A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

[Andrex]

Those vectors represent a step, which is a length over a time in a certain direction, thus a speed, not a force.

Ok; I've copied your drawing and added the info you're giving me. Both particles are orbiting around a center of gravity. What I don't get is the role of the exchange of information between particles in regard to their orbiting motions. What happens if there's only one particle orbiting?

If the volume of the earth was expanding for instance,

Matter doesn't expand. What do you want to explain of expansion employing matter?

its surface would be stretching, but we would not really be moving away from one another, we would only be shrinking,

So two ants standing on a "being blown" balloon are shrinking instead of the distance augmenting between them. That's a new one to me.

If the plane is precisely at the gravity center as in my example, I will get no speed at all with regard to that gravity center,

Naturally; you'll be "blocked" at the center of gravity. But you will be crushed by the pressure made by the kinetic energy (mass energy) of all other particles on top of you who want to get to that center. And if you're at a center of gravity where there's no presence of matter, you're stuck in a "black hole"; which is not better. No "mass energy" means no center of gravity.

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

If you remove the kinetic energy of expansion that brought this point (of space) center of gravity to where it stands , the "former" potential kinetic energy of "mass" will push that point, in space and time, back to its origin. So the pressure on the center of gravity is "potential kinetic energy" toward that center of gravity, that is "blocked" by the kinetic energy of expansion the same way the kinetic energy of expansion is "blocked" by "mass energy". Finally, at a center of gravity the only kind of energy we find is "potential kinetic energy".

Do you mean that the space stays there and penetrates anybody that sits there.

What do you mean here? Space is space, it's everywhere; either you "occupy" it or you don't. If you "occupy" it, you "penetrate" it; you can't eliminate it. The peas in a "pea soup" don't eliminate the soup!

When you say that the body occupies that space, does it also mean that the space occupies the body?

The space never "occupy" anything. Space is a volume; a "field" that is liable to be "occupied" by anything else that might exist. Nothing can exist outside of "space"; nothing can exist in a "no-space" area(sic). Where do you want to put your body if you don't have any space to put it? So you put it in a "definite volume of space". If you eliminate that volume of space, you don't have any more space to put your body in. If you put your written theory inside a box and you eliminate the box, you'll lose your theory. Bodies have to occupy space in order to exist. There are no bodies that don't occupy space; that's impossible.

Does your space permeate bodies or not?

When you swim in a pool; does the pool (not the water; the pool) permeate your body or not? Space is a "pool", a "volume"; not water or air.

In this case, we can say that a body occupies the space the water was occupying before, so we can also say that it takes the space the water was occupying.

"Taking" is not the same as "occupying". You can replace the water in a pool by sand and it's still going to be a pool; but it will be filled with sand instead of water. The pool didn't disappear and the "volume" it represent is still the same and still existing, now occupied by sand.

Do you see the problem? You're trying to explain the different kinds of motion without having succeeded to explain clearly the unique underlying principle.

I might see the problem if you could tell me exactly what is the "unique underlying principle". A volume of "space" is not a principle.

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

No because the body replacing water uses space that was already occupied by water; you're not replacing space by water; you're only using the space that was using water.

How long do you want me to think?

Would a minute be too long?

OK, so the neutrinos were already traveling in all directions,

No. At exactly 10^-43 sec, occured a "phase transition"; and neutrinos where propelled in all directions defining distances while doing so. That is what "created" space. And they have been traveling ever since, at the same speed, expending the total volume of "space" constantly. That is what is represented by the "explosion" analogy.

Where did the gluons come from?

From the same place as the neutrinos; but you don't want to talk about that origin. So for a certain reason you don't want to talk about, the gluons appeared at 10^-36 sec while the neutrinos had appeared at 10^-43 sec. (so gluons appeared a litte bit later).

And why were they already traveling in all directions.

Gluons where not traveling in all directions; gluons are bosons (they have no restrictions in the number occupying a quantum state) and when they appeared in space, the volume of the universe (space) was 10^-15 meter; so they "occupied" all of space that was disposable. But since gluons don't expand, their limited "action field" always stayed 10^-15 meter ever since, while space kept on expanding.

By the way, I went back to the first page to reread the way rotation happened, and I had again that same bad impression: you say that the first two massive particles to get together were both trying to get to their common center of gravity, and you conclude that they automatically started rotating around it since they could not reach it. You already had your particles cruising in all directions before meeting, so why didn't you use that speed to account for their rotational motion?

Which speed do you think was involved?

The proper kinetic energy of each particle gave them motion (that you keep calling "speed"). When they were "trapped" inside a common "space deformation", they followed the topology of the deformation since they couldn't do otherwise. So they directed themselves to "occupy" the single center of gravity. If there had been only one particle, it would have occupy the center without problem (in fact that was there individual situation before each their individual "space deformation" joined). So when they met a the center of gravity composed of "one single point", neither of them could occupy it since the other particle prevented it, so their kinetic energy still "pushing" them , they started to rotate around that center point pushing one another. Like if two round balloons that would not lose their "motion", would push themselves and where bind to suffer the push of its adversary while pushing back. Both motion's energy (push) would then manifest themselves by making the balloons rotate around the center point of gravity.

It doesn't produce "speed"; it produces "motion".

I showed that expansion was not producing a real motion, so why would it produce a real speed?

You didn't show anything of the sort. Try again. You even mix the notion of motion with the notion of "speed". And that doesn't help at all.
Expansion is a "motion" that can be observed by "redshift" or "blueshift". It was also observed by Hubble when seeing galaxies seeming having receded in time. Finally the different masses of particles are only explainable logically if these particles were "produce" at different density of their environment. Different density of the environment means decreasing density resulting of expansion of the "container" of the (invariant) energy of the universe. If the container gets bigger, it expresses a "motion" in all directions.

it only produces redshift.

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

Here is wiki about expansion of the universe.

I hope you can seize the notion that "augmentation of the wavelength of light", necessitates a "motion" of that light on a distance from a galaxy.

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

The term inertia plays on two significations at a time: motion and resistance to motion. That's precisely what my small steps help us to understand.

The term "inertia" means "static". It is employed to characterize the resistance toward motion to indicate its effect of "slowing" the motion toward being "static" or "inert".

If ever you accept as a "fact" that kinetic energy is the expression of "motion"

I do, but only if you accept that it can only be expressed by the intermediate of bodies.

So you think that before a "motion" starts, it needs to have the distance it will travel, already defined. Funny notion of motion.

I don't see the link with what I was saying.

Motion is the "translation" of one object from one point to the other; and an object cannot be at two places at the same time. So the distance of a "motion" doesn't have to be expressed between two bodies before a "motion" starts. On single body at different time is enough; and the distance of the motion to make the trip doesn't have to be determined before the motion starts. It's pretty simple to understand.

[Andrex]

As for the starting of rotation, the following is just about all I can supply you with:



Viewed from the top after they touch.

[Inchworm]

Those vectors represent a step, which is a length over a time in a certain direction, thus a speed, not a force.

Ok; I've copied your drawing and added the info you're giving me. Both particles are orbiting around a center of gravity. What I don't get is the role of the exchange of information between particles in regard to their orbiting motions. What happens if there's only one particle orbiting?

One particle alone cannot orbit around a common center of gravity since it is alone, it can only rotate around its own center of gravity.

its surface would be stretching, but we would not really be moving away from one another, we would only be shrinking,

So two ants standing on a "being blown" balloon are shrinking instead of the distance augmenting between them. That's a new one to me.

It's perfectly logical: if the surface of the earth was expanding, we would be shrinking with regard to it. While space is expanding, we are actually getting smaller and smaller with regard to the universe.

Do you mean that the space stays there and penetrates anybody that sits there.

The peas in a "pea soup" don't eliminate the soup!

No, but the soup does not permeate them either.

"Taking" is not the same as "occupying". You can replace the water in a pool by sand and it's still going to be a pool; but it will be filled with sand instead of water. The pool didn't disappear and the "volume" it represents is still the same and still existing, now occupied by sand.

Then, your definition of space is the same as mine, so why all this fuss about it?

How long do you want me to think?

Would a minute be too long?

I already think a lot more than that.

The proper kinetic energy of each particle gave them motion (that you keep calling "speed"). When they were "trapped" inside a common "space deformation", they followed the topology of the deformation since they couldn't do otherwise. So they directed themselves to "occupy" the single center of gravity. If there had been only one particle, it would have occupy the center without problem (in fact that was there individual situation before each their individual "space deformation" joined). So when they met a the center of gravity composed of "one single point", neither of them could occupy it since the other particle prevented it, so their kinetic energy still "pushing" them , they started to rotate around that center point pushing one another. Like if two round balloons that would not lose their "motion", would push themselves and where bind to suffer the push of its adversary while pushing back. Both motion's energy (push) would then manifest themselves by making the balloons rotate around the center point of gravity.

You're actually describing the way two skaters are transforming their translational motion into a rotational one when they catch one another on their way. Why all that fuss again?

I hope you can seize the notion that "augmentation of the wavelength of light", necessitates a "motion" of that light on a distance from a galaxy.

You may necessitate that expansion produces a motion to oppose it to the motion of gravitation, but if it is due to expansion of space in all directions, then it is not a motion. What about trying to reduce gravitation to no motion instead?

The term inertia plays on two significations at a time: motion and resistance to motion. That's precisely what my small steps help us to understand.

The term "inertia" means "static". It is employed to characterize the resistance toward motion to indicate its effect of "slowing" the motion toward being "static" or "inert".

Here is wiki about inertia then. As you can see, they put rest and motion in the same bag, and I bet you do the same thing. Didn't you learn anything from my small steps?

"Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion; this includes changes to its speed, direction, or state of rest. It is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity."

Motion is the "translation" of one object from one point to the other; and an object cannot be at two places at the same time. So the distance of a "motion" doesn't have to be expressed between two bodies before a "motion" starts. On single body at different time is enough; and the distance of the motion to make the trip doesn't have to be determined before the motion starts. It's pretty simple to understand.

If there is only space around you, how will you measure the distance you travel?

[Inchworm]

As for the starting of rotation, the following is just about all I can supply you with:



Viewed from the top after they touch.

OK! Then it's not like skaters. So it's not understandable!

[Andrex]

One particle alone cannot orbit around a common center of gravity since it is alone, it can only rotate around its own center of gravity.

This is what I don't like: you talk about "orbiting" then jump to "rotating".

The moon orbits around the Earth; how do your information exchanges work with them?

It's perfectly logical: if the surface of the earth was expanding, we would be shrinking with regard to it.

What does mean "with regard to it"? Doesn't it mean "related to"? Which means that you're not really "shrinking", doesn't it?

The peas in a "pea soup" don't eliminate the soup!

No, but the soup does not permeate them either.

So, then, I guess you've got your answer.

Then, your definition of space is the same as mine, so why all this fuss about it?

What's your definition of space? Can matter annihilate space? Is it eliminated by the presence of matter? Is space "solid", liquid or gaseous? Does it permeate matter? Does matter permeate "space". Where does it go when matter take the "space"? Is "space" like water?

You're actually describing the way two skaters are transforming their translational motion into a rotational one when they catch one another on their way. Why all that fuss again?

No. YOU'RE transferring my explanation to skaters that represents rotations accompanied by centrifugal effect. There's no centrifugal effect in my explanation. You read about my particles and you mind sees skaters. Next time I want to explain something to you, I guess I better ask you which explanation I should use. You'll probably understand better, even though you'll keep on understanding what you want.

You may necessitate that expansion produces a motion to oppose it to the motion of gravitation, but if it is due to expansion of space in all directions, then it is not a motion.

I don't need to oppose expansion to gravitation; they do so by themselves. So what is the fact that distances increases in all directions? How do you call that expansion event? And how do you call the contrary event of "collapsing" produced by gravitation; isn't it the contrary "motion" of expanding?

What about trying to reduce gravitation to no motion instead?

What about you doing it? I'm satisfied by what I do with it.

Here is wiki about inertia then. As you can see, they put rest and motion in the same bag, and I bet you do the same thing. Didn't you learn anything from my small steps?

No. Nothing. As for Wiki, not very much either. And when it says that: "Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion or state of rest." what happens while the object is "at rest"? It doesn't have "inertia", or do you have to "push" it to give it some "inertia"? Because, before "pushing it"; it certainly doesn't "resist". (it's time to think a minute).

If there is only space around you, how will you measure the distance you travel?

I've traveled many time during an hour, before stopping. Distance is time and time is distance. They both are the same measures. If there's only space around me, I don't need to measure anything.

OK! Then it's not like skaters. So it's not understandable!

You could use skaters; but you would have to tie their arms to their side and make them skate backward to the center of gravity of a circular sloping to the middle ice rink. When their backs touches, if the keep skating, they will start to rotate around the center of gravity. But it seems to me more complicated a bit.

[Inchworm]

It's perfectly logical: if the surface of the earth was expanding, we would be shrinking with regard to it.

What does mean "with regard to it"? Doesn't it mean "related to"? Which means that you're not really "shrinking", doesn't it?

No, but I'm not really moving either. I stay at the same place on the surface while the surface expands in all directions.

Then, your definition of space is the same as mine, so why all this fuss about it?

What's your definition of space? Can matter annihilate space? Is it eliminated by the presence of matter? Is space "solid", liquid or gaseous? Does it permeate matter? Does matter permeate "space". Where does it go when matter take the "space"? Is "space" like water?

Space is empty, it doesn't affect matter and matter doesn't affect it. There is space between macroscopic bodies, but also between microscopic ones. I don't believe space can produce gravitation or expansion, so I don't have to care about those questions the way you have. Tell me how an empty volume can affect a volume full of things and vice-versa.

You're actually describing the way two skaters are transforming their translational motion into a rotational one when they catch one another on their way. Why all that fuss again?

No. YOU'RE transferring my explanation to skaters that represents rotations accompanied by centrifugal effect.

You're trying to avoid centrifugal effect even if you can observe it. Even the earth shows one. No wonder why I don't understand what you say!

There's no centrifugal effect in my explanation. You read about my particles and your mind sees skaters. Next time I want to explain something to you, I guess I better ask you which explanation I should use. You'll probably understand better, even though you'll keep on understanding what you want.

Explain centrifugal effect.

what happens while the object is "at rest"?

There is actually no way to say if an object is at rest or not, so it's not an answerable question. You even said that everything was moving.

It doesn't have "inertia", or do you have to "push" it to give it some "inertia"?

It has inertia in the sense that it is actually moving, and it also has inertia in the sense that it resists to get a motion. Two opposite meanings in the same word!

Because, before "pushing it"; it certainly doesn't "resist". (it's time to think a minute).

Take two minutes and tell me if the steps' mechanism is not able to explain those two kinds of inertia at a time.

You could use skaters; but you would have to tie their arms to their side and make them skate backward to the center of gravity of a circular sloping to the middle ice rink. When their backs touches, if the keep skating, they will start to rotate around the center of gravity. But it seems to me more complicated a bit.

Explain centrifugal motion just to see if your explanation is logical.

[Andrex]

Space is empty, it doesn't affect matter and matter doesn't affect it. There is space between macroscopic bodies, but also between microscopic ones.

And so, if there is "space" between microscopic bodies, since macroscopic bodies are made of microscopic bodies, you have space inside macroscopic bodies. Meaning the "body" didn't "eliminate" it or even "replaced" it. You're coming slowly to it.
All is left for you to understand, is that microscopic bodies, not only are they separated by "space", but they also are "fields" of energy which is the same as if we said "definite small volumes of energy". So since a "volume" is the quantity of three-dimensional space enclosed by a closed surface, you might understand that space exists and is present even if it's "occupied". The following "step" will be to understand that the universe is 100% "space" occupied, here and there, by matter (5% altogether).

I don't believe space can produce gravitation or expansion, so I don't have to care about those questions the way you have.

We finally got the reason of all your problems. You base your knowledge and research on your "beliefs". You could believe that Earth was flat if you never saw a picture from NASA.

It's not that I "care" about those questions; I just try to understand what means and what are the consequences of "geometry deformed space". I could "believe" in Newton's concept easily; but it's not logic. Thinking that matter could affect matter is worse than thinking that "space" could affect matter; because "space", at least, "contains" matter and is liable to affect it the same as a container affects the content.

Tell me how an empty volume can affect a volume full of things and vice-versa.

Pour milk in a glass and continue pouring when it's full. You'll see the difference between the effect of empty volume and the one of a full volume. The "vice" will be enough; you won't need the "versa".

You're trying to avoid centrifugal effect even if you can observe it. Even the earth shows one. No wonder why I don't understand what you say!

You don't understand only because you "believe" that the skaters are the reasons of the effect they are subjected to. You "believe" that Earth's rotation has a centrifugal effect because you, once, used a sling. You believe that Earth could throw you away tangentially but you stay on Earth, I guess, because you "step" toward Earth, perpendicularly to that tangential "throw".
There is no centrifugal effect when to first particles start rotating around a center of gravity; unless you want to call "centrifugal effect" the "fact" that their opposing "pushes" deviate their trajectory around that center of gravity. Which in fact is the origin of centrifugal "effect".

Explain centrifugal effect.

It's an "effect" induced by rotation that adds "potential" kinetic energy toward a tangent line of the rotation's trajectory. The intensity of that "potential" kinetic energy depends on the radius and the speed of the rotation.

what happens while the object is "at rest"?

There is actually no way to say if an object is at rest or not, so it's not an answerable question. You even said that everything was moving.

I know what I said; the question becomes do you know what you said? You said that particles where moving BECAUSE they exchanged light information. So how can you say that, if you can't say if something is at rest or not? Because; if I understood your theory a bit, your steps are made of "at rest" than moving, then "at rest" again.

It doesn't have "inertia", or do you have to "push" it to give it some "inertia"?

It has inertia in the sense that it is actually moving, and it also has inertia in the sense that it resists to get a motion.

So a white ball "immobile" on a snooker table, is actually moving but resist to get a "motion". It's moving without rolling. Thanks for that clear explication; I guess I'll have to do like you and "believe" it; because there's no way anyone can "understand" it.

Take two minutes and tell me if the steps' mechanism is not able to explain those two kinds of inertia at a time.

Two minutes is quite a bit. It doesn't take that long to understand that "steps to" and "steps fro" could explain two kinds of "inertia"; something near a "to" and a "fro" inertia.

You could use skaters; but you would have to tie their arms to their side and make them skate backward to the center of gravity of a circular sloping to the middle ice rink. When their backs touches, if the keep skating, they will start to rotate around the center of gravity. But it seems to me more complicated a bit.

Explain centrifugal motion just to see if your explanation is logical.

I think I did a bit before. What is the logic of your "belief" in regard of centrifugal effect? Did you know that Newton considered it as a "fictitious" "force" or "effect"?

I now understand why you didn't accept to "create" a brand new theory, starting from "scratch", since you need your "beliefs" to do it and "from scratch" would mean forgetting them. But maybe someone else will be interested someday.

[Inchworm]

Space is empty, it doesn't affect matter and matter doesn't affect it. There is space between macroscopic bodies, but also between microscopic ones.

And so, if there is "space" between microscopic bodies, since macroscopic bodies are made of microscopic bodies, you have space inside macroscopic bodies. Meaning the "body" didn't "eliminate" it or even "replaced" it. You're coming slowly to it.

On the contrary, I think you're beginning to understand that I always understood what you meant.

You're trying to avoid centrifugal effect even if you can observe it. Even the earth shows one. No wonder why I don't understand what you say!

There is no centrifugal effect when to first particles start rotating around a center of gravity; unless you want to call "centrifugal effect" the "fact" that their opposing "pushes" deviate their trajectory around that center of gravity. Which in fact is the origin of centrifugal "effect".

There would never be any centrifugal effect if your two particles would be orbiting, but they are not. They are touching each other, and they push on each other to reach their center of gravity, the same as the atoms of the earth are actually doing, and which produces a bulge at the equator and no bulge at the poles because it is rotating. Once your two particles would start rotating, they would automatically suffer the same centrifugal effect, which is an observed fact, so you cannot deny it.

Explain centrifugal effect.

It's an "effect" induced by rotation that adds "potential" kinetic energy toward a tangent line of the rotation's trajectory. The intensity of that "potential" kinetic energy depends on the radius and the speed of the rotation.

Do you actually mean that your two particles would suffer the same centrifugal effect than my two skaters?

what happens while the object is "at rest"?

There is actually no way to say if an object is at rest or not, so it's not an answerable question. You even said that everything was moving.

I know what I said; the question becomes do you know what you said? You said that particles where moving BECAUSE they exchanged light information. So how can you say that, if you can't say if something is at rest or not? Because; if I understood your theory a bit, your steps are made of "at rest", then moving, then "at rest" again.

A step from one of my atoms is made with regard to the other atom, so as you can see, it is really making a step while the other is actually at rest with regard to it. But we were talking about wiki's definition of inertia, and I said that it was putting motion and rest in the same bag. Here it is again:

"Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion or state of rest."

Do you agree or not?

It doesn't have "inertia", or do you have to "push" it to give it some "inertia"?

It has inertia in the sense that it is actually moving, and it also has inertia in the sense that it resists to get a motion.

So a white ball "immobile" on a snooker table, is actually moving but resist to get a "motion". It's moving without rolling.

It is not moving with regard to the other balls, but it is certainly moving because the surface of the earth is rotating, and because the earth itself is moving around the sun.

I now understand why you didn't accept to "create" a brand new theory, starting from "scratch", since you need your "beliefs" to do it and "from scratch" would mean forgetting them. But maybe someone else will be interested someday.

Why do you want to create a new theory? Aren't you satisfied with the one you have?

[Andrex]

On the contrary, I think you're beginning to understand that I always understood what you meant.

Your questions didn't show it at all.

Once your two particles would start rotating, they would automatically suffer the same centrifugal effect,

Must I repeat:

the "fact" that their opposing "pushes" deviate their trajectory around that center of gravity. Which in fact is the origin of centrifugal "effect".

Do you actually mean that your two particles would suffer the same centrifugal effect than my two skaters?

Isn't it what I said? I said that the origin of centrifugal effect started with rotation; it's a consequence of rotation; which is simply normal. But your skaters are not orbiting around a center of gravity because they are pushed to that center; but because they resist the centrifugal effect that they create. It's the same result with contrary causes.

"Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion or state of rest."

Do you agree or not?

It is what wiki says; but we where discussing the logic of the term "inertial motion" which I don't agree using. Inertia is not "motion".

It is not moving with regard to the other balls, but it is certainly moving because the surface of the earth is rotating, and because the earth itself is moving around the sun.

And the Sun moves around the galaxy and the galaxy moves in "space" ..."in regard to" becomes quite handy in you system; you can put everything "at rest" just by comparing to a faster object. How can you hope understanding "reality" this way?

Why do you want to create a new theory? Aren't you satisfied with the one you have?

I'm never completely satisfied of anything; but I think that if you would have accept, the final theory would have been the same as mine. It's impossible, in my mind, to come to another result.

But again, we'll never know; won't we?

[Inchworm]

the "fact" that their opposing "pushes" deviate their trajectory around that center of gravity. Which in fact is the origin of centrifugal "effect".

How a push from the gravity center of two spheres which is oriented towards their common gravity center can deviate from that direction? Did you try to find an analogy for that motion?

Do you actually mean that your two particles would suffer the same centrifugal effect than my two skaters?

Isn't it what I said? I said that the origin of centrifugal effect started with rotation; it's a consequence of rotation; which is simply normal. But your skaters are not orbiting around a center of gravity because they are pushed to that center; but because they resist the centrifugal effect that they create. It's the same result with contrary causes.

The atoms of the earth are actually moving around their common center of gravity, which is in fact the gravity center of the earth, and the centrifugal effect is creating a bulge at the equator which can be measured. What is the difference between that effect and the one produced by the rotation of my two skaters and how do you explain their rotation? Is there two kinds of rotation?

"Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion or state of rest."

Do you agree or not?

It is what wiki says; but we where discussing the logic of the term "inertial motion" which I don't agree using. Inertia is not "motion".

Here is wiki about inertial frame then:

"In a location such as a steadily moving railway carriage, a dropped ball (as seen by an observer in the carriage) would behave as it would if it were dropped in a stationary carriage. The ball would simply descend vertically. It is possible to ignore the motion of the carriage by defining it as an inertial frame."

You see? Motion and rest, same combat again.

It is not moving with regard to the other balls, but it is certainly moving because the surface of the earth is rotating, and because the earth itself is moving around the sun.

And the Sun moves around the galaxy and the galaxy moves in "space" ..."in regard to" becomes quite handy in you system; you can put everything "at rest" just by comparing to a faster object.

It doesn't show that rest exists, on the contrary, it shows that what is considered at rest on the earth surface is not necessary at rest in the universe.

the "fact" that their opposing "pushes" deviate their trajectory around that center of gravity. Which in fact is the origin of centrifugal "effect".

How can a push from the gravity center of two spheres that is oriented towards their common gravity center can deviate from that direction? Did you try to find an analogy for that motion?

Do you actually mean that your two particles would suffer the same centrifugal effect than my two skaters?

Isn't it what I said? I said that the origin of centrifugal effect started with rotation; it's a consequence of rotation; which is simply normal. But your skaters are not orbiting around a center of gravity because they are pushed to that center; but because they resist the centrifugal effect that they create. It's the same result with contrary causes.

The atoms of the earth are actually moving around their common center of gravity, which is in fact the gravity center of the earth, and the centrifugal effect is creating a bulge at the equator which can be measured. What is the difference between that effect and the one produced by the rotation of my two skaters and how do you explain their rotation? Is there two kinds of rotation?

"Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion or state of rest."

Do you agree or not?

It is what wiki says; but we where discussing the logic of the term "inertial motion" which I don't agree using. Inertia is not "motion".

Here is wiki about inertial frame then:

"In a location such as a steadily moving railway carriage, a dropped ball (as seen by an observer in the carriage) would behave as it would if it were dropped in a stationary carriage. The ball would simply descend vertically. It is possible to ignore the motion of the carriage by defining it as an inertial frame."

You see? Motion and rest, same combat again.

It is not moving with regard to the other balls, but it is certainly moving because the surface of the earth is rotating, and because the earth itself is moving around the sun.

And the Sun moves around the galaxy and the galaxy moves in "space" ..."in regard to" becomes quite handy in you system; you can put everything "at rest" just by comparing to a faster object.

It doesn't show that rest exists, on the contrary, it shows that what is considered at rest on the earth surface is not necessary at rest in the universe.

Why do you want to create a new theory? Aren't you satisfied with the one you have?

I'm never completely satisfied of anything; but I think that if you would have accept, the final theory would have been the same as mine. It's impossible, in my mind, to come to another result.

I knew, and it's why I didn't consider your proposition seriously. The only creative possibility is that we find a link between our two theories, but it is also very uncertain.

[Andrex]

How a push from the gravity center of two spheres which is oriented towards their common gravity center can deviate from that direction?

What do you mean: "a push from the gravity center"? I've been telling you for 7 pages that "gravitation is "passive", non energetic. How do you want it to "push"? The balls are pushing each other.

Did you try to find an analogy for that motion?

Balls pushing themselves is not enough? Do you think that a round ball pushing against another round ball will stay in place without being diverted around the ball it pushes?

What is the difference between that effect and the one produced by the rotation of my two skaters and how do you explain their rotation? Is there two kinds of rotation?

No there's not two kinds of rotation; a rotation is a rotation. Your skaters are rotating because they are holding together while skating; my particles are rotating because they are pushing one another while the space deformation is holding them together.

You see? Motion and rest, same combat again.

Seeming at rest isn't the same as being at rest. Absolute rest doesn't exist. Your wiki analogy is the same as my analogy of someone in a boat or a train pouring coffee in a cup.

It doesn't show that rest exists, on the contrary, it shows that what is considered at rest on the earth surface is not necessary at rest in the universe.

You're the one using "at rest"; not me. In fact it shows that considering something at rest is wrong since nothing is at rest. You can use it to measure speed compare to another object but it has nothing to do when considering "motion". Speed and motion are not the same thing; that is what you don't seem to understand. It's like the "far away" galaxies that seem to go at more than light speed; in reality they're not.

I knew, and it's why I didn't consider your proposition seriously.

Reaction of a faithful "believer". But I was very serious. I wanted to do it fairly by eliminating everything of or opinions. I knew you wouldn't accept though.

[Inchworm]

How a push from the gravity center of two spheres which is oriented towards their common gravity center can deviate from that direction?

What do you mean: "a push from the gravity center"? I've been telling you for 7 pages that "gravitation is "passive", non energetic. How do you want it to "push"? The balls are pushing each other.

Put your two balls on the flexible fabric without giving them any speed, and they will be pushing each other because their own deformed space is pushing them towards one another.

Did you try to find an analogy for that motion?

Balls pushing themselves is not enough? Do you think that a round ball pushing against another round ball will stay in place without being diverted around the ball it pushes?

Of course not! Where did you take that idea? The two balls on the fabric will not rotate if you don't give them a rotational speed.

You see? Motion and rest, same combat again.

Seeming at rest isn't the same as being at rest. Absolute rest doesn't exist. Your wiki analogy is the same as my analogy of someone in a boat or a train pouring coffee in a cup.

With SR, the term at rest means that the distance is not changing between two bodies, and that they are not rotating, thus not experiencing centrifugal motion. If they are orbiting around a common barycenter, the tide effect will also show that they are rotating, not your tide effect, but the one that is producing tides on earth, the one due to the dimensions of orbiting bodies.

It doesn't show that rest exists, on the contrary, it shows that what is considered at rest on the earth surface is not necessary at rest in the universe.

Speed and motion are not the same thing; that is what you don't seem to understand. It's like the "far away" galaxies that seem to go at more than light speed; in reality they're not.

The only way to tell if something is moving with regard to us is to measure a difference in the information we receive from it. If there is a difference, then it is moving, and we can use that information to know the direction and the speed of the motion. Expansion is a particularity, it is not considered as speed, so it is not a motion. By definition, a motion needs to have a speed and a direction with regard to the observer.

I knew, and it's why I didn't consider your proposition seriously.

Reaction of a faithful "believer".

I consider people the way I would like to be considered myself, so when you consider me as a believer, I consider it is because you also consider yourself to be so.

But I was very serious. I wanted to do it fairly by eliminating everything of our opinions. I knew you wouldn't accept though.

You consider that your opinions are facts, but you're a nasty believer like every one of us. :0)

[Andrex]

Put your two balls on the flexible fabric without giving them any speed,

If they don't have any kinetic energy, they stay "at rest"; but like you know, staying "at rest" is impossible; that "state" doesn't exists. So they do have kinetic energy, that gives them "motion" (with a certain "speed"; whatever it is, is irrelevant). That motion has, then, to be kept manifested, but is obliged to divert from the straight direction to the center of gravity because of the opposition from each particles toward one another; so they start to circle around the center of gravity, constantly trying to "occupy" it.

and they will be pushing each other because their own deformed space is pushing them towards one another.

So, now, you have three flexible fabrics in your analogy; one for each balls and one for the whole event. You'll need a fourth one to cover the whole thing so nobody sees it.

Of course not! Where did you take that idea? The two balls on the fabric will not rotate if you don't give them a rotational speed.

Geez! "Speed" again? Now you've invented "rotational speed". A rotation is a "motion" not a "speed"!!! The two balls on the fabric will not rotate if you don't give them "motion" (not speed). But you don't have to GIVE them motion since they each already have "motion (nothing is at rest); and the motion of each particle will THEN continue to be manifested by "joining" and BECOMING a rotation.

With SR, the term at rest means that the distance is not changing between two bodies, and that they are not rotating, thus not experiencing centrifugal motion.

In SR the term "at rest" means that two bodies have the same velocity (speed and direction) in the same reference frame. "Distances" between bodies has no relation with their rotating or not.

If they are orbiting around a common barycenter, the tide effect will also show that they are rotating, not your tide effect, but the one that is producing tides on earth, the one due to the dimensions of orbiting bodies.

Two bodies orbiting around a barycenter will show a tidal effect even if they are not rotating. Tidal effect is not centrifugal effect (which is negligible). It's not the centrifugal effect that produces tides on Earth. As for : "...the one due to the dimensions of the bodies", I don't know at all what you mean by that.

The only way to tell if something is moving with regard to us is to measure a difference in the information we receive from it.

Ouf! You've just understood the principle of "redshift". Bravo"

expansion is a particularity, it is not considered as speed, so it is not a motion.

It's not "expansion" that's not considered as a "speed"; it's "Hubble constant"; which is used to quantify expansion of the whole universe. Which doesn't mean that the "motion" doesn't have "speed". For instance, if you put two planets separated by one Megaparsec, they will recess from each other at 67,9 km/sec. This means that each planet will "move away" from the other at the speed of 33,95 km/sec. So expansion has nothing "particular" as a "motion". It's the tool we use to describe the universality of that motion that is particular.

By definition, a motion needs to have a speed and a direction with regard to the observer.

That is quite a "definition" indeed! A motion has to have speed and direction (which is velocity). So since, in reality, nothing is at rest, everything is in motion. Tell me the real "velocity" of something that is considered "at rest" in a referential frame. Furthermore, since the "speed" you measure is only the speed "in regard of" the speed of something else, tell me the "real" speed of a motion; I guess all you have to do is add to the measured speed, that speed and direction needed for a "motion" to simply "be".

I consider people the way I would like to be considered myself, so when you consider me as a believer, I consider it is because you also consider yourself to be so.

Unfortunately, it's not a "consideration" but an "observation".

You consider that your opinions are facts, but you're a nasty believer like every one of us.

My opinions are "facts"??? I won't start again the discussion on what is a "fact" and what is an "opinion". We already did that. As for the other remark; I'm more a "nasty unbeliever"; I'm afraid.

[Inchworm]

Put your two balls on the flexible fabric without giving them any speed,

If they don't have any kinetic energy, they stay "at rest"; but like you know, staying "at rest" is impossible; that "state" doesn't exists.

The two balls are not at rest with regard to the rest of the universe, but they are with regard to one another.

so they start to circle around the center of gravity, constantly trying to "occupy" it.

It is not what happens to the two balls on the flexible fabric, so you are negating an observed fact this time.

and they will be pushing each other because their own deformed space is pushing them towards one another.

So, now, you have three flexible fabrics in your analogy; one for each balls and one for the whole event.

Nasty fact denier. There is only one fabric, and the two balls are pushing on one another in the middle of it, not rotating, and not about to do so.

(nothing is at rest); and the motion of each particle will THEN continue to be manifested by "joining" and BECOMING a rotation.

Prove it! For the moment, it is only an opinion, and a curious one indeed.

In SR the term "at rest" means that two bodies have the same velocity (speed and direction) in the same reference frame.

If they do have the same speed and same direction, then they necessarily are in the same reference frame.

Tidal effect is not centrifugal effect (which is negligible). It's not the centrifugal effect that produces tides on Earth. As for : "...the one due to the dimensions of the bodies", I don't know at all what you mean by that.

Replace force by effect in this exert from wiki:

"The tidal force is a secondary effect of the force of gravity and is responsible for the tides. It arises because the gravitational force exerted by one body on another is not constant across it: the nearest side is attracted more strongly than the farthest side. Thus, the tidal force is differential."

It's not "expansion" that's not considered as a "speed"; it's "Hubble constant"; which is used to quantify expansion of the whole universe. Which doesn't mean that the "motion" doesn't have "speed". For instance, if you put two planets separated by one Megaparsec, they will recess from each other at 67,9 km/sec. This means that each planet will "move away" from the other at the speed of 33,95 km/sec. So expansion has nothing "particular" as a "motion". It's the tool we use to describe the universality of that motion that is particular.

Expansion is particular in the sense that mass is not responsible for the motion.

Tell me the real "velocity" of something that is considered "at rest" in a referential frame.

Tell me the real velocity a galaxy has while expanding away from others.

My opinions are "facts"??? I won't start again the discussion on what is a "fact" and what is an "opinion". We already did that. As for the other remark; I'm more a "nasty unbeliever"; I'm afraid.

Then you are a nasty unbeliever with blinders. :0)

[Andrex]

The two balls are not at rest with regard to the rest of the universe, but they are with regard to one another.

But we are talking about the universe and it's components. So never mind imaginations and impressions.

so they start to circle around the center of gravity, constantly trying to "occupy" it.

It is not what happens to the two balls on the flexible fabric, so you are negating an observed fact this time.

So, then tell me what you observe on your "fabric" when the balls keep their motion that you call "speed"? Furthermore, do you mean that yourself standing on the ground, are not "rotating" with the Earth around your mutual center of gravity?

Nasty fact denier. There is only one fabric, and the two balls are pushing on one another in the middle of it, not rotating, and not about to do so.

Because they're on a "flexible fabric"; put them in a solid "funnel" shape declination and, if they keep their "speed", they will start rotating. On a flexible fabric, both balls are "incrusted" in the fabric side by side and your balls don't keep their "motion"; they loose it, mostly in the flexibility of the fabric that offers resistance to their proper motion. The more rigid the fabric, the less resistance the balls suffer.
On the other hand, yourself, you keep your motion toward that center of gravity, standing on the ground; and you rotate around the center of Earth's gravity. When you add kinetic energy to your body by walking, you simply change your place of rotation around the center. If you give yourself enough kinetic energy in the anti-gravitional direction, you'll elevate yourself from the ground. We call that "jumping". If you use a rocket to give you enough kinetic energy, you'll end up in space.

Prove it! For the moment, it is only an opinion, and a curious one indeed.

Good objection! The first one yet.

If they do have the same speed and same direction, then they necessarily are in the same reference frame.

You're right; I should have add "...as you" so they would seem "at rest" to you.

Replace force by effect in this exert from wiki:

So even wiki says it's not a centrifugal effect.

Expansion is particular in the sense that mass is not responsible for the motion.

Mass is never responsible for motion; kinetic energy is; always. Mass is responsible of "resistance to motion".

Tell me the real "velocity" of something that is considered "at rest" in a referential frame.

Tell me the real velocity a galaxy has while expanding away from others.

I told you already; that "real" velocity is 33,95 km/sec from everything that is one megaparsec away. And it is the same for every points of space.

Then you are a nasty unbeliever with blinders.

Only because I see better with my mind than with my eyes. I'm conscious that my eyes may deceive me.

[Inchworm]

So, then tell me what you observe on your "fabric" when the balls keep their motion that you call "speed"?

They keep their motion because it is imprinted in the doppler effect between the small steps from their atoms. Motion is due to the limited speed of light. The information for the execution of the steps is between the atoms, not inside them. When one of my atoms make a step, imagine that the deformed space that tells the other atom to stay at the right distance cannot reach that other atom at once.

Prove it! For the moment, it is only an opinion, and a curious one indeed.

Good objection! The first one yet.

You forgot the one about the time it takes for a laser beam to travel back and forth from the moon. Without that fact, my small steps wouldn't be possible, and without the motion that we call inertial motion either.

Replace force by effect in this exert from wiki:

So even wiki says it's not a centrifugal effect.

Orbital motion is a rotational motion, so it automatically carries a centrifugal effect. That effect is not due to a direct motion away from the center of rotation, it is due to a tangential motion. If we liberate the earth from the sun's gravity, it will automatically follow a tangent trajectory that will nevertheless bring it away from where the sun was, and it will have the speed its orbital trajectory had. This motion is the same a ball has when it is liberated from a rotating slingshot, so the two motions are certainly closely related.

Expansion is particular in the sense that mass is not responsible for the motion.

Mass is never responsible for motion; kinetic energy is; always. Mass is responsible of "resistance to motion".

Mass expresses itself only when motion is given to a body, so it is certainly related to motion, and my small steps show how that relation could work.

Tell me the real velocity a galaxy has while expanding away from others.

I told you already; that "real" velocity is 33,95 km/sec from everything that is one megaparsec away. And it is the same for every points of space.

Let's consider that our galaxy is expanding away from two other galaxies that are situated in two opposed directions with regard to ours and at the same distance from ours. The speed we would have away from one of them would be the same as the speed we have in the opposed direction. Our galaxy would thus be moving at the same speed in two opposed direction.

[Andrex]

They keep their motion because it is imprinted in the doppler effect between the small steps from their atoms. Motion is due to the limited speed of light. The information for the execution of the steps is between the atoms, not inside them. When one of my atoms make a step, imagine that the deformed space that tells the other atom to stay at the right distance cannot reach that other atom at once.

And you "observe" all that? Well I can't.

Motion is due to the limited speed of light

So the fastest "motion" possible is responsible for the smallest motion. So a thousand tons of "sugar" is responsible of one grain of sugar. Very logical.

The information for the execution of the steps is between the atoms, not inside them.

Have you ever thought that what you call "information" for "motion" (steps) could be kinetic energy? And kinetic energy cannot be outside the object that expresses "motion".

When one of my atoms make a step, imagine that the deformed space that tells the other atom to stay at the right distance cannot reach that other atom at once.

Everybody knows today that "instantaneous" doesn't exist. The problem here is that deformed space has only one single information which is: it's altered metric. This metric is merely "passive"; it doesn't "emit" anything. It's the "speed" of the object that responds to it. Nothing else happens. Objects are independent from one another; they don't have to exchange any information between them to follow the "path" presented by the "altered space metrics".

You forgot the one about the time it takes for a laser beam to travel back and forth from the moon.

No I didn't forget; but you seem to forget that a laser beam is a special kind of light; it's "bundles of light" that acts like "bundles of matter" far from equivalent to "normal" photons. But I don't have the "full" answer yet. I'm missing time.

Orbital motion is a rotational motion, so it automatically carries a centrifugal effect.

Orbital motion is not at all a rotation. When horses run on a circular track, they "orbit" around the center of the track; they don't rotate with the track. Be serious.

If we liberate the earth from the sun's gravity, it will automatically follow a tangent trajectory that will nevertheless bring it away from where the sun was, and it will have the speed its orbital trajectory had.

The reality is that you have to give Earth enough speed to liberate it from the Sun's gravity; so it's normal that it would keep the attained speed. As for the tangential trajectory, that is just as normal that the objects keeps going "straight ahead" in the direction of the motion.

This motion is the same a ball has when it is liberated from a rotating slingshot, so the two motions are certainly closely related.

Using the rotation of a sling is a way to add "speed" to a ball in order that it will adopt a trajectory, in deformed space, related to such a "speed". The only relation is "adding" speed to counter gravitation. You could use a cannon or just throw the ball and get the same "result". The motion resulting from a cannon doesn't have anything to do with the one of rotation; but the result is the same. You can establish a relation between a sling and a cannon; but it won't get you anywhere; because it's not a "fair" relation.

Mass expresses itself only when motion is given to a body,

Mass is energy; nothing else; "motion" is the work produced by energy. They are not the same thing; one follows (depends) of the other. The energy that expresses "motion" is kinetic energy; which confirms that mass energy is kinetic energy; but directed in "opposite" of expansion's kinetic energy; that's what makes mass "resistance".

so it is certainly related to motion, and my small steps show how that relation could work.

Energy is related to "motion"; there's no doubt about that; but your small steps don't show anything related to energy; it stipulates that motion is related to successive "granular" informations. Energy doesn't work by "boosts"; it's is a "steady" constant flow of expression.

Let's consider that our galaxy is expanding away from two other galaxies that are situated in two opposed directions with regard to ours and at the same distance from ours. The speed we would have away from one of them would be the same as the speed we have in the opposed direction. Our galaxy would thus be moving at the same speed in two opposed direction.

Our galaxy doesn't expand away from anything; it's the other galaxies that expand away from ours; and whatever direction you consider, there's always that "remaining" 33,95 km/sec (out of 67,9 km/sec), beside our galaxy's real speed, that you'll measure; and that is the real speed of the other galaxies. That's what relativity is all about. It is also caused by the fact that there's no center of the universe; which is the same as: "every point" of the universe is his center point.

[Inchworm]

Motion is due to the limited speed of light

So the fastest "motion" possible is responsible for the smallest motion. So a thousand tons of "sugar" is responsible of one grain of sugar. Very logical.

Your logic is surprising. A speed doesn't have to be important to produce doppler effect, and if that doppler effect is able to produce motion in return, then it can produce the same low speed. When will you decide to study those steps?

The information for the execution of the steps is between the atoms, not inside them.

Have you ever thought that what you call "information" for "motion" (steps) could be kinetic energy? And kinetic energy cannot be outside the object that expresses "motion".

I do not consider that light has kinetic energy, it only carries the information that produces some, because only sources of light can resist to change speed or direction, which is the only way to measure kinetic energy.

When one of my atoms make a step, imagine that the deformed space that tells the other atom to stay at the right distance cannot reach that other atom at once.

Everybody knows today that "instantaneous" doesn't exist. The problem here is that deformed space has only one single information which is: it's altered metric. This metric is merely "passive"; it doesn't "emit" anything. It's the "speed" of the object that responds to it. Nothing else happens. Objects are independent from one another; they don't have to exchange any information between them to follow the "path" presented by the "altered space metrics".

How come living things need to exchange information to know what to do then? Maybe you don't think that you need to? It would explain why you don't bother to study my small steps.

Orbital motion is a rotational motion, so it automatically carries a centrifugal effect.

Orbital motion is not at all a rotation. When horses run on a circular track, they "orbit" around the center of the track; they don't rotate with the track. Be serious.

They nevertheless suffer a centrifugal effect, so they are necessarily rotating around a center. If we can draw the motion on paper, and it goes in circle, then we know it suffers centrifugal effect. Deformed space balances that effect, but it cannot replace it.

As for the tangential trajectory, that is just as normal that the objects keeps going "straight ahead" in the direction of the motion.

Ahead in the direction of a tangential motion automatically means away from the center of rotation, which is the very definition of centrifugal effect.

Mass expresses itself only when motion is given to a body,

Mass is energy; nothing else;

Mass in not there if no motion is given to a body, so the energy is not there either.

Energy is related to "motion"; there's no doubt about that; but your small steps don't show anything related to energy; it stipulates that motion is related to successive "granular" information.

That information is light, which is energy, and it produces the motion of sources of light, which are sources of energy.

Energy doesn't work by "boosts"; it's is a "steady" constant flow of expression.

Quantum theory proves the contrary.

Let's consider that our galaxy is expanding away from two other galaxies that are situated in two opposed directions with regard to ours and at the same distance from ours. The speed we would have away from one of them would be the same as the speed we have in the opposed direction. Our galaxy would thus be moving at the same speed in two opposed direction.

Our galaxy doesn't expand away from anything; it's the other galaxies that expand away from ours;

Not true. The galaxies are considered to be expanding away from one another, so ours is certainly doing so. Forget about their speed, they are not moving, it is only the space that expands.

[Andrex]

and if that doppler effect is able to produce motion in return,

Which urges me to ask you: " If a Doppler "effect" produces "motion", what produces that Doppler "effect"?

I do not consider that light has kinetic energy, it only carries the information that produces some

Do you mean: That produces some...kinetic energy? Then what produces light? But more so, what kind of information can light carry regarding something that isn't produce yet; a "recipe"? An information in physics is something that exist already; not something that will eventually exist.

because only sources of light can resist to change speed or direction,

So light doesn't deviate when it passes through "altered space"? You'll have a problem proving that affirmation.

which is the only way to measure kinetic energy.

Since when does a "definition" needs a "measure" to say what an object is? What measure do you have to possess in order to identify "pea soup"? The subject is not the "measure" of kinetic energy; but kinetic energy itself. You don't even need a measure to define what a "distance" is.

How come living things need to exchange information to know what to do then?

Being "conscientious" of the environment is not exchanging information between living things. You don't need me to tell you not to try running through a brick wall.

Maybe you don't think that you need to? It would explain why you don't bother to study my small steps.

So you think that the only reason I would study your smalls steps would be because you tell me to? What do you think I would do if you told me to run through a brick wall? But I am studying your small steps and I am asking you questions about it, before putting my objections. What do you want more?

They nevertheless suffer a centrifugal effect, so they are necessarily rotating around a center. If we can draw the motion on paper, and it goes in circle, then we know it suffers centrifugal effect.

You must take care not to draw your circle too fast; you might rip the paper you're drawing on. This is exactly what a "belief" is. You should ask the horse if it feels a centrifugal effect. I'm sure he'd say: Hiiihiiiyeeyeeyee!!!

Deformed space balances that effect, but it cannot replace it.

You don't see the difference between an "orbiting" situation and "rotating" situation. You don't see the difference between a rock circling around your head in a "sling" and a bird flying around you. What can I say?

Mass in not there if no motion is given to a body, so the energy is not there either.

So your ball, immobile at the center of your deformed tight blanket, has no mass.

That information is light, which is energy, and it produces the motion of sources of light, which are sources of energy.

Not easy to understand clearly; but it says, mainly, that light is the information that produces the "motion" of their sources which are energy. Is that it? In other words, the sources of light moves according to the motion of light produced by the energy of their source. The sources of light move before light is capable of giving the information. Which places the effect before the cause. The sources of motion moves before the motion is expressed. Quite logical indeed.

Energy doesn't work by "boosts"; it's is a "steady" constant flow of expression.

Quantum theory proves the contrary.

Then don't just say it; demonstrate it.

Our galaxy doesn't expand away from anything; it's the other galaxies that expand away from ours;

Not true. The galaxies are considered to be expanding away from one another, so ours is certainly doing so. Forget about their speed, they are not moving, it is only the space that expands.

What we observe is that most galaxies are receding away from ours. What we deduce is that most galaxies are receding from one another. What you learned is that all galaxies are expanding away from one another; and you believe it without thinking about it. The "facts" are that some galaxies are getting closer to us regardless of expansion; other galaxies are coming toward us but are receding from us anyway. But most galaxies are receding from us. You cannot observe our galaxy receding from other galaxies; that's impossible.

[Inchworm]

and if that doppler effect is able to produce motion in return,

Which urges me to ask you: " If a Doppler "effect" produces "motion", what produces that Doppler "effect"?

The same motion. I explained that to you so many times that I resist to do so again. Maybe I'm beginning to surrender. You're not giving me any opening.

I do not consider that light has kinetic energy, it only carries the information that produces some

Do you mean: That produces some...kinetic energy? Then what produces light? But more so, what kind of information can light carry regarding something that isn't produce yet; a "recipe"? An information in physics is something that exist already; not something that will eventually exist.

Same comment.

because only sources of light can resist to change speed or direction,

So light doesn't deviate when it passes through "altered space"? You'll have a problem proving that affirmation.

We could talk about it if you would understand the steps, but I think you will finally never do so.

How come living things need to exchange information to know what to do then?

Being "conscientious" of the environment is not exchanging information between living things. You don't need me to tell you not to try running through a brick wall.

No, but I need the wall to tell me it is there before I hit it, so it has to send me the information one way or another.

Maybe you don't think that you need to? It would explain why you don't bother to study my small steps.

I am studying your small steps and I am asking you questions about it, before putting my objections. What do you want more?

You ask one question, and then you immediately ridicule my answer. Try to forget your feeling than my answers are ridicule, and ask another question instead.

. You don't see the difference between a rock circling around your head in a "sling" and a bird flying around you. What can I say?

The bird pushes on air the same way the rock pulls on the rope.

So your ball, immobile at the center of your deformed tight blanket, has no mass.

There is now way to tell a body has a mass if it is alone in the universe. We have to move it to know, and we have to be massive to do so.

That information is light, which is energy, and it produces the motion of sources of light, which are sources of energy.

... In other words, the sources of light moves according to the motion of light produced by the energy of their source. The sources of light move before light is capable of giving the information. Which places the effect before the cause. The sources of motion moves before the motion is expressed. Quite logical indeed.

You are actually ridiculing my answer for nothing, because your answer shows that you did not understand the mechanism. There are two sources of light in my animation, and you are using only one to prove your point.

Energy doesn't work by "boosts"; it's is a "steady" constant flow of expression.

Quantum theory proves the contrary.

Then don't just say it; demonstrate it.

QT is already demonstrated. Quantum means discontinuous.

most galaxies are receding from us. You cannot observe our galaxy receding from other galaxies; that's impossible.

That's what I say, but you say it has speed, so you say it is moving.

[Andrex]

The same motion. I explained that to you so many times that I resist to do so again. Maybe I'm beginning to surrender. You're not giving me any opening.

Don't resist; just tell me it's motion that produces motion. Which is exactly what you're saying with a lot of added words.

Do you mean: That produces some...kinetic energy? Then what produces light? But more so, what kind of information can light carry regarding something that isn't produce yet; a "recipe"? An information in physics is something that exist already; not something that will eventually exist.

Same comment.

What you mean is: same logic. And I agree.

So light doesn't deviate when it passes through "altered space"? You'll have a problem proving that affirmation.

We could talk about it if you would understand the steps, but I think you will finally never do so.

I guess what would come out of it would be: light deviates in altered space because altered space makes it deviate.

Being "conscientious" of the environment is not exchanging information between living things. You don't need me to tell you not to try running through a brick wall.

No, but I need the wall to tell me it is there before I hit it, so it has to send me the information one way or another.

!) A wall is not a living object.
2) Let's hope you get the info (you see its reflected light, to bad for bling people) before you hit the wall.
3) One way or another is not too solid an explanation. Do you want me to tell you how light will "inform" you? There's only one way.

You ask one question, and then you immediately ridicule my answer. Try to forget your feeling than my answers are ridicule, and ask another question instead.

I'm not ridiculing your answers; I'm explaining them.

You don't see the difference between a rock circling around your head in a "sling" and a bird flying around you. What can I say?

The bird pushes on air the same way the rock pulls on the rope.

So the bird suffers a centrifugal effect? Why not the air pulling the bird and the rope pushing the rock?

So your ball, immobile at the center of your deformed tight blanket, has no mass.

There is now way to tell a body has a mass if it is alone in the universe. We have to move it to know, and we have to be massive to do so.

So what is deforming the blanket then, underneath the immobile ball?

You are actually ridiculing my answer for nothing, because your answer shows that you did not understand the mechanism. There are two sources of light in my animation, and you are using only one to prove your point.

Is that what you said? I tough you said: "That information is light, which is energy, and it produces the motion of sources of light, which are sources of energy." Where did you mention two sources of light, one being the source of the other source of light?

Then don't just say it; demonstrate it.

QT is already demonstrated. Quantum means discontinuous.

Oh! Sorry. I've never met that signification of Quantum yet.

most galaxies are receding from us. You cannot observe our galaxy receding from other galaxies; that's impossible.

That's what I say, but you say it has speed, so you say it is moving.

So what you're saying is that absolute rest exist?

[Inchworm]

You don't see the difference between a rock circling around your head in a "sling" and a bird flying around you. What can I say?

The bird pushes on air the same way the rock pulls on the rope.

So the bird suffers a centrifugal effect? Why not the air pulling the bird and the rope pushing the rock?

Birds suffer the same Gs pilots flying fighter planes suffer. Are you going to deny another fact?

So your ball, immobile at the center of your deformed tight blanket, has no mass.

There is no way to tell a body has a mass if it is alone in the universe. We have to move it to know, and we have to be massive to do so.

So what is deforming the blanket then, underneath the immobile ball?

There is no blanket in space to show us the deformation.

You are actually ridiculing my answer for nothing, because your answer shows that you did not understand the mechanism. There are two sources of light in my animation, and you are using only one to prove your point.

Is that what you said? I tough you said: "That information is light, which is energy, and it produces the motion of sources of light, which are sources of energy." Where did you mention two sources of light, one being the source of the other source of light?

I was talking of the steps, and they are necessarily executed between two bonded particles, so I couldn't expect that you did not even remembered that.

most galaxies are receding from us. You cannot observe our galaxy receding from other galaxies; that's impossible.

That's what I say, but you say it has speed, so you say it is moving.

So what you're saying is that absolute rest exist?

Absolutely not. What I say is that expansion does not produce motion of massive bodies, it only stretches the wavelengths of light.

[Andrex]

Birds suffer the same Gs pilots flying fighter planes suffer. Are you going to deny another fact?

And are you going to stop jumping from one subject to the other before resolving any of them?

So what is deforming the blanket then, underneath the immobile ball?

There is no blanket in space to show us the deformation.

Really? I thought that it was the ONLY good analogy to explain deformed space? So the subject is not mass anymore; but blankets?

I was talking of the steps, and they are necessarily executed between two bonded particles, so I couldn't expect that you did not even remembered that.

You mean I remember what I shouldn't. As for the steps, it's a scenario that you proposed with the necessary premises to make it work. What I'm trying to do is accept your premises; and you're not helping me at all.

That's what I say, but you say it has speed, so you say it is moving.
So what you're saying is that absolute rest exist?

Absolutely not. What I say is that expansion does not produce motion of massive bodies, it only stretches the wavelengths of light.

Then you should call it the "stretching of wavelength of light"; not "expansion of space". Why don't you use always the right terms?
But if you're right, explain to me how a galaxy can be coming toward us (blue shifted) and still get farther if the galaxy doesn't move? Then explain to me how a galaxy can get closer to ours if only expansion of space is involved?

[Inchworm]

if you're right, explain to me how a galaxy can be coming toward us (blue shifted) and still get farther if the galaxy doesn't move?

That kind of motion can be executed by my small steps, not expansion. Redshift can only produce steps towards the light source, which is the inverse of expansion. That's why I attribute it to gravitation. You like to liquidate false forces, so I suggest that you start considering expansion as part of them for a moment, just to see where it could bring you. Can you imagine space without expansion? What if the Bigbang was really an explosion for instance? An explosion is not as isotropic as an expansion, things are not all moving away from the center at the same speed for instance, so with the effect of gravitation, it could have initiated the rotations we are actually observing.

[Andrex]

That kind of motion can be executed by my small steps, not expansion. Redshift can only produce steps towards the light source, which is the inverse of expansion. That's why I attribute it to gravitation.

Explain to me how "steps toward the light source" can explain a galaxy coming toward us and receding in the same time? The "light source" is the said galaxy and it's coming to us; not going to the galaxy.

You like to liquidate false forces, so I suggest that you start considering expansion as part of them for a moment, just to see where it could bring you.

I don't liquidate false forces, they don't exist; and I don't think what I like, that is irrelevant. But I could make abstraction of expansion, if my previous question had a logical answer. I need reasons to eliminate the obvious.

Can you imagine space without expansion?

Not without a logical explanation of the observed "facts".

What if the Bigbang was really an explosion for instance?

It was.

An explosion is not as isotropic as an expansion, things are not all moving away from the center at the same speed for instance,

What center? Anisotropic exists in an explosion, only because the distance from the center point as an "effect" on the intensity of the propulsion. Intensity diminishes in regard to the distance. When space was born, all energy that exists was propelling everything at the same intensity; there was absolutely no resistance to it whatsoever because nothing else existed yet.

so with the effect of gravitation, it could have initiated the rotations we are actually observing.

The universe doesn't rotate. There was no gravitation at the time, yet. As usual, you don't place events and things chronologically. You jump from one subject to the other without specificity of their meanings. Running everywhere will lead you to nowhere.

Give me the first explication I asked you and we will go from there.

[Inchworm]

Explain to me how "steps toward the light source" can explain a galaxy coming toward us and receding in the same time?

Redshift is due to expansion, so it has nothing to do with galaxies going in different directions and at a particular speed with regard to one another. The only way to explain that kind of motion is inertia, and the only way that I know to explain logically inertia is my small steps. As long as you won't be able to understand those steps, you won't be able to understand what I say about inertia. Just remember what you learned at school about straight motion instead of always relying on expansion. Straight motion exists out of expansion, and it is not because it is always affected by gravitation that it does not exist.

An explosion is not as isotropic as an expansion, things are not all moving away from the center at the same speed for instance,

What center?

A real explosion has a center that we can observe from anywhere around that center.

Anisotropic exists in an explosion, only because the distance from the center point has an "effect" on the intensity of the propulsion. Intensity diminishes in regard to the distance. When space was born, all energy that exists was propelling everything at the same intensity; there was absolutely no resistance to it whatsoever because nothing else existed yet.

That's exactly what I was saying. If things were not traveling at the same speed, it can explain that some smaller ones began gravitating around some bigger ones while they were catching them up, or that a bunch of them that were not traveling at the same speed than another bunch began orbiting around one another. Another way of explaining differential speeds is to imagine that two universes where everything was at rest ran into one another. We can even imagine that it was the cause for the bigbang.

so with the effect of gravitation, it could have initiated the rotations we are actually observing.

The universe doesn't rotate. There was no gravitation at the time, yet.

No need for gravitation at the beginning, only some massive particles overtaking some others.

Running everywhere will lead you to nowhere.

Like expansion for galaxies? :0)

[Andrex]

Redshift is due to expansion, so it has nothing to do with galaxies going in different directions and at a particular speed with regard to one another.

Redshift means that something moves away from the observer; blueshift means something is coming toward the observer. It's not a question of speed in regard of one another; it's a question of "motion" in regard of the observer.

The only way to explain that kind of motion is inertia, and the only way that I know to explain logically inertia is my small steps.

The word "inertia" doesn't mean anything so explain. Explaining "inertia" with "small steps" is not done yet; I'm still waiting.

As long as you won't be able to understand those steps, you won't be able to understand what I say about inertia.

I'll never understand if you don't explain them logically. And if they're not logical, they're not understandable. I'm certainly not going to "believe".

Just remember what you learned at school about straight motion instead of always relying on expansion.

1) straight motion is impossible in altered space.
2) What did I learn about straight motion at school?
3) I don't rely on expansion to understand straight motion; I rely on the geometry of space.

So talk clearly and try to be precise. I'm never impressed by "free" affirmations.

Straight motion exists out of expansion, and it is not because it is always affected by gravitation that it does not exist.

Straight motion exist in "flat" space and it is not always affected by gravitation. In "altered space" when the motion is directly toward the center of gravity, it's straight. The slightless the motion diverts from "straight to the center", the trajectory curves. Directly toward the center of gravity is the only "path" that a motion doesn't curve and the only situation where straight motion is possible in altered space whatever the speed.

Anisotropic exists in an explosion, only because the distance from the center point has an "effect" on the intensity of the propulsion. Intensity diminishes in regard to the distance. When space was born, all energy that exists was propelling everything at the same intensity; there was absolutely no resistance to it whatsoever because nothing else existed yet.

That's exactly what I was saying.

No you were saying exactly the contrary. I'm telling you that everything, at the birth of the univers, was moving at the same speed. In fact there was only one "thing" moving at that speed; and it still does.

If things were not traveling at the same speed, it can explain that some smaller ones began gravitating around some bigger ones while they were catching them up, or that a bunch of them that were not traveling at the same speed than another bunch began orbiting around one another.

There was no "small ones" or "big ones" or whatever; there was only one virtual massless particle. Nothing else. You buy your "boeuf Bourguignon" as already made meal; all you do is heat it before eating it.

Another way of explaining differential speeds is to imagine that two universes where everything was at rest ran into one another.

That could be imagined; but first you have to understand that one "universe" is "everything that exists"; then it becomes rather difficult to make two "everything that exists" collide.

We can even imagine that it was the cause for the bigbang.

You can imagine that, effectively; but then, you cannot imagine everything people can imagine. You wouldn't believe it. Some can even imagine that there could be many "universe"; others, that the gravitation could be "repulsive"; probably that they can also imagine expansion as a contracting effect; who knows at what length can go imagination?

The universe doesn't rotate. There was no gravitation at the time, yet.

No need for gravitation at the beginning, only some massive particles overtaking some others.

Are you taking me for a dumb? "No gravitation" means "no massive particle". You're the one using that F(ichu)...ball on the blanket. Can't you have two ideas that can "stick" together?

Running everywhere will lead you to nowhere.

Like expansion for galaxies?

No. Like massive particles with no gravitation. How many time will I have to tell you that galaxies don't expand? Think before writing words.

[Inchworm]

Redshift means that something moves away from the observer; blueshift means something is coming toward the observer. It's not a question of speed in regard of one another; it's a question of "motion" in regard of the observer.

Motions can all produce blueshift, and expansion cannot, so it's not a motion.

The only way to explain that kind of motion is inertia, and the only way that I know to explain logically inertia is my small steps.

The word "inertia" doesn't mean anything so explain. Explaining "inertia" with "small steps" is not done yet; I'm still waiting.

You're not waiting for explanations, you're waiting for a surrender. I said over and over that the steps explained both motion and resistance to motion at a time, but you don't want to hear about that because you don't believe in that kind of motion.

As long as you won't be able to understand those steps, you won't be able to understand what I say about inertia.

I'll never understand if you don't explain them logically. And if they're not logical, they're not understandable.

You don't understand them because you don't make any compromise, not because they are not logical.

Straight motion exists out of expansion, and it is not because it is always affected by gravitation that it does not exist.

Straight motion exist in "flat" space and it is not always affected by gravitation.

Flat space means constant expansion, not straight motion since it is not a motion.

In "altered space" when the motion is directly toward the center of gravity, it's straight. The slightless the motion diverts from "straight to the center", the trajectory curves. Directly toward the center of gravity is the only "path" that a motion doesn't curve and the only situation where straight motion is possible in altered space whatever the speed.

Gravity produces constant acceleration or constant deceleration, not constant motion. Constant motion is constant speed and constant direction. Not sure gravity can produce straight directions though, because while a body is accelerated towards a particular center of gravity, it's trajectory is necessarily altered by the presence of another center of gravity elsewhere.

The universe doesn't rotate. There was no gravitation at the time, yet.

No need for gravitation at the beginning, only some massive particles overtaking some others.

Are you taking me for a dumb? "No gravitation" means "no massive particle".

If you have no way to explain differential speeds, then you cannot explain rotation, and the facts are that everything can rotate.

Think before writing words.

You want me to think like you, but I'm not sure I don't prefer not to think at all than to think like you. :0)

[Andrex]

Motions can all produce blueshift, and expansion cannot, so it's not a motion.

The motion "going away from the observer" doesn't produce blueshift (that's one of the "all" you talk about); it produces redshift; so expansion is a motion.

I said over and over that the steps explained both motion and resistance to motion at a time, but you don't want to hear about that because you don't believe in that kind of motion.

What kind of motion are you talking about? I didn't ask you to "say" that the steps explained it; I asked you to explain it.

You don't understand them because you don't make any compromise, not because they are not logical.

Do you want me to make a compromise before I find it logical?

Flat space means constant expansion, not straight motion since it is not a motion.

"Flat space" is not a motion??? That is quite a logical affirmation; congratulation! As a matter of fact, a potato isn't motion either. "Flat" space doesn't mean constant inflation at all. It means "flat" topology where motion is expressed in a straight trajectory. Don't say everything that comes to your mind before thinking.

Gravity produces constant acceleration or constant deceleration, not constant motion.

Who was talking about "constant motion"? We where talking of straight motion meaning straight trajectories which doesn't imply "constancy" at all.

Not sure gravity can produce straight directions though, because while a body is accelerated towards a particular center of gravity, it's trajectory is necessarily altered by the presence of another center of gravity elsewhere.

Oh! And what about a third center of gravity on the other side (of elsewhere, naturally); and a fourth on top; even a fifth underneath. Anything else? What you're saying is "acceleration" directly toward a center of gravity alters the trajectory. Can you prove that? If you get in the air with an helicopter, make it stay in place (stationary position) and you jump out of it, you won't fall beneath it? How many miles away will you hit the ground?

If you have no way to explain differential speeds, then you cannot explain rotation, and the facts are that everything can rotate.

Anything ...but the universe doesn't. And if you want your kind of objections, here it is: a non rotating object, doesn't rotate.

You want me to think like you, but I'm not sure I don't prefer not to think at all than to think like you.

Let's hope you get conscious, soon, that you're succeeding perfectly.

[Inchworm]

The motion "going away from the observer" doesn't produce blueshift (that's one of the "all" you talk about); it produces redshift; so expansion is a motion.

All motions can produce blueshift, and expansion cannot, so it's not a motion.

What kind of motion are you talking about? I didn't ask you to "say" that the steps explained it; I asked you to explain it.

I had my lesson! I know you won't try to understand, so I won't explain it again. You can still find it here if you change your mind!

Do you want me to make a compromise before I find it logical?

Of course, otherwise it wouldn't be a compromise. For my part, I decided to study your theory even if I did not find it logical.

"Flat" space doesn't mean constant inflation at all. It means "flat" topology where motion is expressed in a straight trajectory.

Either we chose that it is bodies that move, or that it is space that expands, but we cannot chose both. If it is space that expands, then bodies do not have to move, they only have to wait until space does the job at their place.