A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 11th, 2017, 11:52 pm 

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


Mine is not demolished yet; there's surely an explanation and I'll find it. :-) Furthermore, that "light cut" instantly erasing the whole ray isn't part of my theory anyway. But it's a problem to be solve regarding "no distances" at light speed.

we constantly resist to our environment


That's an egocentric way of looking at things; reality is that it's the environment that changes; we only "endure" the changes as long as we can.

because we never get the feeling that we are resisting, whereas we can almost measure the resistance of others so much they resist


We don't get the feeling because we do not "resist"; and so doesn't "others". They seem to "resist" but that's only an impression. In fact, they keep being "viable".

Mutations are not necessarily recycled, they might also disappear if the individual that carries them cannot reproduce itself.


And then it's recycled"; they don't disappear, they're energy and energy never dissappear.

The mass that I am talking about is the one that we measure while accelerating


That mass, in acceleration, is always the same mass to which you have to constantly add energy in order to keep accelerating. That mass (rest mass) doesn't change; it doesn't have to. If you don't accelerate, then you don't have to add energy. On the other hand, accelerating augments "potential mass"; but it's not "observable" before you "block" the motion. Then that former "potential mass" becomes "real" and can "splash you" on the ground.

so if galaxies are really accelerating away from one another, what I doubt,


Think of a boat that you push onto a river. Gradually the boat will be accelerating until it goes at the same speed the river is flowing. To me, expansion is at light speed; whatever "objects" (galaxies) are "floating" in it, is gradually gaining speed until it gets to light speed. (where no distances in ever "present").
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 213
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 12th, 2017, 12:42 pm 

It’s interesting to see what came out since page 6. Some subjects are still unanswered:

1) I agree that space-time is the mathematical unification of space and time, (This is important because it really means that space (distance) and time are separated only in mathematic; not in “real life”).

2) Wavelengths’ captured by Planck satellite are microwaves. Redshift is related to their frequencies.

3) How can "radiation" of whatever, "be", where it doesn't "radiate"?

4) "Electromagnetic energy" cannot be the oldest form of energy since it is a "composed" energy (electronic and magnetic).

5) "Vacuum energy", "Cosmological constant" and “Dark energy”; are three names for one single thing nobody can define exactly and everybody accept never to be observed; but all 3 names have decent mathematical definitions.

6) Never to forget: In reality, we can specify that the "observer" creates is "interpretation" of the observation.

7) There are very few scientific observations (if any) that are not indirect to some degree.

8) Facts:
a) Planck satellite factual informations, in regards to
b) Einstein notion of gravity (space-time deformation),
c) Planck’s time and length constants,
d) the premise that quantity of energy doesn't decrease or increase,
e) the basic notion of BB, that indicates a "start" to everything, including space and time; which to me is "space-time", and
f) Kinetic energy is responsible of the movement of expansion (based on factual simple logic)

9) There is only one kind of "motion" which is "straight ahead" following the geometry of space-time.

10) Distance and time is exactly the same thing;

11) The universe is composed of 95% of "space" and 5% of "matter" that occupy" space". The total of "space" is 100%. And this is exactly what we all observe.

12) "Emptiness" is not "nothing" and "nothing" is not "nothingness". “Nothingness” is the negation of itself. It doesn’t even have the state of "not existing"; it doesn’t have any “state” at all.

13) Gravitation is the consequence of deformed geometry of space (collapsing of its metric); not of waves of energy.

14) Space is "something" that has a "volume". It has three dimensions. It is composed of unidimensional points like Euclid’s geometry describes it (our universe is euclidian). And it is that geometry that is "deformed" in volumes where we find matter.

15) "Space" contains bodies. Unless body doesn't "use" space?

16) 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".

17) Matter is found inside the volumes of deformed space. Which doesn't mean at all that matter deforms space or reverses expansion.

18) Our universe is, today, an electromagnetic universe; which means that the universe is the same as a single big energetic photon in expansion. When you have an interaction between particles, it's an interaction between one particle and its electromagnetic environment. To do so, the particle "emits" or "absorbs" energy in or from its environment. The particle "interacting" is only "adjusting" its energy to the "diluting" energy of its environment (space).

19) 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.

20) Space-time geometric deformation is simply a gradual collapsing of its metric.

21) 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 a light-ray is "everywhere" along its path at the "same time". Which explains why light speed is a "constancy" (invariant) wherever it is manifested.

22) Mass or massless particles traveling through space have to follow the geometry of that space because there's no other "path" to follow.

23) Speed decides the importance of the "curve" of the trajectory. And THAT is why "space" is not "curved"; it's the geometry of "space" that is "deformed" (and not curved).

24) The 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.

25) Light can be affected by gravitation; so then, comes the problem of "mass attraction"; and since photons are massless down goes the Newton concept.

26) The ONLY geometry of space that can be deformed is its metric (there is nothing else in empty space).

27) Expanding space doesn't affect 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.

28) In flat space, light travels in straight trajectory at 360% around the source whichever it is. There is no distances between the photons going at light speed; so when the “light ray” is cut, the photons should disappears immediately. You cannot “mind experiment” light as you would normal mass particles. 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 of 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 should be cut instantly as the sun would go lower than the horizon.

29) In space there’s no “roads”; so speed decides the trajectory continuously according to environmental geometry.

30) Matter doesn’t deforms anything. "Mass energy" does though.

31) Expansion doesn’t have anything to do with gravitation. One is energy while the other is a simple “passive” non-energised consequence.

32) “Tau”, “Muon” and “electron” are the same particles with different masses; so they didn’t appear at the same time in the universe.

33) There’s no “distances” (space) between photons; because they go at light speed.

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

35) 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.

36) 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”. That explains why, if anything, during the course of evolution of the universe, had been with even a small difference than it had, we wouldn't exist. There's nothing "extraordinary" in the universe because it couldn't be anything else "viable". The history resulting of such a process is called "entropy".

37) Since there’s no “distances” between photons, when a light ray is cut (or shut) the whole ray should vanish instantly; but it doesn’t since burst of laser light sent to the moon comes back to Earth reflected by mirrors. What is the logical explanation of this event? I'm trying to find an experiment that shows the speed of the "tail" of a light ray. What we know about light is:
a) Its speed = 299 792 458 m/s at different wavelengths
b) It also behaves as both a wave and a particle.
c) It has no mass, but can still be absorbed, reflected, or refracted if it comes in contact with a medium.
d) The only thing that can truly divert it, or arrest it, is gravity.

38) The components of massive particles would be "confined" (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). Note that the end of collapsing should be the metric (distance) of Planck's length: 10^-33 m.

39) The proton is the only particle completely "viable" that the universe succeeded to produce after trying all possibilities with all quarks. Having succeeded this, it started to try to produce "viability" at the next level; which is the atomic level. Again, it seceded with the iron atom. It's now trying to attain "viability" at the next level.

40) Think of a boat that you push onto a river. Gradually the boat will be accelerating until it goes at the same speed the river is flowing. To me, expansion is at light speed; whatever "objects" (galaxies) are "floating" in it, is gradually gaining speed until it gets to light speed (where = no distances in ever "present"). But then, mass particles never can attain light speed; so…
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 213
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Inchworm on January 12th, 2017, 3:34 pm 

Andrex wrote:Mine is not demolished yet; there's surely an explanation and I'll find it. :-)
That's what I also say to myself regarding the fact that electrons carry a mass without carrying any components. Theories will probably stay incomplete forever anyway, so what we should do is admit the contradictions instead of hiding them under the carpet like relativists often do.

Furthermore, that "light cut" instantly erasing the whole ray isn't part of my theory anyway. But it's a problem to be solve regarding "no distances" at light speed.
That problem isn't part of my theory, because it doesn't need time dilation and length contraction as far as inertial motion is concerned.

Andrex wrote:
we constantly resist to our environment
That's an egocentric way of looking at things; reality is that it's the environment that changes; we only "endure" the changes as long as we can.
You take the words out of my mind. :0) It is while applying the small steps to the evolution of species that I understood how hazard had to be part of the way particles could overcome resistance. The only way species can face a change in their environment is with mutations. If ever an individual happens to suffer the right mutation, he has more chances than others to reproduce itself, but the whole process takes time, so the rest of the specie has to survive long enough for the mutation to spread in the population. During that time, and as you pointed out, the specie has to endure the changes, and it is that time that we measure as mass when a particle faces a change in the direction or the length (speed) of its steps.

Andrex wrote:
because we never get the feeling that we are resisting, whereas we can almost measure the resistance of others so much they resist
We don't get the feeling because we do not "resist"; and so doesn't "others". They seem to "resist" but that's only an impression. In fact, they keep being "viable".
Particles also keep being viable, but we could not measure their mass is if they would not resit to their acceleration, because they would accelerate instantly.

Andrex wrote:
Mutations are not necessarily recycled, they might also disappear if the individual that carries them cannot reproduce itself.
And then it's recycled"; they don't disappear, they're energy and energy never disappear.
OK. But the individual might disappear, the specie might disappear, anything can disappear and never reappear after. Hazard is different from one scale to the other as quantum theory shows, but it always affects bodies in a way that they are actually not able to predict. The one that permits evolution happens at the scale of molecules, and it affects the scale of a specie. The one that causes car accidents happens between bodies of the same scale. The collision between two given molecules in a gaz is also unpredictable, but it doesn't destruct them as it does for cars. Hazard can be favorable to a particular individual, and unfavorable to another. You said previously "The other possibilities are "recycled". And that is why there's no "hazard". If that was true, we could consider that intelligence had to happen, but it is not what the mutation/selection principle means: it simply means that we are lucky to be here.

Think of a boat that you push onto a river. Gradually the boat will be accelerating until it goes at the same speed the river is flowing. To me, expansion is at light speed; whatever "objects" (galaxies) are "floating" in it, is gradually gaining speed until it gets to light speed. (where no distances in ever "present").
Light is a wave, so let's take water waves as an example instead of current, and let's consider that we have nothing faster than those wave to measure time. We can catch up with a water wave while accelerating in the direction it is moving, but once we get at the same speed, time will not stop. The frequency of the waves that travel in different directions than the one we are traveling with will still be measurable even if we are blind. With a pendulum, we could still compare the frequency of the waves traveling sideways to our motion to the frequency of those that are traveling against it.

While exchanging waves with somebody we are walking with, because of aberration, the waves that we are making would indicate our actual position even if they would necessarily have to be directed towards our future position to reach us. But their frequency would not change, so if we had to take that frequency as a standard of time, it would be the same for any other pair of people walking at any speed, which contradicts the light clock mind experiment. Einstein took for granted that the rays were really traveling directly between the mirrors of the light clock mind experiment, but it doesn't have to be so, it can only appear to be so.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 12th, 2017, 5:28 pm 

Hazard can be favorable to a particular individual, and unfavorable to another. ...If that was true, we could consider that intelligence had to happen, but it is not what the mutation/selection principle means:


Intelligence had to happen; intelligence is only being conscient of an environment which is a "must" to have changes. So it appeared a lot before man appeared. And it's not a hazard that certain can be less favorable than others and have to hang on principles; like the "survival of the fittest" that they see as the "survival of the strongest" which is completely wrong. Just as the "survival of the wisest" is not at all the "survival of the smartest". It only depends on the acuity of conscience for the environment that one has.

the waves that travel in different directions than the one we are traveling with will still be measurable even if we are blind.


The waves you talk about are your environment. If you go to light speed, you will see that environment going to light speed, the same as when you go to 100 m/hr in your car, you see your environment around you going at 100 m/hr in the contrary direction. Then if you go at light speed you won't be able to measure anything of your environment because it will have no distances to measure (going itself at light speed in a counter direction). Now, if you are with a friend that is going to the same speed, for heaven's sake, I guess you'll be able to talk together; like when he's in your car going at 100 m/hr; what's the difference?

Now; how about the compilation I just made before your last message?
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 213
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Inchworm on January 13th, 2017, 11:59 am 

Andrex wrote:Intelligence had to happen; intelligence is only being conscient of an environment which is a "must" to have changes. So it appeared a lot before man appeared.
I meant human intelligence, the one I think is based on hazard.

And it's not a hazard that certain can be less favorable than others and have to hang on principles; like the "survival of the fittest" that they see as the "survival of the strongest" which is completely wrong. Just as the "survival of the wisest" is not at all the "survival of the smartest". It only depends on the acuity of conscience for the environment that one has.
I agree with that, but I also think that chance has a lot to do with survival. As a nation, I think that we favor diversity because we subconsciously know that we have more chances to survive that way, and that's exactly what mutations are about: a larger genetic diversity distributed at random can protect us against a wider set of environmental changes.

Andrex wrote:
the waves that travel in different directions than the one we are traveling with will still be measurable even if we are blind.
The waves you talk about are your environment. If you go to light speed, you will see that environment going to light speed, the same as when you go to 100 m/hr in your car, you see your environment around you going at 100 m/hr in the contrary direction. Then if you go at light speed you won't be able to measure anything of your environment because it will have no distances to measure (going itself at light speed in a counter direction). Now, if you are with a friend that is going to the same speed, for heaven's sake, I guess you'll be able to talk together; like when he's in your car going at 100 m/hr; what's the difference?
The difference is that the sound in the car goes at the same speed as the car, because air does, whereas light never adds the speed of its source to its own speed. Your example makes me realize that I made a mistake: the sound exchanged between two planes traveling side by side at the speed of sound would never reach the planes, and I said that water waves could, but they can't either. So, if we would be traveling side by side at the speed of light, we wouldn't see each other, but if we were traveling in a car, we would hear each other. Of course, if it is impossible to accelerate at the speed of light, the mind experiment is wrong, but I find it interesting.

Now; how about the compilation I just made before your last message?
My small steps are about inertial motion and inertial mass, so I agree with the following point:

8-f) Kinetic energy is responsible of the movement of expansion (based on factual simple logic)

I am not satisfied with the way the steps apply to gravitation yet, but I have to look for steps too, which is a kind of metric in case you did not realize. So, if you agree, lets discuss the following point and see where it can bring us:

13)Gravitation is the consequence of deformed geometry of space (collapsing of its metric); not of waves of energy.

First, you have to understand that the steps are made in space but against light the same way our own steps are made in space but against the ground. Every step we make measures the distance we make against the ground, and every step an atom makes measures the distance it makes against light. The steps are in fact a very precise measurement of the distances that bodies travel in space. And the precision is close to infinite since the steps from particles of a given dimension are constantly justified by the more precise steps from their own components.

With the steps, a collapse of the metric of space is equivalent to a change in the frequency of the steps with time. Since a step is the result of an atom being forced to stay synchronized with other atoms, if its frequency increases with time for instance, and if the light that it emits doesn't change its frequency once emitted, then all the atoms of the universe will appear to expand away from it, and it will execute its steps to nullify this motion, which means that it will make its steps towards them, and that it will also have to accelerate towards them since the frequency of its own steps increases at a faster rate than the incoming light. The more the atoms are distant from one another, the more the frequency gap gets large, but the less the light is intense, so I think it respects the gravitation law.

The reason why I am not satisfied is that I am still looking for a mechanism to justify the increase in frequency. This increase means that the particles of my animation are shrinking with time, so that light travels less and less distance between them with time, which produces more frequent steps if light doesn't change its speed. You see, its almost the inverse of expansion, but I think that it still fits the observations. Does it fit your collapse of the metric of space a bit even if some kind of energy is involved?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 13th, 2017, 1:45 pm 

The steps are in fact a very precise measurement of the distances that bodies travel in space. And the precision is close to infinite since the steps from particles of a given dimension are constantly justified by the more precise steps from their own components.


Your steps are not related to the components; they are related to a "distance" (travel in space). So the smallest "step" you can "observe" as to be Planck's length: 10^-33 m (and not "infinite").

Since a step is the result of an atom being forced to stay synchronized with other atoms,


I've just said that your steps are related to distances and not to components; which means that your steps are related to the environment (space) and not the atoms. So "all" the atoms involved responds to each their own need to synchronize with the environment (surrounding space) and not with other atoms.

With the steps, a collapse of the metric of space is equivalent to a change in the frequency of the steps with time.


I understand only "partly" what you mean. As for "collapsing of the metric", it's evident that the more the metric collapses, the more the density of energy augments. It's the contrary of deluted energy density by expansion. So collapsing results in a change of density meaning augmentation of frequency for light waves.

if its frequency increases with time for instance,...


Its frequency will increase if your "object" is going toward a center of gravity; because it's traveling through "decreasing metric"; but the frequency will decrease if it's traveling through "expanding metric". In reality, there's no change in the "quantity" of the energy involed; it's the "space" available for the energy's manifestation that changes its "intensity".

The reason why I am not satisfied is that I am still looking for a mechanism to justify the increase in frequency.


That mechanic for increasing is "gravitation" (metric collapsing); for decreasing is "expansion" (streching of distances). So it involves the "space", not the particle.

This increase means that the particles of my animation are shrinking with time


Mass particles loose "mass energy" when emitting energy to "synchronize" with their environment. They don't "shrink"; their volume stays the same but their "inner energy" diminishes (since they "explelled" the exceeding energy). As for massless particles, their wavelength stretches, diminishing their "frequency" (diluting their energy); they don't loose "mass energy" since they don't have any.

Does it fit your collapse of the metric of space a bit even if some kind of energy is involved?


Since the steps are related to distances (space) and not particles, the only kind of energy involved is kinetic energy (or movement) and it fits the metric changes as I've explained myself just before.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 213
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 14th, 2017, 10:27 am 

In reality, there's no change in the "quantity" of the energy involed; it's the "space" available for the energy's manifestation that changes its "intensity".


Think of dribbling a basketball while lowering your dribbling hand. The numbers of "to and fro" of the ball will augment whitout you augmenting the intensity of the "push" on the bal.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 213
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Inchworm on January 14th, 2017, 3:59 pm 

Andrex wrote:Think of dribbling a basketball while lowering your dribbling hand. The numbers of "to and fro" of the ball will augment without you augmenting the intensity of the "push" on the bal.

Yes, that's what my small steps would do if the distance between them was shrinking, and if the speed of the light that they exchange would not change.

Your steps are not related to the components; they are related to a "distance" (travel in space).
Of course, but the distance traveled by an atom is justified by the distance traveled by its components, which is a billion times smaller, thus a billion times more precise, and that distance is itself justified by the distance traveled by their own components, which is again a billion times more precise than the precedent. In french, I say that the steps from different scales are "imbriqués les uns dans les autres", which I may translate by "enclosed ones into the others". It is out of that "imbrication" that I am looking for a mechanism to explain the increase in frequency of the steps with time. For instance, an atom could be forced to lose one of the billions of steps from its components each time it makes one of its own steps because of the limited speed of light, and its components too, so that the frequency of each scale would increase with time in the same proportion.

This might be due to the resistance to acceleration of the smaller steps between the components, because their length increases while they execute the first part of an atom's step, and it decreases in the second part. A change in length of a step means a change in speed of the particle that executes it since it cannot change its frequency, so it has to resist to that change the same way bodies resist to their acceleration. While resisting to those tiny accelerations, the billions of steps between the components that justify only one step between the atoms would take more time to be executed than light normally takes to travel the same distance, what would redshift the incident light and force the atoms to accelerate a bit towards one another, thus shortening their steps a bit. This may not be the right explanation, but it nevertheless shows how the steps might help us to link quantum theory to general relativity.

So the smallest "step" you can "observe" has to be Planck's length: 10^-33 m (and not "infinite").
We may not be able to observe what's happening beyond the Planck's length, but it doesn't mean that there is no particles under that scale.

I've just said that your steps are related to distances and not to components; which means that your steps are related to the environment (space) and not the atoms. So "all" the atoms involved responds to each their own need to synchronize with the environment (surrounding space) and not with other atoms.
It is true that it is with the incoming light that the atoms synchronize their steps, but if all the atoms of the universe do the same thing at the same time, I think we can conclude that they use that mechanism to stay synchronized throughout the universe despite the distance, which means that they might all be actually making their steps at the same time, and that they might all be actually emitting their light at the same time, a time that we call the present. As you can see, we can use the steps to better understand the underlying meaning of time, what the actual theories can't do. We use time to our own profit, but we did not realize yet that the atoms might already be doing so since the beginning of times.

That mechanic for increasing is "gravitation" (metric collapsing); for decreasing is "expansion" (stretching of distances). So it involves the "space", not the particle.
As long as we keep in mind that it is the particles that move closer to one another with time in the collapsing phenomenon, I don't mind saying that space is collapsing, but it means that the particles have to exchange some information at a certain speed, and you said your space is collapsing without information.

Since the steps are related to distances (space) and not particles, the only kind of energy involved is kinetic energy (or movement) and it fits the metric changes as I've explained myself just before.
A step is effectively kinetic energy, but it is made with regard to the light another particle has emitted some time ago, and light is another kind of energy. Maybe we could consider that this light is completely transformed into kinetic energy when the steps are constant, thus during constant motion, and that it escapes from the steps when they are accelerated from the outside, which is precisely what we observe when we accelerate particles. I think that if we stick to the observations, and if our two theories are right, they should be compatible, so let's test them this way. I don't know much about the standard model of particles, but at your contact, I'm learning.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 14th, 2017, 11:47 pm 

but the distance traveled by an atom is justified by the distance traveled by its components, which is a billion times smaller,


The distance traveled by the atom is the distance traveled by its center of gravity and so here the distance traveled by its components which moves around it. It doesn't change things very much but changes a lot in the way of "seeing" the event.

I say that the steps from different scales are "imbriqués les uns dans les autres", which I may translate by "enclosed ones into the others".


It's simply two different levels of reality; "components" and "composed".

For instance, an atom could be forced to lose one of the billions of steps from its components each time it makes one of its own steps because of the limited speed of light, and its components too, so that the frequency of each scale would increase with time in the same proportion.


Sorry; I don't get it. Are your "steps" simply "quantum" of energy?

but it nevertheless shows how the steps might help us to link quantum theory to general relativity.


General relativity, gravitation wise, is a "fact"; quantum theory is a "tool" to explain. Difficult to "link" one to the other.

We may not be able to observe what's happening beyond the Planck's length, but it doesn't mean that there is no particles under that scale.


One thing is certain; you cannot have a tridimensional particle (volumes); at the most, you get bi-dimensional particles (surfaces).

It is true that it is with the incoming light that the atoms synchronize their steps,


Not by the "incoming" light; by the "existing" density of energy in the environment of the particle; which is electromagnetic.

which means that they might all be actually making their steps at the same time, and that they might all be actually emitting their light at the same time,


That would be surprising since every volume of "deformed space" is independent.

We use time to our own profit, but we did not realize yet that the atoms might already be doing so since the beginning of times.


Time is a consequence of movement. Nothing "uses" it; everything is subjected to it; same as distance.

As long as we keep in mind that it is the particles that move closer to one another with time in the collapsing phenomenon


Getting closer for the particles, once again, is not an "action" it's a "consequence"; "matter" doesn't "act" in regard to itself, it "reacts" to its environment.

but it means that the particles have to exchange some information at a certain speed, and you said your space is collapsing without information


Particles don't exchange informations between themselves and the collapsing of the metric is a "result" of a "pressure" put on the center point of gravity.

A step is effectively kinetic energy, but it is made with regard to the light another particle has emitted some time ago


No.

I think that if we stick to the observations, and if our two theories are right,


They could both be wrong.

I don't know much about the standard model of particles, but at your contact, I'm learning.


If you keep putting the importance on particles instead of "movement" and "energetic density" of the environment, you'll need a lot of memory to learn all needed on the standard model and it's going to be hard to make something out of it. The universe is not "matter"; it's "movement" (energy) that creates space-time in expansion with some volumes "deformed"; nothing else important.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 213
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Inchworm on January 15th, 2017, 3:51 pm 

Andrex » January 14th, 2017, 11:47 pm wrote:
Inchworm wrote:but the distance traveled by an atom is justified by the distance traveled by its components, which is a billion times smaller,
The distance traveled by the atom is the distance traveled by its center of gravity and so here the distance traveled by its components which moves around it. It doesn't change things very much but changes a lot in the way of "seeing" the event.

I say that the steps from different scales are "imbriqués les uns dans les autres", which I may translate by "enclosed ones into the others".
It's simply two different levels of reality; "components" and "composed".

For instance, an atom could be forced to lose one of the billions of steps from its components each time it makes one of its own steps because of the limited speed of light, and its components too, so that the frequency of each scale would increase with time in the same proportion.
Sorry; I don't get it. Are your "steps" simply "quantum" of energy?
We are already used to imagine the particles as russian dolls with specific properties at different scales. The steps simply add a new one: the capacity to feel their environment and to act to stay on sync with it. That's what life does since the beginning, for instance while developing different night/day or summer/winter behavior. Our moves have to be on sync with our environment, and they have to be on sync with others too, beginning with those who are closer to us. It's difficult to imagine how two humans could be moving by steps like the two atoms of my animated molecule, but I really think they do. If we would try to, we may even be able to quantify those steps the same way we quantify the light emitted by the atoms.

Andrex wrote:
but it nevertheless shows how the steps might help us to link quantum theory to general relativity.
General relativity, gravitation wise, is a "fact"; quantum theory is a "tool" to explain. Difficult to "link" one to the other.
Isn't that what your own theory is trying to do?

Andrex wrote:
We may not be able to observe what's happening beyond the Planck's length, but it doesn't mean that there is no particles under that scale.
One thing is certain; you cannot have a tridimensional particle (volumes); at the most, you get bi-dimensional particles (surfaces).
About that, I don't agree that nature can start with a dimensionless point to develop volumes of space. We can imagine it, but we can't build it for real, and nature is about real things. The point is a mathematical tool, not a real thing. Real things have to carry real dimensions. The problem with the maths is that we have to stop the precision somewhere to be able to make a calculation. Nature is already infinitely precise if it is infinite, not maths. I have that problem with my steps: they can be infinitely precise if they really exist, but we can't make an infinitely precise simulation of them. You chose to develop things out of nothing, but nature is unable to do that. Why didn't you start with a real particle instead, a particle that has a dimension, thus that has components already distant from one another? Wasn't it enough to define space as the distance between the particles at any scale?

Andrex wrote:
It is true that it is with the incoming light that the atoms synchronize their steps,
Not by the "incoming" light; by the "existing" density of energy in the environment of the particle; which is electromagnetic.
I don't mind using the concept of density of energy, as long as that kind of energy is subjected to doppler effect, not only to distance.

Andrex wrote:
which means that they might all be actually making their steps at the same time, and that they might all be actually emitting their light at the same time,
That would be surprising since every volume of "deformed space" is independent.
What you mean is that it doesn't fit with GR's redshift, but I showed how, with the steps, redshift could as much be an effect as a cause for gravitation. If it is a cause, then gravitation is also a mean for the atoms to stay synchronized with one another at a distance.

Andrex wrote:
We use time to our own profit, but we did not realize yet that the atoms might already be doing so since the beginning of times.
Time is a consequence of movement. Nothing "uses" it; everything is subjected to it; same as distance.
Same as for redshift: we are, in the same time, subjects and users of time, because we can use it to organize ourselves on one side, and suffer from not being organized enough on another side. Time is an effect from my first atom's step, but it is also a cause for my second atom's step. In other words, the doppler effect produced by the first atom's step becomes a cause for the production of the other atom's step.

Andrex wrote:
As long as we keep in mind that it is the particles that move closer to one another with time in the collapsing phenomenon
Getting closer for the particles, once again, is not an "action", it's a "consequence"; "matter" doesn't "act" in regard to itself, it "reacts" to its environment.
You are the one to consider that space is contracting all by itself. I consider that particles move to stay on sync with the others, thus that they effectively move with regard to their environment, not with regard to themselves.

Andrex wrote:
but it means that the particles have to exchange some information at a certain speed, and you said your space is collapsing without information
Particles don't exchange information between themselves and the collapsing of the metric is a "result" of a "pressure" put on the center point of gravity.
With GR, particles exchange information with space, and space uses that information to tell particles what to do. Space is used as an intermediate, an intermediate that only serves to justify the observations on light. No need for space to explain the trajectory of particles, and the steps are executed by particles. Of course, the steps are mediated by light, but a light that is not curved by space, a light that goes directly to the particle and that suffers doppler effect and aberration at perception. Would you have to change your theory a lot if light did not have to be curved by gravitation?

If you keep putting the importance on particles instead of "movement" and "energetic density" of the environment, you'll need a lot of memory to learn all needed on the standard model and it's going to be hard to make something out of it. The universe is not "matter"; it's "movement" (energy) that creates space-time in expansion with some volumes "deformed"; nothing else important.
The only way to progress without knowing what is coming up is to proceed by trial and error. No need to know the particularities to do that, only the generalities. It's the first time that I try to apply my steps to cosmology, so it's normal that I grope around (que je tâtonne) a little. I count on you to show me the way. For the moment, I still don't see why our two theories would be incompatible.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 16th, 2017, 2:24 pm 

the capacity to feel their environment and to act to stay on sync with it.


You say "to act", I say "to react".

It's difficult to imagine how two humans could be moving by steps like the two atoms of my animated molecule, but I really think they do.


It's simply the result of "entropy"; from simplicity (atoms) to complexity (organism).

Isn't that what your own theory is trying to do?


It doesn't have to try; it does without the need of quantum gravity. Everything is consequent to GR "gravity" which is a consequence of the geometry of space-time.

About that, I don't agree that nature can start with a dimensionless point to develop volumes of space. We can imagine it, but we can't build it for real,


Which means that you don't agree with "evolution" or a "dynamic" universe. Funny that, up until now, whatever we "imagined" we did build. The only thing I can say is that 2 appears before 3 and 1 before 2. You can disagree if you want, it's your right.

The point is a mathematical tool, not a real thing. Real things have to carry real dimensions.


In a "volume" you have three dimensions; which one is not "real"?

Nature is already infinitely precise if it is infinite


"Infinite" cannot be "precise"; there's no "precision" at all in "infinite". As for "nature" it is not "infinite"; in fact it's very precisely "définite" and guetting more "definite" each day that passes.

You chose to develop things out of nothing, but nature is unable to do that.


Then you say that entropy doesn't exists; which means that the universe is "static" and the BB is impossible. As for your steps; you've just pour them down the drain by saying so; "static" means "no steps" possible.

an infinitely precise simulation of them. You chose to develop things out of nothing, but nature is unable to do that. Why didn't you start with a real particle instead, a particle that has a dimension, thus that has components already distant from one another?


Because "logic" is a must to explain things. I started with one "real" particle in the state of a "potentiality" that whent trough a "phase transition" that gave it a lot of "probabilities" which experienced another phase transition to become less "possibilities" in order to finaly become the "realisation" of its sole former potentiality which will be the "reality". As for "distant from one another", it wasn't logically possible with a starting unique particle that couldn't have "components" to be the "starting" state.

Wasn't it enough to define space as the distance between the particles at any scale?


You own phrase shows that "space" is not "distance". Between two particles you have a "distance" and around both particles, you have "space". They are not the same thing. As you can see, your mind knows it even if you're not aware of it.

I don't mind using the concept of density of energy, as long as that kind of energy is subjected to doppler effect, not only to distance.


Once again, your concept is "blurred". Density of energy is not energy. Frequency is the density of energy. The doppler effect is only an "effect" related to the distance of the source. In reality the amount of energy in the frequency doesn't change but the distance affect the wavelenght because the movement of the source is either "contracting" or "expanding" it.

What you mean is that it doesn't fit with GR's redshift,


No. What I mean is that there's no "communications" between volumes of "deformed space" seperated by "flat space" (between two "biggest" russian dolls). What occurs in one "deformed volume" is not related to what occurs in an another "deformed volume". The only universal relation is the electromagnetism of the whole universe which is "available" where and when needed.

Time is an effect from my first atom's step, but it is also a cause for my second atom's step.


That is "illogic". Time is not a "cause"; it's a "measure" of the movement of your first step; and so it is the measure of your second step.

You are the one to consider that space is contracting all by itself.


That would be an act of faith. And since I have no "faith" whatsoever, space doesn't contract by itself. At first, it doesn't even "contract" at all; it simply stop "expanding". Then, if the "mass energy" making "pressure", counter-expanding wise, on its "center of gravity", this "point" "backs up" (retrogrades) on the distance previously traveled in its "expanding metric" to a "smaller" metric. Pretty simple, isn't it? It can even "back up" to the point of producing a "black hole".

With GR, particles exchange information with space, and space uses that information to tell particles what to do.


So you say; but "deformed" or "flat" space is like a "curved" or "straight" road. Your car has to follow it without need of exchange of "informations" between the road and the car.

Of course, the steps are mediated by light, but a light that is not curved by space,


Where can your light pass without being influenced by the geometry of space? That is illogic.

Would you have to change your theory a lot if light did not have to be curved by gravitation?


What would have to change, is that gravitation wouldn't be a "consequence" of the deformation of the geometry of space. So GR wouldn't be a premise to my "theory" as you call it. I consider GR gravitation as a "fact" not a "theory".

The only way to progress without knowing what is coming up is to proceed by trial and error.


Funny that you mention it! Because you didn't accept that the universe was proceeding the same "only" way in its evolution (progress)???

I still don't see why our two theories would be incompatible.


It might be compatible at the "matter" level; which is the only one that you consider; but then it would be only 5% compatible.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 213
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Inchworm on January 17th, 2017, 10:19 am 

Andrex » January 16th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:
the capacity to feel their environment and to act to stay on sync with it.
You say "to act", I say "to react".
I only say that to enhance the fact that my small steps are real motion executed by real atoms. It's the same with humans by the way: we react to things, but we still move by ourselves.

Andrex wrote:
About that, I don't agree that nature can start with a dimensionless point to develop volumes of space. We can imagine it, but we can't build it for real,
Which means that you don't agree with "evolution" or a "dynamic" universe. Funny that, up until now, whatever we "imagined" we did build. The only thing I can say is that 2 appears before 3 and 1 before 2. You can disagree if you want, it's your right.
If imagination is about mutations of ideas, then those mutations shouldn't work more often than genetic mutations. I agree with your evolutive universe by the way.

Andrex wrote:
The point is a mathematical tool, not a real thing. Real things have to carry real dimensions.
In a "volume" you have three dimensions; which one is not "real"?
None of them is real as long as the volume stays in our head, but a stone that anybody can hold in his hands is a real tridimensional volume.

Andrex wrote:
an infinitely precise simulation of them. You chose to develop things out of nothing, but nature is unable to do that. Why didn't you start with a real particle instead, a particle that has a dimension, thus that has components already distant from one another?
Because "logic" is a must to explain things. I started with one "real" particle in the state of a "potentiality" that whent trough a "phase transition" that gave it a lot of "probabilities" which experienced another phase transition to become less "possibilities" in order to finally become the "realization" of its sole former potentiality which will be the "reality". As for "distant from one another", it wasn't logically possible with a starting unique particle that couldn't have "components" to be the "starting" state.
To me, your logic works as long as we are looking for a beginning out of nothing, otherwise the logic would be that it is useless to look for a beginning. The universe might as well be inflating at the same time it is contracting, getting away from our scale in two opposite directions.

Andrex wrote:
Wasn't it enough to define space as the distance between the particles at any scale?
You own phrase shows that "space" is not "distance". Between two particles you have a "distance" and around both particles, you have "space". They are not the same thing. As you can see, your mind knows it even if you're not aware of it.
Our mind knows different directions but our eyes are oriented in one direction at a time, and it is so because we only move in one direction at a time. To know what's happening behind us, we use our ears, but they sweep a lot narrower volume of space than our eyes, and they don't tell the direction or the distance of an event as precisely as our eyes. For our mind, space is made of directions and distances towards a particular event, and it is also the case for my small steps.

Andrex wrote:
What you mean is that it doesn't fit with GR's redshift,
No. What I mean is that there's no "communications" between volumes of "deformed space" separated by "flat space" (between two "biggest" russian dolls). What occurs in one "deformed volume" is not related to what occurs in an another "deformed volume". The only universal relation is the electromagnetism of the whole universe which is "available" where and when needed.
You describe space as if it was massive. I'm going to have nightmares about a big chunk of space going in the wrong direction on the highway. :0)

Andrex wrote:
Time is an effect from my first atom's step, but it is also a cause for my second atom's step.
That is "illogic". Time is not a "cause"; it's a "measure" of the movement of your first step; and so it is the measure of your second step.
Just after that, I said "In other words, the doppler effect produced by the first atom's step becomes a cause for the production of the other atom's step." I could have erased the first phrase, but I left it to show that the steps were also a clock. When we move by habit, we move when it's time, without thinking, so timing is certainly a cause for these motions.

Andrex wrote:
With GR, particles exchange information with space, and space uses that information to tell particles what to do.
So you say; but "deformed" or "flat" space is like a "curved" or "straight" road. Your car has to follow it without need of exchange of "informations" between the road and the car.
What about the contact between the car and the road? Isn't it information?

Andrex wrote:
Of course, the steps are mediated by light, but a light that is not curved by space,
Where can your light pass without being influenced by the geometry of space? That is illogic.
I was talking of inertial steps, the ones between two atoms of the same molecule. Of course the steps between an atom from the sun and an atom from the earth are influenced by gravitation, but that influence doesn't need the intermediate of space if it is executed by steps, whereas the curving of light does. Light cannot send information to the sun while passing by like massive particles do. Curved space has been invented just for light, but to me, it has a damaging secondary effect: nobody is looking for a real mechanism to explain gravitation anymore.

Andrex wrote:
Would you have to change your theory a lot if light did not have to be curved by gravitation?
What would have to change, is that gravitation wouldn't be a "consequence" of the deformation of the geometry of space. So GR wouldn't be a premise to my "theory" as you call it. I consider GR gravitation as a "fact" not a "theory".
Too bad Einstein is not there anymore. I'm sure he would have appreciated that his theory was considered eternal. Is that what you hope for your own "ideas"? :0)

Andrex wrote:
The only way to progress without knowing what is coming up is to proceed by trial and error.
Funny that you mention it! Because you didn't accept that the universe was proceeding the same "only" way in its evolution (progress)???
I always agreed with your evolutive universe, but I think I never showed it.... Done! :0)

Andrex wrote:
I still don't see why our two theories would be incompatible.
It might be compatible at the "matter" level; which is the only one that you consider; but then it would be only 5% compatible.
I'm like Thomas, I need to put the finger in the wound to admit it is real. :0) I said previously that the redshift that we observe could be due to atoms slowly shrinking with time, what would increase their frequency in the same proportion. This way, no need to explain inflation since there is none, so no need either for dark energy to explain it. How much unobservable mass left with dark energy out of the equation?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 17th, 2017, 12:07 pm 

we react to things, but we still move by ourselves.


And so do particles.

None of them is real as long as the volume stays in our head, but a stone that anybody can hold in his hands is a real tridimensional volume.


So, however big is our head, a bridge doesn't exist until you use it to cross a river? What about the volume of that head?

To me, your logic works as long as we are looking for a beginning out of nothing, otherwise the logic would be that it is useless to look for a beginning.


And since "entropy" exist because we observe it, then it's logically "illogic" to refuse a "beginning" of "nothing" and very "logical" to accept the beginning of "something". But then, where and how would start that beginning of something to make appear that "something"?

The universe might as well be inflating at the same time it is contracting,


Then you could be wrong as well as being right. So we're discussing for absolutely nothing; right... or wrong? -Impossible to answer that; sorry.

getting away from our scale in two opposite directions.


This is illogic in regard of what you're basing it on. You should have said: "getting away while getting closer". That is the logical result of your description of the universe.

You own phrase shows that "space" is not "distance". Between two particles you have a "distance" and around both particles, you have "space". They are not the same thing. As you can see, your mind knows it even if you're not aware of it.

Our mind knows different directions


You were not talking about direction; you were talking about "distances between particles".

You describe space as if it was massive.


You use the word "mass" as if it was a "chunk of matter"; which it is not. So use the word "matter" until you find an adequate meaning for the word "mass". You also use the word "mass" when you mean "mass energy". You have to make sure of the meaning of the word used to be exactly in accordance with what you want to describe.

I'm going to have nightmares about a big chunk of space going in the wrong direction on the highway. :0)


It is going to be quite a nightmare, just to find which direction; because then, your highway will be in a "no-space" environment.

but I left it to show that the steps were also a clock.


"Steps are also a clock"; so a clock is also steps (your kind of "logical deductions). So since you have a clock, you make steps, and since you make steps, you have a clock. Why make steps if you have a clock and why have a clock if you make steps?

When we move by habit, we move when it's time, without thinking, so timing is certainly a cause for these motions.


Sure; because when it's time, we have the habit of thinking to move.

What about the contact between the car and the road? Isn't it information?


What about the exemple of the road? Doesn't it give you "informations"?

Of course the steps between an atom from the sun and an atom from the earth are influenced by gravitation, but that influence doesn't need the intermediate of space if it is executed by steps, whereas the curving of light does.


Which means that in your mind, gravitation doesn't need space between atoms to influence their "steps". How can "steps" be made if there's no "space" to make them? How can gravitation manifest itself in "no-space"? As for your two atoms inside a molecule; doesn't the molecule occupy "space", and isn't there "space" inside your molecule to install your atoms? Or even inside your atom, is there not "space"? What does "space" represents in your mind exactly? Is it nothing? If so, then there is "nothing" between your atoms. Ok; so how can you speak of distances If there is "nothing" between the starting and arriving points?

Too bad Einstein is not there anymore. I'm sure he would have appreciated that his theory was considered eternal.


So to you, a "fact" is "eternity" (eternal). You're very lucky; you need a lot less precise "definitions of words" than me to have a "conversation"; but I'm not sure if it can be useful in a "discussion" though.

I always agreed with your evolutive universe, but I think I never showed it


It is important for you to find out why you never showed it.

I'm like Thomas, I need to put the finger in the wound to admit it is real.


You have to understand that Thomas knew that he had "space" (and not "nothing") in the wound to put his finger in.

I said previously that the redshift that we observe could be due to atoms slowly shrinking with time, what would increase their frequency in the same proportion.


And I told you that atoms don't shrink; and that frequencies are increased by the gradual diminishing "metric" or, if you prefer, the gradual diminishing of the length of waves (wavelength); which is the result of gravitation. You certainly remember that "gravitation", which is the "consequence" of gradual collapsing of the "metric" of the space environment, we already talked about?

This way, no need to explain inflation since there is none, so no need either for dark energy to explain it.


Euh... inflation is not explained at all by dark energy; and inflation is not at all "expansion". You're peeling a potato with a carrot in one hand and a hammer in the other hand.

How much unobservable mass left with dark energy out of the equation?


Euh...It depends...How much potato peels you get from that carrot with your hammer.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 213
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Inchworm on January 17th, 2017, 2:30 pm 

Andrex » January 17th, 2017, 12:07 pm wrote:
we react to things, but we still move by ourselves.
And so do particles.
That's what my small steps mean, so why not say that they act?

Andrex wrote:
None of them is real as long as the volume stays in our head, but a stone that anybody can hold in his hands is a real tridimensional volume.
So, however big is our head, a bridge doesn't exist until you use it to cross a river? What about the volume of that head?
With imagination, we have to differentiate between the past and the future. We can imagine what we already saw, but we can also imagine something we never saw, and I think we do that while changing randomly what we know, so we absolutely have to try it for real to know if it works for real.

Andrex wrote:
To me, your logic works as long as we are looking for a beginning out of nothing, otherwise the logic would be that it is useless to look for a beginning.
And since "entropy" exist because we observe it, then it's logically "illogic" to refuse a "beginning" of "nothing" and very "logical" to accept the beginning of "something". But then, where and how would start that beginning of something to make appear that "something"?
I think that we will never observe the beginning or the end of things, so to me, it is useless to try to. Imagining the future is useful only if we can try our ideas for real, otherwise it might be useful psychologically, but not physically, like religions for instance. I use to say that imagining the future may work, but only in the short term.

Andrex wrote:
The universe might as well be inflating at the same time it is contracting,
Then you could be wrong as well as being right. So we're discussing for absolutely nothing; right... or wrong? -Impossible to answer that; sorry.
You're not as sorry as I am: I used the word inflation when I meant expansion. Not really accustomed to cosmology yet.

Andrex wrote:
getting away from our scale in two opposite directions.
This is illogic in regard of what you're basing it on. You should have said: "getting away while getting closer". That is the logical result of your description of the universe.
Expanding while contracting seems more precise to me, but I think we mean the same thing.

Andrex wrote:
You own phrase shows that "space" is not "distance". Between two particles you have a "distance" and around both particles, you have "space". They are not the same thing. As you can see, your mind knows it even if you're not aware of it.
Our mind knows different directions
You were not talking about direction; you were talking about "distances between particles".
I know, but following my small steps, I always consider that a distance comes with a direction: away or towards the other particle.

Andrex wrote:
You describe space as if it was massive.
You use the word "mass" as if it was a "chunk of matter"; which it is not. So use the word "matter" until you find an adequate meaning for the word "mass". You also use the word "mass" when you mean "mass energy". You have to make sure of the meaning of the word used to be exactly in accordance with what you want to describe.
When I think mass, I always refer to the steps' resistance to change speed or direction, and those steps are executed by sources of light composed of smaller sources of light ad infinitum, so I don't really see them as chunks of matter.

Andrex wrote: Why make steps if you have a clock and why have a clock if you make steps?
To move around. I see space as a light web where sources of light grab on pulses of light to move around. We do the same when we walk, except that our sources of light walk directly on the ground's sources of light.

Andrex wrote:
When we move by habit, we move when it's time, without thinking, so timing is certainly a cause for these motions.
Sure; because when it's time, we have the habit of thinking to move.
If we have to think before moving, then it is no more an habit. Our automatisms are defined as a subconscious behavior, and thinking is defined as a conscious one.

Andrex wrote:
What about the contact between the car and the road? Isn't it information?
What about the example of the road? Doesn't it give you "informations"?
There is not matter in your space, so there can't be no road to follow. How is your space influenced by matter? Instantly?

Andrex wrote:
Of course the steps between an atom from the sun and an atom from the earth are influenced by gravitation, but that influence doesn't need the intermediate of space if it is executed by steps, whereas the curving of light does.
Which means that in your mind, gravitation doesn't need space between atoms to influence their "steps". How can "steps" be made if there's no "space" to make them? How can gravitation manifest itself in "no-space"? As for your two atoms inside a molecule; doesn't the molecule occupy "space", and isn't there "space" inside your molecule to install your atoms? Or even inside your atom, is there not "space"? What does "space" represents in your mind exactly? Is it nothing? If so, then there is "nothing" between your atoms. Ok; so how can you speak of distances If there is "nothing" between the starting and arriving points?
As I said, to me, space is a web made of light, so between my two atoms, there is a light path.

Andrex wrote:
Too bad Einstein is not there anymore. I'm sure he would have appreciated that his theory was considered eternal.
So to you, a "fact" is "eternity" (eternal). You're very lucky; you need a lot less precise "definitions of words" than me to have a "conversation"; but I'm not sure if it can be useful in a "discussion" though.
To me, a fact is a data, and we have no more data from space than we have from dark matter. We get data directly from sources of light, not from the space between sources of light.

Andrex wrote:
I always agreed with your evolutive universe, but I think I never showed it
It is important for you to find out why you never showed it.
Not meticulous enough, I think.

Andrex wrote:
I'm like Thomas, I need to put the finger in the wound to admit it is real.
You have to understand that Thomas knew that he had "space" (and not "nothing") in the wound to put his finger in.
I think he simply thought he was dreaming, and that's what I would have thought too. :0)

Andrex wrote:
This way, no need to explain inflation since there is none, so no need either for dark energy to explain it.
Euh... inflation is not explained at all by dark energy; and inflation is not at all "expansion". You're peeling a potato with a carrot in one hand and a hammer in the other hand.
I reiterate that I meant expansion. What about redshift being caused by the frequencies increasing with time then? Would there still be a need for dark energy?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 17th, 2017, 6:48 pm 

We can imagine what we already saw, but we can also imagine something we never saw,


"Blurred" again. You're mixing "memory" with "imagination".

I think that we will never observe the beginning or the end of things, so to me, it is useless to try to.


As for myself I observe the beginning and the end of day very often; the end of a year, every year etc.

You're not as sorry as I am: I used the word inflation when I meant expansion. Not really accustomed to cosmology yet.


I was hoping that you would understand that it was illogic to say that the universe was expending while contracting. I'll have to wait for another opportunity.

Expanding while contracting seems more precise to me,


Ouf! I guess there will never be an opportunity.

I always consider that a distance comes with a direction: away or towards the other particle.


Those are two directions; not one; and they apply at the same distance.

When I think mass, I always refer to the steps' resistance to change speed or direction,


So you mean "rest mass". Could you tell me what "rest mass" is?

and those steps are executed by sources of light composed of smaller sources of light ad infinitum,


And I taught that those steps where made by your particles. What a shame. But how far "ad infinitum" does the light sources decrease?

Why make steps if you have a clock and why have a clock if you make steps?

To move around.


You need a clock to move around???

If we have to think before moving, then it is no more an habit.


So you don't have the habit of thinking. Well...I do.

There is not matter in your space, so there can't be no road to follow. How is your space influenced by matter? Instantly?


It was an exemple that was suppose to explain something to you; but it seems that it's not important. As for your question, once again I miss its logic. How can matter influence "my" space if there's no matter in "my" space?

As I said, to me, space is a web made of light, so between my two atoms, there is a light path.


It's easier to understand when you say it without explaining it. So space is a kind of electromagnetic web which indicates the path of your particles; is that it?

To me, a fact is a data, and we have no more data from space than we have from dark matter.



Well, we can observe "space"; nobody can observe "dark matter".

We get data directly from sources of light, not from the space between sources of light.


You see! You can "situate" the space between sources of light; which means that you can observe it.

It is important for you to find out why you never showed it.

Not meticulous enough, I think.


I don't think so; I think it's because you don't want to go at the beginning of that "evolution".

Euh... inflation is not explained at all by dark energy; and inflation is not at all "expansion". You're peeling a potato with a carrot in one hand and a hammer in the other hand.

I reiterate that I meant expansion.


Well, then, "expansion" is not explained at all by dark energy. So it doesn't change your situation.

What about redshift being caused by the frequencies increasing with time then?


Expansion is extending wavelengths; that is enough to explain redshift; because frequencies, then, decreases by expanding wavelength.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 213
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Inchworm on January 18th, 2017, 2:20 pm 

Andrex » January 17th, 2017, 6:48 pm wrote:
We can imagine what we already saw, but we can also imagine something we never saw,
"Blurred" again. You're mixing "memory" with "imagination".
The word imagination derives from the word image: both words mean something that we can see, one for real, the other in our head. We could have named that phenomenon soundation because we also hear words in our heads. Of course it takes memory to remind us what we see or what we hear, but how can we imagine something we never saw or never heard? I simply suggest that our memory suffers random mutations, and that those mutations are selected by the environment when we express them. Isn't that the way your evolutive universe works?

Andrex wrote:
I think that we will never observe the beginning or the end of things, so to me, it is useless to try to.
As for myself I observe the beginning and the end of day very often; the end of a year, every year etc.
I do too, but we will never be able to observe the macro-limit of our universe if it is expanding too fast, or the micro-limit of the particles if hazard avoids us to do so.

I was hoping that you would understand that it was illogic to say that the universe was expending while contracting. I'll have to wait for another opportunity.
If I understand well, you mean that galaxies could not be moving away from one another at the same time they would be shrinking. Why not?

Andrex wrote:
I always consider that a distance comes with a direction: away or towards the other particle.
Those are two directions; not one; and they apply at the same distance.
Two directions, but taken by two different atoms, which produces a motion in only one direction. One atom is approaching the other while the other is getting away from it later on, but you're right, both are traveling the same distance.

Andrex wrote:
When I think mass, I always refer to the steps' resistance to change speed or direction,
So you mean "rest mass". Could you tell me what "rest mass" is?
There is no rest mass with the steps. Mass only develops when the steps get accelerated from the outside, otherwise they only produce what we call inertial motion.

Andrex wrote:
and those steps are executed by sources of light composed of smaller sources of light ad infinitum,
And I thought that those steps where made by your particles.
They are, but we know that particles are made out of components, so these components also have to proceed by steps to justify the steps between the particles.

What a shame. But how far "ad infinitum" does the light sources decrease?
Why not as far as the universe expands?

You need a clock to move around???
We don't have the choice, we live on a planet that is a clock, so we have to synchronize our moves with it. We are not clocks the way the atoms are though, we have more ways to stay synchronized with others than them.

Andrex wrote:
If we have to think before moving, then it is no more an habit.
So you don't have the habit of thinking. Well...I do.
Can we say that suffering mutations is an habit for species? If not, then its not an habit to suffer mutations of ideas either. An habit is when things are reproduced the same for a moment, and it is not the case with mutations.

Andrex wrote:
As I said, to me, space is a web made of light, so between my two atoms, there is a light path.
It's easier to understand when you say it without explaining it. So space is a kind of electromagnetic web which indicates the path of your particles; is that it?
Exactly! Click on the button if you like! :0)

Andrex wrote:
To me, a fact is a data, and we have no more data from space than we have from dark matter.
Well, we can observe "space"; nobody can observe "dark matter".
I think that what you mean is that we can imagine space, while we can't imagine dark matter. As I said, we can imagine anything we want, whether it would be real or not. When we look at a star, we can imagine the other directions we have previously observed around it, and we can imagine that it is the same for the whole sky around the earth, but observing the space between the stars gives us no data. Except for the CMB, which is a remnant of real particles, there is nothing about that space on astrophysicists data sheets. There is a lot about distances, but not about space.

Andrex wrote:
We get data directly from sources of light, not from the space between sources of light.
You see! You can "situate" the space between sources of light; which means that you can observe it.
What I meant is that we cannot observe a light ray that is not striking our eyes, for instance we cannot observe the light that my two atoms exchange if we look at them sideways to their direction.

I don't think so; I think it's because you don't want to go at the beginning of that "evolution".
It's not that I didn't want to go there, it's that, each time I was reading about it on the net, it did not help me to progress. Since you think that the universe has evolved, and since I can link any kind of evolution to the way the steps change direction or length, I know that our two theories share a fundamental phenomenon. There is still a difference in the way we interpret hazard or randomness though. By the way, you did not tell me if you consider that genetic mutations happen randomly or not.

Well, then, "expansion" is not explained at all by dark energy. So it doesn't change your situation.
It's not what wiki says, so I gather that you're talking of your own theory. Can you remind me how it explains accelerated expansion?

Andrex wrote:
What about redshift being caused by the frequencies increasing with time then?
Expansion is extending wavelengths; that is enough to explain redshift; because frequencies, then, decreases by expanding wavelength.
Doppler effect is relative, so matter could as well be contracting instead of the universe being expanding, no?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Previous

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests