Le Repteux

What about the steps measuring distances while justifying inertial motion? Is it worth commenting?

Here is a message that I've put on another forum about the relation between conscience and imagination. "To me, consciousness is about perceiving a change, but since we resist automatically to a change, it is also about resisting to a change. I have an analogy to illustrate that: if you move a body, you feel its resistance, and you take conscience of it because of its resistance. What happens then is that your sensitive neurons transport the information to your brain, that also resists to the change happening to its own neurons. This is for a change from the environment, but there are also changes in our own brain, which is a job for our imagination. If the brain changes something on the informations it already contains, it automatically resists to it, it is forced to if it has to integrate it, and this is why it perceives it. We can only perceive changes, and changes sufficient to hurt if we do not take them into consideration. When we are asleep, it takes a sufficiently loud sound to awake us. When we are concentrated on a job, it takes a sufficiently important change to catch our attention. Any change that is not sufficient does not get to our conscience because we do not have to integrate it. When we resist to a change, it means that we are actually integrating it, not that we reject it. Without resistance, we could not feel anything. How is that? Do you feel a resistance now?" Do you feel it?

No comments! Swansont, I new I should not have put these calculations. Even if they would have been right, nobody would care. Calculations only prove that you are able to do them, thus that you are intelligent enough, and I am not, so I get back to words, because you don't have to be so intelligent to explain with words, isn't it? OK, lets get serious! I have a description of the small steps that might catch your interest. Small steps are about traveling through space, but they are also about measuring distances. The distance that a body travels from one point to another when on inertial motion is made of them. If you take the length of each small step between the atoms, and multiply by the number of small steps during the time they travel, which you can calculate from their frequency, you get the distance a body travels. But since the small steps from atoms are composed of the billions of steps between their components, if you need more precision on the distance traveled, you can take the distance that their components travel during the same time. But then you will have to use a sine function to calculate them, because they get longer and longer while the atom's step accelerates, and they get shorter and shorter when it decelerates. Isn't that what we do when we want to measure a length with more and more precision: use a more precise instrument? How precisely the small steps would be able to measure distances if they were real? Could they be as absolute as the light that induces them?

I don't even know where to begin with! The idea behind my question, but you may have noticed, was to do as if there was no expansion, and if the calculations I was talking about would have given the expected result, to try to find another way to explain the redshift. Your argument about the curves is very good, I'll think about it, and if I can link it to my idea, I'll be back.

OK, but if you want to calculate their rotational speed, you will have to plug this frequency gap into the equations, no? OK, I understand what you mean. Do you know by how much that curve would shift then? Would the predicted curve cross the observed curve, for instance? If we calculated a mean observed velocity, would it be closer to the mean predicted one?

If you are talking about the time dilation of relativity, this is not what I am talking about. I am only talking of the impact doppler effect has on the observed frequency of a moving clock. In your example, for him to observe this effect, the racetrack would have to be in direct radial motion with regard to the observer.

OK, if you are not sure, then my question might have a sense. You have to refer to the calculation of the frequency for a clock in motion. A galaxy is a clock, and cosmological redshift is considered as a motion as far as the calculations of their rotational periods are concerned. The way you measure the rotational speed is independent of the calculations: if you measure the speed at a certain radius, you get the period. In other words, when you observe a galaxy in motion, all its rotational speeds at different radii are changed by the same proportion. Yes, I know.

If you are sure of that, then my question is bogus. No difference between the different speeds, but difference in calculation of the abnormal mass.

Recession speed acts on the rotation period of galaxies, thus on their rotational speed, the same way it would act on the time periods of a clock: it stretches them. If you remove the cosmological redshift to the calculations of the red shifted side, and add it to the calculations of the blue shifted side, you get a galaxy that rotates too fast. Thus if you don't, you might have a galaxy that rotates exactly at the right speed. We can consider different radii as different clocks, each of them being affected the same by cosmological redshift.

Hi Nicolas, The redshift observed is calculated exactly the same way doppler effect is calculated, this is why I used the term doppler effect. Do you have an answer to my question about the effect of this redshift on rotational calculations?

Hi everybody, The calculations of the normal rotation period of the galaxies we observe depends on their observed mass, but it also depends on the doppler effect from their recession. The more they speed away from us, the more their period is stretched. When we calculate this period, thus when we calculate their rotational speed, we have to include doppler effect in the calculations, which increases that speed. Has anybody thought of not including the doppler effect in the calculations? If not, can somebody do these calculations for a couple of galaxies and tell me if their rotational speed is still too fast to account for their observable mass?

From your point of view, new theories are trashed because of good reasoning, from mine, my theory might be trashed because of resisting to change: two different perspectives, isn't it? I don't deny he could change his mind rapidly, I only say that he must have obeyed the same natural laws than everybody else. If you give somebody a push, you can feel the resistance, and if you push his mind too.

Not directly, but if mass is related to the small steps, and if these have something to do with chemical bonds, then these questions are indirectly related to mass, which is the most direct observation we can make of resisting to change. Of course, but it takes time nevertheless: with the small steps, mass depends on the mediator taking time to link atoms while they are accelerated, and in the same way, it also takes time to integrate a new information, thus to learn. The analogy is not only direct, the time delay has exactly the same effect. We experiment resisting to change everyday from others: why do you think that you resist so hard to the idea that it is natural? I also heard that he was impatient and rude with his staff, and this kind of behavior is a good indicator of a strong resistance to change.

You got to enlighten your screen if you read that out of my posts. I am referring to a theory of mine about mass here, and that theory includes all that exist for real, including the words that we use to discuss our ideas. There is nothing special for the scientists in that theory, only the same resistance to change than everybody else. You see, this is the problem that someone faces when presenting a new idea to the scientific community: it unfortunately induces the feeling that we plead against the community, which is absolutely wrong in my case. Feelings are not supposed to interfere with theories, but it seems that they do, and that it is an unconscious phenomenon. Here is my first post on page three: Hi Cladking, I agee with that. We are on the automatic pilot almost all the time. We expect no change until it hurts. So I expect that it is probably the same for scientists, and that it will not change, but for eternity, so I expect no harm from this idea. Is it a law of nature? And if so, why all that change around us? Why so much resistance, and so much change? Is it also a law? Do you really see that I want to change science on that post? That I treat scientists differently than me or anybody else? Here comes the trashman... Here comes the trashman...

Accepted by what proportion of the scientific community? Do we have approximate numbers for that.

Measures from the bending of starlight came years after he began telling about his ideas, isn't it? I meant the discussions I saw, not the discussions I had. I edited the precision.

If thoughts and emotions are related to chemical and biological processes, why would they not resist a change? It takes time for those process to change. How quickly? Starting at the moment he began to discuss them, how long did it take for Einstein's ideas to be adopted, for instance? I never saw anybody change his mind in the discussions that I saw on all the forums I participated to. People change their mind so slowly that this kind of change is almost impossible to observe.

Maybe I should have said: "We cannot train to adapt faster than usual to a new idea...." We learn with what was given to us in the beginning, and we add automatisms to automatisms, thus when comes the time to change one, it takes the time to be sure it is worth to change it, the time to forget the old one, and the time to learn the new one. This process takes time, and it also takes time when we discuss our ideas. It is thus not because a new idea works that it will be accepted instantly, even if it meets all the scientific criteria. Everybody is born, everybody gets older, everybody dies. The laws of nature apply to every human, except for superman of course, and to me, resisting to change is a law of nature.

Not exactly. I would summarize like this: everybody resist unconsciously to a change in their automatisms, and some resist consciously too, adding this way to their unconscious resistance. As long as it does not fall in the trashcan category, its OK for me.

Resisting to a change in our automatisms does not mean not being able to change them. Bodies resit a change in their direction or speed and still execute that change when we accelerate them.

You seem to believe that I fond my ideas on emotions rather than on reason, which is not the case. I did not say I had more problems than others to change my automatisms, I said that what I observed was that everybody had this problem, and I emitted the hypothesis that it was an unconscious phenomenon. We cannot train to adapt to a new idea precisely because it is new and we have thus nothing to guide us. What I propose is that people resist subconsciously to a change in their automatisms: it is thus not a judgment, but an hypothesis.

We might be able to follow our intuitions without questioning them, as it seems to be the case for some artists or performers, but how could we learn new ideas faster than what we are able to, and moreover, how could we learn at all a new idea that we do not like? Being able to recognize our own resistance in a discussion does not imply that we can change faster, but it sure implies that we can understand better the phenomenon, thus avoiding to feel guilty for our own resistance, or to induce voluntarily this feeling on others.

Sure we can change our automatisms, but it takes time, and what I wanted to pinpoint, it's that an individual can artificially add to the time it naturally takes. A kid can easily add to the time it takes to learn something: all he has to do is refuse to do so. There can be different reasons for a kid to refuse a learning, and different ways too. When I was twelve, I was good at school, but I was also beginning to refuse religion, and when came the time to learn Latin, even if I tried to, I could not. I almost flunked my school-year because of that. I simply did not like the idea, and it was impossible for me to overcome my feeling.

As the left/right experiment shows, it is not impossible to see something new, it only takes time, but what if the experimentors would have refuse the change, what if they would have preferred to keep their eyes shut instead of trying to adapt to the new sensation? Isn't it what we do sometimes in our discussions instead of trying to change our mind, thus instead of changing our automatisms?

You are probably right, but I find it amazing that our mind can absorb such a change in its sensations in only two weeks. To me, it means that it takes us at least two weeks to develop an automatism, and that once it is developed, it takes us again at least two weeks to change it. Now, executing an automatism means that we do not have to think about what we do during this time, so that we can learn to execute another automatism in the same time. During such an execution, our mind expects no change, but it still has to be aware of a new sensation if ever something unknown happens, a sensation different from the one that was present when its automatism was learned. In the same time, our mind thus expects no change, but if some happen, it is ready to stop executing the automatism as it was and begin the process of changing it. In our discussions here, what tells a scientific that one of the sensations he actually gets from one of its automatism does not have the same meaning than the one he had when he leaned it? What sensation tells him that one of its automatism would have to be changed if he wants to understand what is presented to him?