A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

[Andrex]

just that sometimes, you do not put the observer at the right place.

The "fact" is that "the observer" is you or me on top of the drawing, looking at it. Don't project yourself; just look at the "factual event".

And the "fact" is that if you keep the barycenter of the system "Sun/Jupiter always in line with the center of gravity of each objects of that system, That barycenter has to turn around the center of gravity of the Sun.

And that "event" produces an elliptic orbit for Jupiter (forget the "forces; this is geometry).

By the way, you can't say : "the drawing should show the sun's barycenter circling the common barycenter,..." because the Sun cannot have a barycenter by itself alone. It only has a "center of gravity".

So have another look.

[Inchworm]

There is no other way of imagining the barycenter of the system circling the sun than putting the sun at the center of the whole system. Draw your drawing correctly, draw the sun circling the system's barycenter as you did on your first drawing, and you will see that this barycenter is not moving with regard to the two bodies.

[Andrex]

I was going to answer:

"If the Sun orbits around the barycenter, the barycenter doesn't stay in line with Jupiter." But after checking the motion, you're right the barycenter always stays in line with the centers of gravity of the two objects.

I still have to understand the origin of elliptical orbits without the notion of "forces".
"Motion" through "altered space" should explain it perfectly; but I still have to find a way to draw a volume showing altered metric down to a center of gravity.

Just another question:

Are the orbit of planets elliptical in regard to the Sun or to the barycenter of the Solar system?

And, why not, another note: Whatever drawing I make to explain things, imagine what is going to happen to my brain when "motion" takes over like the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU

Then the barycenter will be fun to situate.

[Inchworm]

To understand how elliptical orbits are executed, let's take the example of two identical bodies having an elliptical orbit around a common barycenter. It would look like this:



The bodies would have to be at the same distance from their common barycenter at the same time, so they would have to be circulating in the same sense. If you put those two bodies on an elastic fabric, and if you give them the right tangential speed, you will get the same trajectories, so since that experiment is made to mimic the collapsed space, I think it explains what you are trying to explain. In the same token, it also explains what I am trying to explain to you about the steps. While those bodies would travel on the fabric, the deformation of the fabric would not reach the other body instantly, thus it would take time for the deformation from one of the bodies to affect the trajectory of the other body, and this is precisely what happens to my two atoms, reason why I say that you can apply your space to my steps and vice-versa.

[Andrex]

What repels me is that the "fabric" goes through the body and not underneath it.

It doesn't change the "effect"; but changes the understanding.

[Inchworm]

You did not object to my proposition that "it would take time for the deformation from one of the bodies to affect the trajectory of the other body". Is it because you agree with it? By the way, the animation about the motion of the solar system was astounding! :0)

[Andrex]

You did not object to my proposition that "it would take time for the deformation from one of the bodies to affect the trajectory of the other body". Is it because you agree with it?

In my mind one body cannot affect the trajectory of another body; except for the possible "tidal effect" between two volumes of "space deformations" containing each body. Bodies don't have any effect on other bodies. Even you agree with that when you say: " the deformation of the fabric would not reach the other body instantly,..." It's the deformation of the "fabric" that controls, not the other body, but the other center of gravity of the other "deformation of space" containing the other body.

the animation about the motion of the solar system was astounding

I'm afraid that it cancels the idea of barycenter and keeps only the "altered volumes of space" orbiting the Sun.

[Inchworm]

Expansion of space has been invented to avoid galaxies to be exceeding the speed of light,

Galaxies exceeding the speed of light is taken care by special relativity;

No it's not! If galaxies were considered moving away from one another, they would on the contrary contradict relativity, because they would be relatively moving at more than the speed of light.

I always said that the steps had a wave form that had to correspond to the wave that was producing them.

You have now to demonstrate it; if not by observations, at least by logical explanations.

I did, but you did not get it. I said that a step was made of small accelerations from rest, followed by small decelerations to rest, and that these accelerations were executed by the components. If you put these accelerations side by side on a graphic, you get a step that follows a sinusoidal curve.

Gravity is not a distortion. Distortion is the alteration of a "shape" like a wave.

A wave is an acceleration followed by a deceleration, and gravity is an acceleration, so both are distortions, except that the distortion causing gravity is continuous. That's precisely why I think you can use your collapsed space to explain my small steps.

and it is the same when they get accelerated from a collision.

You have to show and explain it not only say it.

I already explained it, but you did not get it either. Imagine that my two atoms are at rest, not making steps, now give a small push to the first one and stop before the doppler effect from that push has the time to get to the second atom. If you push it slowly, the atom will move a bit, and if you push it fast, it will move a lot. In the same time, it will thus have the time to make a smaller or a longer step depending on the importance of the acceleration. If you push twice as fast in the same time, the step will be twice as long, but if you push slowly two times in a row in the same direction, the step will become longer in that direction, and it will finally have the same length as in the case of the faster acceleration.

This explains the effect acceleration has on speed and direction. Now here is the effect it has on mass. While you are pushing, the atom's speed will immediately cause doppler effect on the light from the second atom, so when you will stop pushing, it will stop moving since it is made to stay synchronized with it. This means that, when you will be pushing, it will constantly try to stop moving, a behavior similar to resisting to the acceleration, which is attributed to massive bodies.

To account for gravitation, the steps increase their length, not their frequency,

Frequency is something that I grab with difficulty. Trying to make it clear, frequency of soundwaves diminishes as the wave extends resulting from motion exclusively;

No, the frequency of waves do not change with distance if their propagating medium doesn't change. Only their intensity does. For instance, sea swell is the result of higher waves having lost their height with distance, but they still have the same frequency, or the same length if you prefer.

frequency of light doesn't change because the speed of light is an invariant whatever the wavelength.

The speed of sound is also invariant in air if the pressure is constant, but we nevertheless can detect that the frequency of a sound changes if there is motion between the source and us.

The steps from the atoms are composed of the steps from their components, and these components share the same frequency.

That's an affirmation. Explain it. Components of atoms are what? Electrons, neutrons and protons share the same frequency; how so? Quarks are components of protons and neutrons; they also share the same frequency; how so?

Later, once you have assimilated the basics of the steps.

I don't think that mass and size are really related unless you think that mass is a bundle of matter.

There you go again, trying to dissociate mass from matter on one side, and putting them back together on the other.

True, but you still do not provide an explanation for that kind of speed.

What speed are you talking about? The one produced by "liberating" an object from the "grip" of the rotating Earth? That speed doesn't exist; it's the rotating speed that exists. And I've explained its origin previously.

You explained that aggregation of two massive particles would automatically put them in motion, and that aggregation of more particles would add to the motion, but you did not explain why.

In the case of a rotational motion, a tangential speed produces a motion away from the center of rotation, which has to be compensated by a motion towards that center in the case of gravitation. But I admit that it can be considered as an effect.

The only exact thing you say in this phrase is the "effect". Tangential speed is never produced by a rotating planet;

In the case of an orbital trajectory, tangential means tangent to the trajectory, so the tangential speed is the speed in the direction of the trajectory. If we release a stone out of a rotating sling, it follows the tangent direction it has at the moment it is released, it doesn't travel directly away from the center of rotation as your tangential speed seems to mean. Of course it is moving away from that center even if not directly, reason why it exerts a pull on the sling until it is released. The same thing happens in the case of an orbital motion, gravitation has to compensate for the tendency of the body to follow a tangent direction, which, again, is not directly away from the center of gravity.

Read this again: "We know that a satellite, in a circular orbit around the Earth, is in a “free falling” situation. And this is where we find our proof; because a satellite in free falling situation on a circular orbit, DOESN’T ACCELERATE AT ALL. It keeps a “free falling” constant speed while traveling inside its "orbital corridor". And that discredits completely the acceleration "law" stipulated by an "acting" force concept, SINCE IT DOESN'T APPLY TO BOTH "FREE FALL" SITUATIONS .".

What you say doesn't prove that your solution is the only possibility. It is also possible to imagine that the information that produces the acceleration is immediately compensated by the information that produces tangential motion, especially if both information concern the same mechanism.

Your collapsed metric is related to the centers of mass, so it originates from massive particles,

That metric is the smallest measuring "distance" that exist; it's the product of "motion" by kinetic energy. It doesn't have any relation whatsoever with "massive particles".

Yes it does, because without massive particles, there wouldn't be any collapsed space to be collapsing into.

It's impossible to have a massive particle without "space" containing it. So "space" has to exist before particles exist.

Maybe, but collapsed space can still not exist without particles.

The question then becomes: what puts them out of sync?

An external acceleration, a collision for instance. As soon as such a collision happens, the first atom to move produces doppler effect on the light from the other atom,

But doesn't one atom detect a Doppler effect when the other atom moves, which means "accelerate" from "stopped" to "in motion"? Why doesn't this Doppler effect put it out of sync and the other Doppler effect does?

Because the first atom is forced to move, whereas the second one is not. When the first one perceives doppler effect from the second one, he cannot stop only because he is forced to move, otherwise it would. On the contrary, the second one has nothing in front of him, so he only has to accelerate to stay on sync.

We first have to indicate the speed we're talking about. Speed is essentially a characteristic of "motion"; nothing else. The most important "motion" in the universe is its "expansion".

Again, expansion is not considered as a motion, otherwise it would contradict relativity.

All motions start from there. Its source is the universal kinetic energy that is an invariant. The speed of that "motion" is light speed.

If we consider that expansion is not a motion, then it cannot have kinetic energy either. We may attribute it a speed, but only massive bodies can have a kinetic energy, because it is a measure of resistance to change, and space does not resist to change.

as soon as we see a difference in the observed frequency, we accelerate towards the source until there is no more difference, and we use the intensity of the observed information as a reference for the intensity of our acceleration.

Based on what?

Based on the information we get from the massive particles of the source about their importance. Unfortunately though, only massive particles can detect such an in formation, which is by the way no more suspect than detecting that the space is collapsed.

Remind me the difference you see between Doppler effect and Redshift?

Doppler effect=motion of massive bodies and eventually collision, redshift=expansion, thus no motion and no collision risk, thus no insurance to pay. :0)

[Andrex]

Later, once you have assimilated the basics of the steps.

The basic of the step is if I push de "dot", it moves. I gat that; it's starting from there that you lose me.

You explained that aggregation of two massive particles would automatically put them in motion, and that aggregation of more particles would add to the motion, but you did not explain why.

It's "accretion" and yes I did explain why.

What you say doesn't prove that your solution is the only possibility. It is also possible to imagine that the information that produces the acceleration is immediately compensated by the information that produces tangential motion, especially if both information concern the same mechanism.

Changing the word "force" by "information" doesn't mean much.

Yes it does, because without massive particles, there wouldn't be any collapsed space to be collapsing into.

Collapsed space is due to the topology of the gluon; the rest are consequences.

If we consider that expansion is not a motion, then it cannot have kinetic energy either.

Then tell me what causes expansion? Tell me where the total energy (invariant) of the universe comes from? Tell me what produces light-speed?

Unfortunately though, only massive particles can detect such an in formation,

Well then, you've found the "scientific" explication for the origin of dark energy. Bravo!

Doppler effect=motion of massive bodies and eventually collision, redshift=expansion, thus no motion and no collision risk, thus no insurance to pay.

A redshift produced by "no motion". That's a good one; in fact, very scientific. But with my theory I don't have to pay insurance like you do.

[Inchworm]

You did not object to my proposition that "it would take time for the deformation from one of the bodies to affect the trajectory of the other body". Is it because you agree with it?

In my mind one body cannot affect the trajectory of another body;

Gr says that massive bodies deform the fabric of space, and that the bodies that travel through that deformation see their trajectory affected by it in return. This way, bodies are thus indirectly affected by other bodies, but the novelty is that light is also affected even if it is not a body. Nice find, but a bit pulled by the hair.

It's the deformation of the "fabric" that controls, not the other body, but the other center of gravity of the other "deformation of space" containing the other body.

The center of gravity is only a way to calculate gravitational problems. For instance, on the experiment with the flexible tissue, we see no center of gravity between the two balls, but we use it to show that they rotate around that point, and in the case of earth and moon, to calculate their common orbital trajectory around the sun. Why do you accept that two such centers affect directly one another, while you refuse that the two concerned bodies do so? I can accept that the two deformed space from two bodies affect directly the trajectory of another one, but not that it affects its center of gravity, and that it is that center that affects its trajectory in return. It's the bodies that deform their own surrounding space, not the inverse. Deformed space from a body can only affect the trajectory of another body, not its own one.

[Inchworm]

Later, once you have assimilated the basics of the steps.

The basic of the step is if I push de "dot", it moves. I got that; it's starting from there that you lose me.

I can only say the same thing again, but it is useless since you do not accept that moving a particle does not move instantly the deformed space around it. That's one of the GR contradictions: to accept that space deforms itself instantly on one hand, and to look for gravitational waves on the other.

You explained that aggregation of two massive particles would automatically put them in motion, and that aggregation of more particles would add to the motion, but you did not explain why.

yes I did explain why.

Then I did not get it, so explain it again please.

What you say doesn't prove that your solution is the only possibility. It is also possible to imagine that the information that produces the acceleration is immediately compensated by the information that produces tangential motion, especially if both information concern the same mechanism.

Changing the word "force" by "information" doesn't mean much.

As far as the small steps are concerned, the information that produces the steps is not a force. The force develops only when they get accelerated from the outside, and it develops only because they have to fight against the acceleration.

Yes it does, because without massive particles, there wouldn't be any collapsed space to be collapsing into.

Collapsed space is due to the topology of the gluon; the rest are consequences.

Your gluon gives its topology to space the same way the Higgs gives its inertial mass to particles, and it cannot explain orbital speed the same way the Higgs cannot explain inertial speed.

If we consider that expansion is not a motion, then it cannot have kinetic energy either.

Then tell me what causes expansion? Tell me where the total energy (invariant) of the universe comes from? Tell me what produces light-speed?

I don't know for light speed, but I told you how the small steps would be producing redshift, and it was not an expansion effect.

Unfortunately though, only massive particles can detect such an information,

Well then, you've found the "scientific" explication for the origin of dark energy. Bravo!

Dark energy is related to expansion, and we were talking about gravitation.

Doppler effect=motion of massive bodies and eventually collision, redshift=expansion, thus no motion and no collision risk, thus no insurance to pay.

A redshift produced by "no motion". That's a good one; in fact, very scientific.

Again, redshift cannot be considered as due to a relative motion, because the galaxies would then be traveling at more than the speed of light, which contradicts the fundamental principle of relativity.

[Andrex]

Gr says that massive bodies deform the fabric of space,

Gr says that "mass" deforms the geometry of space.
And "mass" = "mass energy"; not "bundle of matter".

The center of gravity is only a way to calculate gravitational problems.

Not at all; the center of gravity is the point where the geometry of space is the most deformed. Forget Newton.

I can accept that the two deformed space from two bodies affect directly the trajectory of another one, but not that it affects its center of gravity,

That's because you're never "precise" in your thinking; you draw faster than your shadow. In your last phrase the subjects where two deformed space and when you said "the trajectory of another one" it should have been the trajectory of one of the deformed space; but you mind jumped to one of the bodies instead.

It's the bodies that deform their own surrounding space,

No it's not; it's the "mass energy" of a body that pushes on a center of gravity deforming its volume of space containing that body.

I can only say the same thing again, but it is useless since you do not accept that moving a particle does not move instantly the deformed space around it.

You're inventing objections which I never mentioned. The particle follows the trajectory of the center of gravity of the volume of deformed space "containing" it.

That's one of the GR contradictions: to accept that space deforms itself instantly on one hand, and to look for gravitational waves on the other.

"instantly", here, as no reason to be stated. "Gravitational waves" is one of the two forms representing the "gravitational force"; the other form is the "graviton" (its vector). Neither of them exist. Gravitation is not "energetic"; it's "passive".

You explained that aggregation of two massive particles would automatically put them in motion, and that aggregation of more particles would add to the motion, but you did not explain why.

yes I did explain why.

Then I did not get it, so explain it again please.

Read and understand this:

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29040#p282565

As far as the small steps are concerned, the information that produces the steps is not a force. The force develops only when they get accelerated from the outside, and it develops only because they have to fight against the acceleration.

So there are two kinds of "force" that gives "motion" to your particles; one from "inside" (which you say is not a force but makes the particle "move") and one from "outside"; the one that wants them to accelerate which they fight against.

Your gluon gives its topology to space the same way the Higgs gives its inertial mass to particles,

Higgs give inertial mass (in fact mass) by "resistance" encountered by the particle in Higgs field. Gluon provokes "mass energy" by re-orienting kinetic energy to its center. I think you didn't understand either concepts.

I don't know for light speed, but I told you how the small steps would be producing redshift, and it was not an expansion effect.

Which means you don't know what causes expansion, the limit of light-speed nor the invariant energy of the total universe. My theory explains all those origins.

Dark energy is related to expansion, and we were talking about gravitation.

Another "faster than the shadow" deduction. Dark energy is not related to expansion; it's related to the expansion's "acceleration".

Again, redshift cannot be considered as due to a relative motion, because the galaxies would then be traveling at more than the speed of light,

Another "misinterpretation". Redshift is related to a "motion"; either a motion going "away" or, blueshift, "toward" us. It doesn't have anything to do with light-speed.

[Andrex]

Sorry for the doublon.

[Andrex]

Remember my wine glasses to explain “tidal effect”?

We will now use them to explain how “mass energy" is added to an object by the joining of two centers of gravity. But to do so, instead of putting wine inside the glasses we will install a big planet and a smaller planet.



We will follow through with the merging of edges until half the edge of the small glass as merged with the big glass. We will also had the gravitation of each planets directing everything to their center of gravity (inner arrows).



At this moment, the small planet is still orbiting around the big one; but its orbit is getting closer to the surface of the big planet. In fact, the "tidal effect" is getting stronger between both planets and the orbit of the small planet gradually approaches the big planet as if it was going to "fall" in the bigger space deformation (bigger wine glass). Let’s push more on the “toast” to see what happens.



The dotted lines are the delimitation of the former space deformations that where totaled by the joining of both centers of gravity resulting in a greater space deformation.

In this case, the small planet didn’t disintegrate to spread on the big planet's surface; so we can see that the new center of gravity of both objects is in fact, the former barycenter of the system. Both planets will now adopt a new rotation around that new center of gravity. If the small planet had disintegrate and spread on the surface of the big planet, the big planet would have kept its normal center of gravity and the previous barycenter would have simply disappear.

We also saw that there’s no “forces” whatsoever involved in the process; only a tidal effect resulting of the merging of two volumes of deformed space, to install a bigger, stronger, space deformation cause by the added "mass energy" of the small planet, that now is oriented, "pushing", toward the mutual center of gravity. In fact all particles of both planets want to reach that center of gravity so they all "rush" toward it.

But we mustn’t forget that the space deformation is at the level of its metric. It’s a “volume of space” which has a gradual decreasing altered metric from its circumference to its center of gravity where "mass energy" is oriented.

[Inchworm]

I can accept that the two deformed space from two bodies affect directly the trajectory of another one, but not that it affects its center of gravity,

That's because you're never "precise" in your thinking; you draw faster than your shadow. In your last phrase the subjects where two deformed space and when you said "the trajectory of another one" it should have been the trajectory of one of the deformed space; but you mind jumped to one of the bodies instead.

No, I did that purposely, to put in perspective the two bodies problem.

The particle follows the trajectory of the center of gravity of the volume of deformed space "containing" it.

What would be the use for a particle to carry a deformed space around it if it was alone in the universe? This deformation only serves gravitation, and a particle doesn't need gravitation for itself.

You explained that aggregation of two massive particles would automatically put them in motion, and that aggregation of more particles would add to the motion, but you did not explain why.

yes I did explain why.

Then I did not get it, so explain it again please.

Read and understand this:
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29040#p282565

Here is an exert:
"Cruising through space-time, one particle proceeds toward another particle because each one of them has its own speed and its own straight trajectory (universe is flat). Since the “explosion” of the Big bang created movement going in all directions, coming from all directions (up, down, sideways etc), it’s normal that particles trajectory cross each other once in a while."

I said a few times that you did not explain speed, and you are again naming it without explaining it. Where does the speed of those particles come from? You do not accept that it comes from the mechanism that produces their mass, and you already said that expansion was not due to an explosion, so where does it come from?

Your gluon gives its topology to space the same way the Higgs gives its inertial mass to particles,

Higgs give inertial mass (in fact mass) by "resistance" encountered by the particle in Higgs field. Gluon provokes "mass energy" by re-orienting kinetic energy to its center. I think you didn't understand either concepts.

The usual analogy for the Higgs is molasses, and it is easy to understand that it cannot produce gravitation, but you deny what it produces, and you declare that only gravitational mass exists, what you call mass-energy. Maybe you deny the Higgs because it doesn't explain speed, and I'm with you on this, but my small steps do, they are not stuck in molasses. You say that the gluon had to reorient kinetic energy in the beginning, but this energy concept is about massive particles being able to resist to change speeds, and what your gluon is creating is gravitation, with no resistance in it. Moreover, it seems to be creating gravitation before creating massive particles.

Dark energy is related to expansion, and we were talking about gravitation.

Another "faster than the shadow" deduction. Dark energy is not related to expansion; it's related to the expansion's "acceleration".

Nevertheless, we were not talking of gravitation.

Again, redshift cannot be considered as due to a relative motion, because the galaxies would then be traveling at more than the speed of light,

Another "misinterpretation". Redshift is related to a "motion"; either a motion going "away" or, blueshift, "toward" us. It doesn't have anything to do with light-speed.

If we could associate redshift to speed, then we would not need expansion to explain it: an explosion would do the job.

[Inchworm]

Remember my wine glasses to explain “tidal effect”?

Why do you need another analogy than the flexible fabric to explain what you call your tidal effect? The flexible fabric is a lot more straightforward: it shows very clearly how the two deformations influence each other.

[Andrex]

No, I did that purposely, to put in perspective the two bodies problem.

You don't seem to understand that the bodies don't have motion or trajectory problems; they simply follow their mutual volume of space deformation. They cannot do otherwise.

What would be the use for a particle to carry a deformed space around it if it was alone in the universe?

Looking through the wrong end of the telescope again; it's the volume of deformed space that carry's the particle around. Just as it carries a planet, a star, whatever.

a particle doesn't need gravitation for itself.

Yes it does. None of the massive particles could exist without "mass energy" which produces "space deformation" meaning "gravitation". Follow the "steps"; don't jump over any of them.

Where does the speed of those particles come from? You do not accept that it comes from the mechanism that produces their mass, and you already said that expansion was not due to an explosion, so where does it come from?

And I also said, previously, that a boat is carried on a river at a slower speed than the flow of water depending of its weight. So massive particles gain their speed through being carried by the flow of expansion depending of their "mass energy". Sorry if it wasn't clear; to me it was. Forget the "explosion" I said it wasn't; just think of what I said it was: a manifestation of kinetic energy which is called "motion" in all direction from no (or all) starting points.

The usual analogy for the Higgs is molasses, and it is easy to understand that it cannot produce gravitation

Then it should be easy to understand that it cannot produce "mass", since "mass" produces gravitation.

and you declare that only gravitational mass exists, what you call mass-energy.

Who said that "mas energy" was "gravitational mass"? "Mass energy" is "mass energy"; there's no other kind of "mass" that exists. Forget the "forces" once again.

You say that the gluon had to reorient kinetic energy in the beginning, but this energy concept is about massive particles being able to resist to change speeds,

Can't get rid of that "force" notion again; can't you? The gluon didn't "have to reorient" anything; reoriented topology is its one and only geometrical characteristic. It's a "passive" characteristic; not an "active" one.

but this energy concept is about massive particles being able to resist to change speeds,

Not at all. The energy concept is about "work produced". Kinetic energy produces "motion". "resistance" has nothing to do with it.

and what your gluon is creating is gravitation, with no resistance in it

Gravitation is not a "creation" of the gluon; it's the result obtained by kinetic energy responding to the gluon's topology in putting pressure on the center of the gluon, which is then transformed in a center of gravity. If resistance can make you understand better, well then, that point called the center of gravity gains the power to resist to expansion to different degrees, depending of the "mass energy" involved.

Moreover, it seems to be creating gravitation before creating massive particles.

As soon as it appears in the universe, the gluon is splitted in "front" and "back" surfaces, by expansion, giving each surfaces "mass energy" that makes recoil the surfaces on themselves, thus creating "massive particles" . Gravitation being the result of "mass energy" it doesn't appear before "mass energy".

Nevertheless, we were not talking of gravitation.

And nevertheless you were deducting "faster than your shadow" on the subject of dark energy, which gives you a wrong information on dark energy.

If we could associate redshift to speed, then we would not need expansion to explain it: an explosion would do the job.

But you can't; redshift is associated to "motion", not "speed". Expansion is an "explosion" without any "center source". It doesn't do any other job than install "motion" to which "redshift" is accurately associated.

Why do you need another analogy than the flexible fabric to explain what you call your tidal effect? The flexible fabric is a lot more straightforward: it shows very clearly how the two deformations influence each other.

If your "flexible fabric" is the tight pulled blanket that supports your "bowling ball", the main reason I don't need it is because the "fabric" goes through the center of the ball, and not underneath it. The other reason is that the metric of the "fabric" is not "flexible" like I explained before.

Furthermore, you can see that a "tidal effect" is not related to gravitation, but to the distance between planets "space deformations", whatever their mass. The more a "space deformation" gets closer to the bigger one, the more the barycenter moves nearer the center of gravity of the big planet. If the "matter" of the small planet spreads on the surface of the big planet, the barycenter is replaced by the center of gravity of the big planet.

Now if my "other analogy" doesn't improve your comprehension of the event (specially the absence of "forces" and the exclusive geometrical "nature" of a barycenter), what do you want me to say? Go back jumping on the blanket? :-)

[Inchworm]

What would be the use for a particle to carry a deformed space around it if it was alone in the universe?

Looking through the wrong end of the telescope again; it's the volume of deformed space that carry's the particle around. Just as it carries a planet, a star, whatever.

Illogical thus incomprehensible. The deformation of space around a particle can only be useful to hold its components together, and if these components form a planet or a star or a galaxy, then the deformation they produce can only be useful to hold another planet, or another star, or another galaxy. It's your end of the telescope that is wrong. You worked too hard to eliminate forces, and you finally broke the chain that was grounding you to reality.

If your "flexible fabric" is the tight pulled blanket that supports your "bowling ball", the main reason I don't need it is because the "fabric" goes through the center of the ball, and not underneath it.

It is nevertheless a much better analogy than your glasses.

The other reason is that the metric of the "fabric" is not "flexible" like I explained before.

Then assume that the spacing between the circles represents the acceleration at a given distance from the ball. Instead of getting smaller as in your analogy, that spacing is actually getting larger in the fabric analogy. This way though, the metric belongs to the ball, not to the space, because it is only if the ball's diameter stays the same that we can use it to measure the speed we have with regard to other bodies.

Now if my "other analogy" doesn't improve your comprehension of the event (specially the absence of "forces" and the exclusive geometrical "nature" of a barycenter), what do you want me to say? Go back jumping on the blanket? :-)

If I can't understand your analogy, I bet nobody can, so I think you should try to use the other one.

Ps. Am I stupid, you said you were not trying to prove anything, so why bother that people understand? :0)

[Andrex]

Illogical thus incomprehensible. The deformation of space around a particle can only be useful to hold its components together, and if these components form a planet or a star or a galaxy, then the deformation they produce can only be useful to hold another planet, or another star, or another galaxy.

Watch yourself because by saying "The deformation of space around a particle can only be useful to hold its components together," you're eliminating the "strong nuclear force". I hope you realize it. And I agree completely with you.

But then, you say that what I say is illogical? Wow! What you're presenting as an objection is that the deformation of space is responsible for whatever "accretion" of first particles and it's then, the completed "bundle" of particles produced by accretion that is responsible for the the space deformations. That's what we call "logic" at its best. I hope that this, at least, is comprehensible to you.

You worked too hard to eliminate forces,

I didn't have to work at all to eliminate them; they never existed except in people that listened to Newton; which, by the way, didn't accept it either. But then he said: "...but it works so..."

and you finally broke the chain that was grounding you to reality.

It's almost hilarious reading this when "logical" observation gives at least 25% of the universe being "deformed space", into which we find 5% of "matter" that leaves 75% of "flat" space. I wonder how one can say being grounded to reality when exclusively "gripping" to 5% of the universe and neglecting 95% of it?

It is nevertheless a much better analogy than your glasses.

Let's say that you don't have to think in order to "understand" the blanket analogy; newton's gravity does the thinking for you by "pulling" the ball from under the blanket. All you do is "contemplate" blissfully, amazed that the "weight" of the ball can so deform the blanket.

Instead of getting smaller as in your analogy, that spacing is actually getting larger in the fabric analogy.

How can you not understand that the "metric" is basic at 10^-33 meter, and that the gradually spacing are different because they are separated in "corridors" which each of them have different numbers of "basic metrics"?
As getting smaller or larger, it depends if you're falling in the deformation or coming out of it.

Let's try another way to explain this to you.

Let's say that you have a stick of one meter long, and it extends by half a Planck's length. Will you be able to measure the difference if I give you even tools that will appear only in a thousand tears?
The answer is: NO; because half a Planck's length cannot exist (Planck's length is the smallest possible length that can exist in our universe). So it can never be measured whatever the tool you use. Which proves that Planck's length cannot be "stretched"; it can only be "duplicated". Now I hope you get it?

This way though, the metric belongs to the ball, not to the space,

What about the metric around the ball (Earth for instance) that extends farther than the Moon? Does that metric belong to the ball or to that "deformed space"? What about the "deformed space "occupied" by the ball? Does its metric belong to the ball or does the metric belong to that "deformed space"? How about the metric in "flat" space; does it belong to "unobserved" balls (sort of dark balls) or to the actual "flat" space? Check your "beliefs"; because that's what they are.

If I can't understand your analogy, I bet nobody can, so I think you should try to use the other one.

The other one...you mean the blanket? It's an analogy for people who didn't understand what "space deformations" could mean in 1925, and when the bed springs where not very "stiff".

Ps. Am I stupid, you said you were not trying to prove anything, so why bother that people understand?

I don't think you're stupid; but you're definitely courageous; I feel you might finish being the "last man standing" someday. As for bothering to make you understand, you're the one asking me to explain it to you, in order that you "join" it to your theory. So you must like my theory quite a bit, I'd say.

[Inchworm]

Illogical thus incomprehensible. The deformation of space around a particle can only be useful to hold its components together, and if these components form a planet or a star or a galaxy, then the deformation they produce can only be useful to hold another planet, or another star, or another galaxy.

Watch yourself because by saying "The deformation of space around a particle can only be useful to hold its components together," you're eliminating the "strong nuclear force". I hope you realize it. And I agree completely with you.

One important thing my small steps helped me to understand is to what point things could not exist all by themselves, and I fall on a guy like you who is trying to prove they can. :0) We could form politics parties and the left and the right would be quite well defined. No way to differentiate the progressives from the conservatives though. I don't mind that you replace the forces by your deformed space as long as you try to apply it to the steps, which means that you have to accept for a moment that the deformation from one of the atom takes time to reach the other atom. I made some concessions in favor of your deformed space, now you have to make some in favor of my small steps, otherwise I'm afraid we will get nowhere.

Let's say that you don't have to think in order to "understand" the blanket analogy; newton's gravity does the thinking for you by "pulling" the ball from under the blanket. All you do is "contemplate" blissfully, amazed that the "weight" of the ball can so deform the blanket.

We're not forced to imagine that the ball is pulled by gravity, we can easily imagine that it follows the deformed space that holds the earth together, and that the surface of the earth avoids it to do so.

This way though, the metric belongs to the ball, not to the space,

What about the metric around the ball (Earth for instance) that extends farther than the Moon? Does that metric belong to the ball or to that "deformed space"?

I think you could consider that space cannot add or subtract any other length than one Planck length to itself, while still considering that bodies are built out of those Planck lengths, so this way, you could use the constant dimensions of bodies to measure the effect space has on the speed of bodies, and you could also consider that a small step adds or subtracts some precise Planck length to the space between my two atoms, what would explain their speed. A stone two blows if I may say.

As for bothering to make you understand, you're the one asking me to explain it to you, in order that you "join" it to your theory. So you must like my theory quite a bit, I'd say.

I'm just trying to find a link between our two theories, cause I think it could help us to improve them if we find one.

[Andrex]

One important thing my small steps helped me to understand is to what point things could not exist all by themselves, and I fall on a guy like you who is trying to prove they can.

Sorry but if there's ONE THING that my theory proves, it's that nothing can exist by itself; not even "the elemental forces". Everything, whatsoever, has "motion" as its origin; and "motion" has its origin from kinetic energy that accumulated during Planck's epoch; of which you don't want to talk about. So tell me: which "thing" exists "by itself" in my theory? You're up to the point of saying anything just to keep arguing.

We could form politics parties and the left and the right would be quite well defined. No way to differentiate the progressives from the conservatives though. I don't mind that you replace the forces by your deformed space as long as you try to apply it to the steps,

The first part I sub-lined proves that you're out of arguments; and the second part is strictly "political party policy" and I'm an independent; I'd say your a "conservative" (of Newton's concept).

which means that you have to accept for a moment that the deformation from one of the atom takes time to reach the other atom.

So what happens when atoms are joined inside a mutual deformation? Maybe my wine glasses analogy might help you to answer to this question.

I made some concessions in favor of your deformed space,

It was impossible for you to do otherwise.

now you have to make some in favor of my small steps, otherwise I'm afraid we will get nowhere.

I did agree to all that was logical in your arguing; that's all I can do wherever it gets us.

we can easily imagine that it follows the deformed space that holds the earth together, and that the surface of the earth avoids it to do so

You've got extraordinairy imagination because the sub-lined part doesn't mean anything that has sense. Sorry. "The surface of the Earth avoids what to do what?

I think you could consider that space cannot add or subtract any other length than one Planck length to itself, while still considering that bodies are built out of those Planck lengths,

A Planck's length is a "measure"; meaning it's the length of a "distance"; it doesn't "build" anything; it measures what is built. On the other hand, "distances" are what "composes" space; which is partially "occupied" by matter; which, by the way is not "composed of "distances" but of "elementary particles". And elementary particles are "energy fields"; not "distances". "Energy field" designs a "volume" of space where energy is "confined". My theory says that this "energy" is kinetic.

you could use the constant dimensions of bodies to measure the effect space has on the speed of bodies,

1) Bodies don't have "constant dimensions".
2) Space has no "effect" on the speed of a body. The effect on speed of a body is related to its "mass energy" (inner kinetic energy); not to "space". Think of a heavy boat beside a light boat starting flowing on a river.

and you could also consider that a small step adds or subtracts some precise Planck length to the space between my two atoms, what would explain their speed.

If your two atoms are in a molecule, their have a mutual center of gravity; if they are in contact, they do not move independently; if not in contact, they orbit around a barycenter at the speed defined by their "orbit's corridor". What can I say more?

I'm just trying to find a link between our two theories, cause I think it could help us to improve them if we find one.

So why are you implying that I "urge" to prove something? I don't care what is thought of my theory. All I care about is keeping to look for a way to disprove it. But, as usual, I've been improving the explanations of my theory all along our discussion; have you improve yours?

[Inchworm]

So tell me: which "thing" exists "by itself" in my theory?

You're looking for an origin to existence, and by definition, there is nothing beyond such an origin, in such a way that it has to exist by itself.

which means that you have to accept for a moment that the deformation from one of the atom takes time to reach the other atom.

So what happens when atoms are joined inside a mutual deformation?

Their mutual deformation links them to another mutual deformation, the same way their individual deformation links them together.

I made some concessions in favor of your deformed space,

It was impossible for you to do otherwise.

Wrong! I could have forgotten your theory the same way I forgot about Faradave's one. Your origin helped me to get interested, and also the fact that you were answering my questions even if I was introducing my small steps.

now you have to make some in favor of my small steps, otherwise I'm afraid we will get nowhere.

I did agree to all that was logical in your arguing; that's all I can do wherever it gets us.

I suspect that there is still something fishy going on, but you don't help me a lot to find it.

we can easily imagine that it follows the deformed space that holds the earth together, and that the surface of the earth avoids it to do so

"The surface of the Earth avoids what to do what?

It simply avoids the ball to reach the center of gravity, the same way the two balls would huddle together on the flexible fabric if they had no orbital speed.

I think you could consider that space cannot add or subtract any other length than one Planck length to itself, while still considering that bodies are built out of those Planck lengths,

A Planck's length is a "measure"; meaning it's the length of a "distance"; it doesn't "build" anything; it measures what is built.

Couldn't it represent the diameter of the smallest possible particle?

On the other hand, "distances" are what "composes" space; which is partially "occupied" by matter;

You are attributing to space the properties of matter, because distances are also how we measure matter. You imagine space as a solid, and then you say that matter takes the place of that solid as if it had no solid to replace.

which, by the way is not "composed of "distances" but of "elementary particles". And elementary particles are "energy fields"; not "distances". "Energy field" designs a "volume" of space where energy is "confined".

If there was no distances on earth, we could not measure them, and we can.

My theory says that this "energy" is kinetic.

You attribute kinetic energy to light, which is like attributing kinetic energy to a wave, and it is not the right definition. Of course waves carry energy, but that energy is not kinetic in the sense that it is not related to the direction of their speed.

you could use the constant dimensions of bodies to measure the effect space has on the speed of bodies,

1) Bodies don't have "constant dimensions".

Why so?

2) Space has no "effect" on the speed of a body. The effect on speed of a body is related to its "mass energy" (inner kinetic energy); not to "space".

You're negating and changing the sense of too many concepts, if you can't make any compromise, I'm afraid our speed will throw us out back in space.

and you could also consider that a small step adds or subtracts some precise Planck length to the space between my two atoms, what would explain their speed.

If your two atoms are in a molecule, they have a mutual center of gravity;

The two atoms of my animation are not executing their steps with regard to their common center of gravity, each of them is executing his own steps with regard to the center of gravity of the other one. Make a compromise and accept it as a possibility for a while. If in the end it doesn't seem to work, you can still get back to your former orbit.

I'm just trying to find a link between our two theories, cause I think it could help us to improve them if we find one.

But, as usual, I've been improving the explanations of my theory all along our discussion; have you improve yours?

An idea that is improving should be more easily understandable than before, which is not the case for yours yet as far as my own understanding is concerned. I understood the parts that were easier to grab, but I still do not understand how you explain the speed a ball gets from being thrown away. The other way around, I did not succeed to explain my small steps so that you could understand them, so I consider that I did not improve them even if, to explain redshift, I added to them that they would be contracting with time, which is an improvement for me but not for you.

[Andrex]

So tell me: which "thing" exists "by itself" in my theory?

You're looking for an origin to existence, and by definition, there is nothing beyond such an origin, in such a way that it has to exist by itself.

That is very far away from what you previously said: "One important thing my small steps helped me to understand is to what point things could not exist all by themselves, and I fall on a guy like you who is trying to prove they can".

The reason why you can say: "there is nothing beyond such an origin, in such a way that it has to exist by itself." Is because you required that we start AFTER Planck's epoch; so you're the one responsible of that impression of the first thing that existed had no origin. You staked the deck of cards; so don't blame me.

Their mutual deformation links them to another mutual deformation,

That's useless bla-bla. Where talking here of massive particles which have not existed forever; they have a birth date and they are elementary particles not composed of anything else than themselves. The first "deformation" appeared with the Top quark; before that there were massless particles not installed "inside" deformations. The serpent biting is tail is not an explication.

I made some concessions in favor of your deformed space,

It was impossible for you to do otherwise.

Wrong! I could have forgotten your theory the same way I forgot about Faradave's one.

Oh sorry; I didn't get what you meant precisely. So you made the concession of not "forgetting" my theory. I can't thank you enough for that; I grant you.

Your origin helped me to get interested,

You probably mean my "French-Canadian" origin, I guess. But again I'm not responsible; my first ascendant married here in Canada in 1689...but I'm sure glad he did; I can tell you! He's my first hero. I wrote a novel about him and his successors. They all had lynx eyes; which is twice better that a "Hawkeye", you'll have to admit.

and also the fact that you were answering my questions even if I was introducing my small steps.

I usually answer when somebody ask me a question. I know it's not usual to everybody; but then, I guess I'm not everybody.

I suspect that there is still something fishy going on, but you don't help me a lot to find it.

I hardly can since I don't suspect such a thing.

we can easily imagine that it follows the deformed space that holds the earth together, and that the surface of the earth avoids it to do so

"The surface of the Earth avoids what to do what?

It simply avoids the ball to reach the center of gravity, the same way the two balls would huddle together on the flexible fabric if they had no orbital speed.

Ok. Now let's put you whole phrase together to see what it means: "we can easily imagine that it follows the deformed space that holds the earth together, and that the surface of the earth avoids...the ball to reach the center of gravity, the same way the two balls would huddle together on the flexible fabric if they had no orbital speed."

"if they had no orbital speed" doesn't mean that they don't have speed; it means that they don't have enough speed to orbit. When they "huddle" together, they don't lose their "motion" even if their "speed" is blocked. It's that non-lost "motion potential" (kinetic energy) toward the center of gravity that "sticks" them to the surface of the Earth.

A Planck's length is a "measure"; meaning it's the length of a "distance"; it doesn't "build" anything; it measures what is built.

Couldn't it represent the diameter of the smallest possible particle?

There's no particles that much small ever observed. All we can say is that it is the smallest possible diameter for the "first volume of space" that went in expansion.

You are attributing to space the properties of matter,

Impossible since I describe a difference between space and matter.

because distances are also how we measure matter.

So you're saying that we measure space the same way that we measure matter. This is quite surprising because you keep saying that "space" is "nothing". How can you measure nothing? How long is "nothing"?

You imagine space as a solid, and then you say that matter takes the place of that solid as if it had no solid to replace.

Why do you say that? Is space "liquid"? Is space "gaseous"? I say that space is "expressed motion". It's neither solid, liquid or gaseous. Now if you keep on deciding what I think, I guess we'll end with what you decide. It doesn't bother me much.

which, by the way is not "composed of "distances" but of "elementary particles". And elementary particles are "energy fields"; not "distances". "Energy field" designs a "volume" of space where energy is "confined".

If there was no distances on earth, we could not measure them, and we can

So space between object can be measured; which means that space is not "nothing"; no? Which would be a good thing for you; since 95% of the universe is "space". You could then start on the road of "comprehension" of the factual reality.

My theory says that this "energy" is kinetic.

You attribute kinetic energy to light, which is like attributing kinetic energy to a wave, and it is not the right definition.

The right definition is that anything that "moves" has kinetic energy; because kinetic energy is the energy that provokes "motion".

Of course waves carry energy, but that energy is not kinetic in the sense that it is not related to the direction of their speed.

A velocity has nothing to do with kinetic energy; it's related to motion. Kinetic energy simply provokes motion. Kinetic energy is not eliminated by the blocking of speed; only the motion is. Furthermore, the motion is only blocked, it's not eliminated; so the kinetic energy is still present. Absolute rest doesn't exist. "One step at a time" once again.

Bodies don't have "constant dimensions".

Why so?

My mother in law is bigger than my wife. How about yours?

2) Space has no "effect" on the speed of a body. The effect on speed of a body is related to its "mass energy" (inner kinetic energy); not to "space".

You're negating and changing the sense of too many concepts, if you can't make any compromise, I'm afraid our speed will throw us out back in space.

I didn't change the sense of one single concept since the first page of this discussion. But I should have specified that the "expansion" of space has something to do with "speed" of particles; but that would have mixed your comprehension. Furthermore, I'm to much used at addressing a subject one step at a time without jumping any. The evolution of your understanding is not a change in any sense of my concepts.

The two atoms of my animation are not executing their steps with regard to their common center of gravity, each of them is executing his own steps with regard to the center of gravity of the other one. Make a compromise and accept it as a possibility for a while. If in the end it doesn't seem to work, you can still get back to your former orbit.

I'm ready to accept it if you can prove to me that when the Earth gets closer to the Sun, the Sun moves farther away. Before that, I doubt i'll accept. And for now, we don't have to wait, it doesn't seem to work. But I could be wrong; so I'll let you prove it.

But, as usual, I've been improving the explanations of my theory all along our discussion; have you improve yours?

An idea that is improving should be more easily understandable than before, which is not the case for yours yet as far as my own understanding is concerned.

That's easy to understand; since you keep your "beliefs" in saying space is nothing, forces exist, deformed space is produced by Matter etc. You can't make a color be "dark white". Sorry.

I understood the parts that were easier to grab, but I still do not understand how you explain the speed a ball gets from being thrown away.

Then I guess you always threw a ball at the same distance, and never had to deploy more energy to throw it farther.

even if, to explain redshift, I added to them that they would be contracting with time, which is an improvement for me but not for you.

It can be an improvement for you; but it's contrary to "facts". The only things contracting with time are organic because it looses water by evaporation. The rest stays the same or expands.

[Inchworm]

The reason why you can say: "there is nothing beyond such an origin, in such a way that it has to exist by itself." Is because you required that we start AFTER Planck's epoch; so you're the one responsible of that impression of the first thing that existed had no origin.

If you can admit that an origin is always composed of more than one thing, then you can admit that my principle of the small steps is logical.

Their mutual deformation links them to another mutual deformation,

Where talking here of massive particles which have not existed forever; they have a birth date and they are elementary particles not composed of anything else than themselves.

If any particle is elementary, then my principle of the small steps is illogical.

Oh sorry; I didn't get what you meant precisely. So you made the concession of not "forgetting" my theory. I can't thank you enough for that; I grant you.

The concession I made is to consider that your collapsed and expanding space were a possibility, because I don't even believe that space can affect the trajectory of bodies to begin with.

When they "huddle" together, they don't lose their "motion" even if their "speed" is blocked.

What do they lose then?

There's no particles that much small ever observed. All we can say is that it is the smallest possible diameter for the "first volume of space" that went in expansion.

You said that massive particles took the place of space, and that space was made of Planck's metric, so I conclude that particles and space share the same metric.

I say that space is "expressed motion".

Expressed motion of what? I'm able to imagine that space can produce motion of bodies, but not its own motion.

The right definition is that anything that "moves" has kinetic energy;

Kinetic energy is defined as:

"the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest." (wiki)

This definition means that anything that has no mass cannot develop kinetic energy, and space has no mass.

I should have specified that the "expansion" of space has something to do with "speed" of particles

Does that speed have something to do with the speed a ball gets with regard to me when I throw it away?

The two atoms of my animation are not executing their steps with regard to their common center of gravity, each of them is executing his own steps with regard to the center of gravity of the other one. Make a compromise and accept it as a possibility for a while. If in the end it doesn't seem to work, you can still get back to your former orbit.

I'm ready to accept it if you can prove to me that when the Earth gets closer to the Sun, the Sun moves farther away.

Not a good analogy! The links between atoms are completely different than those between planets.

[Andrex]

If you can admit that an origin is always composed of more than one thing,

Sorry; the origin of everything is only one thing. How can ONE origin be composed of more than one thing. That is completely illogical.

If any particle is elementary, then my principle of the small steps is illogical.

If you say so; but I don't see why. Unless that you believe in "infinity"; which is not possible in the concept of the Big bang; at least for its origin.

The concession I made is to consider that your collapsed and expanding space were a possibility, because I don't even believe that space can affect the trajectory of bodies to begin with.

So what does affect the trajectory of bodies, then?

When they "huddle" together, they don't lose their "motion" even if their "speed" is blocked.

What do they lose then?

Nothing. Their "motion" is always potentially present. The proof is remove what is blocking their trajectory and they will continue their "motion". Try it by stopping a ball rolling on an inclined table, then, just release the ball. You'll see.

You said that massive particles took the place of space, and that space was made of Planck's metric, so I conclude that particles and space share the same metric.

When did I say such a thing? Massive particles don't take the place of "space"; they "occupy" space; and I keep repeating it. When I occupy a room, the room doesn't disappear replaced by me. The metric is a "distance". The basic metric is a "basic distance" we can use to measure whatever "metric" we give to a distance. You can measure a mile just as much in "meters" as in "feet" and it will still be a "mile".

I say that space is "expressed motion".

Expressed motion of what? I'm able to imagine that space can produce motion of bodies, but not its own motion.

Of kinetic energy; what else?

The right definition is that anything that "moves" has kinetic energy;

Kinetic energy is defined as:

"the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity.

And an acceleration from rest to a velocity is to "start moving". So kinetic energy is the work needed to "move" or "put in motion". "An acceleration from rest" doesn't mean a body at rest; it means in a "static" state whatever you talk about. So kinetic energy is essentially the work needed to pass from "static" to "motion".

This definition means that anything that has no mass cannot develop kinetic energy, and space has no mass.

Kinetic energy doesn't develops; kinetic energy is the "basic energy" that transforms in all other energies. It appeared before anything else in the universe; and certainly before "mass". Ask yourself how a neutrino (non discernible mass), a gluon (massless) or a photon (massless) can have a "motion" that has the maximum possible speed for a motion, called the speed of light, if kinetic energy is developed by massive particles.

I should have specified that the "expansion" of space has something to do with "speed" of particles

Does that speed have something to do with the speed a ball gets with regard to me when I throw it away?

Speed is a specificity of a "motion"; whatever in motion as speed; there's not two speed existing; speed is speed. It quantifies in relation to the kinetic energy it possess. When you throw a ball you give it kinetic energy added to the one it already has that you find by dropping it. If your ball was in "flat" space, it wouldn't be "static". It would be "traveling" even if there was no other object in sight. "Absolute" rest doesn't exist.

Not a good analogy! The links between atoms are completely different than those between planets.

Says who?

[Inchworm]

Sorry; the origin of everything is only one thing. How can ONE origin be composed of more than one thing. That is completely illogical.

Your own origin is two things, and you're more than one thing. The only thing I know that is supposed to be one thing is the electron, and I actually have a problem with its speed because I can't attribute it to its small steps.

If any particle is elementary, then my principle of the small steps is illogical.

If you say so; but I don't see why. Unless that you believe in "infinity"; which is not possible in the concept of the Big bang; at least for its origin.

The logic behind infinities is as difficult as the one behind origins. This is why I prefer not to look too far away like you do.

The concession I made is to consider that your collapsed and expanding space were a possibility, because I don't even believe that space can affect the trajectory of bodies to begin with.

So what does affect the trajectory of bodies, then?

For the moment, I attribute that to the small steps between the particles.

When they "huddle" together, they don't lose their "motion" even if their "speed" is blocked.

What do they lose then?

Nothing. Their "motion" is always potentially present.

A potential of motion is not a motion, so if I understand well, the kinetic energy that you attribute to space is potential?

Massive particles don't take the place of "space"; they "occupy" space

That's what I meant.

The basic metric is a "basic distance" we can use to measure whatever "metric" we give to a distance. You can measure a mile just as much in "meters" as in "feet" and it will still be a "mile".

Then it's like I said, your metric can be used to measure matter.

I say that space is "expressed motion".

Expressed motion of what? I'm able to imagine that space can produce motion of bodies, but not its own motion.

Of kinetic energy; what else?

Of potential kinetic energy.

This definition means that anything that has no mass cannot develop kinetic energy, and space has no mass.

Kinetic energy doesn't develop; kinetic energy is the "basic energy" that transforms in all other energies. It appeared before anything else in the universe; and certainly before "mass". Ask yourself how a neutrino (non discernible mass), a gluon (massless) or a photon (massless) can have a "motion" that has the maximum possible speed for a motion, called the speed of light, if kinetic energy is developed by massive particles.

A wave carries energy, but this energy is not defined as kinetic.

When you throw a ball you give it kinetic energy added to the one it already has that you find by dropping it.

If we throw a ball horizontally, it gets the speed we give it horizontally while getting speed downwards as if we had dropped it. The two speeds thus come from two different mechanisms, and you explain only one.

[Andrex]

Sorry; the origin of everything is only one thing. How can ONE origin be composed of more than one thing. That is completely illogical.

Your own origin is two things, and you're more than one thing.

Geez! I didn't know I was the origin of EVERYTHING. That's quite a responsibility; I don't think I want it.

The only thing I know that is supposed to be one thing is the electron,

Sorry to deceive you; but the electron can't be "ONE thing" more preferable than the quark or whatever elementary particle.

and I actually have a problem with its speed because I can't attribute it to its small steps.

But I can attribute it to its kinetic energy.

The logic behind infinities is as difficult as the one behind origins. This is why I prefer not to look too far away like you do.

One is the opposite of the other. But if you refuse to look far enough, you'll never be able to talk about the "origin"; so don't mention it as an argument; you don't have the right to do so.

So what does affect the trajectory of bodies, then?

For the moment, I attribute that to the small steps between the particles.

You can't do that. Small steps can account for "motion", or even "speed" if you insist; but it cannot account for a trajectory; specially for a "curved" one.

A potential of motion is not a motion, so if I understand well, the kinetic energy that you attribute to space is potential?

A "potentiality" is something that is present but not "manifested" or "observable". Kinetic energy is always "present" (absolute rest cannot be); when it is manifested you observe "motion". When you "block" a motion, you don't eliminate the kinetic energy you just prevent it from manifesting until it gets "unblocked" again.
The kinetic energy of space is not potential in flat space, since space expands. It's not even "potential" in altered space, since it expresses itself toward a center of gravity. Potential kinetic energy is found only when a motion is "blocked" toward, or at, a center of gravity. If it orbits around that center, it's still manifesting itself.

Massive particles don't take the place of "space"; they "occupy" space

That's what I meant.

Then don't use the terms "take the place of...".

Then it's like I said, your metric can be used to measure matter.

It can be used to measure ANYTHING: matter, space and even time.

Expressed motion of what? I'm able to imagine that space can produce motion of bodies, but not its own motion.

Of kinetic energy; what else?

Of potential kinetic energy.

When kinetic energy expresses itself it's not "potential" anymore.
Kinetic energy was the "cause" of the first expression of "motion" in our universe; in fact, it's that expression of "motion" that "created" space. Without "motion" you don't have "space" because "distances" are the product of "translation" (from here to there); and "space" without "distances" is "no space" at all.

A wave carries energy, but this energy is not defined as kinetic.

Define which energy you're talking about then. Don't go halfway in your argument.

If we throw a ball horizontally, it gets the speed we give it horizontally while getting speed downwards as if we had dropped it. The two speeds thus come from two different mechanisms, and you explain only one.

The mechanism is not the subject here; you can use a cannon if you wish, I don't care. Where talking about kinetic energy that is added to proper kinetic energy of a ball. You can simply drop it or you can throw it to the ground. By throwing it to the ground you add more kinetic energy to it. Wherever you throw it doesn't matter; your always adding to its proper kinetic energy.

If ever you accept as a "fact" that kinetic energy is the expression of "motion", I might be tempted to propose a "research experience" to you; otherwise, I don't think that we'll ever get anywhere by comparing "theories".
That "research experience" would be to "create" a brand new "theory", starting from "scratch", that would explain everything we observe. Our only and single starting "premise" would be the greatest, most important cosmological "observable" discovery ever made by humanity.

Naturally I would explain to you why I thus qualify that discovery; but I think that you would agree with the qualification.

[Inchworm]

So what does affect the trajectory of bodies, then?

For the moment, I attribute that to the small steps between the particles.

You can't do that. Small steps can account for "motion", or even "speed" if you insist; but it cannot account for a trajectory; specially for a "curved" one.

Yes it can! Here is the drawing that shows how again:



Vector Rp represents a step between two atoms of the same molecule, and vector Rs represents a step between an atoms belonging to one of the two bodies and all the atoms of the other body at a time, thus with regard to the gravity center of the other body.

A potential of motion is not a motion, so if I understand well, the kinetic energy that you attribute to space is potential?

A "potentiality" is something that is present but not "manifested" or "observable". Kinetic energy is always "present" (absolute rest cannot be); when it is manifested you observe "motion". When you "block" a motion, you don't eliminate the kinetic energy you just prevent it from manifesting until it gets "unblocked" again.

Why don't you want to call it potential kinetic energy?

The kinetic energy of space is not potential in flat space, since space expands.

Space cannot be expanding nothing. If there is nothing to be expanded, then the energy is only potential, if there is something, then the energy is expressed. The case of expansion is particular: if space expands in all directions, then the gravity centers of bodies do not change places, it's the same as if they were shrinking on the spot, so there is no real speed involved. It's an apparent speed, it can produce redshift, but it cannot produce collisions for instance.

Potential kinetic energy is found only when a motion is "blocked" toward, or at, a center of gravity.

There is no possible potential kinetic energy at the center of gravity since no speed towards that center is possible.

Massive particles don't take the place of "space"; they "occupy" space

That's what I meant.

Then don't use the terms "take the place of...".

The meaning is the same: if somebody takes the place of someone else around a table for instance, he also occupies it. You want to make the distinction between the volume of a body that would contain the space it takes, and another one that would reject it as it would reject water if it was immersed in it. In fact, you're trying to materialize space, and by the same token, you're forced to dematerialize matter, so you're forced to change the meaning of concepts.

When kinetic energy expresses itself, it's not "potential" anymore.

No, but as long as it expresses itself by the intermediate of bodies, not by itself.

Kinetic energy was the "cause" of the first expression of "motion" in our universe

If there was no matter to express itself, then it was not kinetic energy.

A wave carries energy, but this energy is not defined as kinetic.

Define which energy you're talking about then.

The energy of a photon for instance is defined as E=hf, where h is the Planck constant and f is the frequency of the wave. With other kinds of waves, we have to add the intensity of the wave to the calculations, for instance the height of the wave for water waves, or the intensity of the sound for sound waves.

If we throw a ball horizontally, it gets the speed we give it horizontally while getting speed downwards as if we had dropped it. The two speeds thus come from two different mechanisms, and you explain only one.

The mechanism is not the subject here; you can use a cannon if you wish, I don't care. We're talking about kinetic energy that is added to proper kinetic energy of a ball. You can simply drop it or you can throw it to the ground. By throwing it to the ground you add more kinetic energy to it. Wherever you throw it doesn't matter; your always adding to its proper kinetic energy.

There is two kinds of kinetic energy, the one produced by the acceleration of a body towards a center of gravity, and the one produced by its acceleration away from another body. Expansion doesn't produce kinetic energy since it is not real speed, it only produces redshift. The first kind produces a constant increase in speed, the other kind produces a constant speed. That constant speed becomes an orbital speed if it is sufficient, but the other one cannot become an orbital speed since it is always directed towards the center of gravity. To me, your idea of reducing all motions to only two doesn't work. One day or another, you will probably try to incorporate inertial motion to your theory. If it happens, think of using my small steps. For you, it will always be free! :0)

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. :0)

[Andrex]

Vector Rp represents a step between two atoms of the same molecule, and vector Rs represents a step between an atoms belonging to one of the two bodies

Rp and Rs are "forces" (vectors); take the "force" concept (of Newton) out and nothing works anymore.

Why don't you want to call it potential kinetic energy?

I do call it that way when it's not manifested because it is "blocked".

The kinetic energy of space is not potential in flat space, since space expands.

Space cannot be expanding nothing.

We are not talking of what is "traveling"; we are talking of space's "motion" which is expansion.

If there is nothing to be expanded, then the energy is only potential, if there is something, then the energy is expressed.

And that is why, when the potential kinetic energy started manifesting, it produced "motion" that expressed itself in "distances" that defined "space" expanding ever since. It's so easy to understand that I can't see how you can't.

The case of expansion is particular:

What's so particular in expansion's case? It's simply a motion in all direction.

if space expands in all directions, then the gravity centers of bodies do not change places,

Observations prove that space expands and that the bodies change places beside that expanding space. I already explained that.

it's the same as if they were shrinking on the spot, so there is no real speed involved. It's an apparent speed, it can produce redshift, but it cannot produce collisions for instance.

How come galaxies can collide? Don't say things that are proven wrong by observations.

There is no possible potential kinetic energy at the center of gravity since no speed towards that center is possible.

I guess you'll have to try it yourself to understand. So jump of a plane and see if you'll have speed going toward the center of gravity; but stay very attentive and you'll surely learn if your motion, whatever your speed will be then, will be completely "blocked" when arriving on the ground.

The meaning is the same: if somebody takes the place of someone else around a table for instance, he also occupies it.

And so was the "someone else" before him. I was hoping that you understood that it didn't eliminate the "space" of the "place", now "occupied", around the table. It seems to be asking too much.

You want to make the distinction between the volume of a body that would contain the space it takes,

A body doesn't "contain" space; it's space that contains a body.

and another one that would reject it as it would reject water if it was immersed in it.

It's exactly the same with water, a body in water is contained by the water; it not the body that contains the water. The only difference is that water, also, "occupy "space". So when the body takes the "space" that was "occupied" by water, the "space" doesn't disappear either even if the water is receded.

In fact, you're trying to materialize space, and by the same token, you're forced to dematerialize matter, so you're forced to change the meaning of concepts.

That's quite a "fact" you're stating there. But the real "fact" is that I can't materialize space, otherwise a body couldn't "occupy" it. You just saying anything that crosses your mind without thinking. When did I dematerialize matter? Saying that a body contains the space it "occupies" is not a concept; it's ... I won't say it.

No, but as long as it expresses itself by the intermediate of bodies, not by itself.

What you mean is that, in order to "create" space, kinetic energy has to express "motion" by the means of something "translating"; and you're right. That's exactly why the first particles to appear expressing the volume of space of our universe are the neutrinos. I've explained that already also. But it's not a "body"; it's a virtual particle.

Kinetic energy was the "cause" of the first expression of "motion" in our universe

If there was no matter to express itself, then it was not kinetic energy.

...further explanation not needed, I hope.

A wave carries energy, but this energy is not defined as kinetic.

Define which energy you're talking about then.

The energy of a photon for instance is defined as E=hf, where h is the Planck constant and f is the frequency of the wave.

"For instance" means that you're not defining anything. What Planck's constant are you talking about? Do you know how many there are?

With other kinds of waves, we have to add the intensity of the wave to the calculations, for instance the height of the wave for water waves, or the intensity of the sound for sound waves.

So, those waves are "static"; they don't have any "motions". All they have is frequencies and wavelength plus intensity and height without forgetting the "pitch"? Why not "smell" and "taste"; it wouldn't mean anything clearer to your explication.

There is two kinds of kinetic energy, the one produced by the acceleration of a body towards a center of gravity, and the one produced by its acceleration away from another body.

So there is kinetic energy "to" and kinetic energy "fro". Are you sure you still want to discuss with me? I'm developing serious doubts.

Expansion doesn't produce kinetic energy since it is not real speed,

Really? Are you serious? Expansion doesn't produce kinetic energy? So, I must be right saying that kinetic energy produces expansion then.

since it is not real speed,

It doesn't produce "speed"; it produces "motion". The characteristic of motion called "speed" is related to the intensity of kinetic energy involved. A motion of 2 km/hr involves a lot less kinetic energy than a motion at light-speed. And since a "body" cannot attain light-speed, I guess you'll say that traveling at light-speed doesn't involve "motion".

it only produces redshift.

And redshift is not an effect of "motion"; right?

One day or another, you will probably try to incorporate inertial motion to your theory.

Don't worry; "inertial" means "static" and "motion" is the contrary; I'll never be dumb enough to use such a term.

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.

It's like an uncle of mine who was never sure to have supper, until he knew exactly what he was going to eat. My aunt use to like him, but not for that reason.
As for myself, I finally understood that he was blackmailing my aunt, insinuating that he wouldn't eat, if she didn't give him one of the dishes he liked. That's when I found out that he wasn't so worried after all.

[Inchworm]

Vector Rp represents a step between two atoms of the same molecule, and vector Rs represents a step between an atoms belonging to one of the two bodies

Rp and Rs are "forces" (vectors); take the "force" concept (of Newton) out and nothing works anymore.

Those vectors represent a step, which is a length over a time in a certain direction, thus a speed, not a force. The red and blue arrows represent the direction the information from one of the bodies has to follow in order to be able to reach the other body at the right moment on its orbital path.

Notice that the direction of aberration (dotted red and blue lines) is aligned with the direction of the Rs vector, which is a must since that vector has to stay orthogonal to the Rp one for the orbital speed to stay constant. What this direction means is that, during an orbital trajectory, the direction of gravitational acceleration is not oriented towards the gravity center of the other body, but towards the direction of aberration, and it is logical since any information traveling at light speed between the two bodies would necessary suffer aberration at detection, the same kind of aberration starlight suffers due to the orbital motion of the earth.

if space expands in all directions, then the gravity centers of bodies do not change places,

Observations prove that space expands and that the bodies change places beside that expanding space. I already explained that.

If the volume of the earth was expanding for instance, its surface would be stretching, but we would not really be moving away from one another, we would only be shrinking, and we would stay at the same place on the surface.

There is no possible potential kinetic energy at the center of gravity since no speed towards that center is possible.

I guess you'll have to try it yourself to understand. So jump of a plane and see if you'll have speed going toward the center of gravity; but stay very attentive and you'll surely learn if your motion, whatever your speed will be then, will be completely "blocked" when arriving on the ground.

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, so we cannot say there is a potential kinetic energy at that place.

The meaning is the same: if somebody takes the place of someone else around a table for instance, he also occupies it.

And so was the "someone else" before him. I was hoping that you understood that it didn't eliminate the "space" of the "place", now "occupied", around the table. It seems to be asking too much.

Do you mean that the space stays there and penetrates anybody that sits there. When you say that the body occupies that space, does it also mean that the space occupies the body? Instead of getting angry, try to understand what I don't understand. That's what I do when I explain my small steps.

You want to make the distinction between the volume of a body that would contain the space it takes,

A body doesn't "contain" space; it's space that contains a body.

Does your space permeate bodies or not?

and another one that would reject it as it would reject water if it was immersed in it.

It's exactly the same with water, a body in water is contained by the water; its not the body that contains the water.

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. But I'm still not sure what you mean exactly. 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.

In fact, you're trying to materialize space, and by the same token, you're forced to dematerialize matter, so you're forced to change the meaning of concepts.

That's quite a "fact" you're stating there. But the real "fact" is that I can't materialize space, otherwise a body couldn't "occupy" it.

A body could occupy space the same way it replaces water.

You just saying anything that crosses your mind without thinking. When did I dematerialize matter? Saying that a body contains the space it "occupies" is not a concept; it's ... I won't say it.

How long do you want me to think? A week, a month, a year? Chose the time and I'll be back at that time if I am still alive!

No, but as long as it expresses itself by the intermediate of bodies, not by itself.

What you mean is that, in order to "create" space, kinetic energy has to express "motion" by the means of something "translating"; and you're right. That's exactly why the first particles to appear expressing the volume of space of our universe are the neutrinos. I've explained that already also. But it's not a "body"; it's a virtual particle.

OK, so the neutrinos were already traveling in all directions, and then what happened? Where did the gluons come from? And why were they already traveling in all directions. 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?

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?

it only produces redshift.

And redshift is not an effect of "motion"; right?

Here is wiki about expansion of the universe. They precisely say that redshift is not homologous to doppler effect, which means that it is not due to an homologous motion.

"Du point de vue observationnel, l'expansion se traduit par une augmentation de la longueur d'onde de la lumière émise par les galaxies : c'est le phénomène de décalage vers le rouge. Ce décalage n'est pas homologue à l'effet Doppler, qui est dû au déplacement à travers l'espace de l'objet observé ; il s'agit ici de l'expansion de l'espace lui-même."

One day or another, you will probably try to incorporate inertial motion to your theory.

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.

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.