Andre Lefebvre

 

 

If you want to redefine physics you will need the math to prove your model or it is useless. The excuse their is no math for my model won't cut it.

Good! I'm not interested in redefining physics, I'm only interested to understand the universe.

 

 

Trust me on that, I made that mistake once. I wasted 5 years trying to solve the cosmological constant. Once I learned the math I kicked myself in the .... for being so stupid.

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.

 

 

That's where your different types of mass comes from.

The different names are define by the type of observer.

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

 

The equations that describe the behavior of elementary

particles become fundamentally simpler and more

symmetric when the mass of the particles is zero. So eliminating

mass enables us to bring more symmetry into the mathematical

description of Nature. (frank wilczek)

Yes Mordred I remember and I'm not finish going through them.

Thanks again.

 

You need to prove that with equations. This is the part you keep avoiding.

I'm not avoiding them; I don't have them. And nobody else has them either.

 

You continously miss the detail, both GR and Newton uses mass. In GR it's referred to as mass density.

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.

 

 

Now as to the motion of stars have you ever heard of Keplarian decline?
Probably not if you believe stars should orbit the galaxy at the outer edge as fast as stars in the galactic halo.

This is not what I believe; it's what is observed. And I agree with you, it shouldn't be so.

 

 

The velocity of stars farther away from the center of mass (bulge should decline as the influence of gravity declines at a rate of 1/r^2.

That's exactly what I mean.

 

 

However this doesn't quite work for a galaxy. Instead we have to look at the distribution of mass as a function of radius.

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.

 

 

That doesn't happen. Even using GR the result should be the same. So don't bother arguing about space time distortions stating different.

If a body is in a stable orbit its velocity equals its escape velocity

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.

 

 

The second formula accounts for added contributors to mass as you increase the radius.

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.

 

 

I don't understand you at all. In previous posts you specifically mentioned Hawking radiation, also the inflaton.
Are you not aware that Hawking radiation is a virtual particle specifically virtual photons.
Why would you accept that but not virtual gluon?

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.

 

 

All gauge bosons can be real or virtual.

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.

 

 

A gluon cannot cause any measurable space time distortion its mass is far too small.

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.

 

 

(3 different people were awarded the Nobel prize for their separate research and contributions.)

Are they wrong too?

They're certainly not wrong in regard of the premises they start with. These are intelligent people.

 

 

The strong force between two quarks Increases and not decreases as the distance between them increases.

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?

 

 

If it is your idea, then we can safely ignore it.

With this kind of attitude, I would ignore your posts.

 

 

Forget the velocity but look at the speed? What are you talking about?

I'm talking about gravity that decreases with the square of the distance which you say justify the speed of those stars.

 

 

Please provide some objective evidence that this "simple impression in the fabric of the universe" exists.

The proof? Light is deviated where there's not matter to deform space-time. That's the same proof you have for dark matter.

 

 

If you disagree, please stop shouting

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.

 

 

You claim certain well-established quantum effects don't exist. Please provide some support for this claim. Calling it "magic" does not count as scientific evidence.

So is making appear a force ou of nowhere. Tell me where the strong nuclear comes from and then the magic spell will disappear.

 

 

No particles that are known to exist currently meet those requirements

So you're ready to "imagine" an unknown particle "out of the blues" again. That's what I call "magic".

 

 

Please provide some objective evidence that this "imprint in the fabric of the universe" exists. Please tell us what the cause of it is.

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.

 

 

And please provide a mathematical proof that this can produce the observed speeds.

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.

 

 

Your unsupported claims are getting really old.

Well then I'll oblige you and never talk to you about it anymore.

 

 

Where does it say it they are two dimensional?

I wrote it a little bit higher.

 

 

Can you show us the maths for your model and how it produces the observed rotation velocities?

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.

 

 

Huh? Of course not. It is the unexpected relationship between radius and velocity that is one of the many lines of evidence for dark matter.

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.

 

 

And your evidence for that claim is?

What the hell are you talking about?

 

 

People are very clear about the (kind of) evidence for dark matter.

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.

 

 

there is two main categories of evidence. Direct evidence and indirect evidence. Both DM and DE, fall into the latter category for different reasons. They may not have direct evidence, but both have TONS of indirect evidence.

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.

 

 

Believe me professional scientists required CONSIDERABLE evidence to finally br accepted.

I believe you; but believe me it doesn't seem so.

 

 

The velocity of the outer stars is precisely the problem.

They have the same velocity as a lot of stars before them toward the center of the galaxy. That's my point.

 

 

Don't you think Scientists haven't tried that? Of course they did. It didn't solve the problem. Neither did modifying the graviational constant. Aka MOND. Modified Newtonian gravity.

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.

 

 

goto YouTube watch a cloud chamber video, you can watch the trails of particles appear then dissapear.

Seeing that won't explain that it's not "magic"; my friend. I'm not saying it doesn't exist,

 

 

that is not what "off shell" means

Maybe not but being two-dimensional particles makes them "not quite a real particle".

 

 

How many times do I have to mention the conservation of energy momentum laws to you. You cannot create particles without first having sufficient energy from the original particles.

You're the one who told me:

"We can't accelerate qluons in any LHC for one".

@ Strange

 

 

The presence of extra mass that we cannot see explains that.

No it doesn't

 

 

The rotation curve is a reference to speed.

Regardless of tne radius?

 

 

So you are suggesting an alternative source of space-time curvature that isn't mass? What is it then?

Topology (or geodesic whatever).

 

 

virtual particles are termed off shell (mass-shell in this case) because they don't satisfy the Einstein energy-momentum relationship; real exchange particles do satisfy this relation and are termed on shell

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.

 

 

In point of detail its a field of gluons not necessarily an individual gluon.

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".

 

 

mediate in this application means exchange of energy, charge or color etc between two quarks.

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?

 

 

One quark emits say it's color property the gluon carries that color charge to the next quark. The same thing happens to to the energy for the strong force.

And this is the way physicist see the interactions. Color properties exist as "color properties" and energy doesn't exist on its own?

 

 

This isn't the reason for dark matter or for that matter dark energy. Those weren't added to our models on a whim but based on observation evidence.

"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.

 

 

Based on matter distribution of visible matter (baryonic) galaxies should rotate slower the farther you get from the center. They didn't. It took over 60 years of alternate model fighting to try to explain this without dark matter.

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?

 

 

The fact is only the existsnce of mass/ matter in a halo distribution enveloping galaxies could explain the rotation curve.

Maybe the curve but not the speed I was talking about, just now.

 

 

Then on top of this observations spotted gravitational lensing where there shouldn't be any.

That can be easily explained another way by having a geodesic deforming space-time, without matter which is not what deforms space-time.

 

 

Now as to how to go from the beginning of the universe to the particles we know? Well you have to understand how virtual particles work.

Don't worry I do.

 

 

Particles can pop in and out of existance all the time and at any time in particular virtual particles.

I hope you understand why and don't see that as "magic". So I'd like to read the official explanation for that "magic".

 

 

You have quasi particles. These are used to describe particle like interactions.

And let's add that interactions are exchanges of a quantum of energy between particles. So those quasi particles represent quanta of energy.

 

 

One example is your inflaton. Quasi particles usually only describe a specific particle property. In the case of the inflaton that is energy.

First, it's not mine; it's Hawking's. And since energy doesn't exist on its own, so does Hawking's inflaton.

 

 

However this isn't a real particle. It's more of a placeholder till the real cause or particle responsible is determined.

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.

 

 

However virtual particles are different than quasi particles in that they act like specific particles.

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.

 

 

However they are what's called "off shell" basically means not quite a real particle.

I agree since "off shell" means "no volume".

 

 

One reason is they lack the energy to form a real particle this leads them to decay quicker than the real particle.

Normal since they don't have volume to contain energy. But the decay into what?

 

 

Particles form in matter/antimatter pairs due to the conservation of charge, color and energy laws.

They use to form even before the definition of those laws, anyway.

 

 

To fully understand that would take more than I can post.

Don't worry; I am informed of the process.

 

 

As far as gluons forming top quarks 75% of the time. Well quite frankly you can't trust that pop media article you posted that in. We can't accelerate qluons in any LHC for one.

Bof! You can't accelerate Higgs boson either; so there's no problem there.

 

 

This reaction is then possible 75% of the time.

And because of a law in Quantum dynamics, "If something is possible, you can bet your hat it's going to happen".

 

 

One should never trust pop media style articles. They always tend to mislead or misinform.

I extend that precaution to everybody I exchange with. I feel lucky being able to exchange with you and appreciate it. Thanks.

 

 

This does not mean this occurs 75% of the time in ordinary conditions.

One should never trust pop media style articles. They always tend to mislead or misinform.

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.

 

 

It is a measure of the interaction between two or more 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?

 

 

Yes the gluon mediates the interaction.

What does "mediate" means really?

 

 

However that's due to energy not existing on its own.

Is the total energy of the universe doesn't exist on its own?

 

 

All forms of energy is a property of either a particle or object.

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?

 

 

All forces is a descriptive of how a interacts with b. It is not something that exists without a and b. Regardless of what a and b represents.

So what is the strong nuclear force then?

 

 

The term force can be used anywhere there is any form of interaction that influences motion.

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.

 

 

Tell you what prove you understand basic physics and terminology first.

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.

 

 

Considering I posted the Einstein field equations stress energy tensor for Cartesian coordinates to Polar coordinate transformation in the stress energy tensor. ( Which defines how space time curves) several pages ago.

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.

 

 

The trouble is, the galaxy isn't a hollow ball. So, obviously, treating it as such will obviously give you the wrong results.

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.”

 

 

I'm not going to bother trying to type my answers to suit your viewpoint on what you think is involved. Both GR and Newtonian physics use the term mass.

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.

 

 

Now as you go from the surface inside the Earth to its center the net sum force of gravity decreases. Not increases. This is because there is now mass on both sides of you. Mass ahead and mass behind.

I can't understand that, since there's no "attraction" between mass.

 

 

This also occurs in the galaxy as you approach it's center of gravity the force of gravity acting at each point decreases in terms of net sum of gravitational force. Mass ahead and mass behind.

In the case of a BH, your always outside the shell as all its mass is at the singularity.

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.

 

 

Think of shell theorem as not just one shell but a series of shells. Like layers of an onion.

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"?

 

 

Once the ship reaches the center of mass of a perfectly spherical galaxy the net sum of forces from all directions equals zero.

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.

 

 

Weight is the measure of force on an object due to gravity.

Plus

Change this to oppose my free fall acceleration.

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":

 

 

Careful inspection of residuals with respect to the best-fit ΛCDM model has revealed a list of anomalies in the Planck CMB power spectra, of which the most significant is still the low-` temperature anomaly in the range 20 ≤ ` ≤ 30, already discussed at length in the 2013 release. In this 2015 release, with more data and with better calibration, foreground modelling, and sky masks, its significance has decreased from the 0.7 % to the 2.8 % level for the T T spectrum (Sect. 5.4). This probability is still small (although not very small), and the feature remains unexplained.

 

 

How did they know 'it was not supposed to be there'?.

 

These guys must have been quite competent with the theory of microwave antenna and so on... at lest enough to make some sense of what they were detecting.

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).

 

 

as our understanding grows our perceptions change.

But the facts don't. They stay the same.

 

 

Are you hinting at something like the shell theorem?

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.

 

 

Take thousands of wavelength readings filter out noise etc

That noise is a "fact". The interpretation would be if you'd say it sounds like Bach or Chopin.

 

 

Assign a pixel location for each wavelength data set. The process takes several years. You also have to compile multiple sensors into one dataset for each pixel.

Those are adjustments. Like taking a banana out of my ear, because I don't ear so good with it.

 

 

Does that help explain how it's an interpretation of the data?

No it doesn't, to me at least. Sorry.