Those vectors represent a step, which is a length over a time in a certain direction, thus a speed, not a force.
Ok; I've copied your drawing and added the info you're giving me. Both particles are orbiting around a center of gravity. What I don't get is the role of the exchange of information between particles in regard to their orbiting motions. What happens if there's only one particle orbiting?
If the volume of the earth was expanding for instance,
Matter doesn't expand. What do you want to explain of expansion employing matter?
its surface would be stretching, but we would not really be moving away from one another, we would only be shrinking,
So two ants standing on a "being blown" balloon are shrinking instead of the distance augmenting between them. That's a new one to me.
If the plane is precisely at the gravity center as in my example, I will get no speed at all with regard to that gravity center,
Naturally; you'll be "blocked" at the center of gravity. But you will be crushed by the pressure made by the kinetic energy (mass energy) of all other particles on top of you who want to get to that center. And if you're at a center of gravity where there's no presence of matter, you're stuck in a "black hole"; which is not better. No "mass energy" means no center of gravity.
so we cannot say there is a potential kinetic energy at that place.
If you remove the kinetic energy of expansion that brought this point (of space) center of gravity to where it stands , the "former" potential kinetic energy of "mass" will push that point, in space and time, back to its origin. So the pressure on the center of gravity is "potential kinetic energy" toward that center of gravity, that is "blocked" by the kinetic energy of expansion the same way the kinetic energy of expansion is "blocked" by "mass energy". Finally, at a center of gravity the only kind of energy we find is "potential kinetic energy".
Do you mean that the space stays there and penetrates anybody that sits there.
What do you mean here? Space is space, it's everywhere; either you "occupy" it or you don't. If you "occupy" it, you "penetrate" it; you can't eliminate it. The peas in a "pea soup" don't eliminate the soup!
When you say that the body occupies that space, does it also mean that the space occupies the body?
The space never "occupy" anything. Space is a volume; a "field" that is liable to be "occupied" by anything else that might exist. Nothing can exist outside of "space"; nothing can exist in a "no-space" area(sic). Where do you want to put your body if you don't have any space to put it? So you put it in a "definite volume of space". If you eliminate that volume of space, you don't have any more space to put your body in. If you put your written theory inside a box and you eliminate the box, you'll lose your theory. Bodies have to occupy space in order to exist. There are no bodies that don't occupy space; that's impossible.
Does your space permeate bodies or not?
When you swim in a pool; does the pool (not the water; the pool) permeate your body or not? Space is a "pool", a "volume"; not water or air.
In this case, we can say that a body occupies the space the water was occupying before, so we can also say that it takes the space the water was occupying.
"Taking" is not the same as "occupying". You can replace the water in a pool by sand and it's still going to be a pool; but it will be filled with sand instead of water. The pool didn't disappear and the "volume" it represent is still the same and still existing, now occupied by sand.
Do you see the problem? You're trying to explain the different kinds of motion without having succeeded to explain clearly the unique underlying principle.
I might see the problem if you could tell me exactly what is the "unique underlying principle". A volume of "space" is not a principle.
A body could occupy space the same way it replaces water.
No because the body replacing water uses space that was already occupied by water; you're not replacing space by water; you're only using the space that was using water.
How long do you want me to think?
Would a minute be too long?
OK, so the neutrinos were already traveling in all directions,
No. At exactly 10^-43 sec, occured a "phase transition"; and neutrinos where propelled in all directions defining distances while doing so. That is what "created" space. And they have been traveling ever since, at the same speed, expending the total volume of "space" constantly. That is what is represented by the "explosion" analogy.
Where did the gluons come from?
From the same place as the neutrinos; but you don't want to talk about that origin. So for a certain reason you don't want to talk about, the gluons appeared at 10^-36 sec while the neutrinos had appeared at 10^-43 sec. (so gluons appeared a litte bit later).
And why were they already traveling in all directions.
Gluons where not traveling in all directions; gluons are bosons (they have no restrictions in the number occupying a quantum state) and when they appeared in space, the volume of the universe (space) was 10^-15 meter; so they "occupied" all of space that was disposable. But since gluons don't expand, their limited "action field" always stayed 10^-15 meter ever since, while space kept on expanding.
By the way, I went back to the first page to reread the way rotation happened, and I had again that same bad impression: you say that the first two massive particles to get together were both trying to get to their common center of gravity, and you conclude that they automatically started rotating around it since they could not reach it. You already had your particles cruising in all directions before meeting, so why didn't you use that speed to account for their rotational motion?
Which speed do you think was involved?
The proper kinetic energy of each particle gave them motion (that you keep calling "speed"). When they were "trapped" inside a common "space deformation", they followed the topology of the deformation since they couldn't do otherwise. So they directed themselves to "occupy" the single center of gravity. If there had been only one particle, it would have occupy the center without problem (in fact that was there individual situation before each their individual "space deformation" joined). So when they met a the center of gravity composed of "one single point", neither of them could occupy it since the other particle prevented it, so their kinetic energy still "pushing" them , they started to rotate around that center point pushing one another. Like if two round balloons that would not lose their "motion", would push themselves and where bind to suffer the push of its adversary while pushing back. Both motion's energy (push) would then manifest themselves by making the balloons rotate around the center point of gravity.
It doesn't produce "speed"; it produces "motion".
I showed that expansion was not producing a real motion, so why would it produce a real speed?
You didn't show anything of the sort. Try again. You even mix the notion of motion with the notion of "speed". And that doesn't help at all.
Expansion is a "motion" that can be observed by "redshift" or "blueshift". It was also observed by Hubble when seeing galaxies seeming having receded in time. Finally the different masses of particles are only explainable logically if these particles were "produce" at different density of their environment. Different density of the environment means decreasing density resulting of expansion of the "container" of the (invariant) energy of the universe. If the container gets bigger, it expresses a "motion" in all directions.
it only produces redshift.
And redshift is not an effect of "motion"; right?
Here is wiki about expansion of the universe.
I hope you can seize the notion that "augmentation of the wavelength of light", necessitates a "motion" of that light on a distance from a galaxy.
Don't worry; "inertial" means "static" and "motion" is the contrary; I'll never be dumb enough to use such a term.
The term inertia plays on two significations at a time: motion and resistance to motion. That's precisely what my small steps help us to understand.
The term "inertia" means "static". It is employed to characterize the resistance toward motion to indicate its effect of "slowing" the motion toward being "static" or "inert".
If ever you accept as a "fact" that kinetic energy is the expression of "motion"
I do, but only if you accept that it can only be expressed by the intermediate of bodies.
So you think that before a "motion" starts, it needs to have the distance it will travel, already defined. Funny notion of motion.
I don't see the link with what I was saying.
Motion is the "translation" of one object from one point to the other; and an object cannot be at two places at the same time. So the distance of a "motion" doesn't have to be expressed between two bodies before a "motion" starts. On single body at different time is enough; and the distance of the motion to make the trip doesn't have to be determined before the motion starts. It's pretty simple to understand.