gravimotion

It took me that long to answer you because I could not answer without being pretentious! First you ask a question, that I feel compelled to answer, then you answer it yourself; as such any answer I would provide could be interpreted as superseding your answer, and that is pretentious. IMHO you have answered your own question in a better way and with a more scientific argument than I ever would have been able to do. Since Jan 2001 when I first had the idea of gravimotion it is the first time “physicists” or “mathematicians” as “moderator” or as “physics expert” do not categorically turn down the idea of gravimotion. Shaken and stirred!

OK At least we agree on one point! Let us dig on that point we agree on... Boltzmann is at the origin of the entropy law. Through Planck who was the first to seriously use the concept, and through many many more highly gifted scientists the entropy law became the foundation of the quantum theory. Boltzmann based his entropy law on the chaotic motion of the molecules which are confined within an isolated body. And that isolated body situation is essential to the law, it has since been in force in all situations that involve the theory. The universe taken as a whole is considered an isolated body and as such must obey the entropy law. Now please notice the very simple fact that has nevertheless never been mentioned by a single physicist that Boltzmann forgot to include gravity in his original design of isolated body! So now the universe that is supposed to follow the entropy law, is supposed to do it without that fundamental phenomenon that is gravity and that is nevertheless definitely part of its own system! The origin of that lack of "well defined quantum theory of gravity" is actually right there in the very foundation of the quantum theory. I have always been appalled by the fact that theorists scientists are wondering about that "theoretical problem" when there is such an evident "theoretical reason" to that problem! And to tell you the truth, it is the first time I write about that "theoretical reason", even though I had the idea to do it for a long time... That last comment is really to thank you for giving me the opportunity to express ideas that are on the back burner...

Intuitively I would think too. But think. The intention is to measure the time dilation that occurs between 2 clocks which are moving with respect to each other. And the 2 readings have to occur at the same time (if I may express myself that way) that is the 2 readings have to occur together (even if those readings are subsequently compared through a compensated delay) or the 2 readings have to be made at a same instantaneous simultaneous instant. Consider that you are physically on one side of the two-way signal experiment and I am on the other side. You are now comparing the signal received, which coincides to a measure that has been done in the past, to the local reading that occurs now. Same for me. So both of us have to apply some kind of calculations to rectify for the (common) delay that the signals introduced on their way. So this is why, if one (like me) wants to make a purely experimental measure one has to observe the 2 clocks simultaneously. And even if one places oneself on a satellite precisely in the middle of the 2 clocks (as in chapter 8 of Einstein) because the 3 events are not running in the same reference system (they are moving with respect to each other) the "simultaneity" of the measure is no longer valid, according to Einstein chapter 9. May be you will find out that my reasoning could further be questioned ... Because there is a flaw (I think) in my reasoning but I let you find it... All this to say that your comment "a common-view experiment could probably be done" might just be true after all! This specific debate reminds me the famous Michelson Morley experiment in the 1890's which (allegedly) proves beyond any doubt that light travels in an absolutely empty space. If you study the details of the "theory", which in physics justifies the final conclusion in the name of the "experiment", you find out that there is a breakdown in the "procedure" used. The theory coinciding to the experiment starts with calculations but then ends with an empirical, in the sense of hypothetical or intuitive and non mathematical, statement. All in all extracting the pure logic that is no doubt hidden within physics mathematics is not evident. I am surprised you did not fire at me about my stand on the inertia law... And I thank you for it. I really thought that would be used to dismiss me from this forum, as I have been kicked out of many other for much less!

OK. You convinced me! With this method that differs from the H-K experiment in that the clocks you are comparing are not side by side, in order to verify the time dilation mathematical theory you are compelled to use these very time dilation calculations though. My point is that if you do not verify two clocks side by side, you are no longer dealing with a direct physical comparison, and the measure is not absolutely experimental. It involves some theory. Your point is that should the physical results match (and they will) that is all we need to prove the theory is valid. Now I still think that a measure that is 100% experimental, is not possible in case of 2 clocks that are positioned respectively on the night and day sides of earth. Simply because they cannot be re-united without involving some time dilation calculations at least on one of them. The only remaining alternative in order to perform a measure which is 100% experimental is a simultaneous comparison between the 2 clocks, for instance from high above in a satellite. And according to Einstein book chapter 9, the fact that the events (the 2 clocks and the observer) run on differing reference systems (moving with respect to each other) prevents any "simultaneous" comparison. I recognize that that point has no effects as far as you're concerned. But it is important to me! The idea behind gravimotion is to explain things through physical phenomenon. And the building block chosen to explain things is motion. It turns out that Einstein discoveries and theories allow me to explain physically (that is using motion as a building block) our human concept of time and its dilation. Gravimotion is not physics, yet would not exist without physics. I remember when at school and learning about the inertia law, that is from the very beginning of my own learning (about physics) and thinking, that I have always been convinced that uniform motion occurs through motion and not through inertia. By the way should the scientists at CERN discover the Higgs bozon or field, they would prove that mass and maybe inertia do exist and then gravimotion is history! Gravimotion rests on motion, and that mandates that inert mass, or inertia and mass do not exist in gravimotion. And I have to thank you for your comments about my alleged temperature dilation. I just removed that item from my gravimotion predictions page. The bare truth is that the concept of position is essential in relativity. The bare truth is that the concept of position totally fades away in quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics a subatomic particle has no position. The more restricted is the average position of a particle the higher its motion (the less it has a position). By the way, the concept of position, which is related to reference system, is banned from beginning in gravimotion. Because the reality of motion, in which (our alleged concept of) time is lasting by a finite amount and in which (our concept of space) is stretched, that reality of motion forbids any position. Without going in such details as the concept of position, please admit the fact that quantum and relativity theories are at odds with each other. Actually that is a major problem that physicists themselves recognize that has to be dealt with. As far as I am concerned both describe Nature in an exquisite way! But please recognize that you are indulgent with physics theories, when you mention there are no "problems" there! I do not see relativity and quantum as competing either. I just say what I read every where and that is that they are incompatible. You see no contradictions. I say you're indulgent in saying so.

The idea that 2 clocks that are running different times have to be reunited before comparison came from the experiment done with planes in the 70's about time dilation (and repeated since). The suggestion you make concerns differed simultaneity. You would compare signals after the fact, after the radio waves transmitting the information have traveled. Maybe the Doppler effects are symmetrical in the sense that they cancel each other in their opposite directions and maybe you're right. But I had also in mind this thought of Einstein about simultaneity: Read Einstein chapter 8 (which is fairly short): http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html Then chapter 9: http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html up to Quote: Now considering 2 clocks one traveling at night the other during the day (traveling simultaneously pinned down on the very surface of earth) these 2 clocks do not have the same overall motion, as the motion due to earth's spin is combined to earth's motion around the sun. As such even though they are on earth (one body) their 2 reference systems (on earth) are not moving at the same rate, and Einstein idea suggests that the simultaneity (that would allow you to compare the signals rather than the clocks themselves) is

OK on this particular point it's not my description that is not clear, I have to think more about it. In a word you've cornered me good... I do not pretend to have worked out all the details of gravimotion... Furthermore I can make mistakes. But there are too many coincidences to make me change my mind. I am in the process of reconsidering your points one by one and recognize where I am mistaking and where I am not. I have also to work on this one. Forgive me but you push me into lots of corners I did not think of yet. Please note that physics is full of contradictions too... For instance why is the concept of position and reference so important in relativity when totally denied at quantum scale? Why is space absolutely empty for translation of light and full of energy in quantum vacuum? And many other. I am not tap-dancing, I only request you apply the same rules to everyone! That is, I am requesting you be as forgiving for new ideas as you are for physics... After all physicists are the first to recognize that physics is a science in the making, every day new discoveries are made that come and put into question the theories.... In any case I take it as an honor the fact that you are questioning gravimotion's idea. Now I'm going back to work.

Just as in physics time stops at speed of light, a speed which cannot be reached, in gravimotion time runs infinitely fast at rest which cannot be reached! Because everything is made of motion in gravimotion, getting at rest is same as disappearing or being annihilated. Gravimotion makes other predictions that are listed at: gravimotion predictions You state (as everybody after Einstein) : Motion is relative; Then you state: but motion is observed... So I conclude (and that is logical) that "the observation of motion is relative" And I add : The OBSERVATION OF MOTION is relative, motion per se is not relative, MOTION IS PHYSICAL, which is different. And all of that doesn't deny a bit of Einstein theories! Einstein theories are based on observation of motion.

To lemur Once I am through publishing this post I will remove the internet file from which you could download my book for free. On June 5, I provided the readers of this forum the opportunity to get my book for free as a gesture to thank you and this forum for your open mind. But now I think it is unfair to those who buy my book from my website not knowing they can get it free here! I learned something though, next time I do such a free offering, I will extend the offer to everyone across the board! In any case thank you again, I appreciate the fact you considered the idea of gravimotion. I intend to continue to discuss gravimotion's idea though as long as you and the other desire to do so... Obviously we entered in a phase of open conflict. Some aspects of gravimotion's idea are departing from conventional thinking; a point I always mention and a point on which we obviously both agree; therefore there should be no reason to be in conflict! I think that rather than fighting endlessly over numerous topics it would be more interesting to get straight at the heart of the discord. I think (and let me know if you disagree): In physics the reality of motion is ignored. In physics inertia, and mass exist then forces move these entities within space, motion is only an elusive byproduct of forces and inertia. Please read (1min30sec): motion is ignored in physics Yet motion is real, click (also less than 2 min reading): air-temperature, sound-waves, chaotic motion, space, light-waves

The difference between gravimotion and physics is that there is no absolute frame in gravimotion. Yes , actually inspired by Einstein, I think that time doesn't exist, only the motion that activate clocks exist. You call variation in time, what is ONLY physically a variation occurring in a physical mechanism. A mechanism made of the display of the clock (either metallic or electronic) and a source of motion (mechanic such as spring or quartz or sub atomic vibrations such as the emitting frequency of an atom). Everybody sees time, within the display of a clock, I only see a mechanical or electronic mechanism involving motion. May I ask you to rephrase you question, somehow I can only make comments not answer it. I think that relative speed is at the base of relativity, so motion (in physics) follows relativity. Everybody says that motion occurs with respect to a frame (you mention absolute frame). Motion (relative speed) in physics follows relativity. In gravimotion there is no frame. Motion not relative to a frame is a different entity than relative speed. Relativity is based on the observation of motion. That observation is as real as motion itself. The display of a clock is as real as the internal motion mechanism of the clock. Relativity works because it is based on the observation of the internal and external motions of the clocks, the internal (physical) motion being called time. Where relativity and gravimotion part is that in relativity the mechanical display of a clock is called time, whereas gravimotion calls it a mechanical display only. Gravimotion is based on the reality of motion, not on the observation of motion. You can only compare clocks when they are side by side and at the same time. Here in your example, it is a clock that is running during the day that you compare to the same clock which is running during the night. You would need at least 2 clocks and then they would run together in unison no matter what. If 2 clocks remain side by side they run in unison no matter their internal variations.

The cesium-133 atomic clock is precisely tuned to the rate of 9,192,631,770 cycles when and only when the clock is on the ground on earth or when it rides the motion of earth. Once you decided that there is 9,192,631,770 beats in one second (on earth) whether these 9,192,631,770 beats stretch their own cycling motion or shorten that motion, doesn't make a difference as far as your count counts! You always count 9,192,631,770 and you call it a second. To have a different count you would have to move the clock in a different way than it moves on earth, which is precisely what happened in the experiment of time dilation. As a reminder we are talking about the page: time-Einstein-gravimotion

OK ... OK ... I am wrong... I was considering earth's motion around the sun ONLY. And one must also consider the motion of the sun within the milky way galaxy, and I guess that is what you have in mind. Now when the earth (while circling around the sun) is moving against the sun's motion within the galaxy, a clock on earth will run faster than when the earth is moving along the sun's motion within the galaxy. And the original question was: why do we not see that time dilation? The reason has to be that we do not see it because we decided that our atomic reference clock which is pinned to the ground of earth beats at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second no matter what. But it turns out that these 9,192,631,770 cycles are not constant, they beat faster when the motion of earth goes against the motion of the sun within the galaxy. And they take longer in the opposite case. Yet we do not see that dilation because we decided to count 9,192,631,770 cycles no matter what. The atomic clock itself is depending on its motion, and is not an absolute ticking reference. To answer your last question, the motion I call motion is not physics "relative speed" referenced to a frame reference. The motion I consider is defined from inside not from outside. You have something similar in physics, it is the speed (which is a speed) of light. No matter your reference system the speed of light does what it pleases and that is 300,000km/sec.

We’re getting nowhere! Your argument rest on the reference system. Einstein stated that if you drop a stone from the window of a train, you see the stone falling in a straight line. Yet for someone on the embankment the stone trajectory is parabolic. Einstein states: there is not one absolute trajectory. I say that Einstein is right but in a slight different way. There is no absolute observable trajectory. Actually we can choose the trajectory that we call a trajectory according to our point of observation, that is depending on which reference system we choose. On the other hand if one considers that there is only one single (physical) stone falling, it is then obvious that there is only one single (physical) trajectory. When the stone is dropped it certainly doesn't duplicate itself to satisfy all various trajectories observed through various observations made from various reference systems. This is why reference systems are of no use in trying to understand what is going on. Because there is only one (physical) earth, my contention is that there is only one motion for earth around the sun, a compounded motion as described in 1 and 2 in my previous post.

The motion of earth around the sun (not considering other motions such as its spinning) is as follows; The earth physically travels at 30km/sec and that speed is independent of its direction. In other words that speed is constant day after day, year after year. The earth is physically falling toward the sun, a motion due to the sun's gravitation acting on the earth. A motion that keeps the earth on its trajectory instead of escaping in space. And that motion is constant day after day year round. As such there is no variation of the over all motion of earth, when you consider its revolution only around the sun. In gravimotion you are not allowed to choose a reference system in such a way that the motion considered is changed. In relativity on the other hand you are allowed to choose whether motion exist or not. You are allowed as you do to change its direction etc... Einstein favorite example is the train. He says that a traveler sees the landscape moving, as such and choosing the train for reference, the train is not moving! On the other hand for a bystander on the embankment, it is the train that is moving not the landscape! Take your pick!

I do not understand your logic; the earth circles the sun at 30km/sec, but for a small variation due to the fact that earth's orbit is not a perfect circle, that motion of 30km/sec remains constant year round. And our clocks do not vary for that specific matter that is because that motion remains the same no matter what. It seems that you are not distinguishing time of " six-month intervals" from speed of "30km/sec." The best way to look at it is that if we were 60km/sec further from rest (to consider one of your example), the earth would circle at 30 + 60 = 90 km/sec, and the earth never does that! Time dilation is a fairly simple mechanism to understand, when gravimotion's point of view that is when the overall motion of the clock is compounded to Einstein's discovery and calculations.

That's precisely what happens. Coincidentally the temperature of the clock would increase to the point that the clock would also melt down! Pas mal pas mal , meaning not bad not bad That is true of divisions too. And that has another meaning. You cannot divide a bag of 60 oranges into 60 bags of one apple each. Now getting back to speeds, how do you divide a stretch of highway 60 miles long into one hour? Yet speed is an exquisite representation of motion; the concept of speed rings the bell, the higher the speed the more intense the motion. In spite of its incomprehensible-ness, physics' mathematics has a point.

Physics is based on inertia, forces, space and time. Uniform motion in physics happens through inertia, is equivalent to rest and as such has no characteristics of its own. Uniform motion in physics has no characteristics of its own because whether its speed is 10 miles an hour or 100 miles an hour inertia takes care of it. Relative speed doesn't contribute to uniform motion, only one word that is inertia (no explanation, no mathematics) takes care of all speeds and directions of uniform motion. Obviously inertia is in charge of uniform motion whatever the velocity in physics. Then force (not inertia) takes care of accelerated motion in physics. Uniform motion in gravimotion, as in the inertia law, is self sufficient to occur on itself. But now uniform motion occurs on itself (period). Uniform motion is no longer due to the inertia of matter in motion, uniform motion occurs on itself, just as the motion of light (which has no mass) occurs on itself . Inertia disappears. In gravimotion each uniform motion is characterized by a specific intensity and direction. In gravimotion uniform motion is represented independently of mass space and time. Then acceleration is simply, uniform motion to which is combined other uniform motion. Note that right there gravimotion unifies: uniform motion, force and acceleration. And indirectly inertia by dropping it! The representation of motion in gravimotion is done through the motion-volume. gravimotion-dictionary-motion-volume If your browser doesn't directly lead to the motion-volume item use the menu/index and click on motion-vol. Then everything in the universe is illustrated using the motion-volume. I just created for you a special file out of which you can download my book for free. I will remove it in a few days. Download: Harmony of Reality book The following internet page, provides the precise pages numbers of the book for the various illustrations. Book illustrations For explanations that were thought of after I wrote the book: Gravitation is pure motion: gravimotion Light is pure motion: light wave particle duality Space is pure motion: space And to show how gravimotion differs from physics: what is space? Our concepts of space, time and mass prevent us from describing motion: motion what is motion? Time interpreted as motion: time Einstein gravimotion Inertia interpreted as motion: what is inertia? Entropy interpreted as motion: what is entropy? The universe in expansion is motion: gravity frequency interaction uncertainty principle And many more... You must take in account that gravimotion is in its infancy, physics has been alive for several hundred years. Then you must take in account that gravimotion has been carried out by a single individual, myself; whereas thousands of highly gifted individuals contributed and are still contributing to the science of physics. Then you must take in account that I am a layperson, not a physicist. And that I am furthermore not a writer! And in addition if I were a writer I would write in my native tongue, which is french. So when you read about gravimotion you have to be forgiving in many ways. I am grateful to lemur and also to scienceforums.net to allow me to express myself freely. Up until lemur and scienceforums.net I have been frankly, switftly and without any consideration kicked out of scientific forums! I want to show my gratitude... Thank you again, Henri Salles

Note that I was neutral rather than combative. Most of my thinking I owe to physics! Actually one of my favoriye motto is: "Neither physics nor fiction, there is nothing like gravimotion". Which is a litlle bit different than your quote. Just as the reality of a coin has 2 "opposite" sides, physics and gravitmotion are the opposite sides of reality! Physics relativity relies on "positions", "relative speed" (relative to these positions), on "inertia" and "force." Physics quantum mechanics relies on "entropy", the successive "states" that lead to thermodynamic equilibrium, "mass" and 4 "forces." Physics is clearly based on the philsophy that inertia is inert and that forces move around inert matter within space and time! Gravimotion is the antithesis of physics, gravimotion relies on motion ONLY. There is no inertia in gravimotion, everything is dynamic, made of motion, including the core of matter. And motion, has nothing to do with physics' relative speed; motion is incompatible with inertia (as interpreted in physics). The best way to grab the "reality" of motion is through Einstein time dilation, which shows mathematically that time is a puppet of motion. So in gravimotion motion is placed at the top of the hierarchy (should there be one), both space and time (should they exist) would be byproducts of motion. Now motion does no longer occur in space as in physics, motion occurs in motion (that replaces space-time). The only problem with gravimotion is that "motion" is a mystery. Yet compared to both "inertia" and "entropy", which are respectively at the base of relativity and quantum theories , "motion" has the advantage to be a "physical mystery" and not a "fictitious that is mentally invented mystery" as both inertia and entropy are. As such it makes more sense to describe Nature using a "single physical" mystery rather than "2 fictitious" mysteries. Yes the idea behind gravimotion is to suggest that "motion" is "sufficient". Claiming that gravitation is made of motion, and observing free fall (which is motion), amounts to claim that motion (in the form of what we call force of gravity) is the very motion that occurs in free fall. So physics' cause that is the force of gravity, is merged (in gravimotion interpretation) with phycis' effect that is motion (acceleration). If one notices in addition that that motion that makes gravitation (in gravimotion interpretation of Nature) comes right out of space, and as a consequence one claims that motion actually makes space, then the force of gravity (that exists in space), the free fall of an object and space-time are all unified in one elegant scoop under the form (occurrence would be a better word) of motion! This aspect of your question, rather than triggering an answer, raises questions in my mind! The 2 words "matter emerges" may mean that "matter is created" as happened after big bang in physics "inflation" period creation of matter. Yet the 2 words "matter emerges" may mean that particles, in some specific conditions and at present, emerge out physics "quantum vacuum". My answer will not satisfy you, because it actually requires much more explanation. In gravimotion, there is no beginning, no big bang, no inflation period. Yet "emergence of particles" out of the "motion" that makes space-time has an explanation (actually a different interpretation).

Overnight this writing of yours came back to my mind! You are remarkably open minded... Most of the reactions I get about gravimotion are of the type: "This guy is ignorant" or "This guy knows nothing about physics". Some people just rely on their"belief", they claim "I do not believe that!" and that's the end of that! Or they claim "That cannnot be" and they proved everything! The reaction to gravimotion's idea, when expressed, is almost always of denial, without discussion, without compromise, and without further consideration and notice! So comments such as those of "ajb" do not bother me anymore. On the other hand people like you are very rare and far in between... That is why I decide to mention it! I applaud your open mind and I intend to read more of your interventions on this forum... If you have any question about gravimotion, it would be my pleasure to exchange ideas. Henri Salles

I ended up stating that gravimotion is not physics, because it has been systematically rejected by physicists! The idea behind gravimotion doesn't contradict PHYSICS' MATHEMATICS though. On the other hand it provides another interpretation of these mathematics. Here is an example (among other): http://does-time-exi...ravimotion.html While the idea of gravimotion is systematically rejected by physicists, the converse is not true! My respect for physicists is immense... The idea behind gravimotion is more appropriately " a cloud made of the motion of the particles but without the particles". And I explain and illustrate that idea of mine succintly in: http://gravimotion.i...r-en/space.html gravimotion