to, and use your logic instead of what other people ever said.

Again, it would be better if we were taught to question the theories, but nevertheless, we would still have to believe in our own theories for a certain time to have the time to test them.

You cannot accept what is not tested. Accepting it exactly what "believe" means.

but that's nevertheless what recent studies about mind are telling us.

I know; they also say that you can think of the color of your shoes while imagining the taste of chocolate. I can't.

I understand that you want to replace forces by expansion or contraction of space,

That's all there is in the universe: flat space where some volumes have their geometry altered.

I understand again that you want to replace friction by something else, but you did not specify what it was,

How can you think that? I didn't eliminate friction I told you what it was.

Galaxies don't expand.

They expand away from one another, and that's what I meant.

Expansion between galaxies is not the expansion of galaxy. I don't know what you mean before I understand what you write; so you have to be focused on precision.

What we see and what is actually happening is different.

Not at all. What we see hapenned a while before; that's all.

What I want to know is if light is actually traveling alone in space with no matter around because it is a lot faster than matter and it has left matter behind.

Light travels in space everywhere and matter "floats" in space also. I don't understand your "leaving behind".

I answered. I agreed that expansion had a beginning as long as it wasn't accelerating in the beginning.

So you agree with the Big bang theory.

Fine. I have my own character too! I think I'm too "astineux", and also too imprecise!

Not more "astineu" than I am; but quite a bit "imprecise", I must say.

Let's call them postulates,

Sorry; they are fact observed and proven.

Motion needs something to be moving, and your kinetic energy is pure energy with nothing moving in it

I agree with you. You're right. So the next question is : What could have been moving when there wasn't any particles present. The answer is obvious: there had to be one particle present and that particle had to move slightly slower than light speed. Otherwise the universe would not have been observable.

It's a bit what happens when I try to define a beginning to my small steps: I can't. So I don't look for it,

If you don't find it, your theory stands on nothing.

You couldn't because mass didn't exist at the time. There was no "alterations" in the topology of that universe. So you have to choose in the massless particles. That's what I did.

while the local energy is cooling because of expansion.

Energy wasn't cooling; it was the universe that was cooling because of the dilution of energy. But temperature has no importance at that epoch.

It's not what you are doing, so I suppose that it doesn't fit your idea that space can replace forces. Tell me why.

Because space replacing forces doesn't mean anything. What does it mean exactly?
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Before you ask me regarding the "massless" particle that appeared at 10^-43 sec, I think it was the neutrino. But that choice is the weakest part of my theory (which doesn't mean that it is really "weak"), but we can discuss on it.

Let me explain why the neutrino was the only particle left to choose.

Virtual particles

Virtual particles are described by their “polarization state”. When we talk of “polarization state” we refer to a “plane” and not a “sphere”. Even when we consider the polarization of a “sphere”, we’re considering the “surface” of the sphere observed and not the whole sphere itself. In other word, we consider “polarization” as being bidimensional. Consequently virtual particle is a partical considered as having two dimensions even when they have three. In fact polarization is in regard of the rotation of the particle.

Another info regarding virtual particles is that they appear and disappear continuously. They pop up in and out of existence constantly. But they are “real” particles and they interact with their environment just as ordinary particles. So those infos will permit us to understand the process of popping in and out of our universe.

Let’s consider that a “basic” (massless) virtual particle has only two dimension: “width” and “height”. Then let it stand up and rotate. Since the particle doesn’t have any thickness, it will disappear as soon as we will face its thickness and will gradually reappear as it keeps rotating. This disappearing/reappearing event will happen twice at each rotation completed; and it will present successively both faces that it has; one face being the “mirror view” of the other one (front and back).

For example: In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron; this is allowed by quantum mechanics and well documented. So we have one particle that represents one side and then its “anti-side” (electron and positron). In this case we have mass particles; that's why the two "volumes" show simultaneously. But they show their two "facets". That is the base of virtuality.

Now which particles really have “volumes” and which are only “surfaces”?

The answer is rather simple. Any massive particle has to be a “volume” because it has “mass energy” (we will eventually see why “mass energy” needs a volume to exist). So that leaves only massless particles to be only “surfaces”. Furthermore, only massless particles could be present in the completely "flat" topology of the universe of that time. We know that a photon is massless, we know that a gluon is massless, and we know that a neutrino use to be massless but we started giving it mass, because it doesn’t travel at light speed and it “oscillates” through three kinds of neutrinos.

But let’s have a second look at the neutrino.

The difference between photons, gluons and neutrinos is that the two former ones have a full spin and the latter one as only a half spin (neutrinos). The other difference is that the actual (todays) neutrinos are bonded to the three kinds of electrons called: Tau, Muon and electron. So the oscillation of the “bonded” neutrino is not exactly a proper characteristic, it is a “consequence” characteristic; a kind of adaptation or even better still: a “chameleonization” to electrons (it developped when electrons appeared). So “oscillation” of today’s neutrinos doesn’t prove that neutrinos have mass and certainly doesn’t prove it had mass at the beginning of the universe when the neutrinos were alone in the universe.

One other characteristic of the neutrino is that it doesn’t have two possibilities of “helicity”; a neutrino has strictly a left-handed helicity. That would be why it travels space a bit slower than light speed. The right-handed helicity neutrinos would travel at light-speed and, in fact, they were never observed. Which suggest that that kind of neutrino (right-handed) cannot interact with observable space since it isn’t part of observable space. And, since there’s a difference in the speed of both kinds of neutrinos it as to be because of their different helicity. So going slower than light-speed doesn’t mean that one of the kind of neutrinos has mass. In fact, it proves that it doesn’t have any, because one of them travels at light speed and both are neutrinos. Then we can still say that a neutrino is “massless”, and can be a “surface” particle.

So which one of the three massless particles is appropriate for appearing at the birth of our universe?

The gluon is not, because it has a characteristic of gluing thing together and the “radiating” flat universe didn’t meet any resistance whatsoever. It cannot be the photon either, because light-waves are not elementary; they are “composite”. That leaves us only the massless neutrino with a left-handed helicity in order to travel at less of light-speed, so distances can be observed, and producing a "volume", starting at 10^-43 sec.

Furthermore, I had no other choice; and I'm not a fervent of "imagining" a brand new particle that would fit the job.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

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

Andrex » February 2nd, 2017, 8:20 pm wrote:
I began reading the discussion you had eight years ago with Dave and Burt on page 5. That stuff about the universe is weird.
What's more weird is that eight years ago I wasn't anywhere here. Give me the link.
Sorry, I think I had an hallucination. I read 2009 and it is written 2016. It's on page 5 of this same subject.

Accepting is exactly what "believe" means.
Accepting it's a possibility, not a fact.

Andrex wrote:
but that's nevertheless what recent studies about mind are telling us.
I know; they also say that you can think of the color of your shoes while imagining the taste of chocolate. I can't.
What they say is that we can execute many automatisms at a time, and what I add is that we can only imagine one thing at a time, which is the same as concentrating on one thing at a time or thinking of one thing at a time, and which is also the same as being conscious of only one thing at a time.

How can you think that? I didn't eliminate friction I told you what it was.
You said friction manifests during motion and its not exact, and you said there were no forces and friction is one of them.

so you have to be focused on precision.
Precision is your force, not mine, so we have to be tolerant.

Andrex wrote:
What we see and what is actually happening is different.
Not at all. What we see happened a while before; that's all.
That's what I said.

Andrex wrote:
What I want to know is if light is actually traveling alone in space with no matter around because it is a lot faster than matter and it has left matter behind.
Light travels in space everywhere and matter "floats" in space also. I don't understand your "leaving behind".
Imagine the universe would contain only one galaxy. Would its light travel away from it in empty space the way it actually does for galaxies?

Andrex wrote:
Let's call them postulates,
Sorry; they are fact observed and proven.
Point four is not a fact. You're even discussing it here below.

What could have been moving when there wasn't any particles present. The answer is obvious: there had to be one particle present and that particle had to move slightly slower than light speed. Otherwise the universe would not have been observable.
Moving with regard to what? To itself? Doesn't make much sense to me, but it gave me an idea: what if the universe had started with a big particle 13 billion light years in diameter, and then started to divide into smaller and smaller parts with time. This way, the stars would have been big parts some time ago, and the planets smaller parts, and both would have continue to divide into smaller parts until these parts become the atoms.

All right, it doesn't make sense either, but it shows what our imagination can do when it tries to imagine the beginning of things. I think it's simply out of her capacity. Imagination is made to imagine the short term, because it is about imagining new things out of actual ones, and verifying if the new ones work better. But if actual ones change too rapidly, or if it takes too long to verify the new ones, then it cannot verify what it imagines, and it becomes useless. If we imagine we can fly like birds and air disappears while we are designing some kind of wings, then we cannot verify what we imagined. To me, imagining god is thus a bad way to use our imagination, and unfortunately, it's like imagining the beginning and the end of times, which is a lot too far in time for us to be able to verify it.

Andrex wrote:
It's a bit what happens when I try to define a beginning to my small steps: I can't. So I don't look for it,
If you don't find it, your theory stands on nothing.
It only stands on the idea that light moves independently from bodies, and that it takes time to go from one body to the other. That's simple, but that's enough. Einstein added its relativity principle to the equation, but it was superfluous, and he did not realize that it did not work for light.

Andrex wrote:
You couldn't because mass didn't exist at the time. There was no "alterations" in the topology of that universe. So you have to choose in the massless particles. That's what I did.
You don't like the Higgs as an explanation for inertial mass, but you did not replace it. It is not sufficient to consider that the equivalence principle explains both masses, we have to provide a physical mechanism that explains both at a time. You only tergiversate on my example with the car in space, you don't provide an answer.

Before you ask me regarding the "massless" particle that appeared at 10^-43 sec, I think it was the neutrino.
I understand your choice, but why did those neutrinos have to be massless at the beginning, and how could they have changed from massless to massive meanwhile? Couldn't a massive particle have begun separating in halves the way you describe it in your book? Two massive particles separated by a distance also define space, no?

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016