LeRepteux

Hi Philip, Can you calculate if these extra meters give an optical angle of about 1.7 arc sec seen from the earth? I'm afraid it is much too small to match that data though. Anyway, sketching a speed curve for galaxies without accounting for light bending should flatten the curve, and its exactly what we get, but as Janus points out, it is not enough to account for the whole increase. My explanation for this supplementary increase is simple, but its nevertheless difficult to grasp. I think that if we retrieve the redshift from the equations, it should give the right speeds. A receding of galaxies not only lowers the frequencies of their light, but it also slows their normal rotation periods, so we have to increase them in the equations. If we took them as they are, I think it might give the right speeds. But it follows that we would have to look for something else than expansion to explain the redshift.

I found a discussion about that on another forum, here is an insight on the maths and my answer after: Janus said... I answered... http://www.thescienceforum.com/astronomy-cosmology/49499-can-dark-matter-optical-illusion-caused-gravitational-lensing.html#post658865 Janus accepts that the light from the galaxy might be curved by its mass, so he does the maths, and conclude that there would not be enough curving to justify the observed speed. I answer him that the curving of light should be proportional to the orbital speed since both are due to the same curved space. I can't see his answer since I have been banned for two weeks for having insisted with this type of curving, but I still think that the new speed/distance curve should follow the predicted one, and I have an answer for the speeds still being too fast at the corrected distances. Somebody wants to hear it?

I think I found a way to test my point! If the sun's light was really curved by its own gravity, it follows that a spiral galaxy light would also be, which means that its apparent diameter would also look larger than it really is. In the case of galaxies, the measure of their rotational speed made at different heights would thus be attributed to larger heights than the real ones, which could explain the lack of gravitational pull that we attribute to Black Matter. Anybody wants to help me with the maths?

Anybody wants to resume this discussion with me?

Hi phillip, If the sun's light is also curved by the gravitation of the sun, it changes Einstein's predictions, because the only way to prove the curving is to use the diameter of the sun as measured optically, and superpose it to the mapping of the sky when it isn't there to curve the rays. If the sun's light is really curved, then it increases the sun's diameter, which has thus to be shrunk on the mapping made when it isn't there. But if we do that, it won't hide the stars that Einstein predicted it would, the ones that, as you say, were just at the right spot, and we would thus have to find another explanation than bending to explain the observations.

Hi everybody, Here is a drawing representing two light rays curved by the sun's mass: a blue ray coming from a star that brushes past the sun, and a red ray coming from the periphery of the sun itself. The two rays are parallel when they begin to travel together at the sun's periphery (dotted red and blue arrows), and they thus hit the earth later at the same angle since, being very close to one another, they almost suffer the same curvature (plain red and blue arrows), what gives to the earth observers the impression that both rays come from the same spot in the sky (dotted red and blue lines that lead to the dotted star). Einstein predicted that the ray coming from the star would get curved by the presence of the sun, but without noticing that the ray from the periphery of the sun itself should also get curved, so he did not realize either that the sun would look wider during this observation, and that he thus would have to shrink it on the mapping of the sky made when the sun was not there to curve the rays. If he had shrunk his sun on the mapping made when the sun was on the other side of the earth, it would have hidden the same stars than the ones that were hidden during the eclipse, so he could not have concluded that light was effectively curved by gravitation as he had predicted, but instead, that the sun's presence was affecting the direction of the rays in such a way that a mapping made in it's presence kind of widened the sky compared with the one made when it wasn't there. Notice that this reasoning does not contradict the observations, it only contradicts the explanation of the observations, reason why I placed it on a science forum, but if it's right, then there must be another explanation, and I did not find it yet, except that gravitation kind of widens the sky when our observations are made from a much less massive body than the one we are gravitating around, which means that it could be the real acceleration of the earth observers towards the sun at the microscopic level that would affect the direction of the rays. So far so good, but as I said, it doesn't seem to work, because moving at an angle through a light ray should bend it in the direction of the movement as for the aberration of star light, which would shrink the sky during an eclipse instead of widening it as the observations show, so I am still looking for an explanation. Anybody finds the idea interesting? Anybody thinks that the rays coming from the sun should also be curved by the gravitation of the sun?

My proposal is only an hypothesis Engcat, but it is a fundamental one, so its is important to consider that, if it works, it might change the way we think particles are acting. We had to develop quantum mechanics because of the data, and we also have a lot of data about mass that doesn't fit with the theory, beginning with the one about the loss of mass when two massive particles link. Saying that energy and mass are the same doesn't show how the particles are acting: its not a mechanism. The small steps is a real mechanism, and it can explain mass, motion, and loss of mass at the same time. Mass is as evident as motion, and it is probably why we did not look behind mass to define motion, but now that we have a possible mechanism for both, why not inspect it more closely?

Force develops between two bodies that already carry a mass, and it can initiate motion between them, but once motion is set, no force is needed to keep them going on. Its only reversal reasoning to think that these bodies keep going because there is no force applied on them. To be observable, mass must depend on a physical mechanism, and since there is a strong conceptual link between mass and motion, to me, that mechanism must explain both phenomenon. The Higgs explains mass, but it doesn't explain motion, what lets me think that there might be something fishy going on with that explanation. Have a look at my OP if you didn't, and tell me what you think of that possibility: the illustration of the small steps that I am talking about at the end is here.

Hi QT, what if I replaced motion by change in your phrase? To me, motion is a state, whereas change means a change in that state. To change the state of motion of a body means to change its direction or its speed. In that sense, the uncertainty principle and the temperature can effectively change those parameters, but only because all the bodies of the universe are already moving with respect to one another at any scale. If bodies were not already moving, thus if they did not possess their own mass, there would be no temperature and no uncertainty principle for us to measure. Motion is already there, we can observe it, and we can observe mass also, but we cannot observe the link between those two phenomenon. To me, it is not sufficient to say that mass induces motion to explain that link, we also have to find the hidden mechanism. The small steps are material, they cover a distance with time, its a real mechanism. They still have to be proven, but they explain motion as a real phenomenon, not only as an abstraction.

Instead of only being helpful to our movements' measures, what if precise timing at a micro level would rather be causing these movements? I show here how it could be the case. Wouldn't that perspective add a bit of materiality to our concept of time?

The birds that fly in a V shape gain energy while surfing on the wave from the precedent bird. Its also a form of synchronism where the action is not simultaneous because it takes time for the wave to move from a bird to the other. Here is a small animation of the synchronous motion between the atoms that I am talking about. Its simplistic, but its explicit enough. http://www.imabox.fr/a1/1330012244GUqjJs19.swf

Hi Earl, thanks for the compliment! You mean like this one for instance? In fact, one of the reasons for that kind of figures is that the interactions between the birds are not instantaneous, which is exactly why the atoms would be forced to proceed by steps. If all the birds would move exactly at the same time and in the same direction, there figures would not be so diversified. Earl, you say you have an avid interest in flight, do you fly or is it only for birds? I bought a para-motor this summer, and I am waiting for the lake to freeze to try it on skis.

I'm aware of the feeling you're talking about, because I've been in the invention business for a while. You think you have a good idea, you test it for a while, and you realize that it wasn't that good, and you get back to the drawings. Here is the best success I had in my life, www.paraskiflex.com , and I succeeded without complete knowledge of the fields I was working in, only the main principles, exactly like for the small steps. The only idea that stood all along the process was that it should be possible to hold a kite in our hands and sail with it on snow or water. It took 20 years to complete the invention, and after 10 years, looking on Internet, I realized that two other inventors were developing an analogous system in France and in Australia, but with different structures. I often take the example of Jazz for explaining part of my theory that applies to mind. I agree that its better if you know the field you're working in, but if you know the basis, and if you like searching and learning, you might develop good inventions too. Lots of inventors are self made individuals, and lots of inventions are made by them. I catch your Jazz example in flight to illustrate what I mean: I don't play any instrument, but I can easily play Jazz in my head and sing it. It means that I have a good sense for music and that I can invent some without having learned that much about its principles. I know I can be completely wrong with my ideas, I'm used to it, but I know I might be right too, especially if I am lucky. Of course it would be more accurate, but it would not help me to explain the mechanics of the steps, which is necessary if I want people to understand them. It is easy to teach children because they usually trust adults, but its difficult to get trusted by adults when you want to teach them something they did not decide to learn, or worse, when they are convinced that it is useless for them. For the cars of my mind experiment, rest is when the signal from the other car indicates no speed. For the atoms, it's when the signal from the other atom indicates no doppler effect. Its only a definition, like the one for the top speed gained at the middle of a step. Its an impulse, and it has a beginning, a middle, and an end, like any other impulse. SR is not concerned with relative impulses, it is concerned with relative speeds. I showed how the steps would account for mass increase of particles, which is a relativistic phenomenon for the steps, but I cannot see how their frequency would be a relativistic phenomenon, even if it is one for SR. Since the steps explain inertial motion instead of only observing it like SR, I think that we cannot directly apply SR to them, that we have to find how the properties of light would affect them. Don't you think?

Thanks for your kindness Craig, I've been on a few scientific forums before and it doesn't seem easy for the administrators to deal with what appears to be crazy ideas. I hope you don't mind that I finish explaining my thoughts though. I will answer your first comment on mass, but let me explain first how the small steps would produce mass increase when we accelerate particles. Atoms' steps follow the information carried by light, and they are made of accelerations from rest followed by decelerations to rest (for atoms, 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 a step, the faster its top speed will be if atoms cannot change the time it takes to make it. 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 if their speed depend on light's information, and which means that the molecule would resist increasingly to be accelerated, what we interpret as mass increase for accelerated particles. 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 would unfortunately contradict 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 since their internal mechanism would no slow down as the theory predicts. Let me put it differently: what if I said that, with the actual explanation of inertial mass, we can feel its mass when we get in contact with a body, but that we cannot feel it when it passes by, so that we can only imagine that it is still there, but that we cannot prove it. With the small steps (sorry if I use that term, but its the shorter and the more descriptive I could find), we can see the mechanism at work, so that we know why the steps are constant when no acceleration is happening, and we know why they develop resistance when we accelerate them. With them, its not mass that produces constant motion, its the steps, and as long as there is no acceleration, there is no mass. Let me add something about the measures that we make. To measure a distance, we use a known length that we divide in smaller ones until the division is small enough for the precision that we need. But to measure that distance, we have to travel for real from point A to point B, thus we have to accelerate from point A and decelerate to point B, exactly like the atoms would have to do with their small steps. The difference is that we can take the time we want to measure a distance, whereas the atoms could not. When we decelerate at point B, we can give as much precision to our measure as we need by dividing our rule in small parts, which is also the way atoms proceed, because they can always rely on the steps from their own components to travel smaller distances.

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 somewhere else 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 that 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 convicted 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?