## A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Not quite philosophy discussions, debates, various thought experiments and other topics of interest.

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

And how is that kinetic energy transferred to the other man's head? How does its head resist to the punch, and how does it move away from it.

The same way I explained when a white ball hits a red ball while playing snooker. But you have to disregard the "force" of the carpet (carpet force).

You only rely on gravitation to explain all the forces

Not bad. You got it! But don't forget: gravitation is not a "force"; it's only an located "alteration" of the topology of "normal" flat universe.

and my small steps explain differently inertial force, so I ask you to explain that one.

How do your small steps explain "inertial force"?
You just said that it was kinetic energy that was transferred to the head by the fist. Kinetic energy is not a "force"; it is energy that provokes "motion". What "force" are the "small steps" related to?

I think you can't because it's a repulsive force,

Yeah; like the "hammer force" that "repulses" the nail.

and the only repulsive force that you have in hand is expansion. Is it so?

It's not a "force" and it's not "repulsive"; it is simply a "motion" provoked by kinetic energy.

Sorry.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex wrote:it is simply a "motion" provoked by kinetic energy.
Erase that immediately! People could think you're talking of expansion! :0)

What "force" are the "small steps" related to?
The force is due to their resistance to acceleration, what we call their mass.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

it is simply a "motion" provoked by kinetic energy.

Erase that immediately! People could think you're talking of expansion!

But it's a "fact"; kinetic energy provokes the expansion "motion", just as it provoke the rolling "motion" of a ball or the moving "motion" of your hand (or fist). Kinetic energy is the only energy that provokes "motion". Whatever energy you use to move something as to transform into kinetic energy to do so.

The force is due to their resistance to acceleration, what we call their mass.

This doesn't say which "force" your talking about; only what it's "due" from.

It's always hard to explain something logically, even with "facts", to a person that "believes" something else. Fortunately I'm not the one that has to "think" harder.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

So let's check "gravitation" in regard to "dark matter".

Gravitation results of an altered metric of the geometry of a volume of space. This “altered” metric can be represented by a “collapsing” of the metric that results in some kind of “funnel”. There is a difference between what we observe in galaxies and what is predicted by the formula.

With the concept of “gravitational force”, you need a force to “redress” the curve A to where the curve B is. So scientists add dark matter to supply that missing “force”.

But with the geometrical concept of gravity, all you need is “accept” the observation and find it “normal”. Then you find out that the deformation made by “mass energy” is maximum up to a certain point and further on, it stabilizes to gradually get nearer to flatness.

Stars revolve around their galaxy's centre at equal or increasing speed over a large range of distances. In contrast, the orbital velocity of planets in solar systems and moons orbiting planets decline with distance.

The explication could simply be that all planet systems are “contained” nearer to the center of gravity than any complete stars system. Planets orbits do not “reach” where the distance of deformation of space gets nearer to flatness. In fact, when we look at the graphic, some stars (at least the first three) do (almost) respond to predictions. The other "fact" is velocity of planets or stars depens on their proper kinetic energy. So they "orbit" where their speed permits their trajectory.

The only thing we can say related to this graphic is that the notion of "inversely proportional to the square of the distance" doesn't apply.

Let’s look at a photo of galaxy M31

We can see what kind of "funnel" shape we are talking about. It's obvious that the shape is the same on top as underneat of the galaxy. So if you're entering in one side, you'll never emerge on the other side. At least, for myself, I wouldn't try it.

This photo seems to reveal some kind of different levels where stars orbit. There seem to be steps in the gradual approach toward flatness. This “impression” will need a lot of very precise definition of the stars orbits to prove it; but the fact is still that dark matter is needed only because we use the Newton formula that is directly proportional to the product of masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. In modern language, the law states: "Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them".

The only problem is that gravitation is not a force but a consequence of “altered” geometry of space; furthermore, the “alteration” of space is not “universal” but “local” around the center of gravity.

Electromagnetic is universal; but gravitation is not. What we find related to Newton is: “observational evidence and the mathematical demonstrations, taken together, gave reason to believe that the inverse square law was not just approximately true but exactly true (to the accuracy achievable in Newton's time and for about two centuries afterwards). Which means that, at the time, they couldn’t measure the speed of orbiting stars that would have denied the universality of “… inversely proportional to the square of the distanceattributed to “gravity”.

So “masses” don’t attract themselves and there is no “force” whatsoever involved; which means no dark matter is needed.

But there is another problem regarding the velocity of "far away" stars that I didn't mention. I'll let you find it and we'll see if we can solve that problem.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Hi All,

Case in point: Planets orbit their Suns due to Gravity. Solar Systems orbit the Galaxy due to the whole Galaxy, not just the center.. the center is too far away to have much effect.

Remove the Black Hole(s) at the center, the Galaxy would hardly notice. Stars follow the curvature (density metric) of local space created by the total Galaxy, not just the center.

I'm sure you already knew that.. but just chiming in for the ghosts passing through.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3220
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Hi Dave;

Solar Systems orbit the Galaxy due to the whole Galaxy, not just the center.. the center is too far away to have much effect.
I'm sure you already knew that.. but just chiming in for the ghosts passing through.

The thing is that I don't agree at all that the stars orbiting around the center of a galaxy, paricipate to the galaxy's gravity. Simply because the center of gravity of a galaxy is the only point where its space deformation starts and depends on. Stars are orbiting according their own proper kinetic energy and their individual "speed" selects each their orbit inside the space deformation. Exactly the same way planets do in a solar system. Gravity works the same way everywhere.

Which means that stars orbiting around a center of gravity don't give "mass energy" to that center of gravity, since they are not in "contact" with that "center". So they don't affect the space deformation. In order to add "mass energy" to an object, matter's "kinetic energy", pushing toward the center of gravity, has to be "blocked" by preceeding matter already "blocked toward the same goal. Like a person "falling" to the center of the Earth is blocked by the ground that preceedes him toward the same goal. Something which never does an orbiting object.

"Mass energy" augments only when other "centers of gravity" join the main center of gravity. An object orbiting a center of gravity doesn't join the "main" center of gravity; it stays independant with its center of gravity orbiting around the main center.

Thanks Dave.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » February 9th, 2017, 6:29 pm wrote:
it is simply a "motion" provoked by kinetic energy.

Erase that immediately! People could think you're talking of expansion!
But it's a "fact"; kinetic energy provokes the expansion "motion", just as it provoke the rolling "motion" of a ball or the moving "motion" of your hand (or fist). Kinetic energy is the only energy that provokes "motion". Whatever energy you use to move something as to transform into kinetic energy to do so.
Kinetic energy cannot be attributed to space though, it needs mass to be compiled, and you attribute expansion to space, not to mass.

Andrex wrote:
The force is due to their resistance to acceleration, what we call their mass.
This doesn't say which "force" your talking about; only what it's "due" from.
I'm still talking of inertial force, the one we feel when we hit a post. How do you explain it?
Last edited by Inchworm on February 10th, 2017, 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex wrote:The thing is that I don't agree at all that the stars orbiting around the center of a galaxy, participate to the galaxy's gravity.
It's as if you were saying that the planets do not participate to the center of gravity of the solar system. Take the moon for instance, we know that it participates to the center of gravity of the earth/moon system, and that it is that center that follows a constant orbiting trajectory around the sun.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Kinetic energy cannot be attributed to space though, it needs mass to be compiled, and you attribute expansion to space, not to mass.

This is another "belief" you'll have to get rid of. "Motion" is not a "massive block"; it's a movement of "something", whatever is "moving". "Motion" is simply contrary to "static"; not a "synonym" to "massive whatever". Time is "moving"; whatever is "dynamic" is moving. Thoughts are "moving" whatever "blockhead" is thinking them. You have to attribute kinetic energy to whatever is in "motion"; be it solid, liquid, gaseous, imaginary, virtual or spatial.

I'm still talking of inertial force, the one we feel when we hit a wall. How do you explain it?

Then what is that "inertial force" you're talking about? What you say doesn't tell me what it is; answer my question first. If ever I "explain" what it is, it will be after I "tell" you what it is. "Explaining" comes after "defining" So go ahead, I asked you first.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » February 10th, 2017, 10:36 am wrote:
Kinetic energy cannot be attributed to space though, it needs mass to be compiled, and you attribute expansion to space, not to mass.
This is another "belief" you'll have to get rid of. "Motion" is not a "massive block"; it's a movement of "something", whatever is "moving". "Motion" is simply contrary to "static"; not a "synonym" to "massive whatever". Time is "moving"; whatever is "dynamic" is moving. Thoughts are "moving" whatever "blockhead" is thinking them. You have to attribute kinetic energy to whatever is in "motion"; be it solid, liquid, gaseous, imaginary, virtual or spatial.
Unless we attribute to space the properties of matter, it cannot move. Observe an empty portion of space, and you won't be able to measure any motion.... No, the CMB is not an empty portion of space.

Andrex wrote:
I'm still talking of inertial force, the one we feel when we hit a wall. How do you explain it?
Then what is that "inertial force" you're talking about? What you say doesn't tell me what it is; answer my question first. If ever I "explain" what it is, it will be after I "tell" you what it is. "Explaining" comes after "defining" So go ahead, I asked you first.
I think you know my small steps enough to know what I mean, so what you are asking me is probably to explain where they come from, and my answer is: we will never know the beginning of all things, so why search it? At the end of your search, you're gonna fall on god himself, and he's gonna tell you that he doesn't know either! :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

It's as if you were saying that the planets do not participate to the center of gravity of the solar system

That's exactly what I'm saying. Sorry for your beliefs.

“Take the moon for instance, we know that it participates to the center of gravity of the earth/moon system,”

"We know that..." is not true. You should say: "I believe that..." Because you didn't think about it enough to understand the "facts" in order to "know". So I guess I'll have to re-explain it only for you (I did in the first page). So here goes:

You probably know what a "tidal effect" is. If not, then think of these two glasses of wine as "space deformations" producing "gravitation":

I’ll propose a toast with two different sizes of glass wine. The smaller glass wine representing the smaller deformation inside a bigger one. This is your earth/moon system (or earth/solar system or, even whatever system). For the purpose of the experience, we will say that the small glass is empty and the big one is full. And I will ask you to imagine what would happen if the glasses, when “toasted” to one another, merge their edges to get a mutual edge.

As you can see the merging of both edges results in a lower mutual edge and the wine in the big glass will flow in the small glass. Furthermore, the merging of edges also has another important effect: the two bases of the glasses get closer to each other. Which means that both centers of gravity draw closer together and stop coinciding with the center of each volume of matter contained inside each deformations. That's why Jupiters mass energy, for example, displaces the center of gravity of the solar system.

But getting closer to each other is not "merging" centers of gravity. So I hope that you understand that the mutual center of "equilibrium" (or counterbalance point or barycenter) is only the "point" where the center of gravity of the main (more massive) object is equilibrated; in other words: it's a "geometrical result" (like the wine glasses); and that there is no other "mass energy", from another object than the main one, that is applied to that center of "equilibrium".

Now let's think about a "real" center of gravity. This is how a space deformation looks when it is inside another "space deformation:

I hope you'll agree that "Langrangian points" are related to gravity.

So, as you can see, the center of gravity of the earth doesn't "merge" with the center of gravity of the sun. It orbits around the barycenter (just as the sun does). Each object's center of gravity is independant of one another and don't "exchange" mass energy.

So to understand the "whole picture", you have to take in account both "facts"; 1) "tidal effect" and 2) "space time deformations" that produces gravity. I hope I've been clear enough.

and that it is that center that follows a constant orbiting trajectory around the sun.

That center is called a "barycenter" and has no gravitational effects. If you fall on the sun, you'll fall toward its center of gravity; not toward the barycenter. The same applies to if you fall on earth you won't fall toward the barycenter of the sun/earth system; at least I don't "think" so. A barycenter is not "physical"; it's geometrical.
Last edited by Andrex on February 10th, 2017, 1:16 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Unless we attribute to space the properties of matter, it cannot move. Observe an empty portion of space, and you won't be able to measure any motion....

If you go where "flat" space is, you'll be able to mesure the motion of expansion of space with the right tools. Of course, you can't do it in your kitchen, since space there, doesn't expand.

No, the CMB is not an empty portion of space.

Hey, hey; Who said that??? By the way; a potato isn't either; in fact, a potato is an "occupied" portion of space.

I think you know my small steps enough to know what I mean, so what you are asking me is probably to explain where they come from,

Sliding away, are you? But no that's not what I'm asking. The question is: What is it???

and my answer is: we will never know the beginning of all things, so why search it?

So you say that you don't know what it is. Consequently, you're talking about something you don't know anything about and you're affirming that what I explain to you is "false". How can you justify that intelligently?

At the end of your search, you're gonna fall on god himself,

and he's gonna tell you that he doesn't know either!

That's probably what he told you; I agree. But that's exactly why I'm trying to explain the "facts" to you.

Thanks for the respect you attribute to my expense of personal time. It's "free" to you but not necessarily to me.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

You say the same thing than me, but you use space deformation instead of trajectories. It is evident that the center of gravity is not doing anything, but it is nevertheless that center that is following a constant trajectory, the bodies only cross it each time they complete a cycle. While the earth and the moon complete a cycle around themselves for instance, they are following wrong trajectories around the sun, because they are going at wrong speeds with regard to the sun when they are not situated exactly on the trajectory followed by their center of gravity. That's what tidal effect is about. The difference between you and me is thus that, to explain the same observations, you use curved space and I use my small steps. But then, when you say "I don't agree at all that the stars orbiting around the center of a galaxy, participate to the galaxy's gravity", you kind of say the contrary to what you say about planets.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » February 10th, 2017, 12:00 pm wrote:
Unless we attribute to space the properties of matter, it cannot move. Observe an empty portion of space, and you won't be able to measure any motion....
If you go where "flat" space is, you'll be able to mesure the motion of expansion of space with the right tools. Of course, you can't do it in your kitchen, since space there, doesn't expand.
You will have to observe bodies to do that, not space.

So you say that you don't know what it is. Consequently, you're talking about something you don't know anything about and you're affirming that what I explain to you is "false". How can you justify that intelligently?
You know that, to me, intelligence is due to hazard produced by the mind, so you can deduct my answer.

You seem to be searching for the cause of all the causes, so watch out, you will certainly fall on him somewhere.

Thanks for the respect you attribute to my expense of personal time. It's "free" to you but not necessarily to me.
Time is the same for everybody. We probably have about the same time left to prove that our ideas are right. You feel that I don't respect you because I don't agree with you, but I don't feel the same thing from you. Does it mean that you agree with me? Why didn't you say so? :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

You say the same thing than me, but you use space deformation instead of trajectories.

Which means a little deeper thinking; since trajectory are dependent of space geometry versus speed. In other words, I look at "facts" while you see the "results". Thank you for your appreciation.

It is evident that the center of gravity is not doing anything, but it is nevertheless that center that is following a constant trajectory, the bodies only cross it each time they complete a cycle.

To me, you seem all mixed up.

1) The center of gravity is the "source" point of "altered" geometry of a volume of space. It emprisons whatever "matter" it contains or meets.

2) The center of gravity travels; bringning with it all that it constains; just like your car does.

3) I don't see any crossing of bodies while completing a cycle. Bodies are irrelevant; they follow the center of gravity containing them.

While the earth and the moon complete a cycle around themselves for instance,

The earth doen't circle around the moon; so there's no "cycle" for earth in regard to the moon. Change your word "themselves" by the word "barycenter"; you'll understand better what you want to say.

they are following wrong trajectories around the sun, because they are going at wrong speeds with regard to the sun when they are not situated exactly on the trajectory followed by their center of gravity. That's what tidal effect is about.

All sublined "expressions" are meaningless.
1) Earth and moon follow their "factual" trajectories; those can't be "wrong". It's what it is; a "fact".
2) They are not going at a wrong speed either, since their speed is the expression of their proper kinetic energy. Nothing "pulls" them or "repulses" them. We're in the 21rst century; not in the 17th.
3)Earth and moon are exactly situated on their own center of gravity. And those centers of gravity orbit around a barycenter created by a tidal effect. Have a drink of wine.

The difference between you and me is thus that, to explain the same observations, you use curved space and I use my small steps.

Then use those "small steps" and do "explain the observations"; not only "say that you do".

But then, when you say "I don't agree at all that the stars orbiting around the center of a galaxy, participate to the galaxy's gravity", you kind of say the contrary to what you say about planets.

What is the difference between saying: "stars don't participate to the galaxy's gravity" and "planets don't participate to the solar system's gravity"???
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

You will have to observe bodies to do that, not space.

Let's say you use two snooker balls as your tools and you put them one beside the other in "flat" space. You will see "space" appear between your snooker balls and you see that space keeping expanding. Now if you concern your attention to one either ball, you won't see any change. You have to focus on the appearing space between the balls. And, by the way; the balls won't be making "small steps"; they will stay still.

So you say that you don't know what it is. Consequently, you're talking about something you don't know anything about and you're affirming that what I explain to you is "false". How can you justify that intelligently?

You know that, to me, intelligence is due to hazard produced by the mind, so you can deduct my answer.

From what I read, it's impossible to be that lucky, making a deduction, in that kind of hazard. So I guess you'll have to make the effort of explaining.

You seem to be searching for the cause of all the causes, so watch out, you will certainly fall on him somewhere.

I did find that cause of causes and I didn't fall on anything. The manifesttion of the physical result is "kinetic energy"; and the cause of producing kinetic energy was the "dilemma": "to be or not to be".

Time is the same for everybody. We probably have about the same time left to prove that our ideas are right.

I'm not interested in proving anything; can't you understand that?

You feel that I don't respect you because I don't agree with you,

Not at all; I feel that you're fooling with me because you talk illogically and what you say is never base on any "facts"; only in earsay, impressions, by heart learned statements and beliefs. I'm asking you to use your brain before "saying".

but I don't feel the same thing from you

It's normal since I'm wrenching my brain to explain things to you instead of simply "affirming" them.

Does it mean that you agree with me?

Another kind of "special" deduction I didn't get. :-(
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » February 10th, 2017, 1:15 pm wrote:3) I don't see any crossing of bodies while completing a cycle. Bodies are irrelevant; they follow the center of gravity containing them.
I replace my center of gravity for the term barycenter and I repeat my phrase: "while the barycenter of the earth/moon system follows a constant trajectory around the sun, then the earth and the moon's center of gravities are both crossing that trajectory while going around one another."

The earth doen't circle around the moon; so there's no "cycle" for earth in regard to the moon. Change your word "themselves" by the word "barycenter"; you'll understand better what you want to say.
The barycenter of the earth/moon system is situated 1400km inside the surface of the earth, and their center of gravity travel around this barycenter, so I think we can say that they travel around one another even if they don't travel the same distance over one cycle.

1) Earth and moon follow their "factual" trajectories; those can't be "wrong". It's what it is; a "fact".
What I mean is that, when the moon is on the near side of the sun, it travels too slowly with regard to the sun to stay at that height, and when it is on the far side, it travels too fast.

3)Earth and moon are exactly situated on their own center of gravity. And those centers of gravity orbit around a barycenter created by a tidal effect. Have a drink of wine.
The tidal effect is related to the action of one system towards another system, and it has no effect on their center of gravity. The motion of the moon around the earth affects only the matter that is not on the center of gravity of the earth.

The difference between you and me is thus that, to explain the same observations, you use curved space and I use my small steps.
Then use those "small steps" and do "explain the observations"; not only "say that you do".
I tried, but you said I wasn't on the right thread, so...

What is the difference between saying: "stars don't participate to the galaxy's gravity" and "planets don't participate to the solar system's gravity"???
OK, then you say the same for both, but it means that the planets do not add to the mass of the solar system, and it is not exact.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

then the earth and the moon's center of gravities are both crossing that trajectory while going around one another."

Their center of gravity yes. Finally you're putting your attention to what is worth. Bravo.
But, nevertheless, earth and moon don't go around one another.

The barycenter of the earth/moon system is situated 1400km inside the surface of the earth,...so I think we can say that they travel around one another...

Maybe you probably can say it; it doesn't seem to matter to you very much; but I certainly cannot say it myself whitout shame. Check this and tell me if the earth travels around the moon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycente ... Orbit4.gif

What I mean is that, when the moon is on the near side of the sun, it travels too slowly with regard to the sun to stay at that height, and when it is on the far side, it travels too fast.

Didn't you say that it was the barycenter of the system that was orbiting around the barycenter of the solar system? Why are you considering the orbit of the moon around the earth? It's not the same system. And please; tell me what means "...with regard to the sun to stay at that height,"

The tidal effect is related to the action of one system towards another system, and it has no effect on their center of gravity.

You're drinking beer not wine.
A)Tidal effect in not an "action"; it's a "reaction".
B)And it's not a reaction of a "system" toward another "system", but of two center of gravity.
C)It's the result of partly interpenetrating of volumes of space deformation; nothing else.
D)It has the effect of bringning closer the center of gravity of the two objects.

The motion of the moon around the earth affects only the matter that is not on the center of gravity of the earth.

What the h... does that mean? The motion of the moon effects what? The eyeballs of the earth while looking at it?

I tried, but you said I wasn't on the right thread, so...

Try again; I usually never bother with "threads". You are surprising me here.

OK, then you say the same for both, but it means that the planets do not add to the mass of the solar system, and it is not exact.

Tell me how so? And, also if possible, explain it to me.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » February 10th, 2017, 1:43 pm wrote:
You will have to observe bodies to do that, not space.
Let's say you use two snooker balls as your tools and you put them one beside the other in "flat" space. You will see "space" appear between your snooker balls and you see that space keeping expanding. Now if you concern your attention to one either ball, you won't see any change. You have to focus on the appearing space between the balls. And, by the way; the balls won't be making "small steps"; they will stay still.
That's exactly what I said: if you don't have bodies to observe, you won't be able to observe expansion.

Andrex wrote:
So you say that you don't know what it is. Consequently, you're talking about something you don't know anything about and you're affirming that what I explain to you is "false". How can you justify that intelligently?

You know that, to me, intelligence is due to hazard produced by the mind, so you can deduct my answer.
From what I read, it's impossible to be that lucky, making a deduction, in that kind of hazard. So I guess you'll have to make the effort of explaining.
You just said the word: I would guess first, and then try to check it out.

Andrex wrote:
You seem to be searching for the cause of all the causes, so watch out, you will certainly fall on him somewhere.
I did find that cause of causes and I didn't fall on anything. The manifestation of the physical result is "kinetic energy"; and the cause of producing kinetic energy was the "dilemma": "to be or not to be".
By definition, space cannot carry kinetic energy if it doesn't carry mass, so you still have to explain how space can carry mass, and then you will have to explain how that thing carries its own mass, ... etc.

I'm not interested in proving anything; can't you understand that?
You're trying to develop an idea, so you at least have to prove it to yourself, and you don't have the choice to tell it to other people to do that, which is the same as to show them that it works.

Andrex wrote:
but I don't feel the same thing from you
It's normal since I'm wrenching my brain to explain things to you instead of simply "affirming" them.

Andrex wrote:
Does it mean that you agree with me?
Another kind of "special" deduction I didn't get. :-(
It only meant that I could have reacted like you if I had followed my feelings.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

That's exactly what I said: if you don't have bodies to observe, you won't be able to observe expansion

Wrong; you said: "You will have to observe bodies to do that, not space." What I say is you will have to observe space; not the bodies.

You (which is me) just said the word: I would guess first, and then try to check it out.

Which means that I'm the one guessing not you. You just make the effort of explaining; it should be enough.

By definition, space cannot carry kinetic energy

Who ever said that energy could be carried, specially kinetic energy??? Energy is a manifestation of a "work". How can you carry it? Even a battery doesn't "carry" energy; it carries the chemical components that permits energy to manifest itself. Energy is everywhere; nothing carries it.

so you still have to explain how space can carry mass, and then you will have to explain how that thing carries its own mass

You "carry" too much; you'll be crushed by the charge.. Mass "occupy space and Mass energy is kinetic energy. Nothing gets the job of "carrying" them. Give your arms a break.

You're trying to develop an idea, so you at least have to prove it to yourself, and you don't have the choice to tell it to other people to do that, .

I've developed an idea that answers my personal questions. I'm satisfied with it. I present this idea to all, to find out if it solves others personal questions or if it has "flaws" in the reasoning. What attempt to prove anything is there in this action?

which is the same as to show them that it works

"Asking" if it works is not the same as "showing" that it works. So, tell me, does it work? (note that this is a question; not a show off).

I do my best, and I can't be you.

I know you can't be me; but your doing your best to do...what, exactly? To understand by analysing or to "oppose" by convictions.

Another kind of "special" deduction I didn't get. :-(

It only meant that I could have reacted like you if I had followed my feelings.

Let's be specific for a moment. You said:" You feel that I don't respect you because I don't agree with you, but I don't feel the same thing from you."

Which means that you feel I respect you.

So if you can react like me by following your feelings, please do.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Let's take a minute to check the whole decaying process of gluons (75% of the time) in a simple way:

Then:

Followed by:

Let's see now the decaying of a gamma ray or a Z boson:

Followed by:

Now the charm quark

Here we've just seen appearing a secong generation of gluon; then:

Strange quark and anti-quark decays to form another pair/antipair of up and strange quarks. Then:

And we still have another pair of strange quark/antiquark. They form a meson called “kaon” (Up + anti-strange and anti-Up + strange).

Here, now, is how a neutron transforms into a proton by emitting energy called a boson W- :

A Down quark changes in a Up quark and the Neutron particle stabilises itself as a Proton. But it’s not finish. An electron and an anti-neutrino emerge from the w- boson:

I’m sure everybody noted that “gluon cloud” around the proton and neutron. In fact, all previous decaying occurred inside that same gluon cloud.

There is also lots of energy reinjected in the electromagnetic universe while those events occurs.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » February 10th, 2017, 2:50 pm wrote:Their center of gravity yes. Finally you're putting your attention to what is worth. Bravo.
But, nevertheless, earth and moon don't go around one another.
OK, I correct: they are going around their common barycenter.

Didn't you say that it was the barycenter of the system that was orbiting around the barycenter of the solar system? Why are you considering the orbit of the moon around the earth? It's not the same system. And please; tell me what means "...with regard to the sun to stay at that height,"
Let's take the earth tides, it should be simpler to see if we agree. The center of the earth is the only point that travels at the right distance from the moon to account for the speed it is actually traveling, thus all the other points do not travel at the right speed: those who are facing the moon travel too slowly to stay at that distance from the moon all by themselves, if they were left alone they would fall on the moon, thus they do fall a little bit because the seas make a water bulge on this side. Those who are on the opposite side of the moon travel too fast to be at that distance from the moon all by themselves, if they were left alone they would fly away from it, thus they do fly away from it a little bit since the seas also make a water bulge on this side.

Andrex wrote:
I tried, but you said I wasn't on the right thread, so...
Try again; I usually never bother with "threads". You are surprising me here.
You asked me to talk about your own theory, not mine. I'm trying, but I can't avoid to use my own ideas to understand yours, so it takes more time to get used to yours.

Andrex wrote:
OK, then you say the same for both, but it means that the planets do not add to the mass of the solar system, and it is not exact.
Tell me how so? And, also if possible, explain it to me.
The mass of orbiting bodies determines their common barycenter. If the mass of the moon was different for instance, its barycenter with the earth would also be different, and they would not follow the same trajectory around it. Same thing with galaxies inside a cluster. All the stars participate to the total mass, not just the center ones.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » February 10th, 2017, 5:13 pm wrote:Wrong; you said: "You will have to observe bodies to do that, not space." What I say is you will have to observe space; not the bodies.
It's the redshift that tells us the universe is expanding, and the only way to observe it is while observing galaxies, not space around them.

Which means that I'm the one guessing not you.
Wether it is you or me that is guessing, guessing is still about estimating without knowledge, so it is like tossing a dime to chose the way, which resumes to using hazard to foresee the future.

"Asking" if it works is not the same as "showing" that it works. So, tell me, does it work? (note that this is a question; not a show off).
If I thought it did, I wouldn't ask questions, but since I do, you try to show that it works while answering them. Now, what are you trying to prove exactly while refusing to admit that you think your theory is right? That's what mind is made for: developing new ideas and checking out if they work.

I know you can't be me; but your doing your best to do...what, exactly? To understand by analyzing or to "oppose" by convictions.
Just imagine that I think the same way you think, and everything should be OK. If you think you're not opposing by conviction, then think the same from me.

Andrex wrote:
Another kind of "special" deduction I didn't get. :-(

It only meant that I could have reacted like you if I had followed my feelings.
Let's be specific for a moment. You said:" You feel that I don't respect you because I don't agree with you, but I don't feel the same thing from you."

Which means that you feel I respect you.

So if you can react like me by following your feelings, please do.
I think that harmony between individuals is not a question of respect, but a question of respecting the rules that we negotiate by compromise. To me, respect goes with hierarchy, and I don't like hierarchy. I like to be considered as equal, so I treat others as equals. If you don't have that feeling, then it is because you are imagining something else. I hope you are not as certain of your feelings as you are of what you call the facts. Feelings are only a guide, they are not facts.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

It's the redshift that tells us the universe is expanding, and the only way to observe it is while observing galaxies, not space around them.

We are not discussing what tells us that the universe is expanding. We are discussing the "expansion of space" whatever it's expanding or not.

OK, I correct: they are going around their common barycenter.

Which is a lot more exact. Thank you.

Let's take the earth tides, it should be simpler to see if we agree.

In fact, it is the best example for "tidal effect". So we'll see if we agree.

The center of the earth is the only point that travels at the right distance from the moon to account for the speed it is actually traveling,

I can't understand what you're saying here. "The center of the earth travels (at the right distance from the moon)" in regard to what?

"To account for the speed it is actually traveling". What speed? And "actually traveling" in regard to what?

thus all (1) the other points do not travel at the right speed: those who are facing the moon travel too slowly to stay at that distance from the moon all by themselves, if they were left alone they would fall on the moon,

1) I guess you mean "because the earth is rotating"; so those facing the moon are slower. You should ask yourself: "slower than what? And then you would find that in reality, their speed, at that moment, becomes exactly the same speed as the center of gravity of the earth. So, no reason to fall on the moon. Which brings me back saying that "tidal effect" are related to "geometry" and not "speed"(sorry; this part is "out of place").

Those who are on the opposite side of the moon travel too fast to be at that distance from the moon all by themselves, if they were left alone they would fly away from it, thus they do fly away from it a little bit since the seas also make a water bulge on this side.

I guess you mean "the earth" because the points on the far side of the moon have nothing to do with the sea on earth.

But, again, the points on the farthest side of earth , at that moment, have the same speed as earth's center of gravity; so why would they be tempted to fall away?

In fact the "slowing" and "accelerating" of your points in regard to the moon really exist; they are the points "each side" of the earth perpendicular to the line between earth and moon. But, unfortunately, that is not where tidal effects occurs; they occur in line with both center of gravity (earth and moon). So, if I got the picture right, I guess you're interpretation doesn't "fit" observations.

I did let you explain your theory for quite a while; but we where getting nowhere. If you want to try putting here the bases of your theory, we could discuss it. Just saying "it's based on "small steps" doesn't say anything about the "basics". Tell me on what "facts" or "opinions", or even "beliefs" your theory is based on. Then we could see.

I'm trying, but I can't avoid to use my own ideas to understand yours, so it takes more time to get used to yours.

A theory is not something you get "use to"; it's something based on "facts", that you understand without using pre-opinions, in order to judge its adequacy. What comes out of it is its inadequacies in regard to "facts". If nothing is inadequate, the theory is acceptable.

The mass of orbiting bodies determines their common barycenter.

Common barycenter means we are considering each "body sytems". Like earth/sun or juoiter/sun etc. Ok.

If the mass of the moon was different for instance, its barycenter with the earth would also be different, and they would not follow the same trajectory around it.

In fact you should say: if the "mass energy" of the moon; but good point anyway; I correct my previous note regarding your idea: in the case of the system earth/sun. What you say, is that we are considering a system made of (earth/moon system)/sun and not only an earth/sun system. In other word, you're saying that it is the barycenter of earth/moon system that participates to the barycenter of earth/sun system.

I agree that you would be right IF, and ONLY IF, there where lastics tied to the moon and earth that would pull them toward the barycenter of their own system, plus another lastic tying this earth/moon barysystem to the sun, pulling them one toward the other. But there is no "lastic" between them. That is the error in the Newton concept; masses don't attract one another. The reality is that the earth/moon system has a barycenter that is completely independant from the earth/sun system.

The volume of deformed space around the moon, the earth, jupiter or whatever planet of our solar system are all "locally" independant space deformed volumes. The only relation they have is where their volume of "deformed space" interpenetrate slightly one another. Those "spots" are where Langrangian points appears produced by tidal effects.

Let's see an exemple describing their independance:

We have a solar system which is a volume of deformed space where "bodies" (in each their own deformed space volumes) travel in regard to their own speed. Each volumes of deformed space have a center of gravity related to the mass energy of each bodies.

Let's represent this situation with a round platform (solar system) where a car (earth) is rolling slowly around the center's platform (sun's center of gravity), half way to the circonference of the platform (earth's orbit).

Now, imagine a dog (moon) running at his own proper speed, around the car (earth) barking at the driver. We can consider this car/dog "relationship" as the "earth/moon system" that possess it's own " round platform" (deformed volume of space around the earth with its center of gravity at the center of the earth) on which the dog (moon) is running.

There is no relations whatsoever between the dog running around the car and the fact that the dog is also traveling around the sun. It's not the dog that is traveling around the sun; it's the surface on which the dog is runnind around the car.

Now let's say we take the tidal effect between the sun and the earth, in consideration.

We then find that the dog is not moving at the same speed depending on what side of the car it's running. To correct our platform example, all we have to do is "incline" the smaller round platform slightly to one side (merging point of wine glasses is lower than their normal edge level); let's say: 15 degrees in regard to the big round platform and the dog will be running faster going down the slope and slower while going up to circulate around the car. And all this, without any influence from the center of the big round platform (sun's gravity) on which the car is rolling.
So the car/dog system (earth/moon system) will still be independant of the (center of big platform)/car system (Sun/earth system).

If I thought it did, I wouldn't ask questions,

Check again if you're asking questions of objecting with affirmations.

Now, what are you trying to prove exactly while refusing to admit that you think your theory is right? That's what mind is made for: developing new ideas and checking out if they work.

Inappropriate deduction again. Would I be affirming that my theory is right if I wanted to cehck if my ideas work?

Just imagine that I think the same way you think, and everything should be OK. If you think you're not opposing by conviction, then think the same from me.

Which means that you feel I respect you.

So if you can react like me by following your feelings, please do.

I think that harmony between individuals is not a question of respect, but a question of respecting the rules that we negotiate by compromise.

Sorry; but to me, if individual respect prevaded, there wouldn't be any need for rules.

To me, respect goes with hierarchy, and I don't like hierarchy.

Which means you don't know what respect is. Respect is something individually "earned" in a personality; not in position in society. respect is not "due"; it's "earned". On the other hand, disrespect is also "earned"; and I don't think you "earned" it; so I treat you as an equal.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » February 11th, 2017, 12:10 pm wrote:
It's the redshift that tells us the universe is expanding, and the only way to observe it is while observing galaxies, not space around them.
We are not discussing what tells us that the universe is expanding. We are discussing the "expansion of space" whatever it's expanding or not.
I pretend expansion is the result of galaxies being on inertial motion, and you affirm that it is space that is expanding. If you're right, then my small steps are wrong because they explain inertial motion and inertial mass. What would you do at my place? Adopt your ideas?

1) I guess you mean "because the earth is rotating"
Of course.

; so those facing the moon are slower. You should ask yourself: "slower than what?
Slower than the speed at which its center is traveling around its barycenter with the moon. Let's say that the orbit is circular, then that circle goes by its center, not by its surface. Due to its rotational motion, all the points on its surface are not going at the right speed on their orbit, so they react like a satellite would. If we accelerate a satellite that already is on a circular orbit, this location will become the apogee of its elliptical trajectory around the earth, and if we decelerate it, this location will become its perigee. I think it's what is happening to the surface of the seas. I know it's different from the actual interpretation for tides, but I nevertheless think that it's the right one. It's a dynamic viewpoint that I had while studying the way my small steps would justify orbital motion. I think it doesn't contradict the way you understand gravitation though, because the way we think the trajectory are induced still has to coincide with their real parameters.

But, again, the points on the farthest side of earth , at that moment, have the same speed as earth's center of gravity; so why would they be tempted to fall away?
They cannot have the same speed since they add the rotation of the earth to their orbital motion.

In fact the "slowing" and "accelerating" of your points in regard to the moon really exist; they are the points "each side" of the earth perpendicular to the line between earth and moon.
I get it: I always meant "accelerating their orbital speed" and you always understood "accelerating away from the moon", which is not the same thing.

Tell me on what "facts" or "opinions", or even "beliefs" your theory is based on. Then we could see.
There is no hurry. I know you cannot grasp what I mean instantly, so I let it sink a bit.

Andrex wrote:
I'm trying, but I can't avoid to use my own ideas to understand yours, so it takes more time to get used to yours.
A theory is not something you get "use to"; it's something based on "facts", that you understand without using pre-opinions, in order to judge its adequacy. What comes out of it is its inadequacies in regard to "facts". If nothing is inadequate, the theory is acceptable.
You admit as a fact that space is expanding, and I think it's only an interpretation. The only way around such a difference is time. I have to get used to your theory and you have to get used to mine. That way, we might find a way to link them, otherwise, the probability is thin.

What you say, is that we are considering a system made of (earth/moon system)/sun and not only an earth/sun system. In other word, you're saying that it is the barycenter of earth/moon system that participates to the barycenter of earth/sun system.
No, I make a distinction between the system earth/moon and the system earth/moon/sun. As for your example with the dog, I think we better stay with the sea tides due to the earth/moon system.

The reality is that the earth/moon system has a barycenter that is completely independent from the earth/sun system.
To be more precise, I would say that it is the barycenter of the earth and the barycenter of the moon that have a common barycenter that is different from the barycenter of the earth/moon/sun system. This way, we can treat separately the different parts of the systems, namely the surface of the planets. Now, I repeat that the dynamical way I see the tide phenomenon should not change the way we both interpret orbital motion.

Those "spots" are where Langrangian points appears produced by tidal effects.
To me, tides are due to a transitory phenomenon and Lagrangian points are not, so I don't understand what you mean.

Andrex wrote:
If I thought it did, I wouldn't ask questions,
Check again if you're asking questions of objecting with affirmations.
Try that with your own questions, and I bet you will conclude that you are never objecting things. Now ask me if I had the feeling that you were objecting my ideas, and I will probably answer yes. Don't cry again, it's like that and nobody can change that. It's the way our mind works, that's all.

Inappropriate deduction again. Would I be affirming that my theory is right if I wanted to check if my ideas work?
Yes you would, and it's exactly what you do. I also want to check if my ideas are right, but it doesn't prevent you from imagining that I am affirming they are right. We cannot say "I think" at the beginning of each phrase, it would be fastidious.

To me, respect goes with hierarchy, and I don't like hierarchy.
Which means you don't know what respect is. Respect is something individually "earned" in a personality; not in position in society. respect is not "due"; it's "earned". On the other hand, disrespect is also "earned"; and I don't think you "earned" it; so I treat you as an equal.[/quote]Here is wiki about respect, it's close to my own definition (sorry for the french guys, but that was closer to what I think):

"Le respect (du latin respicere signifiant « regarder en arrière ») évoque l'aptitude à considérer ce qui a été énoncé et admis dans le passé, et d'en tirer les conséquences dans le présent. Il peut ainsi être question du respect d'une promesse, du respect d'un contrat ou du respect des règles d'un jeu. Dans ces exemples, le respect évoque l'aptitude à se remémorer le moment dans lequel un être humain s'est engagé, respectivement, à tenir sa promesse, à satisfaire aux conditions du contrat, ou à se conformer aux règles du jeu.

Le respect appliqué à un être humain prend un sens plus proche de l'estime, et s'appuie sur l'aptitude à se remémorer les actes auparavant accomplis par un être humain, lorsque ceux-ci sont dignes d'être reconnus."

As you can see, applied to a human being, respect is not related to equality, and as I said, we cannot respect someone that doesn't think like us, but we can respect the rules that we have negotiated if we need to work together. There are such rules on forums, and I think that if we respect them, we have good chances to stay tuned. By the way, this is the only scientific forum I know that respects completely our right to develop personal ideas.

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

I pretend expansion is the result of galaxies being on inertial motion

Inertial motion means motion due to no energy (you would say: forces) at all; which means that your galaxies don't move but it is the space between them that expands.

and you affirm that it is space that is expanding.

I also say that galaxies move according to their kinetic energy. Otherwise, galaxy M 31 could not get closer to us and others coming toward us, while the space between them and us is expanding.

then my small steps are wrong because they explain inertial motion and inertial mass.

What would you do at my place?

I would explain clearly what is inertial motion and inertial mass with my small steps. Up until now you didn't however often I asked you.

1) I guess you mean "because the earth is rotating"

Of course.

You're lucky I guessed it because you never mentioned it.

so those facing the moon are slower. You should ask yourself: "slower than what?

Slower than the speed at which its (the earth I guess?) center is traveling around its barycenter with the moon.

Ok.

Let's say that the orbit is circular, then that circle goes by its center (what does "goes" mean?), not by its surface. Due to its (earth?) rotational motion, all the points on its surface are not going at the right speed on their orbit(you mean to the right speed for the orbit of the earth?), so they react like a satellite would.

Ok but I'm not sure of the image on my mind, though.

If we accelerate a satellite that already is on a circular orbit (it travels at 8000 m/sec), this location (of the circular orbit?) will become the apogee of its elliptical trajectory around the earth, and if we decelerate it, this location will become its perigee.

If you add or remove speed to that 8000 m/sec, the orbit will start to be elliptical; but the apogee and the perigee will be determinate by the amount of speed added or removed to its original speed of 8000 m/sec. and they will not be situated on the former circular orbit; I think. Because if they were, then jupiter, saturn and all planets orbiting at different speed around the sun would cross path at their would be mutual perigee. But your point is interesting. I'll look into it; because it brings a problem to "altered" metric of the geometry of space.

Look at

What you're saying seems to be the case. But for more precise infos look at:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... tsCatalog/

I think it's what is happening to the surface of the seas. I know it's different from the actual interpretation for tides, but I nevertheless think that it's the right one.

I can't say; becuse your description doesn't make a clear image of the event in my mind.

I think it doesn't contradict the way you understand gravitation though,

Like I said you'll have to precise the parts of your description in order that I get the right picture of your meaning.

I get it: I always meant "accelerating their orbital speed" and you always understood "accelerating away from the moon", which is not the same thing.

But their orbital speed don't accelerate; it's stable in a circular orbit. Now in an elliptic orbit, it does seem to accelerate and then decelerate; but how do you explain that observation? Right now it is explained by the conservation of energy.

Tell me on what "facts" or "opinions", or even "beliefs" your theory is based on. Then we could see.

There is no hurry. I know you cannot grasp what I mean instantly, so I let it sink a bit.

How can I grasp anything if I don't have the basics?

You admit as a fact that space is expanding, and I think it's only an interpretation. The only way around such a difference is time. I have to get used to your theory and you have to get used to mine. That way, we might find a way to link them, otherwise, the probability is thin.

Your making a mistake here; I accept expanding space AND proper motion of galaxies. And I explained why before in this message.

As for your example with the dog, I think we better stay with the sea tides due to the earth/moon system.

The example of the dog was to describe my way of explaining the event with individual deformed space.

To be more precise, I would say that it is the barycenter of the earth and the barycenter of the moon that have a common barycenter that is different from the barycenter of the earth/moon/sun system.

That's being far than more precise; it mixes things. A barycenter is the centre of a two body system; so the moon or the earth don't, each, have a barycenter.

This way, we can treat separately the different parts of the systems, namely the surface of the planets. Now, I repeat that the dynamical way I see the tide phenomenon should not change the way we both interpret orbital motion.

Since you're considering the water of the earth, does centrifugal "force" participate in your tidal effect?

To me, tides are due to a transitory phenomenon and Lagrangian points are not,

What's a transitory phenomenon exactly?

Don't cry again, it's like that and nobody can change that. It's the way our mind works, that's all.

I didn't cry :-) and I'll try to play by your rules.

lorsque ceux-ci sont dignes d'être reconnus."

For me every individual has something worth being recognized.

By the way, this is the only scientific forum I know that respects completely our right to develop personal ideas.

I agree with you.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Andrex » February 11th, 2017, 10:42 pm wrote:
I pretend expansion is the result of galaxies being on inertial motion
Inertial motion means motion due to no energy (you would say: forces) at all; which means that your galaxies don't move but it is the space between them that expands.
Two balls sent on opposite directions in air do not produce the expansion of air between them, but they are nevertheless going away from one another with time.

Andrex wrote:
and you affirm that it is space that is expanding.
I also say that galaxies move according to their kinetic energy. Otherwise, galaxy M 31 could not get closer to us and others coming toward us, while the space between them and us is expanding.
Galaxies are massive bodies, and like any massive body, they can execute all kinds of motion at a time. That's what the moon is actually doing: it moves with regard to the earth, the sun, the galaxy, and all the other massive bodies of the universe at a time.

Andrex wrote:
What would you do at my place?
I would explain clearly what is inertial motion and inertial mass with my small steps. Up until now you didn't however often I asked you.
I did, but it seems that you were not satisfied. I said that inertial motion was due to the steps automatically keeping the same direction and the same length with time if nothing new happened, whereas inertial mass was due to the steps having to change direction or length if something new happened.

Andrex wrote:
1) I guess you mean "because the earth is rotating"

Of course.
You're lucky I guessed it because you never mentioned it.
I know. It's hard to find the "juste mileu" between an explanation that takes too much time and one that doesn't take enough. This is one of the reason why it takes time to adapt to others' ideas.

Let's say that the orbit is circular, then that circle goes by its center (what does "goes" mean?), not by its surface.
"Goes by" here simply meant "passer par", but I think I should have said "goes through".

If you add or remove speed to that 8000 m/sec, the orbit will start to be elliptical; but the apogee and the perigee will be determinate by the amount of speed added or removed to its original speed of 8000 m/sec. and they will not be situated on the former circular orbit; I think.
It is very clear in your first video that the point on a circular orbit where we start an acceleration becomes the perigee of the elliptical orbit that follows, and if it had been a deceleration, then the same point would have become the apogee of the elliptical orbit. The only way to change that point is to bring the satellite on another circular path, which can be done while accelerating or decelerating it to a particular altitude, and then giving it the right speed for this altitude.

I'll look into it; because it brings a problem to "altered" metric of the geometry of space.
That's where our theories might interfere, because whatever the metric you find, my small steps have to justify it. When a step is executed at a particular place in space, it has to curve its trajectory the same way space would have.

Andrex wrote:
I think it's what is happening to the surface of the seas. I know it's different from the actual interpretation for tides, but I nevertheless think that it's the right one.
I can't say; because your description doesn't make a clear image of the event in my mind.
Think of the flexible surface used to represent curved space, and ask yourself how the moon would be able to follow a constant trajectory on that surface since it is not moving at the same speed with regard to the sun when it is on the dark side of the earth than when it is on its sunny side. It is their barycenter that follows a constant trajectory, not the moon and not the earth. The same thing happens to the surfaces of the seas with regard to the moon, they varies in height because they do not move at the right speed to stay at that height, and I think they also move sideways a bit because if we change the height of a satellite, it automatically starts accelerating or decelerating on its new elliptical orbit. The observation that the rotation period of the earth is constantly slowing down might be due to that phenomenon, because it always opposes to its rotation wether it would be daytime or night time. I think it would be a better explanation than the conservation of energy law.

But their orbital speed don't accelerate; it's stable in a circular orbit.
I was talking of accelerating or decelerating artificially satellites that are on a circular orbits.

Now in an elliptic orbit, it does seem to accelerate and then decelerate; but how do you explain that observation? Right now it is explained by the conservation of energy.
It is easily explained by the old principle of inertial motion being compensated by gravitational acceleration, but curved space also works since we can produce elliptical orbits out of the flexible surface usually used as an analogy.

How can I grasp anything if I don't have the basics?
The basics are the speed and the direction of light, doppler effect, and mass, which are three observations that you already know. I think I also already referred you to my example with the two cars instead of the two atoms, which is a good way to understand the principle. Faradave understood the principe that way, but he finally quit discussing, and I suspect that it is because I told him I did not believe SR was right, while he just said that it was a premise to study his own theory. Curved space is also a premise to your own theory, and it is true that I have a hard time to link both theories without discussing it, so I understand Faradave wanted to avoid such a discussion.

Andrex wrote:
You admit as a fact that space is expanding, and I think it's only an interpretation. The only way around such a difference is time. I have to get used to your theory and you have to get used to mine. That way, we might find a way to link them, otherwise, the probability is thin.
Your making a mistake here; I accept expanding space AND proper motion of galaxies. And I explained why before in this message.
You accept proper motion, but as long as it doesn't concern expansion. I consider that motion can only be executed by the small steps, and those small steps can only be executed by massive particles, so I can't consider that any motion can be executed by space.

A barycenter is the center of a two body system; so the moon or the earth don't, each, have a barycenter.
It is true that the three body system is a difficult mathematical problem, but it is also true that a massive body moves with regard to all the other bodies of the universe at a time, so I consider that a barycenter is the center of a system, wether it would be composed of two or of many other bodies, which is the case for earth if we consider its atoms are massive bodies.

Since you're considering the water of the earth, does centrifugal "force" participate in your tidal effect?
Yes it does, but at the same time, it is compensated by the centripetal force of gravitation, so it is impossible to observe that force if we are free to move, as when we are in orbit for example, which is the case for the moon during its transit between the earth and the sun, or its transit on the dark side of the earth.

Andrex wrote:
To me, tides are due to a transitory phenomenon and Lagrangian points are not,
What's a transitory phenomenon exactly?
Here is wiki about a transit: "In astronomy, a transit or astronomical transit is the phenomenon of at least one celestial body appearing to move across the face of another celestial body, hiding a small part of it, as seen by an observer at some particular vantage point."

I didn't cry :-) and I'll try to play by your rules.
We have not elaborated common rules yet, so we can stick to the forum's ones. :0)

Andrex wrote:
lorsque ceux-ci sont dignes d'être reconnus."
For me every individual has something worth being recognized.
You're right, even Trump has something: "du toupet"! :0)

Inchworm
Member

Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Two balls sent on opposite directions in air do not produce the expansion of air between them, but they are nevertheless going away from one another with time.

So if only matter "moves" in space, space has to be "infinite" in order that matter doesn't fall "out of space" somewhere. "Infinite" as a distance is not very appealing to my logic.

Galaxies are massive bodies,

Galaxies are not "massive bodies"; they are a volume of "alterred" geometry of space. But those volumes follow the trajectory of their center of gravity.

That's what the moon is actually doing: it moves with regard to the earth, the sun, the galaxy, and all the other massive bodies of the universe at a time.

I agree, but not with one single motion; with different motions.

I said that inertial motion was due to the steps automatically keeping the same direction and the same length with time if nothing new happened

I'm not asking what "it's due to"; I'm asking "what it is".

whereas inertial mass was due...

It's hard to find the "juste mileu" between an explanation that takes too much time

Take the time you need; I want to undderstand what you're saying.

Goes by" here simply meant "passer par", but I think I should have said "goes through".

Ok; so your circle goes through its center. That's impossible.

That's where our theories might interfere, because whatever the metric you find, my small steps have to justify it. When a step is executed at a particular place in space, it has to curve its trajectory the same way space would have.

My metric is in flat space. It doesn't "curve".

Think of the flexible surface used to represent curved space

Are you talking of this:

Sorry; this is all wrong in regard to space deformation. The center of gravity is in the middle of the ball; not underneat like shown on the image.

ask yourself how the moon would be able to follow a constant trajectory on that surface since it is not moving at the same speed with regard to the sun when it is on the dark side of the earth than when it is on its sunny side.

The motion of the moon, on its orbit around the sun, is like a "corkscrew" or a "wobbling wave" on its track.

It is their barycenter that follows a constant trajectory, not the moon and not the earth.

I agree.

The same thing happens to the surfaces of the seas with regard to the moon, they varies in height because they do not move at the right speed to stay at that height,

it automatically starts accelerating or decelerating on its new elliptical orbit.

Maybe on your tight drawn blancket; but not in "altered" (collapsed) metric where the speed doesn't really change even if it seem to.

The observation that the rotation period of the earth is constantly slowing down

That's cause by the "tidal effect".

It is easily explained by the old principle of inertial motion being compensated by gravitational acceleration,

It's even easier explained by keeping the same speed in a gradually collapsing metric; because then you don't have to bother; energy is conserved.

Curved space is also a premise to your own theory, and it is true that I have a hard time to link both theories without discussing it,

You'll have to keep trying because "curved" space IS NOT a premise to my theory; volume of space collapsed metric is.

so I understand Faradave wanted to avoid such a discussion.

I really don't think Faradave would avoid a discussion if the premises are clear; whatever they are.

You accept proper motion, but as long as it doesn't concern expansion.

How could proper motion concern expansion? They have no link.

and those small steps can only be executed by massive particles, so I can't consider that any motion can be executed by space.

So you're loosing massive particles falling "out of space" somewhere.

A barycenter is the center of a two body system; so the moon or the earth don't, each, have a barycenter.

It is true that the three body system is a difficult mathematical problem,

You're avoiding my objection/correction.

which is the case for earth if we consider its atoms are massive bodies.

And the barycenter of all those atoms is the center of gravity of the earth.

What's a transitory phenomenon exactly?

Here is wiki about a transit: "In astronomy, a transit or astronomical transit is the phenomenon of at least one celestial body appearing to move across the face of another celestial body, hiding a small part of it, as seen by an observer at some particular vantage point."

How do you apply this to "tides"?

My next post will explain tio you the "collapse metric" and expansion.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Expansion metric

When we talk of the expansion of the universe, we normally talk of the “extending” of its metric. Which doesn’t explain the event at all. Especially if you think of the way “metric” is define in science.

So let’s KISS on expansion of the universe, a bit.

Our own metric’s definition will simply be: A “definite basic measure” for a “distance”. We will adopt that measure and will make it “expand”.

For example;
Planck’s length is the shortest length possible to be measured in our universe. So to get the idea of expansion, let’s say that our universe first appeared as a volume of space that had a diameter of Planck’s length; meaning 10^-33 meter.
That was the size of the universe when it first manifested itself at the date of 10^-43 second after “time = zero”; and that is the size from which it started “expanding” until today, 13, 7 billion years later. As you can see, the actual universe is always the same 10^-33 meter; but: extended in all direction, at light-speed, during 13, 7 billion years. So today, it’s a very very big 10^-33 meter volume. This is what “expansion of the universe” means. The original length was simply…stretched.

Consequently, we can take the actual length of the “stretched” diameter of the universe and measure it with a rule that has a normal 10^-33 meter long, and find how many time the “stretched” diameter is more than 10^-33 meter.
Naturally, we can use any definite length to make the same measure. And since the universe is still expanding, we could then find how many time the universe increases with the length chosen in a period of one second.

But the universe is so large that its measurable expansion is diluted; and to observe that expansion, we have to make our measurement on a very long distance (length of space). That distance we measure is called a Megaparsec.

To measure the expanding effect, we use the length of one kilometer.

A megaparsec is worth 30,856,776,000,000,000,000 kilometers; and that distance augments by 67, 9 kilometers every second; that is the actual rate of expansion for the universe; every megaparsec of its total lenght, grows by 67, 9 km in all directions, every seconds. Here is how it happens.

Now let's have a look at what's not observable:

Unobservable altered metric (collapsed) volume of space containing a planet or a star. The deformed geometry reaches to the center of the planet, the star or even the galaxy.

Unobservable altered metric (collapsed) volume of space containing a black hole. The deformed geometry reaches down to the center of the black hole. Horizontal grey lines represent straight trajectories (in every directions) through a “flat” space geometry, redirected toward the center of gravity of deformed volume of space according to the speed of an object.

Red arrows represent a straight trajectory toward the center of gravity. Whatever the speed of an object on such a trajectory, it goes directly, in a straight line to the black hole. It has no chance of orbiting.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

### Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

While looking at my last drawing concentrating on the "red arrows", I noticed that there was a lot of expansion energy (going in all directions in the surrounding "flat" space) that was, undoubtebly, oriented directly to the center of a black hole whitout any possibility of orbiting or being "deviated".

I guess that all that energy "diving" or "rushing" in the black hole gives it constantly additional "mass energy". That's a "prophecy" to be checked out.

It would prove that "mass energy" is the same as "kinetic energy", and that a black hole doesn't have to "eat" matter in order to grow.
Andrex
Member

Posts: 670
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

PreviousNext