Edgard Neuman

My ideas are not expressed with the good symbols. Let's say that the proposition (Exist bijection X->Y) => Card(X)=Card(Y) Seems wrong to me when X include Y or Y include X. [ and we could have this other proposition (X include Y)=> Card(X)>Card(Y) ] That's the case for [latex]\mathbb{N}[/latex] and even numbers (I mistakenly used the word "pair" because in french even number are called "paire") I found the solution : In fact we must use a bigger set of axioms to avoid doubts : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory

Thanks to all ! I think I get it : correct me if I'm wrong : if somebody observe one of the particles, the other one "behave" differently (somehow, there are less possible measurements), which is different from an envelope, for there is no way to know if the other one has been opened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number#Motivation My point is that I think bijections are not valid in any infinite set when they are not for a finite part of it. I just use integer as an example. What I try to explain is that I don't believe that card(N)=Card(N²) or =Card(pair number) or anything like that. I don't believe neither that card([0;1])=card([0;2]) in R for instance. It's usually said that Card(N) = Card(N²) because we can find a bijection between the two. I think the bijection can't be use because in the reasoning is false : there's a confusion between the steps (where a finite subset in used) and the final proposition (when it's applied to the infinite set). In fact, I think Cantor was wrong. I think the kind of reasoning using bijection (like in this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel) should simply be considered false, so we should only deduce properties of "infinite" set using "finite" sets. In the Hilbert Paradox, for instance, it is said that you could move each guest from the room "n" to the room "n*2" or "n+1". I think this is incorrect : you can't do that because the room n*2 is occupied. If in the beginning every room of the infinite hotel is occupied, you can't find any "n*2" room that is free for the nth guest. My idea is that proper reasoning, using induction, should use a finit set at each step. So only if a proposition is true for a finit set, and the next one, it is for the infinite set.

Hi, I don't know if I post in the right section.. Infinity is a big part of mathematics. I've known for long time all the assertion in mathematics based on bijection : for instance the idea that the number of pair integer is equal to the number of integer because you can create the bijection n -> 2*n. This type of idea is mainly accepted as true, and used in different forms that conducts to strange ideas which are counter intuitive.. (the idea that infinity contains several different part of itself is counter intuitive). I've never believe in such ideas : and here's why I think we should reject the idea of bijection : To reason in infinite sets, we often start of a set of mathematical objects (like integer) with a property and apply a mathematical induction to apply the property to a deductible bigger set of object. For instance, you think of the bijection (1-> 2) and then,( 2-> 4) and then (3->6) etc.. and so by "induction" you deduce that n->2n for the whole set of integers. But I think that when we do this, we actually use different sets of object. For instance (3->6) use at least the set of integer [0;6] which also contains 1, 3, 5. If we take a set [0;n], for this set of integer, the bijection is in fact not true, because you can't find the bijection for the numbe 5 (5->10) in this set. So we really can't build a set of integer for which the bijection is true. If we try to add "10" to the set, we need at some point to define 7, 8, and 9. (for instance if we use peano arithmetic to define integers), and so the bijection, for this new set is still false (because now 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have no bijective partner) . So the reasoning is false, and so it should be for the infinite set. Should we reject assertions based on this kind of bijections ? (and look much carefully at all those "mathematical induction" made from finite to infinite set of objects)

Hi, I try to understand quantum entanglement : I understand that you have a pair of particles that are somehow linked to each other, but in unknown states, and so knowing one make the other one different (so if you measure the second you have the complementary property from the first). I'm willing to believe that it is a "quantum" special thing, but, I still don't see in what way this is different from randomly putting two cards in two envelopes. Knowing what one card is in one envelope (instantly) tells you the other one is in the other envelope. So what's so different about quantum entanglement and how could it be used for teleportation ? (please use understandable words)

I've read an article (simplified) explaining what would be the univers that fit with the holographic principle : It would be a 3D (+time) anti-de sitter space : a hyperbolic space. It would still be infinite inside, but because it has a negative curvature, its limit can be described as a 2D surface (+time) The theory says that a quantum theory of particle with more colors (more different type of particules) on the limit surface of the hyperbolic space would be equivalent to a quantic gravitationnal theory inside the univers. The projection is not trivial : nature of outside particule are what defines the missing dimension inside. here's an article written by the same author : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.6126.pdf (if someone can explain it to me, he's welcome)

You're right, I'll read everylink you posted, and I'll answer you maybe next year. Although I've spend a long time trying to understand quantum mecanics. - I understand the Feynman diagram is used to obtain probability for any state of particles. (I know that works) - I understand how math are used to define particule according to what Feynman diagramme define : function giving speed position probabilities from space time position.. Those function are quantum "fields" etc.. and the way those field are linked by math. - I thus understand that complex math are used to describe Feynman diagramm results : ultimatly it's not more complicated that understing every possible trajectories of a ball whose existence is given by a rotating complexe number (who are added) - I believe, that decoherence, is a ermerging effect, therefor I suppose a particule (its energy) is like a full tree of possible trajectories, whose improbable branchs are constantly discarded. (so what we mesure is somehow the last story that survived, like a common ancestor of all current quantum states) - I understand that a qubit is a superposition of two state that are not simply resolved into one mesured state. So it stays a mix of two state : it stores a full scale of two choices. It's still "information". Although it's quantic, It's only two complex number, or 4 classical real numbers. Can you just tell me what is your point ?

information about something is a description of all its properties. For instance, any computer file contains bits, that when properly decoded are used to create "pictures" / "sound" / "movie" / "video games" properties of what is coded is stored in the file.. The physical object information is on, is by definition not related to the object described. For instance, all books are made of papers, but stories they are about are infinite in shape. You could write those same bits on a piece of paper, or engrave it on a rock, or magnetic state of RAM, even change the language, or translate it into wifi radio wave packets. If the black hole is a support for information (by some structure we don't know) those information could describe a univers, without any relationship between the inner and the outer geometry. What is important, is the "quantity" of information a physical volume contains.. the way how it would be written on a surface is not told.

Thanks for the links, I think we don't understand each others. In my idea the outer "metrics" describing the black hole is the regular GR metrics I guess. I don't need a cours about general relativity, I think I understand it well enough. [space time is curved by density of energy/matter, meaning that futur cone of objects are rotated : the frame is changed, as if it was any acceleration : it's the equivalence principle. I understand that curvature of space is describe by a matrix (like any curved space, it define the distortion of length/frame change), and the matrix is given by density of matter). I understand that black hole horizon is equivalent to the object moving at speed of light. It's futur cone is contained inside the black hole (also it's more complicated because it's 4d). And here it's not even relevant with my theory. In my idea matters falls into black hole and stay here in a state undefined. I just suppose here that it form a inner univers, but not any geometrical relationship with ours. I spoke about computer : for all I know, matter could become somehow a closed circuit hosting an algoritm, that would simulate the inner univers. The shape of the circuit is absolutly not related to the shape of the content it simulates. I just supposed that "laws" could be seen as swaped, and time would become described as space dimension along the radiuses. It inner univers is NOT described geometricaly, so it has NO metrics from our point of view. The same matter (that is here) is seen differently. If its in a form of a univers, it's spatial structure can NOT be simply related inside from outside. I suppose the inner univers (seen from inside) is a "regular" univers just like ours. But I also supposed the way it is projected inside the black hole can not be describe by general relativity. I don't understand why you insist about the metric. I don't see what's the point. I don't make any supposition about the inner univers metrics, meaning, I don't define its geometry. At least I don't define its geometry in relation to the black hole geometry. I don't describe how the inner space is "folded" into the black hole, how distance are changed or so. In fact, I assume, it's not "topologicaly folded". So I assume their is NO simple correlation inside from outside. I don't even try to describe the inner univers metrics. I say, there's no point of trying to do so. It's like the DVD. The position of the information is along the furrow. for us, when you have the DVD in hand, you can tell where a moment in the movie is : It's given by a simple spiral equation that give the position of the bits on the furrow. But, it's absolutly not related to the position of the object described by the movie it contains. I said : we don't know what's in the movie, we don't have any clue about it's own metrics or even laws.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean but, I'll try to answer. I understand (at least a bit) the FRW equation that rely matter density and space time evolution. It's a global representation of effect of gravity to spacetime and vice-versa. And so it explain weather the space is going to accelerate or slow down and reverse into a big crunch. It's not as complicated as it seems : it is simply the equilibrium between gravitionnal force and expansion. But my model purely relativist about the meaning of space and time : the projection of the inner univers is not time orderer with ours. Spatial projection is undefined. The law of physics of the inner univers are here unknown (maybe supposed to be similar to ours). The space projection is not topological simple. It's not only the FRW scale that is different. Position of matter inside the black is for us undefined / or it has a different meaning that if it was seen from the inside univers. I mean there is no relationship between inner position (the metric of the inner univers) and outer position (sphere horizon in black hole, if we suppose matter is in a physical state), except that inner time dimention is supposed to be along the radiuses from our point of view. So if I suppose scale is related to curvature, I don't suppose anything about how this scale is seen from the inside. I never supposed any other dimension (like in string theory). I have the feeling you still try to define the metric of the inner univers. I mean, if you want to fit a 3D univers (at a comobile moment) inside a 2d sphere (at equipotential or curvature) inside the black hole. So I fully agree, that space just can't be a simple projection or a continuous metric has defined by general relativity (which is just the sum of curvatures). The holographic principle only says that content of information in matter is proportionnal to its surface (matter can be of any structure). The ways matter is projected into the surface is absolutly not trivial : we just know that the quantity of information fits in it. I mean it can't be define geometricaly by any metrics. The intersting point here is that holographic principle set a swap between different laws. Gravitationnal and thermodynamic laws could be swaped (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity). So what we call general relativity in the inner univers may be a different set of law for the inner univers, because matter would be arranged differently. It's just like the DVD : when you see a tree fall in a movie as part of the inner rules and laws of the story, it is absolutly not related in any way to the physics of the DVD itself has a solid object. If you swap time and space in equation, you get a totally different meaning for almost all laws. I don't know at all how to do that I just supposed that if somehow, FRW (in fact, real observed spacetime curvature and expansion description, not FRW) could be correlated to curvature inside the black hole, it would be a good indication. I was just wondering if there was some way to test it or something..

Here is somethings that made me think of that : http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25472-turbulent-black-holes-grow-fractal-skins-as-they-feed.html#.U2o4tfl_u6U As you see, the fractal aspect implies that inner univers can be physicaly represented in a specific way. For some global reason, I think inner univers should exist in ours in form of information rather than matter. It's very hypothetical, but I thaugh of a describtion of matter structures in termes of layers of complexity : things that atomicly exists as arrangement of underlaying things (Particles form molecules, molecules form living cells, cells form organisms). The difference between levels is the difference between information and matter that holds it. In this theory, things tends to accumulate information that define their behavior (their physicial reactions) and can ultimatly be a "simulated" version of univers (atoms reemission fonction is linked to the zeta function, DNA contain adaptation to physical conditions, and mind contains ideas). I mean that structures tend to acquier algoritm of behavior that react to the rest of univers, and so become a simulated version of it. In that scale, astronomical object are at low levels of complexity, but they still can hold different levels of information, and black hole would be seen as some astronomical computers. I know at this point, its close to SF, but i can't reject the idea just because it seems weird. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle I'm not a professionnal scientist, and i'm not good enough in math to write a paper. Thanks for your answers !

I don't get your argument. In my theory, each sphere in the black hole represent holographic version of a comobile moment in the inner univers. So the spherical symmetry is the explanation for isotropie. How could it fail ? The surface of a sphere inside the black is not the volume of the inner universe, but the holographic projection of its content. Holographic projection is not a simple topological projection. Although, I thought early large scale formation was explain by black matter. Inflation is the theory built to explain isotropy. Inflation is said to occure long before dark matter starts to create cold gas flows. CWB emitted during recombination, reflects not inflation, but cold dark matter effect on matter, that are suppose to be added to the isotropic flat space. Thus, isotropy/inflation are not yet explained. In fact, one of the issue with inflation, is that any quantic explanation of it, would make its isotropy highly unlikely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Fine-tuning_problem). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Matter_domination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9BCDM My idea doesn't reject the inflation : it (tries to) explain it. The curvature of space in the black hole define the comobile speed of light. Comobile speed of light is equivalent to the very definition of expansion. The inflation is a short ultra fast expansion at the begining, it seems to me it fit perfectly with the black hole suddent formation. Indeed, when black hole are created, the mass of the star is first converted. So curvature is very indeed great from the start. Gravity waves could also be correlated to the fine shape of the black hole first formation during the collapse of the star (I read it has been simulated). You speak about inflation has a fact, and I deeply agree with the facts, but inflation causes are not explained yet. The last theorical explanation was the metastability of energy states of the Higgs fields. (but now there's no clear explanation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Theoretical_status As I said, In my idea, time inside the black hole is absolutly not related to time outside, except that when the black hole grow, timeline get longer. Another thing, is I don't suppose matter that fall into the black hole to stay in the same radial area of it. When matter falls into a black hole, most trajectories are elliptics. More, because black hole are suppose to hide information, it mean that for outside point of view, any structure falling into the blackhole, therefor any position on the sphere, is undefined. In other words : matter inside the black hole has no position on the spheres seen from outside. It fits with the holographic principle : matter described by holographic theory in described only in terme of information (it's Kolmogorov complexity of the content that is proportionnal to the surface). So it's very different to its spatial structure as we would describe it. Matter would not be randomly sprayed on the surface, and it would not have effects on matter repartition in the inner univers, because black hole surface would not be a bijective representation of the inner space. (also you can't simply fit an empty 3d volume on a 2d surface). In the process, I suppose matter would equaly add complexity to the inner univers. Here I never suppose a correlation between space of the inner univers and the spatial description of concentric sphericals surfaces inside the black holes. A (suprisingly) more accurate description of my theory is as if inner univers would be inside a black hole like a fictionnal univers is in a video DVD. Think of a DVD : it contains information compressed about a physical description of a story. Datas are compressed. Timeline is indeed physicaly coded in the DVD along its furrow, but space isn't at all. And timeline of the fictionnal univers is not orderable with our time. At any time for us, each time of the inner univers exist. It's the meaning of what I call "frozen time", and it's consistent with a "c" lorentz transformation. So when the black hole gets more matter, it's like if the story of the univers inside is written. None of the observators in it would have any information about the writing process, the same way characters in a fictionnal univers can't tell when or how their story is written. (you can always create a sequel to a DVD at any time, with no effect on story timeline) I've read an intersting article recently : topological structure of univers is not proven or disproven, since we only still see a part of the univers (the osbervable univers) so we can't argu about it to be finite or infinite. (univers could still be an closed hypertorus, without curvature) In this theory, it is finite. In fact, I made the suposition that cone of light from our point of view is space time cone for the inner univers, but, I suppose it's much more complicated, for instance : light paths are describe by quantum mechanics. If we try to describe topological trajectories of photons, because they travel at the speed of light, it is not a "cone" from their own point of view. Photon are also frozen in time during their travel. According to SR, if you were a quantic photon (because dt=0), you would simultenously be at every point of the light cone (in futur), for the photon, the cone is a point. If we agree that holographic description of matter is about information, the links between photon start and arrival could be very different seen from inside, or outside. The frozen time suppose that time/distance has no direct relationship between inside and outside. So I don't know how to describe the repartition of matter on the holographic surfaces, but It seems to me that it can still be not a simple topological projection of the 3d space at all.

I"ve got an idea that could explain everything and test it : - let's say that photon are vector of information - let's say that in a black hole, because matter go faster than light, photon can only send information backward (to the outside) because matter go to the center faster, creating a "arrow of time" for the matter inside: this arrow of tme would be the inside time swaped with radial space dimension. - let's say that speed of light is the same everywhere only because photon is the only information vector (therefor it define the ratio between space and time for everything : information exchange is the clock of matter) - we can now see expansion in a different way : it's an equivalent phenomone that if speed of light was globaly slowing everywhere. (we couldn't tell because speed of light clocks everything else, except speed of matter in the comobile frame) A photon in the early age of univers, is traveling a lot of comobile distance (like if space was contracted), and now, a lot less comobile distance (space is expanded). So if it fits with my theory,the shape of the curvature along the radius inside the black hole should be in correlation to the expansion rate variation (in time) of the univers inside : because expansion rate (inside the univers) because curvature set relative speed of photon faster than light, seen from outside the black hole.

I understood : what turns this pseudo "newtonian system" into a "special relativity" system is that birds flight define space and time for the boats (so they are not in a real newtonian spacetime because there definition of space and time is not newtonian).

No but it was implied that we don't considere that. All movement are inertiel.. I used the ocean only to serve has a absolute frame for the birds (they fly at the a fixed speed relative to ocean). I suppose boat's speed is constant by default. And I tried to explain speed of light in my analogy by using, not the speed of birds in the ocean frame, but the speed boats mesure using birds (to count relative information come back length between relative to average bird exchange rate). In my idea : speed limit is given by the ratio of bird and boats : - every bird travel time is only relative to others - because there's a finite number of birds, bird can be dense or rare among boats. So if we considere the bird paths graph, birds frequency only depend on the permeability of the graph : more links means a bigger probability for birds to come back. I'm not sure of that at all.. I suppose if boats are blind and without clocks, they can still use birds to mesure both time spans and length between each other, (and it would probably not depend of birds flight distortion created by their speed on the ocean, the distortion would be like SR), but I'm not sure exactly how they can do that.

Orthogonal mesurment would be impacted by the same distortion that the speed of birds. If they send bird orthogonaly to their speed : - they still move forward while the bird is flying - if they are compressed along the direction : time stretch would be as asymetric as their contraction compensate. - if they use birds to mesure time, average birds frequency would be impacted by the global speed. It would be compensated by contraction of the group of ship along their moving direction. I didn't spoke about it, but I assume birds are perfect and can do trajectory interception. Sorry but I had an other idea, I don't know if it's true but it blown my mind so much I really have to write it.. I wondered what happens if the boats go faster than birds.. In any direction they send bird, relativly to them, every birds end up in a cone behind them. And they still could reach another boat, but only in that cone (relativly to the group). In other word, information in the moving group could only go into a cone, in the back of the sender. Just like the futur cone in space time diagramme. It can't be a coincidence. It defines an arrow of time in the group. (It's also related to my other post when particule go inside the black hole, faster than light from our point of view, photons they emit can only reach particules behind them. If we you those cone to define space time, it would create a inner univers around the center, the time line of the inner would be radiuses, the past is at the center, futur all around, because new emited photon can only reach the matter behind the matter movement)

My point is just that we don't know if eather exist or not because speed mesured by constant speed particules would still be relative in it. My point is not that aether exists, its that we can't disprove it only because of constant speed of light. Here I place myself in the case where bird number is finite, and bird swap frequency define time. I explain it again : if birds are defining space and time mesurements, you can't tell speed of birds eventhaugh they are actually moving in a Newtonian way in a newtonian space. If one of the boats try to mesure birds speed, it while always have the same speed (if they uses birds arrival frequency has a clock). So you could do the Michelson Morlay experiment with newtonian birds and always have the same speed. In the story, boats don't have access to newtonian relative speed of birds, they can only try to mesure time they take to come back using other birds arrival count to mesure time (which depend on the same structure of speed variation) What's important here, is that if birds travel is the very definition of mesurement of space time, you will always gets the same speed (it will only depend of the ratio of boat and birds), and it wont tell you anything about the real nature of the space.. My other point is that we can make special relativity inside a newtonian space, if information vectors have a constant speed. I think I should do some computer simulation to really proove it. I will try to explain it an other way. If the interaction structure in the system is defining space/time mesurement (information relative travel length between nodes) , then you can apply any 4D linear matrix to it, all mesurement would be the same. Because global speed (any equaly directional change in information travel in all links) is itself a linear matrix applyied to interactions, any group of node where is added a global speed would still be the same as before. In other words : relative information permeability (which is what we call speed of light ) is only defined by the average number of links by node in the graph.

Speed for them is mesured by birds, just as all the information we get from univers is carried by particles. In my story, if they mesure speed, even only with bird, their mesurement would still be relative. Indeed, newtonian physics (so my example) suppose relative speeds. Here ocean is absolute only for the birds. My point is just that we don't know if eather exist or not because speed mesured by constant speed particules would still be relative in it.

You still don't understand that "reference frame" exist only in the mind, constructed according to mesurements. Boats would mesure time/distance using birds, and their "reference frame" is indeed different for any maneuver they would try to make. They would have to say "this one is 10 bird flight hour away" for distance, or "this event will occure in 10 birds arrival", because they don't have any other information. For anything they would try to do between boats, they have to count birds and their relative flight durations. That the only information they get about space or time. For instance imagine 3 of them try to position themself into an equilateral triangle : they used birds to mesure length and they can triangulate using flight duration to put themself into what seems to them to be equilateral lengths. But if they are still globaly moving into the ocean, the triangle would indeed be compressed from an observer point of view. Because of that, even their relative speed mesurment would depend on birds flight time (and you have here speed addivity in SR) If you add an other hypothesis : birds are available in finite number, so they can still send several but they have to wait for some to come back to fill their bird stocks. It means that without clock, they can mesure relative flight time using average flight arrival count (and we have both SR effect). It's important because in real matter, lengths and times are mainly the effect of electromagnetic forces (it defines the size of atoms and distance between them, by a dynamic equilibrium), information which is entirely carried by photons..

In fact, there is two option : - with clocks, they can have an idea of newtonian time and adjust distance (there's a compression effect) - without clocks, they can't adjust distance (no compression) but they can't communicate as fast as before because birds take more time to come back (for any maneuver, there time is slown) both seems to me similar to SR

You don't understand : distance exists only as properties you mesure from objects : energy you have to deploy to reach them (and / or mass that fit in). In my example, ship are always far from each and totaly blind to ocean distance (in fact : you really don't have no way to mesure distance in the ocean without GPS or looking at the sky) For the ship : bird time is defining the distance. And without clock, bird trip frequency (like some kind of fine structure constant) may also define time itself for the ship. We know newtonian distance exists here but they don't. So we may just be in fact as the ship : we don't sea ocean/eather because we only use photon/birds to mesure it.

In my story, it is important that the only interaction boats can have is by birds : they can't see each other, can't mesure any distance using ropes (it's part of the hypotheses of the story). They use birds to mesure distance because it's their only way. In real life space isn't defined by itself : we observe it as a property of existing objects (they seems to have intertial movement and positions). I suppose ships and birds have no other properties what so ever that being objects in newtonian physics, and boats don't observe bird newtonian relative speed when they arrive (just the moment they arrive) As I'm speaking about relativity, I don't study the period of adjustement of distances, I just consider time when speed of the group is constant and equal to each other's. The only difference with SR is that ships could adjust the distances to maintain the time birds takes to come back, or just don't (and it would be just like time of the group is slown for the observer). If time spans are defined by the birds (ships don't have clocks) we can imagine that information only according to birds flow would produce something like SR. I thought of an other difference : to be like SR, boats would have to depend on bird to define energy to emit an other boat faster than them. I know it's an analogy, but it disturb me that boats couldn't disprove any thing about the ocean. I agree that if something is not detectable, it should be considered as inexistent, but i'm disturbed by the idea that if definition of space time is somehow strictly based on photons, it seems to me that we wouldn't be able to tell if photon are or not simply moving in an eather..

I speak about special relativity. Newtonian physics doesn't assume anything about speed of light or information (yes at that time, light was believed to be instantenous.. but Newtonian physics would only assume any speed depends on the frame) , the special relativity only exist to explain the constant speed of light in any frame (which is contrary to Newtonian). Here light and information are transported by birds : it is not assumed instantaneous. My point here is that relativity doesn't disproove the existence of aether since we mesure length using mater that depend on light (through atomic interactions) to maintain its own length (and length unit define speed).

ok my mistake, thanks !

Hi, I tried to explain relativity to somebody, and I thought of a newtonian situation where relativity would appear. And strangly It seems to be enough to generate relativity effects (without any spacetime involved).. here is the exemple : If we have a group of ships immobile on the ocean (far enough that they can see each others), and they have to communicate. So they use flying birds to carry messages from one ship to another. Birds are perfect they are never tired and always fly at the same speed according to the ocean. If one ship want's to get an information about something, in every case, it have to send a bird, and wait for the bird carrying the answer to come back. So in every case, the path taken by the information is a closed path, and the integrale of the displacement of birds is null. Now let's assume the group of ship is moving on the ocean (in the same direction at same speed, but slower than birds). If one ship wants an information, it just have to send a flying bird, and wait until it comes back. The ship would have to wait more, because, during the flight of the bird, the requesting ship have moved (in some kind of Zeno paradox), but after a time, the bird would come back. Now let's imagine that the group of ships coordinate their relative distances by mesuring the time it take for birds to come back. Naturally, while moving, they would have to get closer along the global movement direction. But they would be able to adjust their relative distance so the bird come back in the same time as when they were immobile. So if we observe trajectories of any information between ships, we have the very same effects for the ships than those given by special relativity : length contraction or time dilatation, simultaneity shift, and even more : if they try to mesure the speed of birds, because the group compensate their relatives distances, birds would take the same time to come back how ever they are moving on the ocean or not (if they use ship distance given by bird flight time as the unity of length, of course birds speed is invariant) And all this, without involving any spacetime trick, only a newtonian ocean, with newtonian birds. So is the special relativity just an illusion ?