Andre Lefebvre

Good! I'm not interested in redefining physics, I'm only interested to understand the universe. I trust you Mordred; but if you remember, you didn't think yourself stupid at the time. In https://en.m.wikiped...lence_principle it talks about active, passive and inertial mass. In http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 it talks about Quintessence (in the conclusion 2.4.4 Ithink) which is not far from the "Ether" notion.

Those are not MY different types of mass; they are physic's. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8610/whats-the-difference-between-the-five-masses-inertial-mass-gravitational-mass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_03_wilczek_originofmass.pdf Which means that mass as no importance in the description of the universe. Yes Mordred I remember and I'm not finish going through them. Thanks again.

I'm not avoiding them; I don't have them. And nobody else has them either. There's one detail I don't miss: mass energy is not a quantity of matter. In GR you have "rest mass", "inertial mass", passive gravitational mass and active gravitational mass. And you want to tell me that you know what mass is? I'm saying there's only one kind of mass; it's mass energy. Mass energy captured inside a particle and potential mass energy related to the speed of the particle. Matter is a "by-product". An ideal gas in a box is not an isolated system but the box containing it plus the gas is an isolated system. So you can't compare this last isolated system to the universe because the universe isn't inside a box that produces pressure. Expansion doesn't have any opposition in reality; except in Newton's notion where quantity of matter attracts themselves which can slow down expansion. This is a ridiculous notion. Each quantity of matter is trapped inside an isolated space-time deformation; the last one that appeared with quarks Up and Down. The previous particles imprinted their own topology (toward a center of gravity) in space-time’s “fabric” which stayed imprinted after their decay. All those topology were "imprinted" successively into one another just as the decay happened for sucessive mass particles. Those fundamental particles don't exist anymore except four of them: quark Up, Down, electrons and neutrinos. Nothing else exists presently in actual space-time. That's why you need colliders to "make" them. Now if you say that space-time has no "fabric", this doesn't work, I agree. But then you have to tell me what is deformed by mass energy; and where is the topology information that says to massive particles how to behave in a geodesic. Right now, physicists are coming back to the notion of "ether"; I hope they stop to the "fabric" notion that doesn't act at all like "ether" used to. But if they keep on with the notion of "mass attraction"; the "ether" will be thicker than it use to be.

That's what happens when someone thinks that it's the quantity of matter that deforms space-time. In fact you could eliminate all baryonic matter from the universe and it wouldn't change space-time a bit. Matter doesn't have any effect of importance on space-time. Only topology does. But then you have to let go Newton a little bit to understand that. Furthermore even if at the center of gravity, the pressure equalises itself at “zero”, it doesn't mean that the pressure is zero. It could be one million g everywhere around the center of gravity and be equalised at zero. So the center of gravity is where the whole deformation of space-time is determined by the mass energy at that center. Naturally the quantity of matter inside a galaxy depends on all matter that is imprisoned inside its deformation. But everything that orbits around the center of galaxy doesn’t have any effect on the size of the galaxy’s deformation. You have to use your head before using equations to understand that.

Why are you wearing a red necktie, a large belt and brown shoes? -Because my feet hurt. --------------------------------------------------- 1) How do we determine that mass energy? resp: The luminosity of the galaxy. 2) Is there a black hole at the center of the galaxy? resp: Yes. 3) How can we know how much luminosity is imprisoned inside the event horizon of the black hole of a galaxy? Resp: No way to know. Except the orbiting speed of the farthest stars of a galaxy. Does the black hole in the center of the galaxy has an "effect" on the space-time deformation "containing the galaxy? Resp: I guess so; but I'm an imbecile that doesn't have a clue how science works. But I have a clue how Coca-Cola made accept unobservable Santa Claus though: reindeers, Christmas presents at the bottom of the Christmas tree etc. All explanations and signatures that prooved his existence. Are the stars orbiting around the center of galaxy responsible the deformation of space-time containing the galaxy? Resp: No way; because their center of gravity are not "merged" with the center of gravity of the galaxy. And the deformation of that galaxy's space-time starts from its center of gravity.

Sorry Mordred; I didn't see your last post before this morning. This is not what I believe; it's what is observed. And I agree with you, it shouldn't be so. That's exactly what I mean. So are you saying that you'll distribute as much dark matter needed "as fonction" of radius, to justify the speed of each stars? That's quite a scientific solution. So those stars don't have enough velocity to escape (But you're talking here of escaping an "orbit" not the whole deformation). That's exactly what I'm saying. So you add whatever imagined mass needed to justify the anomaly. I don't see that as "scientific". Normally instead of adding "unknown and unobservable imagined "stuff", the first question should be : Are we wrong in our way of determining the mass energy of a galaxy? What is there to consider? 1) How do we determine that mass energy? resp: The luminosity of the galaxy. 2) Is there a black hole at the center of the galaxy? resp: Yes. 3) How can we know how much luminosity is imprisoned inside the event horizon of the black hole of a galaxy? Resp: No way to know. Except the orbiting speed of the farthest stars of a galaxy. 4) Are planets orbiting around a star responsible for this star collapsing in a neutron star? Resp: No way. So why add the stars orbiting in a galaxy to get the mass of a galaxy? Resp: I don't know, but it's not logical. Who said I accepted Hawking's inflaton? I only repeated what is said; in fact I said that it was the neutrino that was replacing it at the Big bang. Don't forget that I never accept what can't be observed. Who said I didn't accept virtual gluons. I said they were the source of baryonic matter. I think that virtual bosons are massless and real bosons have mass. The virtual ones are two-dimensional particles; the real ones have volume. That should make a difference in the energy wave function. The distortion we're talking about is the deviation of light; and it's caused by the geodesic (topology) of space; not by mass (have a look at an Einstein ring and check the size of the centered mass in regard to space between it and the ring). So if you have a geodesic (topology) of space imprinted in the "fabric" of space-time, you don't need mass to deviate light. And gluon don't have mass but they're liable to "mediate" a topology instead of a "force" coming out of nowhere. They're certainly not wrong in regard of the premises they start with. These are intelligent people. And what do you think would be the result of "pulling" an object against the topology of surrounding space-time? Aren't you oblige to add energy to an object in order to exceed escape velocity (which in your mind means "increase the pull against the "hold"), or even to lift off the ground?

With this kind of attitude, I would ignore your posts. I'm talking about gravity that decreases with the square of the distance which you say justify the speed of those stars. The proof? Light is deviated where there's not matter to deform space-time. That's the same proof you have for dark matter. I never shout and I wasn't shouting. Don't start that kind of exchange please. You should know that shouting is when you use capital letters. So is making appear a force ou of nowhere. Tell me where the strong nuclear comes from and then the magic spell will disappear. So you're ready to "imagine" an unknown particle "out of the blues" again. That's what I call "magic". The gluon, instead of mediating the magical strong nuclear force as a topology (geodesic) that sends energy to a definite "center" point inside its "action field" of 10^-35 meter which is the size of a nucleus. When the gluon decays, its topology stays imprinted in space-time "fabric". Expansion express itself on that 10^-35 meter so that volume encircle all space-time where matter is located. Because decaying of quark particles always happened inside that volume of space-time. You now have the cause, the reason and the effect. I already told you that it doesn't affect any speed; and gravitation neither as a matter of fact. Gravitation is a consequence of a deformation of the geometry of space-time. It doesn't do anything; it only has /effects".The speed of those stars are their "proper" speed; and they are "stuck" inside a deformation from where they can't escape because they don't have the "escape velocity" necessary (this is a fact). So this shows that our way of calculating the mass energy of a galaxy is not right. The stars orbiting around a center of galaxy doesn't add mass energy to the galaxy. As for an example, just think at what makes a star collapse into a neutron star. It's certainlay not the planets orbiting around it. Well then I'll oblige you and never talk to you about it anymore.

I wrote it a little bit higher. Forget the velocity; dark matter doesn't solve the problem of the corridor where stars have all the same speed. What is left is only the deviation of light where it shouldn't deviate. I'm saying that a simple impression in the fabric of the universe would deviate light. You don't get it do you? Your dark matter explains the velocity of the farthest stars; I agree with that; what it doesn't explain is the velocity of all those stars preceding the farthest ones that have the same velocity. So dark matter doesn't solve anything. What the hell are you talking about? Are they? Did you know that dark matter has to be "cold" and has to be "dissipationless" and no particles can answer to those obligations. Which is not the case of my suggestion since it's just an imprint in the fabric of the universe. It's as cold as the space-time and do not dissipate.

2 tons of indirect evidence doesn't equal one direct evidence. So we should specify the kind of evidence regarding DM and DE; I think. I believe you; but believe me it doesn't seem so. They have the same velocity as a lot of stars before them toward the center of the galaxy. That's my point. They didn't have to try anything; just make a relation with the appearance of fundamental particles that imprinted their topology on space-time "fabric". Expansion of the universe did the rest after the particles decayed. Seeing that won't explain that it's not "magic"; my friend. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, Maybe not but being two-dimensional particles makes them "not quite a real particle". You're the one who told me: "We can't accelerate qluons in any LHC for one". @ Strange No it doesn't Regardless of tne radius? Topology (or geodesic whatever). Thanks for the definition. (But you should have mentioned the mass involvement. A two-dimensional paticle can't have mass).

Thank you for your answer and explications two posts back; Mordred. I really appreciate it. Which is normal since a gluon is a boson. So a "field" of gluons is defined. This is even better and is an important fact that had escape me. It's in this field that the quarks will "appear". Ok; and since energy doesn't exist on its own, charge or color etc. are what exist on their own and are change between two quarks, So there's no sense in thinking that massless particles appeared in the universe before mass particles? And this is the way physicist see the interactions. Color properties exist as "color properties" and energy doesn't exist on its own? "Evidence" here is a big big word; because nobody never observed dark matter or dark energy. I would agree to "where deduced out of necessity and where applied to some observations adaptable. In fact, nobody cared about this problem before 1998 when was discovered acceleration of the universe and the CMB of COBE or WMAP. But you don't explain the fact that a lot of stars, orbiting in a very large corridor around the galaxy have the same speed? Maybe the curve but not the speed I was talking about, just now. That can be easily explained another way by having a geodesic deforming space-time, without matter which is not what deforms space-time. Don't worry I do. I hope you understand why and don't see that as "magic". So I'd like to read the official explanation for that "magic". And let's add that interactions are exchanges of a quantum of energy between particles. So those quasi particles represent quanta of energy. First, it's not mine; it's Hawking's. And since energy doesn't exist on its own, so does Hawking's inflaton. Since the need is a massless particle that will manifest "motion energy" to support the expansion of the universe at the Big bang, I already made my choice with the left handed neutrino. So I won't have to "invent" anymore particles. I'm kind of "lazy" on the subject. We sure agree on that. Quasi particles are something that "holds the fort" until we find what it is, while virtual particles are two dimensional particles that appear and disappear because they rotate. When they gain a volume they become specific particles. I agree since "off shell" means "no volume". Normal since they don't have volume to contain energy. But the decay into what? They use to form even before the definition of those laws, anyway. Don't worry; I am informed of the process. Bof! You can't accelerate Higgs boson either; so there's no problem there. And because of a law in Quantum dynamics, "If something is possible, you can bet your hat it's going to happen". I extend that precaution to everybody I exchange with. I feel lucky being able to exchange with you and appreciate it. Thanks.

I don't get my infos from pop media I go get them in the reports of experiences; yhe papers that give the results. Pop media dont tell you that during experuiences 75% of decay of gluon was Top and antiTop quarks.

How come, then, that 75% of the time it decays in a quark and antiquark top if it's a mesure of interaction between quarks? What does "mediate" means really? Is the total energy of the universe doesn't exist on its own? And that's why you have to imagine dark matter that accounts for 26.8% of the energy of the universe; plus 4.9% for normal matter. So there's still 68.3% of dark energy that doesn't have a particle or object "proprietor". On the other hand, the expansion of the universe dilutes its energy because it is invariant; curiously this invariance applies also to photons. They don't diminish either with expansion; they are also diluted. But what appeared at the big bang if there was no matter, only "radiance"? The Big bang did not liberated energy that don't exist on its own? What made the universe if not energy?

So what is the strong nuclear force then?

And it is. Which is why people think that those "forces" are "active" when in reality they a only "consequences". This is exactly my point.

I have nothing against terminology we can use. I'm just asking not to deviate from the basic fact of GR. It's possible to explain things without using "forces" coming out of nowhere. I did it here myself in explaining "tidal effect" with two deformations of space-time and I didn't use any magical force to do it. If I could do it with simple geometrical figures, there should be a mathematic equation that could describe these figures without using "forces" that aren't present at all in the explanation. I can’t believe it impossible. Sorry.

The first of all basic physics is that gravity is a consequence of the deformation of the geometry of space-time. If we start from there and protect this concept, what ever tool we use that doesn't change it, we shouldn't have any problem. This is exactly what I understand. But bringing equations that cancels gravity anywhere in the Earth because those equations are based on "attraction" of masses, won't do, that's for sure. I'm sorry. If we use "tidal effect" equations not based on "attraction" of masses, we'll have no problem either. If we consider flat space-time without involving to and fro "attractions" to accept it "flat", but consider its flatness as an observed fact and accept that it was "flat" from the start because of the nature of Big bang itself, when mass or pressure could not be involve in a non-pressurized universe because the "radiating" movement was free of whatever opposition, producing space-time as it needed, we shouldn't have any problems; and so on. I cannot base my opinions on what people thought two or three hundred years ago or even opinions debated 70 years ago; I want to study the "facts» that our advance technology supplied us with, these last few years. Those should be the base of our physics; not things that were based on observations at a time when the quality of observation was a million times less effective than today. New results shouldn't be subjected to old interpretations. That's what my opinion is. I’m sorry. See what I mean? "...the Einstein field equations stress energy tensor for Cartesian coordinates to Polar coordinate transformation in the stress energy tensor." Is only the "name" to indicate what we are talking about. And this is only to explain how space-time is curved. What will look like the explication of when it is "flat"? Geez! If expansion is the increase of space-time metric and gravitation is the decrease of space-time metric, don't you think that a simpler title to name it couldn't be possible? Don't you think that an equation explaining the pressure on the center of a deformation of space-time couldn't not be simpler than what you’re working with only because you keep that "attracting force" notion in all the equations? Don't you think that a topology or geodesic (even none of those two words really mean the sense of direction of a movement) inside a gluon would explain "naturally" what is observed of the characteristic of that gluon, instead of attributing to it a "force" that comes from nowhere to hold the quarks, the neutrons and proton together and even extends indirectly to the electronic portion of an atom? Don't you agree that there's something wrong on the notion of gravity "force" diminishing at the square or the distance when you have stars distributed on great distances from the center of a galaxy that orbit at all the same speed? That’s what bothers me in the actual description of physics. I think that physics is fascinating because it studies the universe not because the people doing it are more intelligent than average. That's not the case anyway. They are more informed in a way to seeing things and have access to all the new results of research. What is fascinating is the universe; nothing else. Trying to understand it is a noble enterprise. It has to be protected to be kept that way. That is why I give so much importance to the notion of gravity being only a passive "consequence" and not a "force". In fact the whole universe was made by a series of consequences where not one single "force" was involved. This is exactly what I think. And again, I'm very sorry if it doesn't fit mainstream physics or can't be adapted to it.

I guess you're right; but if a galaxy is not a "hollow" ball with "object inside,", what use is that theorem that says "no net gravitational force is exertedby the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.” That's not the point. The point is that the "gravitational force" doesn't exist because gravitation is a consequence of space-time deformation. If you keep on thinking of forces, you end up saying that at mid-point inside the Eartrh, the gravitation "pull" is equal in front and in back of you so you feel no gravitation. When, in fact, there's no "pull" whatsoever anywhere in or around a massive object whatever the equation that says otherwise. So I agree that if I keep on basing my opinion in this fact, I will not get the same results that if I based it on the "attraction" of mass. But it sure doesn't mean that I'm wrong until GR is proven wrong and gravity is not a consequence of the deformation of the geometry of space-time.

I can't understand that, since there's no "attraction" between mass. So I could install myself right on the event horizon and be stabilised by the mass behind me that would prevent me from getting inside the horizon. I have some difficulties with that idea.

I agree to think that way if you want me to; but an onion is a funny kind of "hollow ball", don't you think? I suddenly wonder why they used the word "shell" instead of "onion"? But just before that you become spaghetti because of all those zero sums of each layer (of onion) you went through; if I remember right what you told me before regarding the black hole at the center of a galaxy.

That link was the one I went to, when I asked Strange what was the shell theorem. That's why I added : « Oh. Sorry. I'm only saying that as long as a center of gravity doesn't join (unify with) another center of gravity to become one, it doesn't add mass to the greater deformation containing it…”. Once again you’re both right in recognising part of the shell theorem’s implication. But I “work” with the geometry of the inside of the shell instead of equations. And it shows a slight difference in the understanding of the event. So if you want to talk about the shell theorem, let’s do it (from your link) : “Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem and said that: 1. A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre. 2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.” What does it mean exactly? I don't know about you; but to me it means that if you consider a galaxy as a “shell” (hollow ball), its mass (that can be considered at the center of the galaxy, doesn’t exert any gravitational force whatsoever on any object inside the shell, regardless of the object’s location. So explain to me why we add all stars inside a galaxy to find it’s mass and, most important of all, how can the mass of the galaxy affect the speed of those inside situated stars. It’s directly against what the shell theorem says. You’ll need mathematical logic here; because reasoning doesn’t “fit”.

I shouldn't have tried to be "physic vocabulary correct". I'm not ready yet. So I should have said: "So the weight is the difference of my speed (blocked) toward the center of gravity and the speed of the ground toward the same center. Weight is then a difference of the speed of two objects". In flat universe (nothing falls there) two objects, moving at different speed, that make contact, the less massive object will show weight in regard to the more massive object.

So the weight is the difference of my accelerating velocity (blocked) toward the center of gravity and the velocity of the ground toward the same center. Weight is then a difference of speed between the velocity of two objects.

Right Mordred. Nevertheless the data and calibration are applied to something that is a "fact". Otherwise you wouldn't even have a picture. Regarding the "opposite force" that applies when I walk (pushing on a wall develops an equal opposite force by the wall) the answer just popped up in my mind. You have to come back to where I explained what "weight" is previously. The (what you call) "force" applied to my feet by the ground is not toward my feet; that "force" is oriented toward the center of gravity of the Earth. It's putting a pressure on the "particles" preceding it to that center of gravity just as I'm putting pressure on that ground for the same reason. What the ground does is oppose a resistance to my following the curvature of space-time that sends me toward the center of gravity. In regard of my own pressure, the ground is "passive". And that pressure I make on the ground is what we call my weight.

Thanks Mordred I'll look at it right away. Here is something from the link supplied by Mordred that could end by being a "fact": We can read in the "conclusion":

They didn't. They though it was interference and cleaned everything inside the receptor trying to get rid of it. It's only when they couldn't get rid of it that they began to think there was something really there (That there was a"fact" manifesting itself). But the facts don't. They stay the same. What is the shell theorem? Oh. Sorry. I'm only saying that as long as a center of gravity doesn't join (unify with) another center of gravity to become one, it doesn't add mass to the greater deformation containing it. But they do influence one another by producing "tidal effect"; so one doesn't see the other like "non-existing". Just like if Galileo would have poured his tea inside a train instead of a boat. He would have seen the movement by the window of the train and still wouldn't have spill is tea. That noise is a "fact". The interpretation would be if you'd say it sounds like Bach or Chopin. Those are adjustments. Like taking a banana out of my ear, because I don't ear so good with it. No it doesn't, to me at least. Sorry.