Le Repteux

I'm as serious as Wiki can be. It says that nothing could tell that heliocentrism was right before Galileo could see the planets going with his new telescope, which means that all the scientists who proposed that hypothesis before him did not base it on evidence, but on speculation. I said that if neutrinos had mass, and that mass was due to the small steps between bonded particles, then neutrinos should have components. It was thus an hypothesis, not an assertion.

Heliocentrism was not based on observations before we had good telescopes, and Copernicus even said that he only invented it to facilitate calculations, which means that he did not think it could be objectively tested.

Yes, can you remember me which "points in my hypothesis are contrary to observations" please?

That's one opinion, I registered it, but if you don't mind, I'll wait for more than one before making my mind, and I hope that they will be more elaborated than yours, otherwise I wont be able to conclude.

Science begins with ideas that do not seem to be pertinent at first sight, and there is good chances that they wont be at second sight too, because that kind of idea comes from chance, and because chance comes from a random process. We have to be careful with our ideas because of that, and because even if we know that, they always seem to be relevant to us since they come from our own navel.

Everybody cares for his own navel anyway, so are you! But there are different ways to look at others' navel, and yours is particularly blind.

I said this: "Now, if the frequency of the steps could change, atoms could increase it instead of resisting increasingly to acceleration, which means that if it was an atomic clock that was accelerated, it would run faster, which unfortunately contradicts SR." I should have said: "which would unfortunately contradict SR". All the phrase is on conditional, which means that I only wanted to make a comparison between the increase in length of the steps and their increase in frequency.

Contrary to your claim, I said that the steps would increase in length when accelerated, not in frequency, what should have no impact on the frequency of accelerated clocks.

I'm back because I couldn't live without your judicious and how helpful comments xyzt. Final relative speed has! But just in case you forgot about it: it still takes some acceleration to get speed.

The model for heliocentrism was geometrical, and there was no other prediction than geometric ones, but it still had an enormous effect on the following discoveries. For the moment, the small steps are only geometrical too, and the only prediction I can make from them is that, one day or another, the Higgs will be found not to be the right answer for mass. Talking of mass, here is how the small steps would produce mass increase. The steps follow the information carried by light, and they are made of accelerations from rest followed by decelerations to rest (rest here means no doppler effect to account for), which means that their speed increases to a top and decreases to zero. Their length and their direction can change, but not their frequency, thus for a molecule accelerated in a given direction, only their length can change. For a molecule to gain the same final speed, that length increases constantly if the acceleration is low but constant, and it increases abruptly if the acceleration is high. The longer is a step, the faster its top speed will be if atoms cannot change the time it takes to make their steps. When the molecule would get to a certain speed close enough to the speed of light, the top speed of the steps would thus exceed the speed of light, which is impossible because their speed depend on light's information, and which means that the molecule would resist increasingly to be accelerated, what we interpret as a mass increase for particles in an accelerator. Now, if the frequency of the steps could change, atoms could increase it instead of resisting increasingly to acceleration, which means that if it was an atomic clock that was accelerated, it would run faster, which unfortunately contradicts SR. Since we can measure mass increase each time we accelerate a particle, I am incline to believe that, if the steps really exist, their frequency would not change, but it also means that we would have to interpret SR experiments differently.

After having revisited Wiki about heliocentrisim, I revive the debate on the small steps. Without an improved telescope, nothing could prove that heliocentrism was the solution, and nobody could suspect that it would help us understand gravitation. Heliocentrism became evident only when Galileo saw that the moon was irregular, that Venus had phases, that Jupiter had moons, that the size of the planets were changing with time, etc. Because of that lack of technology, it took 100 years before heliocentrism was accepted as a fact. Einstein was luckier, it took only a couple of years before the next eclipse showed the bending of starlight by the sun's mass. How long will the small steps stay unexamined? Bets are opened! I said that the small steps were unobservable since we had to use light from the atoms to observe them, and that we already know it is impossible to observe the inertial rotation of the earth this way. Trying to detect earth's rotation while observing the small steps that produce it would resume to repeat the Michelson/Morley experiment. But if this rotation is really due to the small steps, then it seems to me that the null result of the M/M experiment could be explained by the steps, thus giving some credit to the hypothesis. For instance, if we detect a light ray actually traveling in the direction of earth's rotation, the atoms that we use to detect that light would actually be making their steps away from that light, which would retard its detection, and if the light ray that we detect would be going against the rotation, the steps would be going against the light, which would advance its detection. But since light would be emitted by atoms that are actually making the same steps as the ones that detect it, the retard from one atom would be nulled by the advance from the other and vice-versa, making it impossible to observe earth's rotation. The small steps would have implications on the relativity principle if they were real, because SR has been developed from the null result of the M/M experiment, but what if they were? Even if you are conviced that relativity is true, can you imagine these implications? Would you still conclude that time is slowing for molecules on relative motion one before the other for instance? And if so, can you imagine how the small steps from their atoms would justify that slowing?

Sorry Phy, but I cant discuss with Damocles around. Thread closed for me until that guy gets a full paid vacation away from Speculations forum, duration undetermined.

No need to snatch moderators job Charon, they don't need to, but I think that I will help them nevertheless: THREAD CLOSED (at least for me)

Phi, if you want to discuss, then discuss, if you want to close the thread, then close it, but, PLEASE, don't tell me when, why, what or how to think! You are not in my head and you thus just don't know what I am aiming at. My ideas are about facts, and I stick to them. To me, resisting to change is a fact, and if you think it is not, then say why without menacing me and we shall discuss your ideas about it. Moreover, this thread has been put in the "Speculations" forum, and speculations are about uncertainties, which, unfortunately, are not considered as science on scientific forums. So if you don't want uncertainties on SF, then I think that you should seriously consider closing the Speculations forum, otherwise, please let those who like to speculate do so. Now, if your "please" did not contain any menace, then forget about what I just said, but try to use friendly words when you talk to me. What did you say? Policemen don't have to be friendly? Of course not, but they don't participate to discussions with their police hats either.

Yes I was, cause I think that my idea about change applies to any kind of evolution, even to motion. For the same reason as above, I suppose so, but I can't show you how because you don't listen to me! I knew that you could answer that, but I took a chance that you would know that I knew. Of course we change our environment, we can even change our genes if we want to, nevertheless, our environment is actually telling us who is the boss, as for our genes, I bet that the principle of mutation/selection is not ready to give up, and that of diversity either. They don't seem to, but they can change direction and speed, which should depend on some sort of random process if my idea about change is correct. OK, Big-bang is about how the universe was born and has evolved, thus about how atoms were born and have evolved. Correct? I said "almost" simultaneously, because I know very well that interactions are not instantaneous. Our discussion here is a proof for both of us that you are wrong, because we both visibly resist to change. This is a fact, not just an idea. Wars depend on that fact. You could at least admit that I am right on that one, but things being as they are, I bet you will resit to do so. Resisting to a change produces a real feeling: it hurts our ego a bit and forces us to react. Can you feel it? Permit that I stick my foot in the door. You are right on this one, I agree that circumstances may change my mind. Can you do so?