A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

[Inchworm]

that distance augments by 67, 9 kilometers every second

You said the universe was expanding at light speed, which is a lot more than 67km/s, so how do you explain that number?

[Andrex]

You said the universe was expanding at light speed, which is a lot more than 67km/s, so how do you explain that number?

Hubble constant is a "rate".

67,9 km/s (rate) multiplied by 4 415,205 megaparsec (size of the universe) = 299 792. 458 km/s (light-speed). I left out the screening in megaparsec.

4 415,2 megaparsec = 4 415,200 000 parsec

1 parsec = 3,2616 light-years

4 415 200 000 X 3,2616 = 14,4 billion light-years.

The difference between 13,7 billion light-years (observable universe) and 14,4 billion light-years is because "observable universe" expands at a bit less than light-speed; otherwise it wouldn't be observable (light-speed = no distances and frozen time).

[Inchworm]

So if only matter "moves" in space, space has to be "infinite" in order that matter doesn't fall "out of space" somewhere. "Infinite" as a distance is not very appealing to my logic.

Yes I know, that's probably the main difference between our thinkings: I think that we will never be able to explain everything, and you think the contrary. If it works like politics, then the best way to find the truth would be to give us a chance to change the viewpoint every four years. That way, what works would live and what doesn't work would not. OK, expanding space had its turn at the top of hierarchy long enough, what's good has been recorded: its now time for the small steps. :0)

Galaxies are massive bodies,

Galaxies are not "massive bodies"; they are a volume of "alterred" geometry of space. But those volumes follow the trajectory of their center of gravity.

I think that expansion has been imagined to avoid the galaxies to be going away from one another at more than light speed, thus to fit SR, so it's a kind of ad hoc addition. With GR, space could already curve, so it could also expand, but what if SR was wrong? What if it was the speed in only one particular direction that could not exceed the speed of light? Of course, it needs that expansion has a center, but a beginning is already center. Look at your drawing showing expansion: it has a center.

That's what the moon is actually doing: it moves with regard to the earth, the sun, the galaxy, and all the other massive bodies of the universe at a time.

I agree, but not with one single motion; with different motions.

An atom on earth's surface moves around the sun while it is also rotating around the center of the earth, one of its small steps would execute the two motions in the same time, and we can also imagine that it would execute the motion away from the bigbang at the same time.

I said that inertial motion was due to the steps automatically keeping the same direction and the same length with time if nothing new happened

I'm not asking what "it's due to"; I'm asking "what it is".

The steps explain inertial motion, they show the mechanism, so they simply are that motion.

whereas inertial mass was due...

Same kind of wrong answer.

Since the steps are inertial motion, their resistance to acceleration is mass.

Goes by" here simply meant "passer par", but I think I should have said "goes through".

Ok; so your circle goes through its center. That's impossible.

Why? Isn't your curved space going through the centers of massive bodies?

Sorry; this is all wrong in regard to space deformation. The center of gravity is in the middle of the ball; not underneath like shown on the image.

I know, but this way, the ball couldn't roll. :0)

The observation that the rotation period of the earth is constantly slowing down

That's cause by the "tidal effect".

That effect is actually explained with the conservation of energy law, but that law is not a mechanism.

It is easily explained by the old principle of inertial motion being compensated by gravitational acceleration,

It's even easier explained by keeping the same speed in a gradually collapsing metric; because then you don't have to bother; energy is conserved.

OK, I understand what you mean: it is not the speed that is changing, it is space that is shrinking or expanding while the seconds keep the same duration. It took time but I finally got it. :0) So the planets that appear to travel more slowly than earth are simply gobbling less space in the same time. Is it possible that Dave_Oblad thinks like you? In your thinking, my small steps would only be gobbling more or less space in the same time, which is about the same as traveling more or less distance finally. Do I get it correctly this time?

You accept proper motion, but as long as it doesn't concern expansion.

How could proper motion concern expansion? They have no link.

If we apply your expansion metric to my small steps, I think they have. My small steps can get as long in one direction as the speed of light would permit them, and we can use them to interpret that the origin of the BB is the center of the expansion that followed. No need for relativity, the galaxies can travel at close to the speed of light in their own direction, and they can travel at more than that speed in opposed direction. It is still light that governs motion, but it does so at the particles scale, not at ours. Does that contradict any observation?

which is the case for earth if we consider its atoms are massive bodies.

And the barycenter of all those atoms is the center of gravity of the earth.

Exactly!

How do you apply this (the transits) to "tides"?

The seas are transiting between the center of the earth and the center of the moon each day, and they are also transiting outside those centers each day, what cause tides two times a day, whereas the bodies that stand at the Lagrange points do not transit, they stay there all the time. The tides are simply due to the fact that planets are not points, whereas on the contrary, Lagrange points "are" points.

[Inchworm]

Hubble constant is a "rate".

OK, I understand. Its the rate at which the receding speed increases with distance. Wiki uses 70 km/s every megaparsec. 10 Mps gives 700 km/s ...etc.

[Andrex]

So if only matter "moves" in space, space has to be "infinite" in order that matter doesn't fall "out of space" somewhere. "Infinite" as a distance is not very appealing to my logic.

Yes I know, that's probably the main difference between our thinkings

To me "infinite" is a "state"; not a "distance". So since the motion of expansion is "creating" space at the speed of light, even light speed cannot "get out of space". On the other hand, the universe is "spatially" finished but in an infinite "state", since nothing else exists (it doesn't have "borders").

I think that expansion has been imagined to avoid the galaxies to be going away from one another at more than light speed, thus to fit SR, so it's a kind of ad hoc addition.

Einstein didn't believe that space was expanding; he was sure that it was "static" even if his maths was saying it was dynamic. He even cheated with is formula to make the universe static.

what if SR was wrong?

SR was found before GR.

Of course, it needs that expansion has a center, but a beginning is already center.

My own beginning started at my birth; the center of my life is much more later than that. So a "beginning" is never a "center".

Look at your drawing showing expansion: it has a center.

I drew a volume of space with a diameter of 1 megaparsec. Of course that volume has a center; but expansion in it, doesn't "start at its center, it happens through the whole volume everywhere.

An atom on earth's surface moves around the sun while it is also rotating around the center of the earth, one of its small steps would execute the two motions in the same time, and we can also imagine that it would execute the motion away from the bigbang at the same time.

All steps are "devoted" to rotation of the planet; one step out of those is used forward on earth's orbit; but another one "backs up" on the other side of the planet; as for "away from the Bing bang", it's impossible because the earth is still "stuck" inside the Big bang; space is still expanding.

The steps explain inertial motion, they show the mechanism, so they simply are that motion.

They show an unexplained mechanism made by particles. Those particles make motion so they manifest proper kinetic energy. Where doe it come from? inertial motion is "motion"; that's quite a discovery.

Since the steps are inertial motion, their resistance to acceleration is mass.

So they move at a certain speed and if you want to accelerate their speed you meet resistance which is "inertial mass". That's what Galileo said. But he couldn't explain what it was; and nobody can explain it even today. The Higgs boson is the same story, it meets resistance in the Higgs field. What a discovery, indeed!

Why? Isn't your curved space going through the centers of massive bodies?

First it's not "curved space"; secondly, the massive body "occupy" a "space" of which its metric is collapsing toward the center of gravity of that volume of space. The center of gravity is not own by the body but by the volume of deformed space. The proof is that with a "tidal effect", the two center of gravity are displaced inside the bodies one toward the other.

OK, I understand what you mean: it is not the speed that is changing, it is space that is shrinking or expanding

You got it!

So the planets that appear to travel more slowly than earth are simply gobbling less space in the same time.

You mean each orbit has its own "metric" and you're right. But when a satellite in an elliptical orbit gets nearer to the "off-centered" point, that point is the normal center of gravity of the volume of space containing the orbiting object. But the object, while orbiting crosses different metrics, the shortest being nearer the center of gravity. So the object seems to gain speed and turn rapidly. It's only following the topology of that space through it's metric.

Is it possible that Dave_Oblad thinks like you?

I don't know but I guess he understand my opinion. He doesn't have to agree.

Do I get it correctly this time?

You seem to.

and we can use them to interpret that the origin of the BB is the center of the expansion that followed.

The universe at the size of 10^-33 meter was the "center" that exploded. It was projected in all directions so either you say there are centers everywhere in the universe or there's no center in the universe. You have the choice; but both cases come to the same thing.

No need for relativity, the galaxies can travel at close to the speed of light in their own direction,

Galaxies don't travel at the speed of light. Those far far away seems to go fast because of the "rate" of 67, 9 km/sec that adds up every mpc distance; but they could go at the same speed as Andromeda and you would feel they're going to light speed seen from here.

It is still light that governs motion, but it does so at the particles scale, not at ours. Does that contradict any observation?

It's kinetic energy that governs motion. Light is an electromagnetic vibration of the electromagnetic "state" of space. Light starts at a wavelength of 10^-14 meter (gamma ray) and the universe started at 10^-33 meter; way before gamma rays appeared.

whereas the bodies that stand at the Lagrange points do not transit, they stay there all the time

A Lagrangian point is not fixed; there are 5 of them and they follow the motion of the orbiting planet going to the same speed. They are produced by tidal waves between the planet and its sun..

Check on page 3
Andrex on September 5th, 2016, 4:25 pm

OK, I understand. Its the rate at which the receding speed increases with distance. Wiki uses 70 km/s every megaparsec. 10 Mps gives 700 km/s ...etc.

The Hubble constant asn't change; only the precision to calculate it as augmented. Planck satellite gave 67, 9 It use to be 73, then 70 etc. Some use to say 100 others 50 km/sec mpc.

[Inchworm]

what if SR was wrong?

SR was found before GR.

Yes, but if SR was wrong, then some galaxies could move away from some others at more than the speed of light without the help of the expanding space principle.

An atom on earth's surface moves around the sun while it is also rotating around the center of the earth, one of its small steps would execute the two motions in the same time, and we can also imagine that it would execute the motion away from the bigbang at the same time.

All steps are "devoted" to rotation of the planet; one step out of those is used forward on earth's orbit; but another one "backs up" on the other side of the planet;

An atom's step is executed with regard to light, which is in this case any information traveling at light speed, and it has to account for all the incoming lights at a time. The light that comes from the other atom of the same molecule produces inertial motion, which produces its rotational motion in the case of the earth, and the light that comes from the other atoms of the earth produces gravitational motion, which produces gravity for that atom in the case of the earth.

And it is the same for the orbital motion between earth and moon, the same step from the same atom has to justify its orbital speed and its gravitational acceleration. One step from an atom has to justify all the motions it is actually executing in the universe. That's what your space metric has to do anyway, so you should be able to understand what I mean even if you don't believe my steps is the right answer.

The steps explain inertial motion, they show the mechanism, so they simply are that motion.

They show an unexplained mechanism made by particles. Those particles make motion so they manifest proper kinetic energy. Where doe it come from? inertial motion is "motion"; that's quite a discovery.

If the steps would only explain motion, they wouldn't be an issue, but they also explain mass and in a much simpler way than the Higgs, so I think it is a possibility. I had your space metric in mind this morning, and I figured that I could replace my step's length by your space metric without changing anything. How about a step being executed to adjust to the time shifted metric of the other atom? After all, it is mass that affects the flat metric in your theory, and the two atoms of my animation are massive. Moreover, you can't object that the metric is faster than the speed of light since gravity waves have been detected.

Since the steps are inertial motion, their resistance to acceleration is mass.

So they move at a certain speed and if you want to accelerate their speed you meet resistance which is "inertial mass". That's what Galileo said. But he couldn't explain what it was; and nobody can explain it even today. The Higgs boson is the same story, it meets resistance in the Higgs field. What a discovery, indeed!

I'm not sure you understood how mass would develop out of the steps, so I repeat: the steps have to stay on sync with the incoming information, so they have get longer or shorter when the information changes its frequency. Mass is the result of the time it takes to make the adjustments. Have you read my example with the two cars instead of the two atoms? Here is the question I was asking Faradave about that, and the discussion that followed is here:

"Let us imagine two cars on a straight road one km away from one another and heading in the same direction. Let us put a source of sound waves and a detector on each car, and a mechanism to detect doppler effect and to accelerate or decelerate the cars as soon as it detects some. What will happen if we force a first car to accelerate towards the other for one second while both are emitting continuously the same frequency?"

The center of gravity is not own by the body but by the volume of deformed space. The proof is that with a "tidal effect", the two center of gravity are displaced inside the bodies one toward the other.

I don't get it, give me an example.

Do I get it correctly this time?

You seem to.

We're progressing! :0) Now, its your turn to show that you understand my small steps.

The universe at the size of 10^-33 meter was the "center" that exploded. It was projected in all directions so either you say there are centers everywhere in the universe or there's no center in the universe. You have the choice; but both cases come to the same thing.

How do you interpret the anisotropy of the CMB?

It is still light that governs motion, but it does so at the particles scale, not at ours. Does that contradict any observation?

It's kinetic energy that governs motion.

Yes, but if we replace light by metric, it is the metric that produces the steps at the atoms' scale, and it is the steps that produce motion at our scale.

A Lagrangian point is not fixed; there are 5 of them and they follow the motion of the orbiting planet going to the same speed. They are produced by tidal waves between the planet and its sun..

There is no mention of tidal effect for Lagrangian points on wiki.

[Andrex]

Yes, but if SR was wrong,

Then you need a proof.

An atom's step is executed with regard to light, which is in this case any information traveling at light speed, and it has to account for all the incoming lights at a time.

How can that influence the particle of earth that is rotating? What are the informations given by light?

and the light that comes from the other atoms of the earth produces gravitational motion, which produces gravity for that atom in the case of the earth.

What is gravitational motion? I feel like if we were discussing "potato harassment".

That's what your space metric has to do anyway, so you should be able to understand what I mean even if you don't believe my steps is the right answer.

My metric doesn't do anything it's the geometrical structure of space.

If the steps would only explain motion, they wouldn't be an issue, but they also explain mass and in a much simpler way than the Higgs, so I think it is a possibility.

It explain mass as Galileo explained it. And it was not an explanation at all.

I had your space metric in mind this morning, and I figured that I could replace my step's length by your space metric without changing anything. How about a step being executed to adjust to the time shifted metric of the other atom?

You can always use the word "steps" instead of "metric" if you want; but my "metric" is not being executed by anything. So it's not a solution.

After all, it is mass that affects the flat metric in your theory,

No it's the topology of gluon.

Moreover, you can't object that the metric is faster than the speed of light since gravity waves have been detected.

You believe "gravitional waves" where detected? Why not the "graviton" then? I doubt they were gravitational waves; simply because gravitation has no energy.

the steps have to stay on sync with the incoming information, so they have get longer or shorter when the information changes its frequency.

What information? Electromagnetism is all over the universe and electromagnetic "waves" are only 5% of it.

What will happen if we force a first car to accelerate towards the other for one second while both are emitting continuously the same frequency?"

A doppler effect; and that would be the "information" that would "trigger" more kinetic energy to your atom to keep the same distance?

The center of gravity is not own by the body but by the volume of deformed space. The proof is that with a "tidal effect", the two center of gravity are displaced inside the bodies one toward the other.

I don't get it, give me an example.

You don't get what? It's simple: it's not the volume of "matter" that has a center of gravity; it's the volume of deformed space containing the "matter".

How do you interpret the anisotropy of the CMB?

Those anysotropies don't have anything to do with a center of the universe. They were formed during inflation.

Yes, but if we replace light by metric, it is the metric that produces the steps at the atoms' scale, and it is the steps that produce motion at our scale.

No. It's your atoms that produce the "steps" in regard of the environment's metric.

There is no mention of tidal effect for Lagrangian points on wiki.

I didn't give you a link on wiki; I gave you a link in this discussion.

[Inchworm]

Yes, but if SR was wrong,

Then you need a proof.

Contradictions in theories are proofs that something is wrong, and SR contains some.

An atom's step is executed with regard to light, which is in this case any information traveling at light speed, and it has to account for all the incoming lights at a time.

How can that influence the particle of earth that is rotating? What are the informations given by light?

I used to say that the information for inertial motion was doppler effect, but I have to find another name to adapt it to your metric: what about doppler shifetd flat metric (DFM) since my inertial motion is the same as your flat metric? That gives us two kinds of metric for the same atom if we want to describe earth's rotation: one that is flat and justifies its rotation, and one that is collapsing and justifies its gravitational motion.

and the light that comes from the other atoms of the earth produces gravitational motion, which produces gravity for that atom in the case of the earth.

What is gravitational motion? I feel like if we were discussing "potato harassment".

As I just said, it's your collapsing metric.

That's what your space metric has to do anyway, so you should be able to understand what I mean even if you don't believe my steps is the right answer.

My metric doesn't do anything it's the geometrical structure of space.

It has the same meaning, so I suggest that we use metric to simplify the writing.

I had your space metric in mind this morning, and I figured that I could replace my step's length by your space metric without changing anything. How about a step being executed to adjust to the time shifted metric of the other atom?

You can always use the word "steps" instead of "metric" if you want; but my "metric" is not being executed by anything. So it's not a solution.

Your flat metric makes the expansion between bodies possible, and my inertial steps too, and your collapsing metric makes the curving trajectories between bodies possible, and my small steps too, so for the moment, I think that they are almost the same.

After all, it is mass that affects the flat metric in your theory,

No it's the topology of gluon.

OK, but we only find gluons around massive particles, and their collapsing metric too, so why make the difference?

Moreover, you can't object that the metric is faster than the speed of light since gravity waves have been detected.

You believe "gravitionnal waves" where detected? Why not the "graviton" then? I doubt they were gravitational waves; simply because gravitation has no energy.

I doubt it too :0), but for another reason, which is that using an interferometer to detect space/time is the same kind of experiment that Michelson/Morley made to detect aether.

the steps have to stay on sync with the incoming information, so they have to get longer or shorter when the information changes its frequency.

What information? Electromagnetism is all over the universe and electromagnetic "waves" are only 5% of it.

You're out of sync! :0) The steps that the two atoms of my animation are executing with regard to one another depend on the information produced by each atom, which is 100% proof since they would not move otherwise. And the steps that they are executing with regard to all the other atoms of the universe is also 100% proof since they never accelerate towards empty space.

What will happen if we force a first car to accelerate towards the other for one second while both are emitting continuously the same frequency?"

A doppler effect; and that would be the "information" that would "trigger" more kinetic energy to your atom to keep the same distance?

Partially right: the first doppler effect to affect the system will be the one produced by the car that we are accelerating towards the other car. That doppler effect will activate the motor of that car backwards, so that it will automatically resist to be accelerated. The second doppler effect to affect the system will reach the second car after one second, and it will then activate the motor of this car so that it accelerates away from the first car, but doing so, that second car will automatically produce doppler effect towards the first one, which will begin to accelerate towards the second one after one second, and so on eternally if the cars benefit from an infinite source of energy.

The center of gravity is not own by the body but by the volume of deformed space. The proof is that with a "tidal effect", the two center of gravity are displaced inside the bodies one toward the other.

I don't get it, give me an example.

You don't get what? It's simple: it's not the volume of "matter" that has a center of gravity; it's the volume of deformed space containing the "matter".

What I don't get is your two displaced gravity centers.

How do you interpret the anisotropy of the CMB?

Those anisotropies don't have anything to do with a center of the universe. They were formed during inflation.

Wiki says "The standard interpretation of this temperature variation is a simple velocity red shift and blue shift due to motion relative to the CMB". To me, a motion of the kind may represent a motion away from where the CMB had its origin.

Yes, but if we replace light by metric, it is the metric that produces the steps at the atoms' scale, and it is the steps that produce motion at our scale.

No. It's your atoms that produce the "steps" in regard of the environment's metric.

If you wish, but it can still be the steps that produce motion at our scale.

There is no mention of tidal effect for Lagrangian points on wiki.

I didn't give you a link on wiki; I gave you a link in this discussion.

I hope you're not talking of your two glasses, because it's not what I consider to be a tidal effect. Tidal effects are due to bodies or systems of bodies having a dimension, thus being made of smaller bodies.

[Andrex]

Just to come back on my precedent answer:

You don't get what? It's simple: it's not the volume of "matter" that has a center of gravity; it's the volume of deformed space containing the "matter".

It is simple to understand.

We know that planets are made by "accretion" of particles.
In order that particles accrete, they must be "directed" toward a center of gravity; which means that that center point exists before "accretion".
Consequently, a center of gravity isn't the "possession" of (or related to) a planets but rather, of/to the space deformation containing that planet.

[Andrex]

Contradictions in theories are proofs that something is wrong, and SR contains some.

Which are?

since my inertial motion is the same as your flat metric?

Where does that "deduction" comes from? Inertial motion is related to "matter"; flat metric is related to space.

That gives us two kinds of metric for the same atom if we want to describe earth's rotation: one that is flat and justifies its rotation, and one that is collapsing and justifies its gravitational motion.

Well, that's just as logical as space-time being flat while space being "curved". But I don't buy it. Sorry.

What is gravitational motion? I feel like if we were discussing "potato harassment".

As I just said, it's your collapsing metric.

It's "collapsed metric". It's not an "action" it's a "consequence"; a "result". Sorry if I used somewhere "collapsing".

My metric doesn't do anything it's the geometrical structure of space.

It has the same meaning, so I suggest that we use metric to simplify the writing.

If "action" has the same meaning as "inaction"; you're right, both our theories are "identical" but we have to discard "meanings" though.

Your flat metric makes the expansion between bodies possible, and my inertial steps too,

My "flat metric" has nothing to do with "bodies"; it would exist even if there was no "bodies" existing.

OK, but we only find gluons around massive particles, and their collapsing metric too, so why make the difference?

You find gluons around massive particles because those particles are the result of desintegrations of gluons inside themselves. You don't find any "collapsed" metric in the gluon; only the topology impressions toward its center. Gluons are massless.

The steps that the two atoms of my animation are executing with regard to one another depend on the information produced by each atom, which is 100% proof since they would not move otherwise.

By the way; tell me again where is the proof that atoms exchange or even emit informations before or while moving?

A doppler effect; and that would be the "information" that would "trigger" more kinetic energy to your atom to keep the same distance?

Partially right: the first doppler effect to affect the system will be the one produced by the car that we are accelerating towards the other car. That doppler effect will activate the motor of that car backwards, so that it will automatically resist to be accelerated. The second doppler effect to affect the system will reach the second car after one second, and it will then activate the motor of this car so that it accelerates away from the first car, but doing so, that second car will automatically produce doppler effect towards the first one, which will begin to accelerate towards the second one after one second, and so on eternally if the cars benefit from an infinite source of energy.

Hum! It's like saying that we breathe by making successive very small "hickups".

What I don't get is your two displaced gravity centers.

Go read the d.... link.

Wiki says "The standard interpretation of this temperature variation is a simple velocity red shift and blue shift due to motion relative to the CMB".

To me that phrase doesn't mean anything clear.

To me, a motion of the kind may represent a motion away from where the CMB had its origin.

That's what happens when phrases are not clear.

If you wish, but it can still be the steps that produce motion at our scale.

It's not MY wish; it's a "fact". "Steps", whoever makes them are a "distance" covered by a motion. Steps don't "produce" motion.

...because it's not what I consider to be a tidal effect. Tidal effects are due...

See what I mean??? You mix "what is" with "what causes it".

[Inchworm]

Contradictions in theories are proofs that something is wrong, and SR contains some.

Which are?

What about the Twins' one?

That gives us two kinds of metric for the same atom if we want to describe earth's rotation: one that is flat and justifies its rotation, and one that is collapsing and justifies its gravitational motion.

Well, that's just as logical as space-time being flat while space being "curved". But I don't buy it. Sorry.

If we use vectors to show the direction of the two metric, then they are orthogonal to each other, what means that they do not interfere. The metric may thus collapse in the direction of the earth, while it stays constant in the perpendicular direction. The galaxies may expand from one another at the same time their stars are gravitating towards its centers for instance, and we can chew our gums at the same time too. :0)

My metric doesn't do anything it's the geometrical structure of space.

It has the same meaning, so I suggest that we use metric to simplify the writing.

If "action" has the same meaning as "inaction"; you're right, both our theories are "identical" but we have to discard "meanings" though.

I realize that I use a similar analogy to explain my steps: I say that the atoms would not be able to observe their own steps as long as they stay constant, because they are moving to nullify the doppler effect, which would prevent them to observe that they are moving with regard to the other atom. Nevertheless, I cannot say they are not making steps since they are. You did not answer me about my atoms having a metric that travels at the speed of light between them, a time shifted metric that could produce the small steps.

Your flat metric makes the expansion between bodies possible, and my inertial steps too,

My "flat metric" has nothing to do with "bodies"; it would exist even if there was no "bodies" existing.

If I understood well, what produces your flat metric automatically decays into massive particles, so to me, they are necessarily linked.

OK, but we only find gluons around massive particles, and their collapsing metric too, so why make the difference?

You find gluons around massive particles because those particles are the result of disintegration of gluons inside themselves. You don't find any "collapsed" metric in the gluon; only the topology impressions toward its center. Gluons are massless.

What's the difference between your metric and your topology then?

The steps that the two atoms of my animation are executing with regard to one another depend on the information produced by each atom, which is 100% proof since they would not move otherwise.

By the way; tell me again where is the proof that atoms exchange or even emit information before or while moving?

That's what I'm trying to prove. Do the scientists have proofs for what they are trying to prove? Are you trying to prove that you have nothing to prove? In that case, what's the use to talk about it? Convince us that we have nothing to prove?

Partially right: the first doppler effect to affect the system will be the one produced by the car that we are accelerating towards the other car. That doppler effect will activate the motor of that car backwards, so that it will automatically resist to be accelerated. The second doppler effect to affect the system will reach the second car after one second, and it will then activate the motor of this car so that it accelerates away from the first car, but doing so, that second car will automatically produce doppler effect towards the first one, which will begin to accelerate towards the second one after one second, and so on eternally if the cars benefit from an infinite source of energy.

Hum! It's like saying that we breathe by making successive very small "hickups".

Do you agree that the cars would behave as I described you?

What I don't get is your two displaced gravity centers.

Go read the d.... link.

It wasn't a link, but I found it anyway, and I read it. Here it is as a link. To do that, click on the small red arrow at the top left of the post you want to link, and copy the address that shows on your browser, then select the words you want to represent the link, click on the button URL, add the sign "=" after the word url at the left, and paste the address right after it. Look at what it looks like while quoting my link: that's what I did.

Now, the only thing I found there as an explanation for the tide effect is your analogy with the two glasses of wine, and I don't agree with it. May I? Here is wiki about that:

"The tidal force is a secondary effect of the force of gravity and is responsible for the tides. It arises because the gravitational force exerted by one body on another is not constant across it: the nearest side is attracted more strongly than the farthest side. Thus, the tidal force is differential."

As you can see, they say it's a differential, which is the same as saying it is due to the earth not being a dimensionless point.

Now, I realize that what you meant is that the gravity centers of your two glasses were getting closer to one another, but I still do not consider it corresponds to the definition of tidal effect. You can't use that analogy to explain the seas tides for instance.

If you wish, but it can still be the steps that produce motion at our scale.

It's not MY wish; it's a "fact". "Steps", whoever makes them are a "distance" covered by a motion. Steps don't "produce" motion.

OK, I think you will agree that they produce constant motion at our scale out of an inconstant one at their scale.

...because it's not what I consider to be a tidal effect. Tidal effects are due...

See what I mean??? You mix "what is" with "what causes it".

Tell me what causes your gluon decay then.

[Andrex]

What about the Twins' one?

Explain it with the "facts"; I don't remember. :-)

If we use vectors to show the direction of the two metric, then they are orthogonal to each other, what means that they do not interfere. The metric may thus collapse in the direction of the earth, while it stays constant in the perpendicular direction. The galaxies may expand from one another at the same time their stars are gravitating towards its centers for instance, and we can chew our gums at the same time too.

And let me guess... the gum will taste like a galaxy. Taking "object" in consideration misleads you. You have to take "center of gravity" of the different objects. It's those who have "motions"; not the objects which only "follow the "containers". And the motion of a center of gravity is independant of all other centers of gravity.

Nevertheless, I cannot say they are not making steps since they are.

"traveling a distance, I agree; but, start->go faster -> slow down then stop to start again, I don't agree. Kinetic energy when manifested at a difinite intensity, provoke a "constant motion". That is a "fact" observed.

You did not answer me about my atoms having a metric that travels at the speed of light between them

The "metrics" of an atom define de size of that atom. An atom is a defined volume "object". The difining metric of the object doesn't "travel" it has no "energy". I think I did answer that already.

What's the difference between your metric and your topology then?

The same as the difference between the lenght of the road and the direction of the road .

tell me again where is the proof that atoms exchange or even emit information before or while moving?

That's what I'm trying to prove.

So the premise of your theory is the same as the hypothesis. You shouldn't have problem "proving" it; but logically, it will be "thinking in circles".

Do you agree that the cars would behave as I described you?

With the premise adopted, yes. Do you agree that they wouldn't without it?

Here it is as a link. To do that, click on the small red arrow at the top left of the post you want to link, and copy the address that shows on your browser, then select the words you want to represent the link, click on the button URL, add the sign "=" after the word url at the left, and paste the address right after it.

Thanks! I love to learn new tricks. I'll try it soon.

Now, the only thing I found there as an explanation for the tide effect is your analogy with the two glasses of wine, and I don't agree with it. May I?

You surely may; but before doing so, ask yourself if the planet is orbiting the sun and then try to keep those Langrangian points "fixed" in order that earth comes to them once a year instead of every seconds like with the satellites "stable" on a Langrangian point.

Check this:
http://www.space.com/30302-lagrange-points.html

"Points L4 and L5, however, are stable, "like a ball in a large bowl," according to the European Space Agency. These points lie along Earth's orbit at 60 degrees ahead of and behind Earth,..."

Here is wiki about that:...bla,bla... As you can see, they say it's a differential, which is the same as saying it is due to the earth not being a dimensionless point.

I guess you feel that it is a "clear" explanation describing "facts". I don't.

Now, I realize that what you meant is that the gravity centers of your two glasses were getting closer to one another, but I still do not consider it corresponds to the definition of tidal effect.

So the gravity center "clearly" come closer to one another by the merging of volume space deformations provoking the "tide effect", but doesn't correspond to the "unclear" definition of tidal effect. I guess you'll have to choose between "beliefs" and "facts".

You can't use that analogy to explain the seas tides for instance.

Really? As a metter of fact, the idea comes from merging "factual" informations of gravitation and sea tides to define "tidal effect". Funny isn't it? You'll have to re-read the post.

OK, I think you will agree that they produce constant motion at our scale out of an inconstant one at their scale.

Why would I agree to that? You didn't give me any reasons to.

See what I mean??? You mix "what is" with "what causes it".

Tell me what causes your gluon decay then.

I did every time I talked bout it. It's the expansion of tridimensional space that ripped the front from the back of the surface gluon. It wasn't a "decay" because it wasn't provoke by "equilibrium" to the environment like with the following particles. It was a geometrical "distortion" of that "surface".

[Andrex]

Barycenter

I’ll have to come back on one of your previous objection to which I didn’t give enough explanation. I’m sorry.
“The barycenter of the earth/moon system is situated 1400km inside the surface of the earth,...so I think we can say that they travel around one another...”

At first glance, I didn’t realise that the earth was “circling” around the moon. But after more precise attention, by putting focus on the moon itself, it’s possible to say that the earth is really going around the moon. Re-check:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycente ... Orbit4.gif

We could say that this “double orbit” in regard of the two object is justified by geometrical observation. In fact, the center of gravity of the moon orbits around the center of gravity of the earth; and the “barycenter” of the system "creates" essentially a geometrical motion “effect” that doesn’t, at all, provoke the orbiting “fact” of the earth around the moon.

It’s the same kind of “geometrical effect” as the great distances between objects seems to increase the velocity of one object in regard to the other. The fact still remains that the speed of each objects stays “constant”. The “fact” here is that it is the moon that orbits around the earth; while the barycenter gives the "effect" of both orbiting around each other.

If we apply that "effect" of "seemingly" increasing speed in regard of the distance to the "acceleration of expansion" observed, we can say that the "sole" conclusion of "accelerating" could have some other explanation of the "fact". But that is another subject.

[Andrex]

Just found something that might help you accept my "wine glass" explanation for "tidal effect" and Langrangian points.
Have a look at "Roche lobe" and Roche lobe oveflow? When you get the chance. Just keep in mind that "gravitational force" doesn't exist and change it for "space deformation" around a center of gravity.

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

Roche lobe: "the apex is at the L1 Lagrangian point of the system".

[Inchworm]

Have a look at "Roche lobe" and Roche lobe overflow?

I had a look, and there is no mention of the tidal effect. Apply your idea to the tides on earth and I might understand what you mean.

by putting focus on the moon itself, it’s possible to say that the earth is really going around the moon.

We actually see the moon circling the earth, but not the inverse. However, we really see both bodies circling their common barycenter.

[Inchworm]

What about the Twins' one?

Explain it with the "facts"; I don't remember. :-)

It's a mind experiment, not facts, and the conclusion that one of the twins gets older contradicts the idea that their motion is relative, which implies that we cannot know which one of the twins is moving.

If we use vectors to show the direction of the two metric, then they are orthogonal to each other, what means that they do not interfere. The metric may thus collapse in the direction of the earth, while it stays constant in the perpendicular direction. The galaxies may expand from one another at the same time their stars are gravitating towards its centers for instance, and we can chew our gums at the same time too.

And let me guess... the gum will taste like a galaxy. Taking "object" in consideration misleads you. You have to take "center of gravity" of the different objects. It's those who have "motions"; not the objects which only "follow the "containers". And the motion of a center of gravity is independent of all other centers of gravity.

Did you try to imagine your collapsed metric and your flat metric, both acting at the same time on the trajectories of bodies, one curving their trajectories and the other letting them go straight?

"traveling a distance, I agree; but, start->go faster -> slow down then stop to start again, I don't agree. Kinetic energy when manifested at a definite intensity, provokes a "constant motion". That is a "fact" observed.

A fact observed at our scale, but not necessarily at the particles' scale.

You did not answer me about my atoms having a metric that travels at the speed of light between them

The "metrics" of an atom define de size of that atom. An atom is a defined volume "object". The defining metric of the object doesn't "travel" it has no "energy". I think I did answer that already.

In the case of two atoms of the same molecule, the collapsed metric of one atom affects the motion of the other atom with regard to it. What happens to those metrics if one of the atoms is forced to move while this information didn't have time to get to the other atom?

What's the difference between your metric and your topology then?

The same as the difference between the lenght of the road and the direction of the road .

10-4

tell me again where is the proof that atoms exchange or even emit information before or while moving?

That's what I'm trying to prove.

So the premise of your theory is the same as the hypothesis. You shouldn't have problem "proving" it; but logically, it will be "thinking in circles".

The premise is the speed of light, and the conclusion is the small steps. They are different, but it doesn't prevent us from thinking in circles since that's what thinking is about.

Do you agree that the cars would behave as I described you?

With the premise adopted, yes. Do you agree that they wouldn't without it?

One of the premises is the speed of information, the other is about the cars being able to send a sound and adjust to it. For the atoms, the premises are the speed of light and the capacity to absorb and emit light of constant frequencies: both are thus facts.

You can't use that analogy to explain the seas tides for instance.

Really? As a matter of fact, the idea comes from merging "factual" information of gravitation and sea tides to define "tidal effect". Funny isn't it? You'll have to re-read the post.

Then explain the sea tides and we will see if I understand. Meanwhile, give me a link to the post as an exercise if you wish: just click on the red arrow at the upper left of the post, and simply copy/paste here the address that shows on your browser.

OK, I think you will agree that they produce constant motion at our scale out of an inconstant one at their scale.

Why would I agree to that? You didn't give me any reasons to.

I didn't ask you to believe I was right, just to agree that the steps on my animation show an inconstant motion for atoms and a constant one for the molecule they are part of.

See what I mean??? You mix "what is" with "what causes it".

Tell me what causes your gluon decay then.

I did every time I talked bout it. It's the expansion of tridimensional space that ripped the front from the back of the surface gluon. It wasn't a "decay" because it wasn't provoke by "equilibrium" to the environment like with the following particles. It was a geometrical "distortion" of that "surface".

Now, tell me what causes your tridimensional expansion of space.

[Inchworm]

I was reading your discussion with Faradave on page 3, and I got stuck on your idea that galaxies were not really rotating, while the planets would. In reality, the atoms of the planets rotate too slowly around their center of gravity to stay in orbit around it. The same for the atoms from stars. A volume of space may not be rotating while, at the same time, the direction of bodies is curved going through it. The same with expansion: it moves the galaxies directly away from one another, but at the same time, a particular galaxy may be moving directly towards another one. In other words, straight motion is not only a property of flat space, and your theory must account for that.

[Andrex]

contradicts the idea that their motion is relative

Not relative to one another for sure; relative to their "speed" maybe? What do you think?

which implies that we cannot know which one of the twins is moving.

They are both moving (nothing is static); but at different speed.

Did you try to imagine your collapsed metric and your flat metric, both acting at the same time on the trajectories of bodies, one curving their trajectories and the other letting them go straight?

"Both acting at the same time" would be "magical"; I don't believe in "magic".

A metric is a metric and a metric doesn't "act". In flat "static" space the metric would be "constant" i.e. each distances are identical; this is the kind of "space" we live in, because expansion is "blocked". In flat "dynamic" space, the metric is "extended" gradually i.e. The following metric is longer than the previous one when the "motion" follows the arrow of "time". If the "motion's direction" is contrary to the arrow of time, you "meet" a "collapsed" metric. This happens when "mass energy" gets more intense than needed to only "block" expansion. In that event, the point of center of gravity, "backs up" in time and on the distance travelled during previous expansion. The arrow of time is reversed and the point center of gravity is "pushed back" on its "tracks", which "alters" all the metric of a definite space volume around that center of gravity.

When an "object" crosses a volume of such "altered space", the trajectory of that object also gets "altered" and starts to curve following the decreasing metric. Even though the object itself goes "straight ahead" in front of "him", it follows the topology of that "altered space" that curves its trajectory. Difficult to make this more clear without a drawing.

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29040&start=30#p284695

And since the "basic" metric is so small (10^-33 m), the trajectory results in a nice smooth "curve" instead of those "rough" successive reoriented motions shown on the drawing.

It's evident that you cannot have influences of both "situations" on one single trajectory event. So forget the notion of "gravitational force" fighting against "expanding force", equalized because of a "critical mass" of the universe. That's Harry Potter's science.

A fact observed at our scale, but not necessarily at the particles' scale.

Your using of: "not necessarily" means: either it's not observed, or you don't know. Which is it?

In the case of two atoms of the same molecule, the collapsed metric of one atom affects the motion of the other atom with regard to it. What happens to those metrics if one of the atoms is forced to move while this information didn't have time to get to the other atom?

What happens to space when you fall from an airplane while the pilot isn't told you fell of the plane? That's the kind of question you're asking me right now?

The premise is the speed of light, and the conclusion is the small steps.

What's the hypothesis?

but it doesn't prevent us from thinking in circles since that's what thinking is about.

Normal thinking doesn't try to develop the proof of an hypothesis by accepting that hypothesis as a "premise" (fact) before being proven. First an hypothesis is emitted, followed by premises (facts) that are presented, that bring a conclusion, proving (or disproving) the hypothesis which then, becomes a "fact" (or doesn't).

One of the premises is the speed of information, the other is about the cars being able to send a sound and adjust to it. For the atoms, the premises are the speed of light and the capacity to absorb and emit light of constant frequencies: both are thus facts.

The question was: "Do you agree that they wouldn't without it?
".

Wine will flow from the big glass to the small one, because the "merged edges" is lower than the rest of the edges.

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29040&start=0#p282572

Did you try to imagine your collapsed metric and your flat metric, both acting at the same time on the trajectories of bodies, one curving their trajectories and the other letting them go straight?

A metric is a metric and a metric doesn't "act".

In flat "static" space the metric would be "constant" i.e. each distances are identical; this is the kind of "space" we live in because expansion is "blocked" without being "pushed back".

In flat "dynamic" space, the metric is "extended" gradually i.e. The following metric is longer than the previous one when the "motion" follows the arrow of "time".

If the "motion's direction" is contrary to the arrow of time, you "meet" a "collapsed" metric. This happens when "mass energy" gets more intense than needed to only "block" expansion. Then the point of center of gravity, "backs up" in time and on the distance travelled during previous expansion. the arrow of time is reversed and the point center of gravity is "pushed back" on its "tracks" which "alters" all the metric of a space volume around that center of gravity.

When an "object" crosses a volume of such "altered space", the trajectory of that object also gets "altered" and starts to curve. Even though the object itself goes "straight ahead" in front of "him", it follows the topology of that "altered space" that curves its trajectory. Difficult to make this more clear without a drawing; but you have that drawing further up.

It's evident that you cannot have influences of both "situations" on one single trajectory event. So forger the notion of "gravitational force" fighting against "expanding force" and equalized because of a "critical mass" of the universe. That's Harry Potter's science.

A fact observed at our scale, but not necessarily at the particles' scale.

Your "not necessarily" means it's not observed or you don't know. Which is it?

In the case of two atoms of the same molecule, the collapsed metric of one atom affects the motion of the other atom with regard to it. What happens to those metrics if one of the atoms is forced to move while this information didn't have time to get to the other atom?

What happens to space when you fall from an airplane while the pilot isn't told you fell? That's the kind of question you're asking me right now?

The premise is the speed of light, and the conclusion is the small steps.

What's the hypothesis?

but it doesn't prevent us from thinking in circles since that's what thinking is about.

Normal thinking doesn't try to develop the proof of something by accepting that thing as a "fact" before proven.

One of the premises is the speed of information, the other is about the cars being able to send a sound and adjust to it. For the atoms, the premises are the speed of light and the capacity to absorb and emit light of constant frequencies: both are thus facts.

The question was: "Do you agree that they wouldn't without it?
".

Wine will flow from the big glass to the small one, because the "merged edges" is lower than the rest of the glass edges.

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29040&start=0#p282572

What you told me to do didn't work:

click on the small red arrow at the top left of the post you want to link, and copy the address that shows on your browser, then select the words you want to represent the link, click on the button URL, add the sign "=" after the word url at the left, and paste the address right after it.

is there's something missing?

just to agree that the steps on my animation show an inconstant motion for atoms and a constant one for the molecule they are part of.

Where is the sublined part?

Now, tell me what causes your tridimensional expansion of space.

The event that happened during Planck's epoch which you don't want me to talk about.

I was reading your discussion with Faradave on page 3, and I got stuck on your idea that galaxies were not really rotating, while the planets would.

I can't see why. A galaxy is a volume of "space"; a planet is a volume of "matter". Matter rotates on its axis but space doesn't.

In reality, the atoms of the planets rotate too slowly around their center of gravity to stay in orbit around it.

That's what "accretion" is all about. But you might disagree if you want to push the "force" concept at the level of particles.

The same with expansion: it moves the galaxies directly away from one another, but at the same time, a particular galaxy may be moving directly towards another one. In other words, straight motion is not only a property of flat space, and your theory must account for that.

Straight motion is not at all a property of "flat space"; ALL motions are "straight". Flat space geometry as a "flat topology" where "straight motion" is manifested in a straight "trajectory". "Altered" space geometry as an "altered" topology where "straight motion" is manifested in a "curved trajectory".

[Inchworm]

contradicts the idea that their motion is relative

Not relative to one another for sure; relative to their "speed" maybe? What do you think?

I think that the inertial frame principle simply does not apply to light, only to massive bodies, and SR depends on it.

which implies that we cannot know which one of the twins is moving.

They are both moving (nothing is static); but at different speed.

The one that stays on earth is considered to be at rest.

Did you try to imagine your collapsed metric and your flat metric, both acting at the same time on the trajectories of bodies, one curving their trajectories and the other letting them go straight?

"Both acting at the same time" would be "magical"; I don't believe in "magic".

If we throw a ball sideways to our motion, it will keep the motion we have while having its own motion, so it will have both motions at a time. Motions are vectorialy additive. Here is the drawing I made of the small steps being executed to account for two motions at a time: gravitational and inertial. It represents two identical bodies orbiting around a common barycenter. The two vectors are perpendicular, so they don't interfere with one another. Vector Rs represent the collapsed metric at that distance from the barycenter, and vector Rp represents the speed. Notice that both are straight. The steps are executing them both at a time.

And since the "basic" metric is so small (10^-33 m), the trajectory results in a nice smooth "curve" instead of those "rough" successive reoriented motions shown on the drawing.

Same for my small steps.

It's evident that you cannot have influences of both "situations" on one single trajectory event.

Tell me what you think of my drawing about that.

In the case of two atoms of the same molecule, the collapsed metric of one atom affects the motion of the other atom with regard to it. What happens to those metrics if one of the atoms is forced to move while this information didn't have time to get to the other atom?

What happens to space when you fall from an airplane while the pilot isn't told you fell of the plane? That's the kind of question you're asking me right now?

I know you think I'm wrong, but at least, do like I did and try to understand what I say. I'm actually trying to use your own idea to describe my small steps, so try to help me out instead of blocking me.

The premise is the speed of light, and the conclusion is the small steps.

What's the hypothesis?

Same feeling.

but it doesn't prevent us from thinking in circles since that's what thinking is about.

Normal thinking doesn't try to develop the proof of an hypothesis by accepting that hypothesis as a "premise" (fact) before being proven. First an hypothesis is emitted, followed by premises (facts) that are presented, that bring a conclusion, proving (or disproving) the hypothesis which then, becomes a "fact" (or doesn't).

Same feeling.

One of the premises is the speed of information, the other is about the cars being able to send a sound and adjust to it. For the atoms, the premises are the speed of light and the capacity to absorb and emit light of constant frequencies: both are thus facts.

The question was: "Do you agree that they wouldn't without it?
".

Same feeling.

Did you try to imagine your collapsed metric and your flat metric, both acting at the same time on the trajectories of bodies, one curving their trajectories and the other letting them go straight?

A metric is a metric and a metric doesn't "act".

You're drowning the fish. You're going to end up with no universe at all, just space with no fish to catch. :0)

When an "object" crosses a volume of such "altered space"

For an object to cross that volume, it has to get speed, and you don't want to explain speed since it doesn't fit with your space metrics. You only have two metrics, and none of them explains speed.

A fact observed at our scale, but not necessarily at the particles' scale.

Your "not necessarily" means it's not observed or you don't know. Which is it?

Not necessarily simply means that I'm not sure my small steps are a fact.

In the case of two atoms of the same molecule, the collapsed metric of one atom affects the motion of the other atom with regard to it. What happens to those metrics if one of the atoms is forced to move while this information didn't have time to get to the other atom?

What happens to space when you fall from an airplane while the pilot isn't told you fell? That's the kind of question you're asking me right now?

No, I'm asking you how your space works with relativity. If you take the sun away for instance, will it take 8 minutes till the earth begins to stop curving around it?

What you told me to do didn't work:

click on the small red arrow at the top left of the post you want to link, and copy the address that shows on your browser, then select the words you want to represent the link, click on the button URL, add the sign "=" after the word url at the left, and paste the address right after it.

is there's something missing?

You already succeeded to copy/paste the links, so you now have to get used to the URL button. Select a word, push the URL button, and look at the configuration: there is no address after the word url at the left, and you have to add one, but in between the two, you have to add the sign "=" otherwise it won't work.

just to agree that the steps on my animation show an inconstant motion for atoms and a constant one for the molecule they are part of.

Where is the sublined part?

My animation represents two atoms of the same molecule, so that molecule is right under your eyes:

Now, tell me what causes your tridimensional expansion of space.

The event that happened during Planck's epoch which you don't want me to talk about.

If you told me, I would ask you to tell me the cause of that event too, and the cause of the event that caused that event, and so on till the end of times, just to show you that you're asking me the same questions.

I was reading your discussion with Faradave on page 3, and I got stuck on your idea that galaxies were not really rotating, while the planets would.

I can't see why. A galaxy is a volume of "space"; a planet is a volume of "matter". Matter rotates on its axis but space doesn't.

Both have speed, so where do they get their speed from?

Straight motion is not at all a property of "flat space"; ALL motions are "straight". Flat space geometry as a "flat topology" where "straight motion" is manifested in a straight "trajectory". "Altered" space geometry as an "altered" topology where "straight motion" is manifested in a "curved trajectory".

Again, where does speed come from?

[Andrex]

I think that the inertial frame principle simply does not apply to light,

Which brings me two questions:
1) What is initial frame principle in your mind?
2) Why doesn't it apply to light?

The one that stays on earth is considered to be at rest.

So he stays in one metric of time while the other crosses different metrics of time. They don't "live" the same metrics of time; so it's normal they don't age the same way.

If we throw a ball sideways to our motion, it will keep the motion we have while having its own motion, so it will have both motions at a time.

Even if we just drop the ball, the same thing occurs. Throwing or releasing the ball have the same result. So to you inertial motion is what I call "proper" motion and "gravitional" motion is what I call "proper" motion. If you consider the ball as you release it, it has only one "proper" motion. The trajectory ( which is something else) it adopts, depends of the topology and its speed.

Here is the drawing I made of the small steps being executed to account for two motions at a time: gravitational and inertial.

But there's only one motion involved; the balls motion. Defining de vectors do not give two motions at the ball. It still has one motion only with a single trajectory.

The steps are executing them both at a time.

There's only one step executed and it is made on the trajectory line. What ever "tools" you use to define that trajectory (here you use vectors) doesn't involve two trajectories and certainly not two "steps" made simultaneously.

Tell me what you think of my drawing about that.

I just did.

I know you think I'm wrong,

I think you're wrong to ask such a question; at least in those words. The question is not logical.

I'm actually trying to use your own idea to describe my small steps

Use yours; it might be easier for you to explain your ideas.

You're drowning the fish. You're going to end up with no universe at all, just space with no fish to catch.

If I tell you that the lake is made of H2O that we call "water", am I drowning the fishs in the lake? I'm telling you that the lake doesn't "act"; and you talk of the fish.

For an object to cross that volume, it has to get speed, and you don't want to explain speed since it doesn't fit with your space metrics.

No it as to have kinetic energy; and everything has kinetic energy. Absolute "immobility" doesn't exist. That's the explanation and it fits perfectly to my "space metric"; in fact it is what produces the metrics of space.

No, I'm asking you how your space works with relativity.

Relativity's gravitation works well as long as you keep it in "altered" space; in flat space, it doesn't apply. Relativity's gravitation is "local".

If you take the sun away for instance, will it take 8 minutes till the earth begins to stop curving around it?

No the earth will continue to orbit around the center of gravity of the "altered" space. There are stars orbiting around a black hole and that hole is "empty" (no matter).

My animation represents two atoms of the same molecule, so that molecule is right under your eyes:

Well then, I guess your molecule must be "pulsing" because of the particles and not because of its "inner energy". In a proton or a neutron, the "particles quarks" counts for 1% of its mass energy; 99% is from the "movements" of gluons; in other words: their kinetec energy.

If you told me, I would ask you to tell me the cause of that event too,

And I would have answered the cumulating "stress" provoked by the the dilemna in the status (state) "to be or not to be". Can you go further back than that to find the origin of energy?

just to show you that you're asking me the same questions.

But you don't give any answers. Furthermore, I didn't forbid you to talk about the origin of everything. Go ahead if you wish.

Both have speed, so where do they get their speed from?

Speed is always related to a motion. The rotation is a motion so a planet has a rotation speed, but a galaxy doesn't.

Again, where does speed come from?

Speed is nothing tangible; it is nothing else than a characteristic of motion; it depends of the intensity of kinetic energy that is possessed; and all energy was "kinetic" at 10^-43 sec.

[Andrex]

Accelerating expansion of the universe.

Here is something to think about, triggered, I must say, by this exchange of objections.

Let’s try to find out if the expansion of the universe is really accelerating.

First let us work with the “facts” that are established scientifically:

1) We accept that light-speed is an invariant.

To this, let’s add my proposition, which is that expansion of the universe is manifested at light-speed, and see what happens.

Now let’s take in consideration the “redshift” observation which seems to say that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. This would mean that the Hubble constant is not constant and “diminishes” as time goes by (it covers less and less km per sec per mpc).

We can see that there’s no way of saying that expansion goes to “invariant” light-speed if it accelerates. So:

a) either expansion goes at less than light-speed in order to accelerate, or

b) light-speed in NOT an invariant.

If expansion was less than light-speed (a), light itself would “fall out” of the universe, which is all that exists and the only “space” available. So light cannot fall in a “space” that doesn’t exist.

It is impossible to say, on the other hand, that light speed is not an invariant (b), because that would contradict the “fact” number ...

2) ... that the “overall energy” of the universe is constant and doesn’t change. So if “energy” is invariant, its manifestation has to be invariant.

Our problem becomes:

Expansion being a “motion”, its energy has to be “kinetic”. So the overall energy of the universe would be an “invariant kinetic energy”. We have to admit that this concept doesn’t present any problem where the universe is “flat”. The problem appears when we add 5% of the universe being “matter”, which is also energy; and, furthermore, there is a lot more energy, confined in a volume of matter, than the free energy we find in the same volume of space.

The only solution to this “discrepancy” would be that the energy contained in “matter” is completely independent from the energy of “flat space”.

And that is exactly what I explained with my “invasion” of gluon at 10^-36 sec, provoking the inflation, "inflation" being completely independant of "expansion". On the other hand, it also confirms that the gluon, coming from Planck’s epoch, possessed its own energy and, that it was that energy which made gluon “recoil” on itself when its front and back where ripped off from one another.

This would also explain why “inner” energy of matter is so much greater than “free” expanding energy, since that "mass energy" doesn't "dilute" in flat space, being confined in "altered" space ever since its apparition at 10^-36 sec.

So, up to this point, our problems are being solved; but, still remains the explanation of Hubble’s constant “decreasing” resulting from the acceleration of expansion.

Let’s see if we can explain that seemingly acceleration of expansion.

1) We accepted that “overall kinetic energy” of the universe is an “invariant”.

2) We know that light-speed in also an “invariant”, which concords with the invariance of “overall kinetic energy”.

3) We also know that the “overall kinetic energy” of the universe, is diluted by the constant added space made by expansion. Which means that the “density” of energy is decreasing because of added space to contain it.

Consequently, we should have to admit that the “overall” invariant light speed of expansion has to be diluted by the same added space.

Hubble’s constant being a measure of the “density” of light speed (number of km per sec per mpc) in regard to the overall speed of expansion, it has to decrease, if light speed is “diluting” just has energy is diluted by added space.

Diluting light speed by added space provokes a “decrease” in Hubble constant which is, in fact, a “density of speed”.

So, consequently, whatever decreasing in Hubble’s constant being observed, doesn’t mean at all that expansion of the universe is accelerating. It simply means that the invariant speed of expansion is “diluting” in the added space.

Which establishes all concordances between our “basic” suggestions, and permits us to consider them as “facts”.

We can also add that our "vision" of equivalence in identity between "distance" and "time" is exact: Time is distance and distance is time.

[Inchworm]

I think that the inertial frame principle simply does not apply to light,

1) What is initial frame principle in your mind?

Inertial, not initial. Here is wiki's definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_ ... _reference

2) Why doesn't it apply to light?

Because that principle means that light goes directly to somebody we are walking with, while we know that sound doesn't. That's what permitted Einstein to imagine that light was going sideways to the motion in the light clock mind experiment. That's the main basis for SR's calculations.

The one that stays on earth is considered to be at rest.

So he stays in one metric of time while the other crosses different metrics of time. They don't "live" the same metrics of time; so it's normal they don't age the same way.

SR is about motion in flat space, so it is impossible to tell which of the twins is moving by definition.

I think that the inertial frame principle simply does not apply to light,

1) What is initial frame principle in your mind?

Inertial, not initial. Here is wiki's definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_ ... _reference

2) Why doesn't it apply to light?

Because it says that light goes directly to somebody we are walking with, while we know that sound doesn't. That's what permitted Einstein to imagine that light was going sideways to the motion in the light clock mind experiment. That's the main basis for SR's calculations.

The one that stays on earth is considered to be at rest.

So he stays in one metric of time while the other crosses different metrics of time. They don't "live" the same metrics of time; so it's normal they don't age the same way.

SR is about motion in flat space, so it is impossible to tell which of the twins is moving by definition.

If we throw a ball sideways to our motion, it will keep the motion we have while having its own motion, so it will have both motions at a time.

Even if we just drop the ball, the same thing occurs. Throwing or releasing the ball have the same result. So to you, inertial motion is what I call "proper" motion and "gravitional" motion is what I call "proper" motion.

Not quite true. To get inertial motion, a ball has to be thrown, whereas it doesn't have to to get gravitational motion if we stand on earth. Moreover, if we let a ball fall while we already are in free fall, it will get exactly our own motion, it will not gain any proper motion at all.

Here is the drawing I made of the small steps being executed to account for two motions at a time: gravitational and inertial.

But there's only one motion involved; the balls motion. Defining the vectors do not give two motions at the ball. It still has one motion only with a single trajectory.

It has one motion, but it has to move with regard to two different information at a time: the one that produces its inertial motion, and the one that produces its gravitational one. If we imagine that it is the metric of space that produces those two kinds of motion, then the two kinds of metric have to be producing them at the same time. Using my small steps, I can imagine your two metrics working at the same time on an atom, but one of them has to be confined inside a molecule, and the other outside. You should be happy, I'm offering you another space toy to play with. :0) That's incidentally what I did with doppler effect, I tried to apply it to two atoms of the same molecule, and it worked, so I do not see why it wouldn't work with your space metric. After all, both have to explain the same observations.

I'm actually trying to use your own idea to describe my small steps

Use yours; it might be easier for you to explain your ideas.

I already did, and you did not seem interested, so I'm trying to adapt it to your own theory.

If you take the sun away for instance, will it take 8 minutes till the earth begins to stop curving around it?

No the earth will continue to orbit around the center of gravity of the "altered" space.

For how long?

My animation represents two atoms of the same molecule, so that molecule is right under your eyes:

Well then, I guess your molecule must be "pulsing" because of the particles and not because of its "inner energy".

Whatever links two atoms to form a molecule, it has to take time between them, in such a way that, if we move one, the other cannot move immediately.

If you told me, I would ask you to tell me the cause of that event too,

And I would have answered the cumulating "stress" provoked by the the dilemma in the status (state) "to be or not to be". Can you go further back than that to find the origin of energy?

Then, you are like me, you cannot tell what your space is, so you could stop asking me that kind of question.

Speed is always related to a motion. The rotation is a motion so a planet has a rotation speed, but a galaxy doesn't.

If we accelerate the rotation of a planet until its surface begins to gravitate, how could we consider that what gravitates has no speed since it would be moving at the same speed as the new surface of the planet?

Again, where does speed come from?

Speed is nothing tangible; it is nothing else than a characteristic of motion; it depends of the intensity of kinetic energy that is possessed; and all energy was "kinetic" at 10^-43 sec.

If we throw a ball, it will thus get some kinetic energy, so where does that energy come from?

[Andrex]

Inertial, not initial.

Sorry. My transcription error.

Here is wiki's definition:

I know of wiki's definition; but I didn't ask for Wiki's definition; I asked of yours, in your words.

Because that principle means that light goes directly to somebody we are walking with, while we know that sound doesn't.

I guess that this represents your definition of the inertial frame "principle".

What wiki says is "All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another;" which, to me, means that if you and me, with a bunch of guys, are running at the same speed, none of us will be able to detect any acceleration for any of us.

You say that it doesn't apply to sound. I don't agree because if you, me and the same bunch of guys, we all run at the same speed of an ambulance's roaring sirene, none of us will perceive any doppler effect. So the same principle applies.

That's what permitted Einstein to imagine that light was going sideways to the motion in the light clock mind experiment.

So you're jumping from "twins experiment" to "light clock experiment" without "preparing" me. That's not fair. What is your description of that "light clock experiment" so that I may compare?

SR is about motion in flat space, so it is impossible to tell which of the twins is moving by definition.

SR is about time in regard to an arbitrary fixed point of reference (observational frame of reference). Time and space cannot be defined separately from each other. It doesn't concern motion, but "time" in "flat" space which brings the invariance of light speed. Gr was developed for gravity deformed space.

Even if we just drop the ball, the same thing occurs. Throwing or releasing the ball have the same result. So to you, inertial motion is what I call "proper" motion and "gravitional" motion is what I call "proper" motion.

Not quite true. To get inertial motion, a ball has to be thrown, whereas it doesn't have to to get gravitational motion if we stand on earth. Moreover, if we let a ball fall while we already are in free fall, it will get exactly our own motion, it will not gain any proper motion at all.

So what you're saying is that when you're in "free fall" you don't have "inertial motion" because nobody threw you. I'll have to wait until you tell me, in your words, what "inertial motion" is; because from wiki's description, in regard of "inertial motion", all it says is:

"According to the first postulate of special relativity, all physical laws take their simplest form in an inertial frame, and there exist multiple inertial frames interrelated by uniform translation"

That "uniform translation" might be your "inertial motion"; because nowhere there's a definition of that term "inertial motion" you're using.

Furthermore, when the ball gets exactly our own motion when we let it "free" fall, to you, that ball doesn't gain a "proper" motion. You can't have a more extending sense of "ownership of property". :-)

It has one motion, but it has to move with regard to two different information at a time: the one that produces its inertial motion, and the one that produces its gravitational one.

That is your problem right here. In fact, there's only one information getting to your "translating" particle; it's the information given by the topology of space in its environment. The inertial motion you talk about is the innerant energy the particle possess: its kinetic energy. And since "absolute "rest" doesn't exist, everything is in "motion" (is translating); so there's no more than one information involved or needed by that particle to decide of the trajectory. Forget "forces" once again.

If we imagine that it is the metric of space that produces those two kinds of motion

You can "imagine" anything you want, and so can J.R. Rowling, but the "fact" is that the metric of space produces NOTHING; it's non energetic; it's a "consequence", a simple geometrical result.

You should be happy, I'm offering you another space toy to play with.

As you can observe, I don't play very long with it; even if I'm really trying to, you must admit.

That's incidentally what I did with doppler effect, I tried to apply it to two atoms of the same molecule, and it worked,

Then you must "see" a difference between two atoms in a molecule and to atoms in "altered" space. Sorry but I don't. Probably because I never can see "forces" acting anywhere.

I already did, and you did not seem interested,

"not interested???" May I make the remark that we've been exchanging for 7 pages, which is not bad for someone that's not interested. You're scaring me in front of the amount of implication needed that would prove you my interest.

No the earth will continue to orbit around the center of gravity of the "altered" space.

For how long?

As long as the earth exists inside that "altered" space; which could be forever, since you remove the sun that would eventually have burned it.

Whatever links two atoms to form a molecule, it has to take time between them, in such a way that, if we move one, the other cannot move immediately.

Except that "what links two atoms together" is mainly "covalent bonds" and since those "bonds" attach completely, the space needed for the "time lap" for your "steps" doesn't seem to exist after the molecule is "created".

And I would have answered the cumulating "stress" provoked by the the dilemma in the status (state) "to be or not to be". Can you go further back than that to find the origin of energy?

Then, you are like me, you cannot tell what your space is, so you could stop asking me that kind of question.

How can you say that? We are not talking of the origin of "space", we are talking of the origin of the universe.
Don't you can imagine the cumulating "stress" that causes the dilemna between either "being" or "not being"??? How can you compare that answer to your "I don't know"?

Speed is always related to a motion. The rotation is a motion so a planet has a rotation speed, but a galaxy doesn't.

If we accelerate the rotation of a planet until its surface begins to gravitate, how could we consider that what gravitates has no speed since it would be moving at the same speed as the new surface of the planet?

I really don't see the point. But anyway, accelerate the rotation of a planet as much as you like, you'll never make a galaxy out of it and you'll never make a galaxy rotate with such a process; "matter" is not "space".

If we throw a ball, it will thus get some kinetic energy,

No. It will add some kinetic energy to the kinetic energy it already has.

so where does that energy come from?

All particles have intrinsic kinetic energy, since absolute "rest" doesn't exist; the added kinetic energy commes from your arm. You're fooling with me once again.

[Inchworm]

I know of wiki's definition; but I didn't ask for Wiki's definition; I asked of yours, in your words.

It's the same.

Because that principle means that light goes directly to somebody we are walking with, while we know that sound doesn't.

I guess that this represents your definition of the inertial frame "principle".

It does. It works for massive bodies, but I showed it didn't work for waves, and light is a wave.

You say that it doesn't apply to sound. I don't agree because if you, me and the same bunch of guys, we all run at the same speed of an ambulance's roaring sirene, none of us will perceive any doppler effect. So the same principle applies.

If the ambulance moves sideways to us, there will be no doppler effect either, but because we know we are traveling in air, we know that sound will not travel directly to us, we know it has to be aimed towards our future position.

What is your description of that "light clock experiment" so that I may compare?

My description is the same as wiki:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativit ... ur.C3.A9es

No the earth will continue to orbit around the center of gravity of the "altered" space.

For how long?

As long as the earth exists inside that "altered" space; which could be forever, since you remove the sun that would eventually have burned it.

Now, I understand why you said that stars were not important for a galaxy to be rotating. Do you realize that you have no observation to prove your point? The closer you get to an observation is when you say a black hole is nothing: it may not have a dimension, but it still has mass, otherwise it couldn't affect the metric of space to begin with. Mind certainly has a random function, your idea proves it, but it absolutely needs a checkout function to control it, and I think you're neglecting it a bit in this case and in the case of light taking no time to travel.

Whatever links two atoms to form a molecule, it has to take time between them, in such a way that, if we move one, the other cannot move immediately.

Except that "what links two atoms together" is mainly "covalent bonds" and since those "bonds" attach completely, the space needed for the "time lap" for your "steps" doesn't seem to exist after the molecule is "created".

Here you go again, using instantaneity to prove your point. By the way, how do you explain covalent bonds without using a force or a mediator?

How can you say that? We are not talking of the origin of "space", we are talking of the origin of the universe.
Don't you imagine the cumulating "stress" that causes the dilemma between either "being" or "not being"??? How can you compare that answer to your "I don't know"?

An origin has to have it's own origin, and it's the same for every theory. Try to take that into consideration when you ask me questions that you know I cannot answer.

accelerate the rotation of a planet as much as you like, you'll never make a galaxy out of it and you'll never make a galaxy rotate with such a process; "matter" is not "space".

What's the difference between the metric of a galaxy and the metric of a planet then? If we take a planet away for instance, won't it's satellites stay there also?

If we throw a ball, it will thus get some kinetic energy,

No. It will add some kinetic energy to the kinetic energy it already has.

Kinetic energy has a direction, so you can add kinetic energy to a ball only if you accelerate it in the same direction it is actually traveling, otherwise it will only get some kinetic energy in the direction you are accelerating it.

You're fooling with me once again.

Impossible, I'm not that kind of guy. I'm only using my own ideas to understand yours. That's the only way to discuss anyway, but one of my ideas is the randomness of the mind, and I try to keep in mind that it applies to me too.

[Andrex]

In view of the evolution resulting from this discussion, how would I, today, present what consist my “theory” (of everything) with more precision, and what are the differences between it and the Big bang cosmology?

Facts involved:

1- The universe had a beginning.
2- Light speed is an invariant.
3- The quantity of energy in the universe is an invariant.
4- Einstein’s gravity, as being a consequence of “altered” geometry of space, is a reality.
5- E = Mc2
6- Inflation was provoke by “void energy” at 10^-36 sec. and lasted until 10^-32 sec.
7-There are three generations of particles.
8- Einstein’s gravity is universal and is not a “force”.

My added equivalent or different propositions: (You can compare numbers to letters)

A-Our universe appeared at 10^-43 sec with the size of 10^-33 meter.
B-The original energy that appeared in the universe was “kinetic energy” which provoked the “motion of expansion”.
C-Newton’s gravity of “mass attraction” is an illusion and doesn’t apply as a reality.
D-“Altered” geometry of space is provoked by “mass energy”; not by “massive matter”.
E- Matter is energy (E = Mc2); but energy isn’t necessary matter. Just as ice is water, but water isn’t necessarily ice.
F- Inflation was provoke by insertion of the gluon particles at 10^-36 sec. which “disintegrated” until 10^-32 sec.
G- There are three generations of three families of particles.
H- Einstein’s gravity is “local”, and acting “fundamental forces” do not exist.
I-Motion at less than light speed is the only possibility to be “observed”, since light speed eliminates distance and freezes time.
J- Expansion is produced at light speed; so there’s a portion of the universe that is not “observable”. But that portion doesn’t have any distance and is in a perpetual “present” state. It is “nothing” without being “nothingness”.

My description of the chronology of the universe (starting at 10^-43 sec) according to my theory excluding Planck’s epoch.

At 10^-43 sec, the Big bang manifested itself in the appearance of a definite, measurable, “volume of space”, inside which kinetic energy (motion) was expressing itself in all directions. This volume of space had the size of 10^-33 meter, and its “expanding motion” was manifesting all over without any defined “source”. The volume of space “created” at that moment possessed a “flat” space topology, where “curved trajectories” were impossible. It was recently observed by Planck’s satellite and described as a “radiating period”.

The “observability” of motion in the universe was made possible by a “special” particle that was propelled through a phase transition, at slightly less than light speed, inside that light speed expanding universe. This particle was “massless” and was bi-dimensional. It had originated from the Planck’s epoch that lasted 10^-43 sec after time = zero. It is observed, today, as the “neutrino”. It is his “left-handed helicity” that makes it travel at less than light speed, which makes distances in space observable.

At 10^-36 sec, appeared in our universe, another “special” bi-dimensional particle, observed today as a gluon boson. Its main characteristic is that it possess, imprinted in its surface, a topology that is oriented to its center, which we can call “magnetism”. The name "gluon" was adopted becuse of the characteristic of seemingly "gluing " things to one another. Its “field influence” adopted the size of the universe at the moment of its appearance in it; which was 10^-15 meter.

At that instant, the gluon characteristic “merged” with the neutrino characteristic and produced electromagnetism. The entire 10^-15 meter universe became then, an electromagnetic universe.

When the “surface” gluon had is front “ripped off” from its back by expansion, both half surfaces became unstable and their “proper” energy made them recoil on themselves and produced the first Top/antiTop massive quarks.

Those two massive particles disintegrated immediately, then successively, in different other “massive” quark particles, trying to adapt their “inner” energy to the diluting energy of their environment, provoked by the expansion of space, by “emitting” the surplus of their “inner” energy. “Energy wise” speaking, we had two contrary and not mixing topology characteristics imbedded in one universe.

While disintegration was occurring, the “inner” energy of the original gluon was disposed of, exclusively, inside the 10^-15 meter “field influence” of the gluon; that energy didn’t “exit” into “flat space universe” to mix with the original energy of “flat” universe. The “mass energy” was confined inside the gluon “field influence”. Event that we observe and that we call “confinement”.

At the end of inflation, at 10^-32 sec, all quarks particles had appeared, producing each time, a vibration throughout the electromagnetic universe. These “vibrations” expressed themselves as “gamma electromagnetic waves” whose length started at 10^-14 meter and expanded at the same rate as space expansion. The extending of the electromagnetic wavelength is now observed as the “electromagnetic spectrum”. Note that there is no such thing as an "antigamma rays" that exists. As for the photon, it can be considered as its own antiparticle; which means that he antiphoton doesn't exist either.

As gamma waves vibrated through the universe of that epoch, many of them “collided” and produced pairs of electron/positron. In fact the first pairs where tau/antiTau particles, then Muon/antiMuon particles and, finally, electron/positron particles, attaining stability. Leptons had then appeared in the universe.

Z, W- and W+ energies where releasements of “energy surplus” expelled by particles that had to balance the density of their “inner” energy with the constantly “diluting” density of energy in the expanding space environment.

Hadrons won’t appear before 10^-6 sec in our universe. The hadron epoch is defined as the period when the universe is trying to produce a stable association of quarks, inside the “active influence” volumes of gluons. It succeeded by producing the proton. The previous more stable hadron was the neutron (which life last about 15 minutes, while the proton lasts longer than the actual age of the universe; about 10^33 sec.).

The annihilation of matter/antimatter is ended around one second after the Big bang. Our universe is now “occupied” only by “matter”; which today represent 5% of “occupation” of the “flat space” universe.

During the next 380,000 years, wavelengths of gamma rays will keep extending, stretched by expansion of the universe. The different types of radiation (wavelength) are defined by the amount of energy found in the photons. Gamma photons have a lot of energy, X-rays photon has a bit less, followed by ultraviolet photon even lesser, then visible light photon followed by infrared photon, then microwave photons and, finally, radio photon.

What is interesting is the wavelength defined by each type of radiation:

Gamma wavelength starts at 10^-14 meter
X-ray wavelength starts at 10^-12 meter
Ultraviolet wavelength starts at 10^-8 meter
Visible light wavelength starts at 10^-7 meter
Infrared wavelength starts at 10^-6.5 meter
Radio wavelength starts at 10^-4 meter

So in view of this information, when visible light appeared 380,000 years after the Big bang, the electromagnetic wavelength had been extended by the expansion of the universe only to a length of 10^-7 meter. Size wise, 380,000 years after the Big bang, the universe would have been about one eleven hundredth its present size (1/1100).

So what happens when we multiply 10^-7 meter by 1100?

We get a “volume” that doesn’t even represent the point of a needle. What is then, the explanation of this discrepancy?

It looks as if official science has the right answer explaining that visible light was “prisoner” inside the “plasma soup” until ambient temperature released them 380,000 after Big bang. But, as for myself, this explication needs a second look.

[Andrex]

“I know of wiki's definition; but I didn't ask for Wiki's definition; I asked of yours, in your words.

It's the same. »

Unbelieveble what « faith » in others can do; don't you think?

“Because that principle means that light goes directly to somebody we are walking with, while we know that sound doesn't.

I guess that this represents your definition of the inertial frame "principle".

It does. It works for massive bodies, but I showed it didn't work for waves, and light is a wave.”

And those waves are made of photons. Did you show that it didn't work for waves? Really?

“If the ambulance moves sideways to us, there will be no doppler effect either,”

What does “sideways” means? Where is going the ambulance? With us and beside us, going away to the right, the left??? Sideways doesn’t mean anything to me.

“but because we know we are traveling in air, we know that sound will not travel directly to us, we know it has to be aimed towards our future position.”

I don’t get your point at all. Mentioning air is irrelevant; without air there’s no sounds. Sound travels in waves; where’s the “future” or the “past”? The waves hit your ears at the “present”.

“That's what permitted Einstein to imagine that light was going sideways to the motion in the light clock mind experiment.

So you're jumping from "twins experiment" to "light clock experiment" without "preparing" me. That's not fair. What is your description of that "light clock experiment" so that I may compare?

My description is the same as wiki:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativit ... ur.C3.A9es “

Relativity is thus called because we always have to measure something in comparison to something else that we decide being “static”. But nothing is really “static”; so the “speed” measured is not the “real” speed of the object; it’s a “speed” compared to another one. If I’m going at 10 m/hr and you measure your speed compared to my own speed and the measurement gives you 50 m/hr, that speed will be your “relativist” speed. But your “real” speed will be 60 m/hr if we are going in the same direction; if going in contrary direction, your real speed will be 70 m/hr. The problem is that there’s no way to know what my own speed is because we cannot find anything that is “really” static. The only possibility to define a “real” speed, might be to compare it to “light speed” which is an invariant whichever way it goes. Why it is not done? I don’t know.

Now, as for your twins.

You know that I think that time is equivalent (exactly the same) as distance and that time as different “metrics” depending of the distance from a center of gravity. The farthest from that center, the longer the metric. Which means that if you live farther away than me from a mutual center of gravity, you will age slower than me because your “minutes” will be longer than mine. We don’t have to use “light” to know that.

Now, let us add “motion”.

Let’s say that we are both standing beside a clock that is indicating “noon”. At that moment you blast away at light speed flying beside that image showing “noon”. The image and you are going at the same speed; so the image you’ll see beside you will always be a clock at “noon”. You keep on traveling for an hour and you come back toward me at the same speed. Coming back you’ll meet all the images that started beside me going toward you during the first hour of your trip, then all the images coming during your returning trip.. And, during that "return trip", contrary to the ongoing trip where you saw time “frozen”, time will past extremely faster. So much faster that when you arrive beside me, the clock you’ll see will be 2 o’clock, just like the one I see. Will we have a different age? Will you be younger than me? I don’t think so.
And if you have a watch at your wrist, the time that it will indicate will be 2 o’clock just like on my clock. Which doesn’t mean that you didn’t travel through different metrics of “time”; but while coming back you came back to your starting metric of time. That's about all I can imagine using “light” (the image”).

The other explanation for you seeing the same 2 o'clock as me on the clock, could be that, going at ligh-speed, you didn't travel any distances at all and your have been standing in a "present status" all the time beside me. But myself I cannot "grab" the present; it keep evading me, always moving in front of me. So, since the present, at my "speed" moves forward on the time arrow, when you stop going at light-speed, you emerge out of that "present status" into my slow moving "time" and see the clock indicating 2 o'clock.

So where is your problem?

“As long as the earth exists inside that "altered" space; which could be forever, since you remove the sun that would eventually have burned it.

Now, I understand why you said that stars were not important for a galaxy to be rotating. Do you realize that you have no observation to prove your point?”

No observations??? Look at the stars of galaxies; they are “orbiting” individually around the center of a galaxy. Individually means that they follow a “personal” trajectory in that “altered” space. And the only selection criterion for their trajectory is their personal speed for each of them. So what makes you think that the “space volume” of a galaxy rotates? The answer is: An illusion produced by the individual motions of the stars.

“The closer you get to an observation is when you say a black hole is nothing: it may not have a dimension, but it still has mass, otherwise it couldn't affect the metric of space to begin with.”

I never said that a black hole was “nothing”; where did you get that idea?.
A black hole is a maximal alteration of space. It's the farther back a metric can go where a “distance” attains the state of a singularity from which all actual Plank metrics of the universe started to "duplicate" creating "space". And that event is cause by “mass energy” not “mass” (matter). A singularity is an “open door” on Planck’s epoch. It's a loss of one of the three dimensions forming a "volume". In fact, a black hole is a "video" of the universe's evolution in "reverse" mode.

“Here you go again, using instantaneity to prove your point.”

I’m not using “instantaneity” since there’s no “motion” involved.

“By the way, how do you explain covalent bonds without using a force or a mediator?”

Simply by a volume of “altered” space. It’s non energetic, but does the job a lot better than “forces” would. But that mustn't interest you very much since you didn't pick it up while readind.

“An origin has to have it's own origin, and it's the same for every theory.”

What does that mean? Is it an unexplainable “belief”? An origin of normal event is a start of something and it has to be a consequence of something previous; I agree with that. But the origin of “everything” is something different. If we use your way of thinking, the origin of “everything” would be “anything”. My way of thinking says that everything origins from “nothing”; not “anything”.

“ Try to take that into consideration when you ask me questions that you know I cannot answer.”

Was there a question I asked that you didn’t answer?

“What's the difference between the metric of a galaxy and the metric of a planet then?

Euh...A galaxy is a volume of "space"; a planet is a volume of "matter". Do you think it's the same?
The metric of a galaxy is the metric of a volume of space into which stars orbit. You cannot compare a metric of space to a metric of matter like earth.
On the other hand you can compare the metric of a galaxy to the metric of the volume of “space” occupied by the earth. Now, can you tell me if the volume of space occupied by the earth is rotating, or is it only the matter of earth itself that is rotating? I'd like to know; really.

If we take a planet away for instance, won't it's satellites stay there also?

Yes.

“No. It will add some kinetic energy to the kinetic energy it already has.

Kinetic energy has a direction, so you can add kinetic energy to a ball only if you accelerate it in the same direction it is actually traveling, otherwise it will only get some kinetic energy in the direction you are accelerating it.”

So what; you’ll be adding kinetic energy anyway; and it will have an effect on the motion.

“You're fooling with me once again.

Impossible, I'm not that kind of guy.”

Glad to learn it.

[Inchworm]

“I know of wiki's definition; but I didn't ask for Wiki's definition; I asked of yours, in your words.

It's the same. »

Unbelieveble what « faith » in others can do; don't you think?

I think that you think you have no beliefs, and I also think it's not the way our mind works.

“If the ambulance moves sideways to us, there will be no doppler effect either,”

What does “sideways” means? Where is going the ambulance? With us and beside us, going away to the right, the left??? Sideways doesn’t mean anything to me.

In this case, sideways means "côte à côte", which is the same as "in the same direction and at the same speed".

“but because we know we are traveling in air, we know that sound will not travel directly to us, we know it has to be aimed towards our future position.”

I don’t get your point at all. Mentioning air is irrelevant; without air there’s no sounds. Sound travels in waves; where’s the “future” or the “past”? The waves hit your ears at the “present”.

As far as time is concerned, sound works the same as light. Hearing a sound is like looking at a galaxy: the information is here, but the event is in the past.

The only possibility to define a “real” speed, might be to compare it to “light speed” which is an invariant whichever way it goes. Why it is not done? I don’t know.

It is not done because the Michelson/Morley experiment meant that there was no aether, and that relativity has been elaborated from that observation. I personally think, with Paul Marmet, that this experiment has been overlooked, and that the calculations also give a null result if we add to them the way waves are reflected on a moving mirror.
http://newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/index.html

With an aether, we can compare light to sound. The relativity principle says that light travels directly between two observers moving side by side, and we know that sound doesn't travel directly between two observers moving in air. In that case, the relativity principle would work for balls, but not for photons, and the whole relativity might be wrong.

So what makes you think that the “space volume” of a galaxy rotates? The answer is: An illusion produced by the individual motions of the stars.

Same thing for earth's rotation then, and same thing for our circling ideas. Do you think we are only illusions?

If we take a planet away for instance, won't it's satellites stay there also?

Yes.

OK, then all your metrics work the same, from the particles' one to the galaxies' one. No way to explain the doppler effect between my two atoms with your kind of metric then, because if we move one of the bodies, the other moves instantly. What about the sun? If we move it, will the planets move instantly too?

[Andrex]

If we take a planet away for instance, won't it's satellites stay there also?

Yes.

OK, then all your metrics work the same, from the particles' one to the galaxies' one.

You really don't see the difference between space and matter.

No way to explain the doppler effect between my two atoms with your kind of metric then, because if we move one of the bodies, the other moves instantly.

In my metric you can move which ever body you want, it won't affect the others (except the main body). But in order to move them you have to give them kinetic energy. Before you where talking of "taking the sun away" which is not the same thing as "move" a body.

What about the sun? If we move it, will the planets move instantly too?

I already told you; if you "remove" the sun the planets keep orbiting without changing anything. If you move the sun you're moving the center of gravity of the system. That's going to change a lot of things.

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Andrex,

I've been ghosting this thread and staying out of it until I've seen your last comment.

I already told you; if you "remove" the sun the planets keep orbiting without changing anything. If you move the sun you're moving the center of gravity of the system. That's going to change a lot of things.

In my book, if one could magically remove the Sun, that conventional Physics says that the change (at light speed) will cause all Planets to go from orbiting.. to straight lines (sort of).

My view says that it will take some period of time for the Metric around the former Sun to adjust, thus Planets will still orbit in slowly expanding orbits until the center Metric is somewhat Uniform.. then the Planets will follow whatever Metric deformations (and kinetic dispositions) are left to the remaining Planets.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)

[Inchworm]

I already told you; if you "remove" the sun the planets keep orbiting without changing anything. If you move the sun you're moving the center of gravity of the system. That's going to change a lot of things.

If removing the sun doesn't affect the metric for the planets, how could only moving it a bit do so? For instance we could take it away for a while, and then bring it back at the wrong place, and it should only start falling towards the center of the metric without affecting the planets. If it was so for stars and planets, it seems to me that it should be the same for satellites, namely that their own metric should be waiting for us to send them in orbit. That way, everything would have been previously planed, there would be no hazard, and that's precisely what you believe. Do you know why you need to think so?

PS. I reread your opening post, and I fell on your mass/energy concept, which adds to the collapsed metric, but as if it wasn't part of the massive bodies that are carrying it since if we take the body away for a while, the mass/energy stays at the center of gravity while the body is away. Do you really think it makes sense?