What we can observe is the angular distance between two stars. If we aim the telescope in between, there is nothing to observe.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.I can observe its "emptyness" just as much as I could observe its "fulness" if it was full.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
We have to rely on our senses, otherwise we can imagine anything.
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.
What we can observe is the angular distance between two stars. If we aim the telescope in between, there is nothing to observe.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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.Andrex » January 5th, 2017, 11:20 am wrote: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".We have to rely on our senses, otherwise we can imagine anything.
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.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.
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."Emptiness" is not "nothing" and "nothing" is not "nothingness".
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
On earth, waves only carry information about the wave source, and I think that it's also the case for light.
To me, bodies have the same problem with gravitation:
We can imagine nothingness, but we cannot feel it.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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 » January 5th, 2017, 5:43 pm wrote: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.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
But what about the nothingness of space then?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Inchworm » 06 Jan 2017, 16:21 wrote: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.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Space is already an intermediate between bodies,
so saying that massive bodies curve space
they have to exchange some kind of information, and this information has to travel in space,
It is only when detected that its direction is changed
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Hi Burt,BurtJordaan » January 6th, 2017, 11:00 am wrote:Inchworm » 06 Jan 2017, 16:21 wrote: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.
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.And relative to the accelerating elevator, the light beam follows a curved path.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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.Andrex » January 6th, 2017, 12:38 pm wrote:"Space" is not an "intermediate" between bodies; "space" contains bodies. Unless your body doesn't "use" space?Space is already an intermediate between bodies,
You say that bodies locally inverse the expansion. Isn't that just another way to say that they curve space?Andrex wrote:I didn't say that at all!so saying that massive bodies curve space
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?...Andrex wrote:Not if the "information" (energy) exchanged is with "space" instead of bodies. Then photons do not "travel".they have to exchange some kind of information, and this information has to travel in space,
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 wrote: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".It is only when detected that its direction is changed
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
so in that sense, space is inside and outside things, and at the end, matter almost occupy no space at all.
You say that bodies locally inverse the expansion.
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
You are commenting the elevator mind experiment,
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.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Inchworm » 06 Jan 2017, 19:21 wrote: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,...
Inch wrote: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.Jorrie wrote:And relative to the accelerating elevator, the light beam follows a curved path.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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.Andrex wrote: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.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Andrex knows enough relativity to figure it out, but I would like to hear his view on it.
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.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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
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.
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,
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.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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.Andrex wrote: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.
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.
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.
your expanding space seems to affect all kinds of particles.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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.Andrex wrote:Is your elevator accelerating in "flat" space our "curved" space? It's important as you'll find out further.
We could chose any direction, but let's take the one Einstein took: parallel to the floor.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.
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.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"?
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.Einstein was definitively good at mind experiments; because it made him ask to himself the right questions.
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)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).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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 wrote: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.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
we cannot assume that curved-space can curve the direction of light, only that of bodies
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
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.
but if it comes from the same source, it cannot travel in the same direction,
so logically, it cannot really be drawing a curve around the sun either.
Light cannot travel sideways to the motion of the mirrors in the light clock mind experiment, and he assumed that it could.
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)
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.
My own theory shows how motion could be due to information,
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?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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:Andrex » January 8th, 2017, 8:54 pm wrote:We don’t have to assume; we know it does. The proof is Einsteins cross and gravitational lens.we cannot assume that curved-space can curve the direction of light, only that of bodies
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.Andrex wrote: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".it cannot follow the hole while it is getting up, it gets in only during the instant it is crossing it,
The photons coming in, not the photons going away. Photons that are already emitted go on traveling even if their source has disappeared.When the “light ray” is cut, the photons disappears immediately.
Not if you don't want to. :0)Andrex wrote:Are we going to go through all his mind experiments?Light cannot travel sideways to the motion of the mirrors in the light clock mind experiment, and he assumed that it could.
Can you remind me at what page you were talking about that. What about starting another thread?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.
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.Andrex wrote: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 have a hard time trying to imagine space expanding and matter resisting to do so because it deforms or collapses space that surrounds it.
That's what I meant too.Andrex wrote:photons don’t get any “longer” by expansion; wavelength does.On the other hand, it is easier to imagine that matter is expanding and that photons get longer because of that expansion.
The link is through the idea of allowing properties to space: it can expand and it can collapse.Andrex wrote: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!!!You have to use space as an intermediate because you want to link expansion to gravitation.
With god, information can be instantaneous, and I don't believe in that kind of information. :0)Andrex wrote:Coming from who? I think that you believe that God, you often talk about, has to do something about it :-)My own theory shows how motion could be due to information,
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.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.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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.
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 call matter any particle that carries a mass, which is equivalent to energy, so I think that we are talking of the same thing.
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.
Your historian side mixed with your clairvoyant one. Memory and imagination walking hand in hand.
To me, your former "by chance" is actually the way our imagination works, and your "pre-established" is the way our automatisms work.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Do you mean that, if the sun would suddenly vanish, it wouldn't take 8 minutes for us to get in the dark?Andrex » January 9th, 2017, 7:07 pm wrote:You’re still forgetting that there’s no “distances” (space) between photons; so “all photons” disappear.
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".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".
Agreed!Whatever subject you can find in the universe, including itself, is history.
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.Andrex wrote:Maybe for me and you; but the universe doesn’t work that way.To me, your former "by chance" is actually the way our imagination works, and your "pre-established" is the way our automatisms work.
You are describing heaven. Will there be a resurrection? :0)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”.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Do you mean that, if the sun would suddenly vanish, it wouldn't take 8 minutes for us to get in the dark?
Massive particles contain energy by means of the bonds between their components.
The universe uses hazard to develop new stuff
Once new stuff has appeared, it resists to change,
both the universe and the mind work exactly the same
You are describing heaven.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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?Andrex » January 10th, 2017, 11:24 pm wrote:I think so. Because there's no "distances" between photons, and they are not baseballs.Do you mean that, if the sun would suddenly vanish, it wouldn't take 8 minutes for us to get in the dark?
Give me an example, I don't understand what you mean.Didn't you ever observe that decaying of particles into other twin-particles (mostly) occurs "inside" themselves (their own volume) and never "beside" themselves?
So you don't believe in hazard. :0) Then how do you call the way mutations happen?Andrex wrote:Then you believe in hazard.The universe uses hazard to develop new stuff
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.Andrex wrote: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.Once new stuff has appeared, it resists to change,
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.Andrex wrote:Only for some minds though. Some others stick to their beliefs, when the universe tries a different option when something is not "viable";both the universe and the mind work exactly the same
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?Andrex wrote:Oh my God! You're putting your words into my mouth. I'm describing the normal path of evolutionYou are describing heaven.
For your penitence, give me a number that I can guess instantly. :0)God all mighty! I forgot the "hazard force". Sorry.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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?
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.
So you don't believe in hazard. :0) Then how do you call the way mutations happen?
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.
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.
because mass is the result of resisting to acceleration.
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?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Don't tell me I'll have to thank you if ever you demolish my theory?! :0)Andrex » January 11th, 2017, 3:54 pm wrote: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.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?
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.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.
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.Andrex wrote:I call it "trying to find a viable answer to the environment".So you don't believe in hazard. :0) Then how do you call the way mutations happen?
...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"Andrex wrote:That's exactly what I mean; and since something new ALWAYS happens every second in the environment...No body has to resist to change if nothing new happens in its environment.
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.Andrex wrote:Irrelevant; bodies don't "attract" one another.Bodies do not have to resist to acceleration if there is no other bodies around.
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.Andrex wrote: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")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.
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.Andrex wrote: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".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.
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.Andrex wrote: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).because mass is the result of resisting to acceleration.
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)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.
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests