Le Repteux

I'm as serious as Wiki can be. It says that nothing could tell that heliocentrism was right before Galileo could see the planets going with his new telescope, which means that all the scientists who proposed that hypothesis before him did not base it on evidence, but on speculation. I said that if neutrinos had mass, and that mass was due to the small steps between bonded particles, then neutrinos should have components. It was thus an hypothesis, not an assertion.

Heliocentrism was not based on observations before we had good telescopes, and Copernicus even said that he only invented it to facilitate calculations, which means that he did not think it could be objectively tested.

Yes, can you remember me which "points in my hypothesis are contrary to observations" please?

That's one opinion, I registered it, but if you don't mind, I'll wait for more than one before making my mind, and I hope that they will be more elaborated than yours, otherwise I wont be able to conclude.

Science begins with ideas that do not seem to be pertinent at first sight, and there is good chances that they wont be at second sight too, because that kind of idea comes from chance, and because chance comes from a random process. We have to be careful with our ideas because of that, and because even if we know that, they always seem to be relevant to us since they come from our own navel.

Everybody cares for his own navel anyway, so are you! But there are different ways to look at others' navel, and yours is particularly blind.

I said this: "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 unfortunately contradicts SR." I should have said: "which would unfortunately contradict SR". All the phrase is on conditional, which means that I only wanted to make a comparison between the increase in length of the steps and their increase in frequency.

Contrary to your claim, I said that the steps would increase in length when accelerated, not in frequency, what should have no impact on the frequency of accelerated clocks.

I'm back because I couldn't live without your judicious and how helpful comments xyzt. Final relative speed has! But just in case you forgot about it: it still takes some acceleration to get speed.

The model for heliocentrism was geometrical, and there was no other prediction than geometric ones, but it still had an enormous effect on the following discoveries. For the moment, the small steps are only geometrical too, and the only prediction I can make from them is that, one day or another, the Higgs will be found not to be the right answer for mass. Talking of mass, here is how the small steps would produce mass increase. The steps follow the information carried by light, and they are made of accelerations from rest followed by decelerations to rest (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 is a step, the faster its top speed will be if atoms cannot change the time it takes to make their steps. 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 because their speed depend on light's information, and which means that the molecule would resist increasingly to be accelerated, what we interpret as a mass increase for particles in an accelerator. 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 unfortunately contradicts 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.

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 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 the 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 conviced 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?

Sorry Phy, but I cant discuss with Damocles around. Thread closed for me until that guy gets a full paid vacation away from Speculations forum, duration undetermined.

No need to snatch moderators job Charon, they don't need to, but I think that I will help them nevertheless: THREAD CLOSED (at least for me)

Phi, if you want to discuss, then discuss, if you want to close the thread, then close it, but, PLEASE, don't tell me when, why, what or how to think! You are not in my head and you thus just don't know what I am aiming at. My ideas are about facts, and I stick to them. To me, resisting to change is a fact, and if you think it is not, then say why without menacing me and we shall discuss your ideas about it. Moreover, this thread has been put in the "Speculations" forum, and speculations are about uncertainties, which, unfortunately, are not considered as science on scientific forums. So if you don't want uncertainties on SF, then I think that you should seriously consider closing the Speculations forum, otherwise, please let those who like to speculate do so. Now, if your "please" did not contain any menace, then forget about what I just said, but try to use friendly words when you talk to me. What did you say? Policemen don't have to be friendly? Of course not, but they don't participate to discussions with their police hats either.

Yes I was, cause I think that my idea about change applies to any kind of evolution, even to motion. For the same reason as above, I suppose so, but I can't show you how because you don't listen to me! I knew that you could answer that, but I took a chance that you would know that I knew. Of course we change our environment, we can even change our genes if we want to, nevertheless, our environment is actually telling us who is the boss, as for our genes, I bet that the principle of mutation/selection is not ready to give up, and that of diversity either. They don't seem to, but they can change direction and speed, which should depend on some sort of random process if my idea about change is correct. OK, Big-bang is about how the universe was born and has evolved, thus about how atoms were born and have evolved. Correct? I said "almost" simultaneously, because I know very well that interactions are not instantaneous. Our discussion here is a proof for both of us that you are wrong, because we both visibly resist to change. This is a fact, not just an idea. Wars depend on that fact. You could at least admit that I am right on that one, but things being as they are, I bet you will resit to do so. Resisting to a change produces a real feeling: it hurts our ego a bit and forces us to react. Can you feel it? Permit that I stick my foot in the door. You are right on this one, I agree that circumstances may change my mind. Can you do so?

Losing my mind, my integrity, my reputation, ... but not to take chances! I gave a second though to that comparison between living and inert bodies while awaking this morning. You raised an important point yesterday, and I should be able to answer it thoroughly if that idea about change applies to both. There is two directions we can look at from our own viewpoint: where we come from and where we are going to, and it is the same for anything we can think of. We know that evolution of species come from mutations being selected by environment, because we know that environment has more effect on species than the inverse, and also because we know that species cannot voluntarily chose a change. But we cannot predict how a particular specie is going to change because it depends on random mutations and on a complex selection process. What is predictable though is the way it will behave if it can change its habits without having to change its genetics. We know that animals can change territories this way, we know that plants can change habitats, and we know that they will chose the ones that fit their needs, so we can predict which ones if we know their needs and we know the potential territories. Without genetic changes, changing places for living bodies seems similar to changing directions for inert bodies: both have no other choice but to keep on going, both have no other choice to go away, and both chose the direction that suits their needs after a while. But how could we apply the example of a genetic change to an atom? Are atoms affected the same way species are if drastic changes happen in their environment? The Big-bang theory is about how atoms are born and how they have evolved, but it does not tell us how randomness has been part of the process at each drastic changes. Some scientists even say that the constants could have been selected before the big-bang has happened. We avoid to take chances in our everyday choices when it prevents us from doing what we want, but we use it when it can help us so. We have a schizophrenic way to play with chance, and I think that we have the same kind of way about the idea of chance. Chance is about freedom of mind, but mind is not that free to talk about it. Simply because they are part of the same homogeneous body. (By the way, how can I interlock citations here?) Its a psychological force, of course, which opposes the psychological resistance we offer to change. What about chance then? Why chance would not be able to produce our psychological changes?

No need to make such a difference for the mutation/selection process. If such a process is useful to evolution of species, it might be useful to evolution of anything that faces change, and all the universe is changing all the time, so why not try to apply it to different changes and see what happens? As you can see, if you don't care to try, we won't get anywhere. What are you afraid of: losing your mind, you integrity, your reputation, what...? You said that you didn't like to take chances, is it the only reason? Good comment! You are right, there is a big difference between change occurring to a specie and change occurring to a body: the first one is unpredictable while, up to a certain point, the other one is. Let me paint a picture of the different evolutions.The differences in evolutionary processes reside in the duration of the trial and error process compared to the duration of the change in the environment, and on the way the trials are made and selected. For large species, there is numerous trials occurring simultaneously, and their duration is counted in years. For our mind, there is only one essay at a time, and its duration is counted in days. For a macroscopic body, each of its atoms have to change almost simultaneously, and the duration of these changes is counted in femtoseconds. For only one atom, who knows what has to change, but the duration of this change must be incredibly fast. Quantum data show that this change is unpredictable for one atom, but they also show that it becomes predictable in the long run or if numerous trials are made, which explains macroscopic behavior since numerous atoms are involved. These surprising data have brought scientists ideas to their limit, and created controversies between them. If my theory about motion is a bit right, it might help us to better understand quantum effects. OK then, let me reverse the example: lets admit that you are presently applying a force on my ideas, but that they will not change just because you want them to, so, since we both know that our ideas change with time, what is going to change mine: only time? Time is a concept, it cannot be only time.

If I take your definition of randomness, even the bond prize would not be random, it would only give more complexity to the cause of a phenomenon. If you want to understand what I mean by randomness being a possible cause for change at any scale, you have to stick to the mutation/selection principle, to the effect a random process can have on the continuity of a phenomenon, thus on its existence. If a specie changes without being able to do so by itself, it is because some change happens to its genes, otherwise it would not change, which means that, in some way, it resists to the change that happens in its environment: things change while resisting to that change all the time, why is it so? What I suggest is that it takes time for a random process to produce a change. The essay and error process takes time and its outcome is unpredictable, this is why research is not very common in business, and why pills are so expensive. Again, your definition of randomness stands on the precision of a prediction, whereas mine stands on the change a random process could produce. An individual does not measure the chances he had to get a particular mutation, he uses it as long as he can, and reproduces it if he can. I did not want to show that quantum uncertainty was certainly the cause for change in the direction and speed of a body, but that random processes were a scale effect. To me, there should not be more uncertainty between atoms than between macroscopic bodies, but from us to them, it seems to be the case. A change from its environment is also a force applied to a specie, but this specie does not change automatically, it needs chance. I am presently applying a force on your ideas, but they will not change just because I want them to, it also takes chance for them to change. What kind of chance? How could a random process happen in our mind? If it did, how could we be unable to notice it?

I consider that I am wrong when I feel convinced, not when I feel intimidated, whether it is by participants or by moderators. I think you agree that biologic evolution, thus life, is not deterministic. Now, if life had to develop this way, its because things change constantly, in such a way that life had to count on randomness to keep on existing. This randomness comes from atomic scale, whereas life is at molecular scale, and animals at macroscopic scale. The causes of mutation are not random at their own scale, atoms don't behave randomly one before the other, but they may be when they interfere with a larger scale, as for the quantum uncertainty for instance. The butterfly wing beating does not cause randomness at its own scale, but it may at the planet scale. When your car changes direction, the randomness that I am talking about and that permits the change would not happen at its scale, but at the microscopic scale. Since macroscopic bodies change direction, we know that atoms can, but we also know that they would not be supposed to, because they resist a change, nevertheless, they do, and this might be because there is a randomness process going on below their scale, a process that takes time, like the mutation/selection one, a time that could be the cause of the resistance. That way, any change could be a scale effect. Nothing can be absolutely precise. After many bumps, it is impossible to predict the direction of a particular ball, and if it was not so, that game would be useless. Any sport is based on that impossibility, this is what makes them exciting for us. Without randomness in sports, there would not be any sport, and to me, there would not be any society without randomness either, because there would not have been any change in it from its beginning. What did you mean by "Some mutations are random" ? I thought you meant that all mutations were not random.

Sorry Phy, I should have added "except if it my ideas are discussed by moderators". Again, there is no change in a specie without random change in the genes, which means to me that there might be no change anywhere without a random process to permit it. When two bodies changes direction or speed while hitting each other for instance, there might be a random process to permit it. Nevertheless, once the change has been executed, there is also a continuity process to permit that it is conserved since the two bodies keep their momentum. Without the randomness, no change could happen to the momentum, but without the momentum there would be no way to conserve a change: as you can see, both would also be needed to change a motion. Can you give me an example of a non random mutation?

Again, you are saying that the process I am talking about is only random, and I explained to you twice that randomness needed continuity and vice versa. Think about evolution of species when I talk about randomness: their genes crate continuity, but their mutations crate simultaneously randomness. Both principles of change and continuity are linked in the same process of life. Same comment: determinism is about continuity and indeterminism is about randomness, but both are needed to make a world. Are you about to say that mutations are not random? If it is so, we have a contradiction, because, since species are already an environment for the other species, they cannot evolve randomly while their environment does not. Yet, change would not be possible for a specie without a random process. Just for fun, to take a chance, a lottery ticket for free.

Lets use another analogy: what about elections? There is always a certain amount of uncertainty in the predictions preceding an election: surveys are about probabilities. This global uncertainty comes from individual uncertainties, which change with time depending on the circumstances, and which are unpredictable, thus depend of a random process. To me, compare to the way dictatorship is driven, an election is a random process, because it favors change, not to you? How could a phenomenon be unpredictable without containing some kind of random process? Do you mean that tossing a dice is not a random process because we can predict equal chance to obtain any number on the long run? This is not how I think that imagination is the product of a random process. What I think is that it can kind of toss a dime to change an idea randomly, for instance it could change randomly the direction (or the sense) that an old idea had, or it could change its importance randomly, and then it would have to try it for real to check if it works. If it hurts, it should have time to get back to work and change it another way, try it again for real, and keep it if it doesn't hurt anymore. This way, it could learn or invent a new idea faster and more deeply that animals can do. If you think that environment does not change randomly for us, could you accept that it did for animals before we were here? Again, if we do not differentiate properly continuity from change, we won't get anywhere. To me, skills are about memory, thus continuity, and change is about imagination, thus about randomness: can you accept that definition for a while?

Thanks for spitting the thread Swansont, and sorry for the trouble. Nice things never happened to you by chance only? You never take a chance in case it would work? How could things be unpredictable without a random process to develop them? How could evolution of a specie be unpredictable without the random process of mutations and natural selection? Aren't these things subjected to a random process also? Environment is changing randomly, no? Nothing can predict that we will be able to learn a new thing, no? What makes us change jobs and change places if not external environment that changes constantly? If there was no change to face, would we have to change anything? If our environment would never change, wouldn't a change from an individual be absolutely no use to him?

Recombination is a random process, whether it is ideas or genes. Lately, I learned that scientific evidence was about facts, not about ideas, but the evidence that you are talking about is about an idea. If we want to get somewhere, lets stick to facts. To me, its a fact that randomness is part of my life, not to you? Can you predict what you will be thinking in a few years? Are you thinking the same as you were ten years ago? If not, and considering what you think of my idea actually, what could change our ideas so drastically sometimes if not a random process?

Combining old genes does not permit a specie to survive to important environmental changes, it also takes mutations. Continuity and change are two different viewpoints that we can take on our behaviors, and we cannot take both at a time, but these two properties are nevertheless both present at the same time in our mind. If we focus on randomness, we only see randomness, and if we focus on continuity, we only see continuity, but for life to continue it takes randomness, and for randomness to exist it takes continuity. In other words, we behave part randomly and part continuously. Do you agree? Let me decide what is mistaken or not when people discuss my own ideas. You want to discuss or fight? No you did not. I'll tell you when you do. Minds don't change by force, they change by chance, so be patient and we might happen to get somewhere together.