A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

[Inchworm]

If we think that emptiness might be full, then we take the risk of building a whole theory on nothing. We have to rely on our senses, otherwise we can imagine anything. That's what religions do. Einstein did not need curved-space to apply the delay of light to gravitation between bodies, he needed it only to apply it to light itself. What we need to know about gravitation is how two bodies can use an information that travels at c to stay at the right distance from one another. He did not solve that question. Whenever we admit that it takes time for the information to travel between the two bodies and we do the calculations, they inevitably spiral away from one another with time, because the information about a given distance is always late. I think that bodies use doppler effect and aberration to solve that equation: that's what my small steps are about.

I can observe its "emptyness" just as much as I could observe its "fulness" if it was full.

What we can observe is the angular distance between two stars. If we aim the telescope in between, there is nothing to observe.

[Andrex]

We have to rely on our senses, otherwise we can imagine anything.

And our senses can tell us if it's "full" or "empty"; if it is "inert" or "in motion"; if it is "contracting" or "expanding"; if it is "accomplish" or still "evoluting".

What we need to know about gravitation is how two bodies can use an information that travels at c to stay at the right distance from one another. He did not solve that question.

Our senses show us that some bodies gets closer, some stays at the same distance and some others move away from one another. Hubble with Einstein answered those questions. Both by "observations", regardless of "c". Lightspeed is not the cause or consequence of "gravitation" or "expansion"; it's the consequence of original kinetic energy.

What we can observe is the angular distance between two stars. If we aim the telescope in between, there is nothing to observe.

"Emptiness" is not "nothing" and "nothing" is not "nothingness".

[Inchworm]

We have to rely on our senses, otherwise we can imagine anything.

And our senses can tell us if it's "full" or "empty"; if it is "inert" or "in motion"; if it is "contracting" or "expanding"; if it is "accomplish" or still "evolving".

Our senses tell us how to move in our environment. If there is no environment to feel, there is no move to make. Worse, if there is no ground around, there is no way to move around.

Our senses show us that some bodies gets closer, some stays at the same distance and some others move away from one another. Hubble with Einstein answered those questions. Both by "observations", regardless of "c". Lightspeed is not the cause or consequence of "gravitation" or "expansion"; it's the consequence of original kinetic energy.

On earth, waves only carry information about the wave source, and I think that it's also the case for light. If sound was the fastest possible source of information, we would have the same problem that we have with light: we would be forced to use doppler effect and aberration to locate ourselves. Locating a plane from the ground would be very difficult, because the sound would indicate its previous position, and if the pilot would try to locate us using our sound, this sound would suffer aberration and indicate the wrong direction. To me, bodies have the same problem with gravitation: they have to locate themselves while their interactions are not instantaneous. My small steps show how particles could use doppler effect to stay tuned and conserve their inertial motion when nothing new happens, and I think that they could use aberration to conserve their rotational motion too. I'm sure these two important effects are more than effects. I'm sure they have something else to do than to help us measure our own motions.

"Emptiness" is not "nothing" and "nothing" is not "nothingness".

We can imagine nothingness, but we cannot feel it. A blind person cannot feel an image. I'm like Thomas, I have to feel the things to believe they exist. If I was blind, I would not believe that there are such things as pictures. :0) Imagination is tricky, we can imagine something that doesn't yet exist and sometimes it really works. The trick is that we can also imagine that it works instead of observing it. I think imagination uses hazard the way Evolution of Species does, but that's another subject.

[Andrex]

On earth, waves only carry information about the wave source, and I think that it's also the case for light.

You are right, there.

To me, bodies have the same problem with gravitation:

But you’re wrong here. Gravitation is the consequence of deformed geometry of space (collapsing of its metric); not of waves of energy. That is why your interpretation is incorrect.

We can imagine nothingness, but we cannot feel it.

I don’t think we can imagine “nothingness” since it is the negation of itself. It doesn’t even have the state of "not existing"; it doesn’t have any “state” at all. It’s “nothingness”; in other words: negation of “state”. To understand this, one has to meditate on it quite a while.

[Inchworm]

I don’t think we can imagine “nothingness” since it is the negation of itself. It doesn’t even have the state of "not existing"; it doesn’t have any “state” at all. It’s “nothingness”; in other words: negation of “state”. To understand this, one has to meditate on it quite a while.

I use to say that imagination is the perception of a change in our ideas, which means that something has to exist for us to be able to change it, so I'm afraid I have to agree with you that we can't imagine nothingness. But what about the nothingness of space then? If we can't even imagine it, can it really curve anything?

[Andrex]

But what about the nothingness of space then?

If space is nothingness how can "nothingness" contain stars, galaxies etc.? Nothingness is neither "emptyness" or "nothing".

Space is "something" that has a "volume". It has three dimensions. It is composed of unidimensional points like Euclids geometry describes it. And it is that geometry that is "deformed" in volumes where we find matter. Those volumes are the only "space" that is "deformed" (the rest of "space" is "flat"); and the space inside these volumes is not really "curved"; it's only its metric that gradually collapses down to the center of gravity. Consequently, an object going through that gradual collapsed metric follows a curved trajectory. It's easy to understand. I've explained this before in my previous posts with a drawing.

[Inchworm]

It's easy to accept for bodies, but not so easy for light. Space is already an intermediate between bodies, so saying that massive bodies curve space and that space curves the trajectory of massive bodies in return is quite the same as saying that massive bodies interact. The problem is that to interact, whether it would be by the intermediate of space or not, they have to exchange some kind of information, and this information has to travel in space, so it could be a form of light, or at least, a wave that travels at c. What would be the use for that wave to get curved by the time it goes from one body to space to another body? In the elevator mind experiment, light is not curved, it goes straight to the other side of the elevator, which has moved in between. It is only when detected that its direction is changed, and it is because of aberration, because the elevator is moving with regard to that light, not because space inside the elevator is curving.

[BurtJordaan]

In the elevator mind experiment, light is not curved, it goes straight to the other side of the elevator, which has moved in between. It is only when detected that its direction is changed, and it is because of aberration, because the elevator is moving with regard to that light, not because space inside the elevator is curving.

This is only so in the case of an accelerating elevator (the normal mind experiment), not an inertially moving one. And then the direction change relative to the elevator is the consequence of the equivalence between gravity and acceleration, not due to aberration. And relative to the accelerating elevator, the light beam follows a curved path.

[Andrex]

Space is already an intermediate between bodies,

"Space" is not an "intermediate" between bodies; "space" contains bodies. Unless your body doesn't "use" space?

so saying that massive bodies curve space

I didn't say that at all! So there's no interaction between bodies.

they have to exchange some kind of information, and this information has to travel in space,

Not if the "information" (energy) exchanged is with "space" instead of bodies. Then photons do not "travel".

It is only when detected that its direction is changed

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

[Inchworm]

In the elevator mind experiment, light is not curved, it goes straight to the other side of the elevator, which has moved in between. It is only when detected that its direction is changed, and it is because of aberration, because the elevator is moving with regard to that light, not because space inside the elevator is curving.

This is only so in the case of an accelerating elevator (the normal mind experiment), not an inertially moving one. And then the direction change relative to the elevator is the consequence of the equivalence between gravity and acceleration, not due to aberration.

Hi Burt,

If the elevator is not accelerating but on inertial motion, it will also move while light travels to the other side: it will only move less and its speed will also be less important. In this case, a horizontal light will also hit the other side of the elevator lower than if it had been at rest with regard to the beam, and since that other side is moving with regard to the beam, that light will also suffer aberration at detection, and its direction will point to the actual position of the hole, which will be at a higher height on the other side of the elevator. Einstein could not account for that possibility because he had taken for granted that the inertial frame principle applied to light. For him, a light coming from the other side of the elevator was in the same reference frame as the detector, so it had to stay at the same height all the way to the other side and could not suffer aberration since it was no moving with regard to the elevator.

Light always moves its way whatever the speed of the elevator, it doesn't matter if that elevator is accelerating or not. Once it gets in the elevator, its direction is independent from the speed of the elevator. It is only at detection that the speed of the elevator will change the direction of light, and that change will increase proportionally to the increase in speed, which means that light will always appear to come from the actual position of the hole whatever the speed of the elevator. In other words, a ball will follow a horizontal path if it is thrown horizontally in a constantly moving elevator, but light will only appear to come from the actual position of its source, whereas the same ball will follow a curved path in an accelerating elevator, while light will still appear to come from the actual position of its source.

To me, the real question about light is: what's the use for such a coincidence? And the only answer I find is: to produce the different motions that we observe.

And relative to the accelerating elevator, the light beam follows a curved path.

A ball would follow a curved path, but not a photon. A photon would follow a straight path all the way to the other side of the elevator. This path would be a line if we would draw it, a line that would stay where it is while the elevator is going up.

[Inchworm]

Space is already an intermediate between bodies,

"Space" is not an "intermediate" between bodies; "space" contains bodies. Unless your body doesn't "use" space?

There is space between stars, but also between molecules, and between atoms, and between quarks, and so on, so in that sense, space is inside and outside things, and at the end, matter almost occupy no space at all.

so saying that massive bodies curve space

I didn't say that at all!

You say that bodies locally inverse the expansion. Isn't that just another way to say that they curve space?

they have to exchange some kind of information, and this information has to travel in space,

Not if the "information" (energy) exchanged is with "space" instead of bodies. Then photons do not "travel".

I understand that it goes with your expansion principle, namely that the speed of expansion is the speed of light, but if it was the case, how could we see the sun for example?...

...On second thought, I understand that expansion would already be slowed down because of the presence of bodies, but then, would light be slowed down too? I guess not, otherwise it would not reach them anyway.

It is only when detected that its direction is changed

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

You are commenting the elevator mind experiment, so you cannot take its interpretation and use it as a proof that the idea works. In other words, you cannot use the idea that space is deformed to show how the ray in the elevator can follow a curved path.

[Andrex]

so in that sense, space is inside and outside things, and at the end, matter almost occupy no space at all.

Exactly; just as satellite Planck says, matter occupy less than 5% of space .

You say that bodies locally inverse the expansion.

I didn't say that either. I said that matter was found inside the volumes of deformed space. Which doesn't mean at all that matter deformes space or reverse expansion. What seems to reverse expansion is the intrinsic counter-direction of the movement found in the "surface" original gluons.

I understand that it goes with your expansion principle, namely that the speed of expansion is the speed of light, but if it was the case, how could we see the sun for example?...

You understand wrongly what I mean. Keep simple the understanding of what I say; don't let you mind complicate it unnecessarily. I simply mean that our universe is, today, an electromagnetic universe; which means that the universe is the same as a single big energetic photon in expansion. So when you have, what you call, an interaction between particles, I say that it's an interaction between one particle and its electromagnetic environment. To do so, it "emits" or "absorbs" energy in or from its environment. The particle "interacting" is only "adjusting" its energy to the "deluting" energy of its environment (space). The universe has been, and still is, always trying to attain "stability". Up to date, it as succeed with the proton and iron atom. The rest is still "evoluting".

As why you can see the sun, it's only because your eyes are sensible to a certain wavelenght of electromagnetic. Wavelenghts that are the "entropy" of electromagnetism.

On second thought, I understand that expansion would already be slowed down because of the presence of bodies

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

You are commenting the elevator mind experiment,

No I'm not commenting any elevator experiment; I'm commenting space-time geometric deformation which is simply a gradual collapsing of its metric.

In other words, you cannot use the idea that space is deformed to show how the ray in the elevator can follow a curved path.

I'm using the simple throwing of that baseball at 30 feet from you; nothing else. Ask the ball, it will tell you that it is going "streight ahead" in a straight line; but you observe a curved trajectory anyway, because you don't have the same speed as the ball. But if somebody throws you at the same speed as you threw the ball, you'll follow the same trajectory. And if you close your eye during that trajectory, you'll think that you're going "straight ahead" in a straight trajectory. The same will occur if you jump off a plane with that same baseball by your side. You will both it the ground at the same "time", side by side.

As for the inside of your elevator, its space metric is just as "collapsed" as outside your elevator; so the levator follows a "curved" trajectory decided by its speed. Whatever is inside that elevator follows the trajectory decided by its speed just de same. For exemple. an astronaut inside a satellite has the same speed a the satellite. That's why he follows the same trajectory and seems to "float". If the astronaut augments its own speed by pushing on something, he will change trajectory that will send him toward one of the walls of the satellite. The faster an object goes, the "straighter" the trajectory is; but even the speed of light doesn't have a "straight" trajectory inside a volume of deformed space like it has in "flat" space. The reason is that space is deformed and the "straight line" that light follows according to that space is, by the fact, also "deformed"; it cannot do otherwise than follow that "straight" direction since there's no other direction to take.

[BurtJordaan]

Light always moves its way whatever the speed of the elevator, it doesn't matter if that elevator is accelerating or not. Once it gets in the elevator, its direction is independent from the speed of the elevator. It is only at detection that the speed of the elevator will change the direction of light, and that change will increase proportionally to the increase in speed,...

Sorry Inch, but you are completely wrong here. We have been through this before and should not repeat it here, because it has little to do with Andrex's thread.

And relative to the accelerating elevator, the light beam follows a curved path.

A ball would follow a curved path, but not a photon. A photon would follow a straight path all the way to the other side of the elevator. This path would be a line if we would draw it, a line that would stay where it is while the elevator is going up.

Again a false view. You seem to have missed "relative to the accelerating elevator". I only put it here so that other readers are not mislead. Andrex knows enough relativity to figure it out, but I would like to hear his view on it.

[Inchworm]

This thread is about Andrex book Burt. I read it so I think I'm not too off topic. Our thesis are quite different, but if they share something, we'll find it.

[Inchworm]

If the astronaut augments its own speed by pushing on something, he will change trajectory that will send him toward one of the walls of the satellite. The faster an object goes, the "straighter" the trajectory is; but even the speed of light doesn't have a "straight" trajectory inside a volume of deformed space like it has in "flat" space.

I agree that the inertial frame principle works for bodies, but what I am discussing is the motion of light, so it is useless to take bodies as examples. If some light is already traveling in an elevator that starts accelerating upwards, the motion of the accelerator will have no effect whatsoever on the motion of the light: before Einstein, light was assumed to go straight line in void, so let's admit that it goes straight line while the elevator is accelerating. Seen from an outside observer that is not moving with regard to the ray, that ray will appear to go straight line and the elevator to go upwards. Seen from an inside observer, the ray will also appear to draw a line, but that line will only appear to be falling down, it will never draw a curve. The curve in Einstein's example happens because the ray goes on getting through the hole in the elevator while it is moving. The only way the ray could follow the elevator like that is if its source was accelerating at the same pace the elevator is. Otherwise the ray will get through the hole only during the small period of time the hole will be aligned with it.

If we are to give properties to space like Einstein did, it is better that we study correctly his mind experiments. It is written that he was good at it, but I think he has cheated a bit. His two premises do not only seem contradictory as he has himself admitted, one of them, the idea that light moves like balls in a moving inertial frame seems completely wrong. The other one says that light is not affected by motion, and if it is not affected by the motion of the elevator, then it cannot curve, and the idea of curved space is no more useful to explain the motion of light. Of course you can still use it to explain gravitation for bodies because a ball would really follow a curve, but not for massless particles.

Now, if this was true, would your own theory still hold? I don't understand it enough to be able to tell, but you should.

[Andrex]

Andrex knows enough relativity to figure it out, but I would like to hear his view on it.

If you're both talking of the behavior of "light" in an accelerating elevator which travels through our electromagnetic universe; I'm not sure that I've completely figured out all the implications of the "fact" that the universe is an electromagnetic environment in regards to "light". All I can say is that "light" is subjected to the geometry of "space" because we observe it. I can't affirm that light "travels", though. I'm still looking at the possibility that it doesn't.

This thread is about Andrex book Burt. I read it so I think I'm not too off topic. Our thesis are quite different, but if they share something, we'll find it.

Woops!
Inchworm, this thread is about the "universe", its birth and evolution; and not "my book specially"; sorry. My book was written in French, and I cannot ask to discuss it in an English science forum. On the other hand, I've presented my "opinion" in the first five or six pages of this thread that represents the basic of what I'm proposing to discuss. If you've read my book, you have a pretty good idea of my opinion but this thread as been started "after" I wrote the book; so you could find some small differences; because my "opinion" is getting more explicit every time I get new informations (mostly through discussions).

A lot of different things, regarding my proposition, is shared by everybody. The idea is to compare the interpretation of each persons. This is the reason of this thread.

[Andrex]

by Inchworm on January 7th, 2017, 11:02 am 
but what I am discussing is the motion of light, so it is useless to take bodies as examples

OK. Let's do it.

before Einstein, light was assumed to go straight line in void,

It still is assumed if the "void" is "flat space".

so let's admit that it goes straight line while the elevator is accelerating.

Is your elevator accelerating in "flat" space our "curved" space? It's important as you'll find out further.

Seen from an outside observer that is not moving with regard to the ray, that ray will appear to go straight line and the elevator to go upwards.

Which direction is going your light ray, in regards to the upward direction of the elevator? Note that "curvature" of a trajectory is related to speed versus geometry of space; nothing else.

Seen from an inside observer, the ray will also appear to draw a line, but that line will only appear to be falling down, it will never draw a curve.

I don't get it. If you say that the ray would seem to "fall down", I assume that your ray is going up in the same direction of the elevator. But how can you imagine the ray "falling down"? Light speed is a kind of "absolute" speed; it's the fastest speed possible. At this speed, distances are non existent and time is "frozen". So your ray is "everywhere" along its path at the "same time" (contrary to, in the star war movies, where the ray gradually approaches a planet to destroy it). Which explains why light speed is a "constance" wherever it is manifested.

Let's say that, as I light a flashlight, you start going at light speed in the same direction of the first "photon" that came out of my flashlight. You will be "beside" that photon permanently at always the same "moment"; and you won't be traveling because distances will be "nill" while time is "frozen". Take the "facts" and let go the "appearances".

The curve in Einstein's example happens because the ray goes on getting through the hole in the elevator while it is moving. The only way the ray could follow the elevator like that is if its source was accelerating at the same pace the elevator is.

The curve of the ray has nothing to do with the speed of the elevator. It relates to its own speed in regard to the geometry of the space environment. That is why you say that to have the same "curve", the elevator has to be accelerating at the same pace (speed) as the ray. Exactly as my previous exemple of you or the ball being thrown at the same "speed"; you both follow the same trajectory.

If we are to give properties to space like Einstein did, it is better that we study correctly his mind experiments. It is written that he was good at it,

He was definitively good at it; because it made him ask to himself the right questions. Which is much more important, as a matter of fact, than having the right answers. :-)
But he was better in "posing" is mind experiment to find answers than to "explain" them. For example, is description of gravity as a ball on a sheet, is the worst exemple he could make in regard to the explanation he presented. It makes me even wonder if he really grabbed all the implications of that "deformed" space-time notion of his. I don't even know if he went "deeper" than the notion of "curved" space. He might have been "blocked" by the maths needed to go deeper; I'm nor sure. The fact is that he started to turn around his notion without ever going further, himself.

Of course you can still use it to explain gravitation for bodies because a ball would really follow a curve, but not for massless particles.

Mass or massless particles traveling through space have to follow the geometry of that space because there's no other "path" to follow. If the geometry is "curved", the trajectory is "curved".

On the other hand, speed decides the importance of the "curve" of the trajectory. And THAT is why I say that "space" is not "curved"; it's the geometry of "space" that is "deformed" (and not curved).

That deformation of geometry is the gradual "collapsing" of the metric of "space". It is the only logical explanation for the curve of a trajectory to depend of the speed of the object. If space was "really" curved, all objects would have the same trajectory whatever its speed (this is a new very good argument for a collapsed geometry of space; and it came out of our discussion; I have to thank you. As you can see, discussing opinions is important for improvement, whatever the opinion).

Now, if this was true, would your own theory still hold? I don't understand it enough to be able to tell, but you should.

Up until now, it still holds since the first page of this discussion, I think. To find out, is the reason I'm discussing on this thread. :-)

[Inchworm]

If you're both talking of the behavior of "light" in an accelerating elevator which travels through our electromagnetic universe; I'm not sure that I've completely figured out all the implications of the "fact" that the universe is an electromagnetic environment in regards to "light". All I can say is that "light" is subjected to the geometry of "space" because we observe it. I can't affirm that light "travels", though. I'm still looking at the possibility that it doesn't.

The whole concept of space-time was built upon the idea that light can be affected by gravitation, otherwise there was no need for it to explain gravitation. It would have sufficed to use the notion that gravitation was not instantaneous, and try to find the way gravitational motion could work. Einstein probably thought that his idea of curved light was interesting, and he tried to find out how far he could go with it. But his mind experiment doesn't work for light, and he seems not to have noticed it. As I said, he took for granted that light was traveling like a ball in the elevator, because he took for granted that the reference frame principle applied to light. A ball can travel horizontally in the elevator if that elevator is on inertial motion upwards, but not light. Light will draw a line too, but that line will stay where it is while the elevator is going upwards.

I insist with this example because you use space the way Einstein was using it: you give it properties and you play with them after. But if space cannot curve light, it should not affect any massless particles, and your expanding space seems to affect all kinds of particles.

[Andrex]

The whole concept of space-time was built upon the idea that light can be affected by gravitation,

And, in fact, it is. So then, comes the problem of "mass attraction" since photons are massless. And down goes the Newton concept.

otherwise there was no need for it to explain gravitation.

So even facing the previous problem, you still accept Newtons concept?

Einstein probably thought that his idea of curved light was interesting, and he tried to find out how far he could go with it.

You're presenting the thing the wrong way around. In fact, is idea was "deformed geometry of space"; and he tried to find out if light was affected, which would be proving his point. Because even light (massless photons) would have to "follow" the geometry of space; deformed or not. And, in fact, it does. Light rays are straights in "non deformed" space and curved in "deformed space".

But his mind experiment doesn't work for light, and he seems not to have noticed it.

But you say you did. On the other hand, observation proved that light is affected by gravitation. So why discuss the mind experiment?

I insist with this example because you use space the way Einstein was using it: you give it properties and you play with them after.

Nevermind Einstein for a minute. The properties I give to space are the properties Euclid gave to space; nothing else. Then, I take in account Einsteins possibility of "deformed geometry" of space (and not "curved space"); and the ONLY deformation possible is a gradual "collapsing" of the metric of space, because the ONLY geometry of space that can be deformed is it metric (there is nothing else in empty space).

your expanding space seems to affect all kinds of particles.

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

[Inchworm]

Is your elevator accelerating in "flat" space our "curved" space? It's important as you'll find out further.

We can assume it's in flat space, but as I said, if we want to check the validity of the mind experiment, we cannot assume that curved-space can curve the direction of light, only that of bodies.

Which direction is going your light ray, in regards to the upward direction of the elevator? Note that "curvature" of a trajectory is related to speed versus geometry of space; nothing else.

We could chose any direction, but let's take the one Einstein took: parallel to the floor.

I don't get it. If you say that the ray would seem to "fall down", I assume that your ray is going up in the same direction of the elevator. But how can you imagine the ray "falling down"?

I assume that the ray is moving parallel to the floor before entering the elevator, but it cannot follow the hole while it is getting up, it gets in only during the instant it is crossing it, so we better follow only one photon if we want to be precise. Now, from an outside observer at rest with regard to the line the photon is drawing in space, the elevator is moving upwards, and the photon travels on a straight line through the elevator, a line that stays parallel to the floor, but that would seem to travel towards the floor if he imagines he is in the elevator since that floor is moving upwards. Of course, if there had been more photons, an inside observer that thinks light can curve could imagine that one of them would actually be getting through the hole while the first one would already be hitting the floor, thus imagining a curve made of many photons, but that would be an illusion.

If the hole was large enough for only one photon at a time, then the second photon to get in would not be aligned with the first one. It might come from a source of light that is one photon higher than the first one and travel parallel to it, but if it comes from the same source, it cannot travel in the same direction, it has to be traveling at an angle a bit, an angle that would be increasing with time since the elevator in moving. One way or another, light cannot really be drawing a curve in that mind experiment, so logically, it cannot really be drawing a curve around the sun either. If the observations are right, then we must look for another explanation than curved space to explain them. One of them might be aberration, because in that mind experiment, the photon would really suffer aberration at detection.

Einstein was definitively good at mind experiments; because it made him ask to himself the right questions.

He may have asked good questions based on his two premises, but to me, his relativity principle did not apply to light, and all his questions depend on that assumption. Light cannot travel sideways to the motion of the mirrors in the light clock mind experiment, and he assumed that it could. If his elevator had been moving at constant speed, he would have assumed that light was traveling directly to the other side, because his relativity principle means that light is traveling like a ball when no motion is perceived by the observer, which creates contradictory situations when we analyze it a bit. The very first question he should have asked him was about the way light was moving between two observers traveling side by side. He decided to give it a sideways motion, and was thus forced to admit that he was contradicting his other premise about the way light moves with regard to bodies. You like history, so maybe you know better than me why he did not analyze that contradiction a bit more deeply. Maybe he became famous before he had the time to think twice, or maybe he could play with illogic ideas a long time before changing his mind. I think this is the way mind works anyway.

If space was "really" curved, all objects would have the same trajectory whatever its speed (this is a new very good argument for a collapsed geometry of space; and it came out of our discussion; I have to thank you. As you can see, discussing opinions is important for improvement, whatever the opinion).

This is the main reason why I discuss too, because people do not really change their minds. By the way, I consider that change is only due to chance, exactly like for the Evolution of Species. To me, if it's by chance that species evolve, then it is also by chance that ideas evolve. Back to your curved space, I see that it is getting less rigid, but in another sense, it is also getting more intelligent: it can now distinguish between bodies and light. Does it have five senses like us or is it omniscient like gods? Does it have hands to show the way or does it move things with its mind like a magician? :0)

[Inchworm]

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

I have a hard time trying to imagine space expanding and matter resisting to do so because it deforms or collapses space that surrounds it. On the other hand, it is easier to imagine that matter is expanding and that photons get longer because of that expansion. You have to use space as an intermediate because you want to link expansion to gravitation. Einstein had to use the same intermediate because he wanted light to be affected by gravitation. My own theory shows how motion could be due to information, so it doesn't need any intermediate. For the moment, apart from the observation that electrons do not carry components and still carry a mass, it doesn't seem to contain contradictions. Do you know if yours contain some?

[Andrex]

we cannot assume that curved-space can curve the direction of light, only that of bodies

We don’t have to assume; we know it does. The proof is Einsteins cross and gravitational lens.

it cannot follow the hole while it is getting up, it gets in only during the instant it is crossing it,

And then the light ray is “cut” and light doesn’t get in the elevator anymore.

so we better follow only one photon if we want to be precise.

Ok.

Now, from an outside observer at rest with regard to the line the photon is drawing in space, the elevator is moving upwards, and the photon travels on a straight line through the elevator, a line that stays parallel to the floor, but that would seem to travel towards the floor

Right; the photon is going straight ahead and the floor is coming up to it.

Of course, if there had been more photons, an inside observer that thinks light can curve could imagine that one of them would actually be getting through the hole while the first one would already be hitting the floor, thus imagining a curve made of many photons, but that would be an illusion.

Let’s assume there’s a lot of photons. I’d say that, with ordinary particle the curve would be a “fact”; but with photons, then, your elevator would have to “go up” at light speed to make a "curve". Otherwise the light ray inside the elevator, would disappear (being cut) at the same instant that it is cut; since at light speed there’s no distances and time is frozen. So neither your ray nor your single photon would let the floor of the elevator have time to move upward.

If the hole was large enough for only one photon at a time, then the second photon to get in would not be aligned with the first one.

The elevator having to go at light speed wouldn’t let time enough to let a second photon to get inside it.

but if it comes from the same source, it cannot travel in the same direction,

In flat space, light travels in straight trajectory at 360% around the source whichever it is. Whatever is the speed of your elevator, there is no distances between the photons going at light speed. When the “light ray” is cut, the photons disappears immediately. You cannot “mind experiment” light as you would normal mass particles. Sorry.

so logically, it cannot really be drawing a curve around the sun either.

The light (rays) coming from the Sun is curved because it is following the deformed “geometry” of the volume of space surrounding it, plus the smaller volume of deformed geometry space around the Earth. This (double) curve represents a travel of height minutes at light speed. The ray “source” isn’t “cut” before the “image” of the source goes lower than the horizon. If space was “flat” around the Sun and the Earth, the light rays would be cut instantly as the sun would go lower than the horizon.

Light cannot travel sideways to the motion of the mirrors in the light clock mind experiment, and he assumed that it could.

Are we going to go through all his mind experiments?

To me, if it's by chance that species evolve, then it is also by chance that ideas evolve.

That’s another subject; but let’s say that to me nothing is “by chance” and nothing is “pre-established”. If you've read my book, you must know what I mean.

Back to your curved space, I see that it is getting less rigid, but in another sense, it is also getting more intelligent: it can now distinguish between bodies and light. Does it have five senses like us or is it omniscient like gods? Does it have hands to show the way or does it move things with its mind like a magician? :0)

Which means that your starting to understand my point. Just let’s say that when you drive a car, you follow the road. But the faster you go, the harder it is to take a curve; because your speed “decides” if you stay in the “road trajectory” or if your trajectory will get “straighter” and take an “off the road” curse. In space there’s no “roads”; so speed decides the trajectory continuously according to environmental geometry. No need of senses, gods or hands.

I have a hard time trying to imagine space expanding and matter resisting to do so because it deforms or collapses space that surrounds it.

And you will have that hard time as long as you think that matter deforms space around itself. Matter doesn’t deforms anything. Sorry. "Mass energy" does though.

On the other hand, it is easier to imagine that matter is expanding and that photons get longer because of that expansion.

I agree; it’s easy to imagine Pinocchio’s nose getting longer; but it’s not possible. Just as photons don’t get any “longer” by expansion; wavelength does.

You have to use space as an intermediate because you want to link expansion to gravitation.

Jeez! You don’t read at all what I’m writing! I told you that expansion doesn’t have anything to do with gravitation. One is energy while the other is a simple “passive” non-energised consequence!!!

My own theory shows how motion could be due to information,

Coming from who? I think that you believe that God, you often talk about, has to do something about it :-)

For the moment, apart from the observation that electrons do not carry components and still carry a mass, it doesn't seem to contain contradictions.

All I can say is that “Tau”, “Muon” and “electron” are the same particles with different masses; so they didn’t appear at the same time in the universe. Well, I guess I could say ...when.

Do you know if yours contain some?

If you’re talking of my opinion, I don’t find any for now.

[Inchworm]

we cannot assume that curved-space can curve the direction of light, only that of bodies

We don’t have to assume; we know it does. The proof is Einsteins cross and gravitational lens.

Closer to us, we got starlight curved by the presence of the sun as one of those proofs. But if that light is curved, then the light coming from the borders of the sun should be curved too, what should enlarge the apparent diameter of the sun in the same proportion it curves starlight. Here is a drawing I made about that possibility:

We can see the light from a star (blue) and the light from the border of the sun (red) following a parallel path when they meet (Dotted arrows to the right), thus following a parallel path too while being curved by the presence of the sun (plain arrows to the earth). If that is true, then Einstein should have taken into account that the diameter of the sun was smaller that what it seemed to be during the eclipse, and it is that smaller diameter that he should have compared to the position of the stars measured six months later. If he had done that, he would necessarily have seen that the sun wasn't hiding the stars anymore, so he could not have concluded that those stars were hiding behind the sun during the eclipse, and he would have been forced to find an explanation for the wider sky observed during the time the sun is between us and the stars, and the narrower sky observed when it is the earth that stands between the sun and the stars.

I tried to use the aberration the light from the stars would suffer (seen from an earth observer) because of the gravitational acceleration of the earth towards the sun, but it would shrink the sky when the sun is in sight and widen it when it is not, the inverse of the data that we have, so unless those data are always inverted when we analyze them, it is not the right answer either.
........
........
While thinking of it, I just had an idea: expanding space seems to work if we consider that the sky looks wider when the sun is facing the observations and narrower when the sun is behind the observations. If we consider that the earth is expanding away from the sun at the same rate the particles are expanding away from their center, then because of aberration, this motion would widen the sky on the sunny side of the earth and shrink it on the other side. This explanation fits the expanding earth theory, and I think it could fit my small steps too, but it doesn't seem to fit gravitational lens. Miles Mathis would probably like it since he is a proponent of the expanding earth. In this theory, it is the space at different scales that inflates at an accelerated pace, not only that between galaxies.

it cannot follow the hole while it is getting up, it gets in only during the instant it is crossing it,

And then the light ray is “cut” and light doesn’t get in the elevator anymore...... Let’s assume there’s a lot of photons. I’d say that, with ordinary particle the curve would be a “fact”; but with photons, then, your elevator would have to “go up” at light speed to make a "curve".

Another way to figure that out is to make a slit in the elevator instead of a hole. This way, the inside observer would see a laser beam falling to the floor without curving, and he would also see a line of balls doing the same thing.

When the “light ray” is cut, the photons disappears immediately.

The photons coming in, not the photons going away. Photons that are already emitted go on traveling even if their source has disappeared.

Light cannot travel sideways to the motion of the mirrors in the light clock mind experiment, and he assumed that it could.

Are we going to go through all his mind experiments?

Not if you don't want to. :0)

That’s another subject; but let’s say that to me nothing is “by chance” and nothing is “pre-established”. If you've read my book, you must know what I mean.

Can you remind me at what page you were talking about that. What about starting another thread?

I have a hard time trying to imagine space expanding and matter resisting to do so because it deforms or collapses space that surrounds it.

And you will have that hard time as long as you think that matter deforms space around itself. Matter doesn’t deforms anything. Sorry. "Mass energy" does though.

I call matter any particle that carries a mass, which is equivalent to energy, so I think that we are talking of the same thing.

On the other hand, it is easier to imagine that matter is expanding and that photons get longer because of that expansion.

photons don’t get any “longer” by expansion; wavelength does.

That's what I meant too.

You have to use space as an intermediate because you want to link expansion to gravitation.

Jeez! You don’t read at all what I’m writing! I told you that expansion doesn’t have anything to do with gravitation. One is energy while the other is a simple “passive” non-energised consequence!!!

The link is through the idea of allowing properties to space: it can expand and it can collapse.

My own theory shows how motion could be due to information,

Coming from who? I think that you believe that God, you often talk about, has to do something about it :-)

With god, information can be instantaneous, and I don't believe in that kind of information. :0)

All I can say is that “Tau”, “Muon” and “electron” are the same particles with different masses; so they didn’t appear at the same time in the universe. Well, I guess I could say ...when.

Your historian side mixed with your clairvoyant one. Memory and imagination walking hand in hand. Automatisms trying to stay the same, and imagination trying tho change them virtually, with no way of knowing in advance what effect the new move will have on its environment. To me, your former "by chance" is actually the way our imagination works, and your "pre-established" is the way our automatisms work.

[Andrex]

When the “light ray” is cut, the photons disappears immediately.

The photons coming in, not the photons going away. Photons that are already emitted go on traveling even if their source has disappeared at the same instant.

You’re still forgetting that there’s no “distances” (space) between photons; so “all photons” disappear.

That’s another subject; but let’s say that to me nothing is “by chance” and nothing is “pre-established”. If you've read my book, you must know what I mean.

Can you remind me at what page you were talking about that. What about starting another thread?

I don’t remember and no, another thread is not necessary. I'll explain it below.

I call matter any particle that carries a mass, which is equivalent to energy, so I think that we are talking of the same thing.

I don't think we are. As a matter of fact, mass is not equivalent to “mass energy”. Saying “mass = energy” doesn’t mean much. It’s like saying “ice = water” which is true; but I hope everybody knows that we cannot say: “water = ice”. There's a difference between mass and "mass energy"; just as there's a difference between "mass" and "energy".

Jeez! You don’t read at all what I’m writing! I told you that expansion doesn’t have anything to do with gravitation. One is energy while the other is a simple “passive” non-energised consequence!!!

The link is through the idea of allowing properties to space: it can expand and it can collapse.

And that’s where you’re wrong. The space where we find gravitation doesn’t have the same origin, time wise, as the “flat space”. That “gravitational space” was added to “flat space” during inflation. That's why inflation is a completely different "event" than expansion. And that’s why gravitation is not influenced by expansion. They are, sort of, two different kind of space.

Your historian side mixed with your clairvoyant one. Memory and imagination walking hand in hand.

Whatever subject you can find in the universe, including itself, is history. As for memory and imagination, they are both situated between my ears and they work together; not yours???

To me, your former "by chance" is actually the way our imagination works, and your "pre-established" is the way our automatisms work.

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

The universe started as a “potentiality” and is “in route” toward its “reality” (realizing its potentiality). When it’s going to be “real”, evolution will stop, the universe will then attain a “state” of “constant present unity”. The kind of “state” that you get by going at “light speed”.

[Inchworm]

You’re still forgetting that there’s no “distances” (space) between photons; so “all photons” disappear.

Do you mean that, if the sun would suddenly vanish, it wouldn't take 8 minutes for us to get in the dark?

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

Massive particles contain energy by means of the bonds between their components. It takes energy to build the bonds, and energy gets away when the bonds are broken. This way, bonded particles carry less mass than individual ones. Is that what you mean by "mass energy".

Whatever subject you can find in the universe, including itself, is history.

Agreed!

To me, your former "by chance" is actually the way our imagination works, and your "pre-established" is the way our automatisms work.

Maybe for me and you; but the universe doesn’t work that way.

Of course it does. The universe uses hazard to develop new stuff, and I suspect that our imagination uses hazard too. Once new stuff has appeared, it resists to change, and it is evident that our ideas resist to change too. At a fundamental level, both the universe and the mind work exactly the same. To me, an idea that resits to change is the same as a body that resists to acceleration.

The universe started as a “potentiality” and is “in route” toward its “reality” (realizing its potentiality). When it’s going to be “real”, evolution will stop, the universe will then attain a “state” of “constant present unity”. The kind of “state” that you get by going at “light speed”.

You are describing heaven. Will there be a resurrection? :0)

[Andrex]

Do you mean that, if the sun would suddenly vanish, it wouldn't take 8 minutes for us to get in the dark?

I think so. Because there's no "distances" between photons, and they are not baseballs.

Massive particles contain energy by means of the bonds between their components.

So you say. But only because you beleive in a certain fundamental (magic) force which doesn't exist. The components of massive particles would be "confined" exactly the same way (without the need of any magical force) if they were "prisoners" of a volume of deformed space where the movement of mass energy (kinetic) is directed to its center of gravity by geometric deformation (collapsing metric). Didn't you ever observe that decaying of particles into other twin-particles (mostly) occurs "inside" themselves (their own volume) and never "beside" themselves?

The universe uses hazard to develop new stuff

Then you beleive in hazard. So it's a hazard that a proton is made of two Up quarks (+2/3) and one Down quark (-1/3) to be +1 (positive), surrounded by a gluon plasma equal to half the proton (but responsible of 99% of the protons energy) which means that 1/3 of the plasma gluon "compensate" with each quarks? It's a hazard for you that, in the Mendeleiev periodic table, you get a different element by simply adding a proton to its nucleus and, furthermore, when you have one or more neutrons superior to the number on proton, the element involved is "unstable"? It's a hazard that you have, at the most, seven differents layers of "energy level" around the nucleus of an atom. Then it must be quite a hazard that you can type a single word only by hitting a bunch of buttons of a keybord.

Once new stuff has appeared, it resists to change,

Oh! I didn't know. So can you tell me how long a Top quark "resists to change" before becoming another particle? Or if not, how long can a neutron "resists to change" compared to a proton? Which would mean that "resistance" is a force greater than "equilibrium with the environment", I guess.

both the universe and the mind work exactly the same

Only for some minds though. Some others stick to their beliefs, when the universe tries a different option when something is not "viable"; like, for example, after trying with neutrons, which are "viable" only for fifteen minutes, they tried protons which are "viable" longuer than the actual age of the universe.The proton is the only particle completely "viable" that the universe succeeded to produce after trying all possibilties with all quarks. Having suceeded this, it started to try to produce "viablility" at the next level; which is the atomic level. Again, it seceeded with the iron atom. It's now trying to attain "viability" at the next level.

You are describing heaven.

Oh my God! You're putting you words into my mouth. I'm describing the normal path of evolution which is to be the basic process of a "movement" and results in the "entropy" (complexity) that is observed. Is your heaven the place where your fundamental magic forces come from? I mean that "superforce" from which the "gravitational force" (which is not a force) seperated, before "strong nuclear force" and "weak nuclear force", followed then by the "electromagnetic force", which combined to "weak force" becomes the "electroweak force"?

God all mighty! I forgot the "hazard force". Sorry.

[Andrex]

Inchworm

Your question got me in the knees and I'm still thinking about it, even if the only logical answer was the one I gave you:

Do you mean that, if the sun would suddenly vanish, it wouldn't take 8 minutes for us to get in the dark?


I think so. Because there's no "distances" between photons, and they are not baseballs.

That answer would mean that a light ray, when it's emitted from a source, although there's no "distances" between photons, would extends itself at light-speed (observed in experiences), but when the "source" is "cut or shut" the ray would dissapear instantly. I'm still wondering if that is possible. And I'm trying to find an experiement that shows the speed of the "tail" of a light ray.

What we know about light is:
1) Its speed = 299 792 458 m/s at different wavelengths
2) It also behaves as both a wave and a particle.
3) It has no mass, but can still be absorbed, reflected, or refracted if it comes in contact with a medium.
4) the only thing that can truly divert it, or arrest it, is gravity.

I'll keep looking into it; thanks for the problem.

[Inchworm]

Do you mean that, if the sun would suddenly vanish, it wouldn't take 8 minutes for us to get in the dark?

I think so. Because there's no "distances" between photons, and they are not baseballs.

I think that this can be easily tested, for example by sending a very short laser pulse to the mirrors on the moon and wait until it gets back. You really think that it wouldn't get back?

ps. I read your last post before sending this one, and I finally didn't change my answer.

Didn't you ever observe that decaying of particles into other twin-particles (mostly) occurs "inside" themselves (their own volume) and never "beside" themselves?

Give me an example, I don't understand what you mean.

The universe uses hazard to develop new stuff

Then you believe in hazard.

So you don't believe in hazard. :0) Then how do you call the way mutations happen?

Once new stuff has appeared, it resists to change,

Oh! I didn't know. So can you tell me how long a Top quark "resists to change" before becoming another particle? Or if not, how long can a neutron "resists to change" compared to a proton? Which would mean that "resistance" is a force greater than "equilibrium with the environment", I guess.

No body has to resist to change if nothing new happens in its environment. Bodies do not have to resist to acceleration if there is no other bodies around. Once a new massive particle is born, it resists to acceleration if it hits other particles, and it does not if it doesn't hit any. If it doesn't hit too hard, it eventually changes direction and/or speed, but it doesn't change instantly, otherwise it wouldn't resist at all. If it does hit too hard, then its components will break away from one another, and get back as they were before they found, by hazard, a way to get together.

What I think is that, to change direction or speed, a particle has to try different possibilities, and it is only when one of those possibilities coincides with its environment that it changes. It is thus because that process takes time that particles show a mass, because mass is the result of resisting to acceleration. To me, these possibilities depend on hazard the same way hazard works in quantum theory. I have a prediction that goes with that idea: if we would measure the mass of identical particles sent separately in an accelerator, they would not show exactly the same mass, because some of them would take more time than others to change speed or direction.

both the universe and the mind work exactly the same

Only for some minds though. Some others stick to their beliefs, when the universe tries a different option when something is not "viable";

To me, resisting to acceleration is the same as resisting to change an idea, so everybody has to resist even if, like particles, we can resist more or less depending on the circumstances, which is kind of applying quantum theory to mind by the way. There is two ways for our mind to use hazard though: we can use it to try new ideas, or we can use it to preserve old ones. A new idea always contain both though, since it always has to be built on top of some old ideas anyway. Things cannot come out of nothing.

You are describing heaven.

Oh my God! You're putting your words into my mouth. I'm describing the normal path of evolution

You were predicting the end of evolution. It's more hazardous than what Nostradamus was predicting. How could our mind produce such ideas without using hazard?

God all mighty! I forgot the "hazard force". Sorry.

For your penitence, give me a number that I can guess instantly. :0)

[Andrex]

I think that this can be easily tested, for example by sending a very short laser pulse to the mirrors on the moon and wait until it gets back. You really think that it wouldn't get back?

It was done and it got back. That's how they mesured the distance to the moon. So I've got quite a problem. Thanks for that argument.

Didn't you ever observe that decaying of particles into other twin-particles (mostly) occurs "inside" themselves (their own volume) and never "beside" themselves?

Give me an example, I don't understand what you mean.

A Top quark is a "mass particle; so it's "surrounded" by a certain volume of "deformed space". When it decays into other particles, those particles "stays" into the former volume of deformed space and forms two added volumes of less-deformed space, since their mass is "less". At the end of all decays" you get a structure of "russian dols" (one inside others). Just like deformes space around the Earth is "inside" deformed space around the sun, which is "inside" deformed space of the galaxy.

So you don't believe in hazard. :0) Then how do you call the way mutations happen?

I call it "trying to find a viable answer to the environment".

No body has to resist to change if nothing new happens in its environment.

That's exactly what I mean; and since something new ALWAYS happens every second in the environment...

Bodies do not have to resist to acceleration if there is no other bodies around.

Irrelevant; bodies don't "attract" one another.

Once a new massive particle is born, it resists to acceleration if it hits other particles, and it does not if it doesn't hit any.

Funny way to describe resistance. Usually resistance is an "action" not a "consequence" as stopping because hitting a wall. To get the exact "picture" you must consider the "nuance" between "action" and "consequence" (reaction could be an "action" but is always a "consequence")

What I think is that, to change direction or speed, a particle has to try different possibilities, and it is only when one of those possibilities coincides with its environment that it changes.

To me that is illogical. It doesn't change after trying different possibilities (in fact: all possibilities); since trying each possibilities is a "change" in itself. The result is that only the one possibility that "coincides" become "viable". The others possibilities are "recycled". And that is why there's no "hazard".

because mass is the result of resisting to acceleration.

You're talking here of "mass energy"; not "mass". And "mass energy" is not a resistence to "acceleration"; it's an "action". "Resistence" to acceleration is "weight" that makes it a "consequence". Mass energy is kinetic energy directed to a single point we call "center of gravity"; thus it is a "counter expansion" sense of direction (action).

Sorry. I hope it's clear enough; my mind is on the "coming back" photon from the moon. I'll have to check "laser" rays implications.

You were predicting the end of evolution. It's more hazardous than what Nostradamus was predicting. How could our mind produce such ideas without using hazard?

Simple. Some scientists found out that the distance between galaxies are getting farther apart faster and faster (acceleration of expansion); so I guess that when those "objects" get to "light speed", they will attain a "state" of constant "present" and "null distances". There's no mind "hasard" involved; just simple logic.

[Inchworm]

I think that this can be easily tested, for example by sending a very short laser pulse to the mirrors on the moon and wait until it gets back. You really think that it wouldn't get back?

It was done and it got back. That's how they mesured the distance to the moon. So I've got quite a problem. Thanks for that argument.

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

A Top quark is a "mass particle; so it's "surrounded" by a certain volume of "deformed space". When it decays into other particles, those particles "stays" into the former volume of deformed space and forms two added volumes of less-deformed space, since their mass is "less". At the end of all decays" you get a structure of "russian dols" (one inside others). Just like deformed space around the Earth is "inside" deformed space around the earth.

OK! We can also consider that smaller orbital motions are part of larger ones. Incidentally, this is also the case for my small steps: the larger step from a particle is composed of the billions of steps between its components.

So you don't believe in hazard. :0) Then how do you call the way mutations happen?

I call it "trying to find a viable answer to the environment".

I understand that the mutation/selection process is the same as looking for a viable answer, but I was only talking about the way mutations happen.

No body has to resist to change if nothing new happens in its environment.

That's exactly what I mean; and since something new ALWAYS happens every second in the environment...

...we constantly resist to our environment, which goes with what I was saying in the beginning: "Once new stuff has appeared, it resists to change"

Bodies do not have to resist to acceleration if there is no other bodies around.

Irrelevant; bodies don't "attract" one another.

No need to be attracted to have an accident. Two molecules have to resist to their acceleration when they hit each other in a gaz for example.

Once a new massive particle is born, it resists to acceleration if it hits other particles, and it does not if it doesn't hit any.

Funny way to describe resistance. Usually resistance is an "action" not a "consequence" as stopping because hitting a wall. To get the exact "picture" you must consider the "nuance" between "action" and "consequence" (reaction could be an "action" but is always a "consequence")

With the action-reaction principle, an action from one of the two bodies produces a reaction from the other body, and vice-versa. But when we apply that principle to our own resistance, it doesn't seem to work, because we never get the feeling that we are resisting, whereas we can almost measure the resistance of others so much they resist.

What I think is that, to change direction or speed, a particle has to try different possibilities, and it is only when one of those possibilities coincides with its environment that it changes.

To me that is illogical. It doesn't change after trying different possibilities (in fact: all possibilities); since trying each possibilities is a "change" in itself. The result is that only the one possibility that "coincides" become "viable". The others possibilities are "recycled". And that is why there's no "hazard".

Mutations are not necessarily recycled, they might also disappear if the individual that carries them cannot reproduce itself. Particles are not reproducing themselves, but their small steps do, and if one of the possibility do not fit the environment, then it is simply not reproduced.

because mass is the result of resisting to acceleration.

You're talking here of "mass energy"; not "mass". And "mass energy" is not a resistence to "acceleration"; it's an "action". "Resistence" to acceleration is "weight" that makes it a "consequence". Mass energy is kinetic energy directed to a single point we call "center of gravity"; thus it is a "counter expansion" sense of direction (action).

The mass that I am talking about is the one that we measure while accelerating charged particles and measuring their path through magnetic or electric fields, whereas the mass that we call weight is measured in a gravitational field.

Simple. Some scientists found out that the distance between galaxies are getting farther apart faster and faster (acceleration of expansion); so I guess that when those "objects" get to "light speed", they will attain a "state" of constant "present" and "null distances". There's no mind "hasard" involved; just simple logic.

If I use my small steps to analyze that problem, I conclude that massive particles cannot get at the speed of light in one direction because the steps that they execute depend on the speed of the information they exchange, which is light, so if galaxies are really accelerating away from one another, what I doubt, they would simply decelerate and go on forever at a constant speed not getting away from one another anymore. Ok, now you have to use your own theory to analyze my small steps. :0)