Andre Lefebvre

The Planck satellite was made to take that picture. But let's take another example where a "fact" was perceive and we didn't know what it was. In 1964 Penzias and Wilson where working whit an antenna of Bell telephone company. They perceived something that wasn't suppose to be there. It came out as being Cosmic Microwave Background. This was a "fact" observed whitout any theory producing it. The theory tried to explain it afterward. "Facts" are things you cannot change and you try to understand. When Galileo made is experiment of pouring a cup of tea at the bottom of a boat where he couldn't see outside he said: "I'm pouring my tea just like if the movement of the boat doesn't exist". That didn't mean that the movement of the boat didn't exist; he well knew that it did. It really meant that a movement occurring inside a volume which is in motion, takes place as if the motion of the containing volume didn't exist. We can apply that "fact" to gravity. It would then say that "Gravity (space-time deformation) inside a bigger volume that has its own gravity (space-time deformation), acts as if the outside gravity doesn't exist. And then we cannot say that a star orbiting around the center of a galaxy adds to the mass (energy) of that galaxy. And what is a camera to you? Well let's say that calculator interpretations are not subject to choose a theory that will "fit" to the picture they come out with. That kind of interpretation I can call a "fact". Further more "changing the image" by changing the calibration settings, won't be creating an image "out of the blues". It's going to give you an additional information of the picture. Data interpretations are not interpretations; they are the same fact seen through different calibrations. Whatever you filter from the background is also informations on "fact". The interpretation I'm talking about is what "explanation" we will give to those different "facts".

Let's take an example. The photo delivered by Planck satellite is what I call a"fact". IT's not the result of an interpretation, an opinion or a theory. It's a "picture" of something that happenned when the universe was 380,000 years old. Another "fact" is the release of a quantum of energy at 125/6 GeV at the LHC. Those are "facts" whatever the "interpretation" we are going to give them. We cannot change those "facts", but we can give them many interpretations of which, only one will be correct.

A "Fact" is what is; and my interpretation of "what is" is an explanation. The "fact has more possibility to be true even if my explanation is wrong. On the other hand, if my explanation is right; the fact is also right.

Thank you Mordred. I'll get to it right after this message. What I understand up untill now is that there are facts, and there are explanations. Explanations are not facts. For example; special relativity is an explanation of one fact which is: “light speed” is an invariant. General relativity is an explanation of another fact which is: gravitation is only a consequence of a deformation in the geometry of space-time. So if we stick to facts while reasoning, we will find other facts; but if we stick strictly to explanations, we will find a multitude of other explanations that don’t relate to facts but relate to "explanations"; and then we leave the “factual” universe behind, to enter an “imagined” universe. Geez thank you Mordred, there's everything in that link.

Strange; your link doesn't work. Ok Got it! Certainly not because I'm pushing the gun. Because I push on solid ground. I can't walk on air even if you think it's pushing back equaly to my pushing on it.

Well, I can feel the pressure I'm putting ot the ground but I can't feel the pressure the ground is putting to my hands. And since science say that both pressures equalize themselves, I shouldn't be feeling anything. So I'll stick to the idea that Earth doesn't push back, if you don't mind. Once again you "decree" whitout explaining what difference it has from mine. I'll admit that you seem to know quite a bit. And when you give it acceleration at "light speed square"; does it still is "rest mass"? It is a conversion factor required because we use random wacky units like seconds, kilograms and metres. Nice! But where are those units in the E of the equation E = Mc2 ? And why write c2,if you don't need it to equal M with E? You're right, something is wacky here.

So the more I push on the ground, the more the Earth pushes back. Geez that's anti gravity!!! Those three laws are needed for mathematics not for the universe or even for understanding. Space-time geometry is enough for the universe to be as it is and to have evolve since the Big bang. And if you start with that sole fact, you'll be able to understand everything whitout having to justifiy every move and opinion of humans since they first cracked a nut.. The pushing back of a wall on my hands doesn't mean anything. The resistance of a wall to my pushing on it, is enough for me to understand the situation. That's compared to everyday use. And if I think that when I'm not pushing the wall, it's attracting me, well, maybe I'll run away to evade its "action". If I push enough on the wall it might break and fall on me. It won't be because it is defending itself; but I could think it is. And thinking that way will not make me do science. We both know that the wall doesn't "act"; it's passive. Just as gravity. So why see it as "pushing back when pushed? That is not what inertia means. Why don't you say what it means then! http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inertia And mass is a fixed quantity? Specially when accelerating? M is the rest mass; but what is c2applied to it to equal E?

So you're saying that resistance to change in inertia is mass. Since inertia is being at rest or in uniform motion, you mean that resisting being at rest or uniform motion is mass. Then mass is the energy that eliminates that "resisting being at rest". This energy is applied to an object to resist "being at rest" or to "increase its motion". That's the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest or change its velocity. That energy is called kinetic energy if I remember right. So E = Mc2 means that E is kinetic energy just as mass is when "not at rest", because multiplied by "c2". Since nothing is never at rest, then kinetic energy is the work to change the velocity of kinetic energy. And if they were told at the start that salt was made by evaporation of brine, they would know what a theory is and not think it "true" whitout understanding the source.

Thank you ajb. Coming back on one argument: That argument is the equivalent as someone using table salt whitout knowing that salt is made by evaporation of brine. He can use it and think that salt was made by a manufacture called Sifto Canada corporation. But he can't explain the real facts about how salt is made.

Too bad Einstein isn't there anymore so you could tell him that. Or, at least, try to convince him. I've got to go. We'll see tomorrow. Take care.

That's new to me (at least) So photons don't follow the curvature of space-time in a deformation?<< So until we prove the existence of the graviton, vector of a force that GR say doesn't exist, GR wil be incomplete. That's logic.

You must be kidding. I been saying all the time that mass didn't imply matter and that's why I always mentioned mass energy. Has anybody ever seen gravitation waves? I think that you don't want to understand. I fight against the notion that quantity of matter (newtons mass) attract each other. And thinking that gives the result that we just saw two posts ago. Resistance to change IS inertia.

So you don't make anymore difference between acceleration and movement do you? There we agree. Since deformation of space-time is the source of gravity, it's impossible to imagine another kind of deformation for antigravity. Not for GR. For GR the source is the deformation of space-time. For Newton it's a law thas as no sense stating that masses attracts themselves. There's no way to change those facts. A ball is not at rest on a table; it's prevented from going to the center of gravity of the Earth (to make it simple). Its weight is what pisshes on the table and if you eliminate the table it will push forward until it hits the ground and tjen keep on pusshing on the ground. It wants to get to the center of gravity of the Earth. It's not hard to understand. The table is blocking it. Gravity is the direction it tells the ball to follow, in order to get to the center of gravity. Gravity doesn't do anything else than being a direction signalisation. 1) The ball is not ar rest; it's blocked. 2) There's no attraction involved. Newton is the one who imagined "attraction" of the masses. Einstein said it wasn't the case, since gravitayion was only a "conseuqence" of space-time deformation. There is no "force" of attraction. Gravity is "passive; not "active".

Everyday applications like in a BH. Mordred, you call semantics the fact that since there's no attraction, the object that gets into a deformation must have its own peculiar movement to get to the center of gravity? What can I tell you?

Thanks for the information Mordred. I'll check on it. If you look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant You sure sound more sure of the fact, than this article. As for the suspended rock, Earth doesn't attract it. By suspending it, you're preventing it to follow the topology of the deformation of the geometry of the space-time around the Earth down to its center of gravity. If you let it go, it's going to try to reach that center of gravity and push on the ground trying it. Furthermore, if it falls in a BH, it's only a theory that it would undergo spagetification. There's no pull action coming from the black hole. Again, we're facing a space-time deformation even if it is a maximum one. The “pull action” is only an appearance; in fact the movement toward the center of gravity is induced by the direction given by the deformed space-time toward that center. Right with this problem you can see, how a wrong notion as a base for interpretation can mislead. There is no “attraction” of masses in GR.

No answer; no problem. More informations delivered by Planck satellite photos: Since Planck satellite photos are the latest “facts” (and not theories) we have on the early universe, I feel that I have to concentrate on everything it can tell me. So I came back to it and this is what I went through: Planck scientists told us that where the temperature was higher (red spots), there was a movement of “focusing” that we can interpret as an “effect of gravity”, and where were the colder spots (blue), there was an “effect of dispersion” which is the movement of the expansion. So I choose a section of the photo where we have a maximum of both “effects” and I draw arrows to show the respective movement in each spots. One thing is quite surprising. Even if the movements are contrary to each other, the “structure” of both types of temperature, is the same. Both figures show more intensity in the middle of their “form”. This is perfectly understandable since where you have the focussing effect, the red middle increases in density and where you have dispersion effect, the blue middle dilutes its intensity. The problem appears when you start thinking of what is actually the opinion of scientists who say that the “gravity” manifests itself in the whole of space-time. Which means that in the blue spot that dilutes its density, there is a hidden manifestation of the red spot and behind the red spot there is a manifestation of the blue spot. Mathematic equations explain this as a possibility and scientists consider it as a “fact”. But what we seen here is not the case at all. What we see is that the blue spot is completely independent from the red spot and vice-versa. If we consider each spot as having their own metric of space-time, we have the red spots showing a decreasing metric and the blue spot showing an increasing metric. And it’s impossible to have decreasing and increasing metrics in the same volume of space-time. If we really had a competition between those two “effects” in the metric of a volume of space-time, it would mean that those effects appeared in the universe before its metric appeared; which is completely nonsense. The only explanation that makes sense is that gravity in the red spots has no effect whatsoever on the expansion of the blue spots. In other words, gravity is not “universal” just as expansion is not “universal”. Where we have gravity we don’t have expansion and where we have expansion, we don’t have gravity. So gravity is “local” and, so is expansion. This also brings another information. The red spots appeared in our universe after the blue spots, since at the big bang there was only a manifestation of radiative movement without any matter; so without any gravity which means without any space-time deformations. It also state that when gravitation appeared, it did it bringing its own volume of space-time that was added to the actual space-time in expansion. Which resulted in the inflation period caused by that “added” volume at 10-36 sec and explains why inflation didn’t disturb expansion; it didn’t apply to the same volume of space-time. The result however is that where there’s expansion, that volume of space-time will expand exponentially faster than where there is gravity. Which will end by distributing matter, on a picture after 13 billion years of expansion, in filaments in regard of the big “bubbles” of space-time expanding where there’s no gravity. Consequently, matter distribution in filaments is not a consequence of “gravity disturbances” but a consequence of the more rapid expansion of the volumes of “empty” space-time. And the regrouping of galaxies in clusters and super clusters is a consequence of the distribution of galaxies in filaments. Filaments are subjected to expansion but only from the level of galaxies cluster inclusively. From the level of galaxy down to the level of atom, expansion is absent. So, because the volume of space-time in filaments subjected to expansion is so small, in the overall picture, the rapidity of expansion of “empty” space-time, makes them appear as not expanding at all and even seem “collapsing”. But that is evidently a kind of optical illusion. Furthermore space-time is in majotity "flat" because the "bubbles" of "empty" space-time are extremely more voluminous than the filaments where gravity stands.

Thank you Strange; but How can (10-35 /2) becomes (1/1035 x 2)?

Mordred; I've got a question for you: is it possible to get the answer to this problem: (10-35 /2)2 x 3.1416 =

I think I'm starting to understand your point. I'm mixing the fact that when I don't have anymore energy, I've got to eat or sleep to recuperate. So when I talk about energy, I'm thinking about that kind of energy. I need it to work. I'll read a few more times what you just said. I'll probably get it. Thanks a lot.

I taught that when a ball strikes another ball there was a transfer of kinetic energy from the striking ball to the other one. Tell me; what work produces kinetic energy?

Kinetic energy is not the same as velocity or momentum. What I said was that kinetic energy produces movement. Velocity and momentum are descriptions of movement. Kinetic energy is energy that does a "work". Velocity and momentum are descriptions. I didn't. I can't understand why you don't see that I'm talking about the "work" produced by kinetic energy. That "work" is movement. Velocity and momentum are descriptions of that movement. All of them are different things. Velocity or momentum doesn't make movement.

So you don't have any explanation for initial movement. Space-time curvature doesn't cause movement it cause acceleration; it's the same effect as in space-time deformation (in fact it's the same thing). And again "tidal effect" is related to space-time deformations. All three are the same. I agree but that's exactly what you said was implying in saying "by a result of his motion". So for you energy doesn't produce a "work"; it's the "work" that produces energy. This is were we don't agree. To me it's adding kinetic energy that increase the velocity. Just like adding mass energy increases a space-time deformation. Energy is "active"; it's not an "after effect". Universe doesn't need energy tensor to make motion; all it needs is energy. Mathematical descriptions need tensors; nothing else does. I'm doing my best to assimilate the mathematical way of describing events; but it has to make sense, When we talk about curvature, I don't know what we're talking about anymore. Is it curvature of the flat universe or the curvature of a space-time deformation? Space-time deformation is the result of mass energy on the center of gravity; which pressure is a side effect making temperature increase. An object "falling" in a space-time deformation gains velocity; its momentum is his mass times his velocity in a certain direction; nothing to do with curvature. I try but I can't. Energy does "work"; momentum is a description of that work; same as velocity speed and movement. So energy is not the same as the others. Maybe not General relativity; but one thing is certain it's that gravity is a simple consequence of the deformation of the geometry of space-time. And it's pretty easy to visualise what happens in this space-time deformation, we liove in it. All you have to do is not mix space-time with matter. Like I said for the particles; stress energy tensor is not necessary to space-time to curve; all it needs is energy. Tensor are needed by maths to describe what energy does. Finally what we have is a universe made of energy that produces movement who's speed slower than light results in space-time (distances/length and duration/length of time). That movement came in two directions 1) all directions 2) toward a definite point. The "all direction" movement made flat space-time; the definite point movement made space-time deformations. The rest that happened afterward was successive "after effects" of space-time deformed volumes. Which is pretty simple to understand. Starting from there I've got to find the maths to describe the events; because what I read all day, just goes into a merry-go-round that doesn't lead anywhere. But I'll find it.

I did laugh at that one. Ok. So let's clear something else. You said previously: I must have made another error in phrasing because I don’t understand where I would have explained gravity by kinetic energy. I explain mass energy with kinetic energy oriented to a specific point of the metric of space-time (center of gravity) but certainly not gravity. Gravity is the consequence of a deformation in a volume of space-time. Reorientation of Kinetic energy toward a definite point of the metric of space-time is the cause of its deformation. But before you presented the same problem as: “So I really don't see how you can use kinetic energy in replacement of attraction of two mass objects which are at rest...?” I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about here; I believe it could be in regard of Andromeda and our galaxy that are moving toward each other. On this subject, I said that the diminishing of the distance between them was because they were moving toward each other according to their “proper” speed. Like if you and I throw a baseball at each other, the balls will approach one another. Does this answer your questions? As for: Which would mean that it's the object that produces kinetic energy. So the object "at rest" decides to move in order to produce kinetic energy. This doesn't seem logical to me; whatever the definition of the word "kinetic energy". I hope I'm wrong. You didn't answer to my hidden question

Which means that the paper is wrong in stating (I should say insinuating) that there's an increase of amount of energy caused by the growing temperature. Isn't it right?

You're right. I made a mistake in the phrasing (in fact I repeated what was said in the paper). So now we know I was talking of density of energy. Does an increase in the density of energy causes an increase in temperature? And if so; what can we think of the phrase in the paper saying: "As we go back in time, the universe becomes hotter and hotter and thus the amount of energy available for particle interactions increases". This time I'm not the one who says that energy is increasing.