Harmony of Reality May 2007 Bob

The Harmony of Reality,
in No Time...
Copyright © Henri Salles, 2008. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy-
ing, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publisher.
Millennial Mind Publishing

An imprint of American Book Publishing
5442 So. 900 East, #146
Salt Lake City, UT 84117-7204
www.american-book.com
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper.
Designed by Jana Rade, design@american-book.com
Publisher’s Note: American Book Publishing relies on the author's integrity of

research and attribution; each statement has not been investigated to determine if it has been
accurately made. The author and publisher specifically disclaim any responsibility for any
liability, loss, or risk, personal or otherwise, which is incurred as a consequence, directly or
indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this book. In such situations
where medical, legal, or other professional services may apply, please seek the advice of such
professionals directly.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Salles, Henri.
The harmony of reality : ...in no time / Henri Salles.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-1-58982-421-8
ISBN-10: 1-58982-421-0
1. Harmonic motion. 2. Mass (Physics) 3. Speed. I. Title.
QC133.S347 2007
530--dc22
2007010130
Special Sales
These books are available at special discounts for bulk purchases. Special editions, including
personalized covers, excerpts of existing books, and corporate imprints,
can be created in large quantities for special needs. For more information e-mail
info@american-book.com.
The Harmony of Reality,
in No Time...
Henri Salles
To Nathalie, my favorite daughter
Preface
The beauty of a mountain lake that reflects the surround-

ing peaks and the sparkling of the stars beyond on a clear
night leave us speechless! In addition to Nature’s very beauty,
we also admire paintings and arts that properly flatter Nature.
Then we wonder about the mystery of life and the organi-
zation behind it. We also wonder about the coherent motion
of Earth as it makes days and nights, for instance. Yet unlike
the arts, physics’ complexities, which describe nature’s coher-
ence, leave most of us unimpressed.
Certainly, beauty and coherence blend in harmony, and in
that spirit, physicists relentlessly pursue a unified theory. Why
are we not admiring the science of physics as we do the arts
and the harmony of Nature?
The puzzle of physics

In theory, theoretical physics is based on experiments.
While the force of gravity extends to infinity in physics, who
experimented with gravity all the way to infinity? Infinity is
The Harmony of Reality, in No Time…
either a reality or not. We human beings do not know and

will never know. Only Nature does know.
This is one reason, among others, for which physics is de-
clared to be a puzzle here in this book. And identifying phys-
ics as a puzzle is not detrimental; it only emphasizes the diffi-
culty we humans have while interpreting Nature.
By the way, an evident side effect of the concept of infinity
is that theoretical physics is based on belief as much as it is
on experiments.
The harmony of reality

Reality is the landscape surrounding you; it is the air you
breathe and do not see, and the gravitation you feel and do
not see; reality extends to the stars in the heavens. Reality is
also life, thoughts and faith, love and hate, music and thun-
der, the human body and thinking. Reality in its entirety may
be complex but it is not ambiguous—it simply and temporar-
ily exists.
Some aspects of what we interpret as reality appear elusive;
for instance, are time and space real? The notions of time and
space that exist in our minds, such as infinity in physics, ei-
ther have a physical collateral in reality or they have not; and
whether we ask the question or not—and then answer the
question or not—is irrelevant.
Reality, as it simply and temporarily exists, combines
beauty and coherence; in short, reality is harmony.
Why is physics a puzzle?

Physics describes. And physics’ description does not pre-
tend to be coherent.
The best illustration of this “reality” is the conflict be-
tween “relativity” and “quantum” theories—or, rather, their
viii
Preface
incompatibility. Whereas infinity is one piece of physics’ puz-

zle, relativity and quantum theories represent two other
pieces or subassemblies of that puzzle. We will encounter
many more pieces that do not fit the whole picture.
Scientists discover, study, and interpret phenomenon in
such a way that the “theories” behind the various phenome-
non of Nature end up being incompatible.
Can physics’ procedure be overturned?

The human mind, no doubt in harmony with Nature’s
harmony, is also compelled to understand and to explain.
The necessity is so strong that “faith” in a religion or in
God often complements or even supplants our thirst for
truth.
A major distinction between description as performed in
physics and explanation as performed in this book is that the
latter has to be logical while the former can afford contradic-
tions. In physics, the photon/wave duality of light doesn’t
pose any problem; for physicists, that’s just a fact of life. By
contrast, an explanation of Nature cannot afford such con-
tradictions. When confronted with similar problems, physi-
cists remind us that they describe and do not explain.
In this book, a single phenomenon—namely, motion—is
used to explain everything that is humanly possible to explain.
Everything ends up being made of motion. The only problem
is that the “entity” of motion does not exist in the world of
physics. In physics, motion has no physical equivalent, only
matter and forces are physical—yet we do experiment with
the reality of motion.
While this theory—here labeled the theory of gravimotion—
explains, it doesn’t pretend to explain everything. On the
other hand, while physics’ theories are supposed to describe,
ix
they nevertheless are much more than mere descriptions; they

definitely help us comprehend Nature!
Coherence is the essence of this book

Motion is at the base of the theory presented. It turns out
that motion and common sense are sufficient to render our
interpretation of Nature coherent, just as Nature is! This
nonmathematical theory, in its coherent simplicity, has—
unlike physics—the undeniable merit to reflect the unity of
Nature.
When reading this book, keep in mind what you really
think and feel; hold onto your common sense, which simply
intimates that motion “is” energetic while it can also be “in-
terpreted” as relative.
The reading of the book will very likely trigger questions in
your mind; you might then wonder why these questions are
not answered on the spot. Just remember that all of the mate-
rial presented is new, and all the aspects of a given subject
cannot be presented in one section. Your questions might be
answered later in the book. You can also visit the Internet site
gravimotion.info.
x
CONTENTS
Preface
PART I The Mechanism of Gravimotion
Chapter 1 Physics’ Concept of Motion Clashes with Reality.
…………………………………….…… 1
Chapter 2 Implementation of Basic Motions……………. 5
Chapter 3 Implementation of Gravitation……………...... 13
Chapter 4 The Mechanism of Motion, Gravimotion……... 17
Chapter 5 How, While Physical, the Integrity of Matter
Is Not Made of Mass……………….………... 33
Chapter 6 Massless Implementation of Inertial and Gravita-
tional Mass…………….…………………….. 41
Chapter 7 Space, Time, and Space-Time……………….... 55
Chapter 8 Quantum……………………………………... 63
Chapter 9 The Electric Charge: Matter’s Fundamental Char-
acteristic and Very Integrity…………….…… 69
Chapter 10 Electromagnetic Phenomenon and Its
Physical Implementation………………..…… 85
Chapter 11 The Justification of the Gravimotion Theory. 101
PART II Physics and Gravimotion

Classical Physics and Gravimotion……….. 109
Gravimotion and the Relativity Theory……………… 125
Physics of Uncertainty…………………… 139
PART III Thoughts about …

… Speed ………………………………….…………. . 149
… Acceleration, Gravitation, and Force…….………… 159
… Spin and Inertia……………………………………. 165
… Mass………………………………………………. 177
… Time………………………………….……………. 183
… Thermal Energy and Temperature…………………. 201
… Space………………………………………………. 205
… Energy………………………………..……………. 219
… Electromagnetic Waves and Light…………………. 225
… Physics’ Subatomic World…….……….…………… 237
… Relativity…………………………………………... 255
… Entropy……………………………….…………… 259
… Statistics…………………………………………… 265
… Mathematics……………………….………………. 269
… The Cosmos……………………………………….. 275
… Integrity…………………………….……………… 279
… Physics……………………………….……………. 281
Appendix 1 Basic Quantities in Physics…………….… 287

Appendix 2 Time in Terms of Physical Parameters….. 289
Appendix 3 Various Interesting Speeds ……………… 293
xii
Contents
Index …………………….…………….…………… 297

Notes ……………………………………..………… 313
xiii
Part I
The Mechanism of Gravimotion
Chapter 1
Physics’ Concept of Motion
Clashes with Reality
Whereas both motion and matter are commonplace, mo-

tion as described in physics clashes with matter itself! As
shown below, physics’ description of motion is incompatible
with the integrity of objects in motion.
The paradox of Zeno

In “reality,” an object’s integrity remains unimpaired
through gentle motion.
In physics, however, that integrity is identified with the
object’s matter and mass and is mentally compacted to a
point called “center of gravity,” a point that also defines the
object’s position. As such, in physics, the position of an ob-
ject in motion plays the role of the object’s integrity.
Now, in physics, the motion of an object is described as a
succession of positions as a function of time. Consider a
moving object, such as a marble, whose center of gravity rolls

successively over two positions, A and B. The marble is no
longer on A when it arrives on B—otherwise, it would be in
both positions at once; as such, it must disappear from A be-
fore it gets to B! During that time, the marble is then in be-
tween A and B.
Let us label that intermediary position with a P. Now the
marble has to disappear from A before it gets at P; we then
have to define another point P′ in between A and P and start
over again and again. As one observes, though, the successive
intermediary positions P, P′, P″…PN get closer and closer to
A and farther and farther from B. And should we continue
on, the marble finds itself forced to stay in A, contradicting
the fact that it does, in reality, move from A to B.
Amazingly, physics’ description of motion compels the

integrity of matter, its very mass, to remain at rest! In other
words, the “interpretation of motion in physics” is incom-
patible with the “reality of motion”!
That paradox was first enunciated by the Greek philoso-
pher Zeno, 400 years BCE. Instead of considering the depar-
ture, as done in this section, Zeno considered the arrival. In
Zeno’s description, an arrow, which in theory cannot reach
the target, does so anyway.
The concept of position is disregarded in this theory

The modern uncertainty principle, which strips off the
concept of position any reality that would be associated with
it, in a different way backs up, 2500 years later, Zeno’s an-
2
Part I: The Mechanism of Gravimotion
cient paradox. Nevertheless, and in spite of these hints, the

position of an object as a function of time remains physics’
interpretation of motion.
Yet there is a simple solution to the dilemma: Abolish the
notion of position—assert that motion occurs independently
of any position as defined in physics. The inconsistency van-
ishes into thin air, simply because an object in reality keeps its
integrity while moving!
Such a drastic solution amounts to focus on both the real-
ity of motion and the reality of matter.
Our perception of motion is dynamic—it occurs in time

In this book, the stance is taken that physics’ concept of
position has no physical collateral.
Once we chose not to compromise the integrity of matter
at the expense of physics’ concept of position, motion has to
be continuous. 1
Here, we assert that motion is as observed with our eyes;
motion “happens.” Specifically, when observing motion, we
sense occurrences of time as well as stretches of space; this is
evident: Do we not live as much in time as we do in space?
Seeing a car moving along amounts to perceiving the duration
of time across space. Should another car overtake the first,
only the perception of time duration can explain our aware-
ness of the two different distances traveled by the two cars in
a given amount of time. Observation of dynamic events oc-
curs in time as much as in space. The next chapter provides a
geometrical model of this interpretation.
Besides, and contrary to appearances, nothing is in a given
position! The landscape surrounding us, which seems at rest,
is moving along with Earth at a nonnegligible speed. The
3
speed of an object on the surface of Earth, while moving

around the sun, is just about 65,000 miles per hour!
Even when observing objects at rest, we see durations of
time embedded within stretches of space. A position has no
physical collateral in time and cannot be physically imple-
mented!
The point of this chapter

A reader once interpreted the above experiment, saying
that the marble reaches the position B and that the ensuing
discussion tries, but cannot deny, the reality of motion. That
is clearly not the message; in the above pages, physics’ very
procedure is challenged, not reality.
Our body along with our very common sense are both
real; because our common sense is real, at best, it senses real-
ity! The fact is, we—real beings—are in tune with Nature,
while physics is twisting it, somehow rendering it incompre-
hensible and, by the same token, incoherent!
4
Chapter 2
Implementation of Basic Motions
Temperature and motion of matter at the invisible so-

called molecular scale
The air surrounding us is made of individual molecules.
And the temperature of the air is coincidental to the respec-
tive motion of each of those individual molecules. The more
energetic the molecules’ motion, the hotter the air.
Similarly, our body is made of cells; cells—assemblies of
molecules—are more complex than mere molecules. In addi-
tion, the molecules making the cells of our body involve
many more chemicals or elements than are found in air. Yet
the temperature of our body is also coincidental to the re-
spective motion of each of its individual molecules.
Whether inert or live, bodies of matter and gas alike are
made of molecules and the temperature of matter is coinci-
dental to the individual motion of these molecules.
In addition to the motion of the molecules due to tem-
perature (also called internal or thermal energy), an object can
move as a whole. When your body rides in a car, all of its

molecules move in unison with the car.
In the end, the molecules of your body are animated with
two differing motions—those of temperature and speed.
An overview of chapter 2
In this chapter, the complex motions of the molecules as
well as their orchestrated motion (respectively coincident to
temperature and speed) are reconsidered.
First, these motions are provided with new names and lik-
ened to a single physical entity, which differs from physics’
interpretation.
Then they are represented with a geometrical model that
does not yet exist in physics—or in your mind.
Introduction of confined activity to replace temperature

As just seen, the temperature in a body of gas or of matter
is coincidental with the internal agitation of its molecules, an
activity obviously “confined” within the body; as such, tem-
perature or internal energy is labeled “confined activity” in
this theory. Because it is localized within the body, the activity
of any molecule has to be an entity of its own. As such, that
activity is implemented physically in this theory as a “dynamic
volume” evolving within the body. This volume extends in
time, and overlaps in space, the seemingly “inert volume” of
the molecule’s matter.
Model of confined activity

In the following model, and to simplify, we only consider
two molecules of a body of gas or of matter. The oblong fig-
ures represent the respective motions of the two molecules,
not the molecules themselves. Their combined motion adds
6
up to no overall motion of the body, or confined activity. In

this simplest model of confined activity, two opposite mo-
tions are represented:
Simplest model of a hot body (confined activity or temperature)
Introduction of motion-volumes
The motions of the molecules are called “motion-
volumes” when considered individually. The continuous line
of a motion-volume represents the direction of movement.
The dotted line represents the passage of time or the fading
away in space of the motion.
In the model, the two motions move away from each
other along with the molecule they move, but an instant later
they could move toward each other, their combination still
adding up to no overall motion.
In a solid object, the molecules are also linked through
electric forces; as such, their respective motions are limited.
In a body of gas, the molecules are animated with motions
free from such constraints, yet still animated with complex
antagonisms. These complex motions end up with no overall
motion of the body considered, whether gas or matter.
Confined activity is the name given to the complex mo-
tions of the molecules; both confined activity and motion-
volumes “materialize” or implement physically the concept of
temperature.
7
A motion-volume is energy in action

More than a mere illustration, a motion-volume is the mo-
tion of one molecule; a motion-volume is harnessed to the
molecule it moves along.
Its front continuous edge doesn’t occur at the “same time”
as the trailing edge. The latter, a broken line, illustrates the
fact that the molecule doesn’t exist twice simultaneously in
space or in time while moving.
A motion-volume’s fundamental characteristic is its vol-
ume, made of action; in that volume are mixed together both
our concepts of time duration and volume of space, exclusive
of anything else; only time and space are necessary to physi-
cally implement motion’s dynamism and motion’s reality.
The finite time duration and finite amount of space that
are used to introduce the motion-volume are not similar to
our notions of time and space but to a negative image of it.
Whereas we see matter moving within space, the motion-
volume instead would contain finite amounts of time and
space. In effect, the fundamental characteristic of a motion-
volume, which is energy in action, merges our concepts of
both time and space into that one concept of energy in ac-
tion.
A motion-volume’s size is not related to the mass of the
molecule it moves, as it represents the motion of the mole-
cule and not its matter. Having neither a position in space nor
in time—as it is made of both—a motion-volume safeguards
the integrity of the molecule it moves.
Now both our perception and the representation of mo-
tion ignore the (abstract) concept of position. Motion is en-
ergy in action.
8
The characteristics of confined activity

1. Confined activity is made of a number of motion-
volumes.
2. These motion-volumes are harnessed to the molecules
of a body of gas or of matter and are active.
3. Confined activity, while not moving the body, which
amounts to some kind of control, maintains it at constant
temperature, another form of control. Both controls are im-
plemented through antagonistic motions within.
Introduction of the equalization phenomenon

In a homogeneous body of gas, such as the air of the room
in which we sit, the temperature also becomes homogeneous.
If a heater locally produces heat, the molecules there have
more kinetic energy than their immediate peers; collisions
occur in such a way that differences of temperature spread
and tend to even out in the entire room. Evidently, the room
in this example is supposed to be well insulated.
This dynamic situation is called the equalization phenome-
non in this theory. It reflects at our scale the dynamics occur-
ring at a lower scale.
Using the word “phenomenon” instead of “principle” is
somewhat presumptuous, yet the phenomenon occurs; it is so
evident and far from only being an idea that I decided to label
it as such.
In addition, we will see that the phenomenon is much
more comprehensive than this specific example suggests.
Introduction of coordinated activity to replace motion of

matter
Your car is parked under the summer sun, its body’s mole-
cules, as the molecules of the air trapped within, are all ani-
9
mated with confined activity. You get inside, start the engine,
and drive. Each one of these molecules is given additional
motion, now all in unison with the motion of the car. Motion
at our scale is coincidental to a coordination of the individual
molecules’ activity, labeled “coordinated activity” in this the-
ory.
Model of coordinated activity and motion-volume size

Again, the motions of two molecules only within the ob-
ject are represented, and these are not necessarily adjacent to
each other.
Model of coordinated activity or of an object’s motion
The object moves from the right to the left; should the
object fall on Earth instead, the motion-volumes would point
downward, no longer aligned yet still coordinated in direc-
tion.
The size of the motion-volumes, the same for all mole-
cules, is proportional to the coordinated activity and reflects
the intensity of the body’s overall motion—yet it is not
merely a “volume.” It is to be expressed in terms of a stan-
dard of motion, introduced later as the motion-quantum.
The characteristics of coordinated activity

1. Coordinated activity is made of a number of motion-
volumes.
10
2. These motion-volumes are harnessed to the object’s

molecules. The bigger in volume, the more intense or active is
the motion.
3. They are coordinated in direction. This configuration
or format distinguishes it from confined activity and from our
concept of rest.
Motion has an existence of its own; motion is physical

In reality, motion is physical in the form of heat and veloc-
ity. A motion-volume implements physically the reality of
motion. The gravimotion theory is in harmony with Nature,
because motion is observed and felt by everybody. And Ein-
stein’s equation E=mc2 provides a boost to this interpreta-
tion. While identifying matter energy (E) to kinetic energy
(twice ½mc2), it indirectly “materializes” (implements physi-
cally) motion.
By contrast, in physics, motion doesn’t exist; motion is
interpreted as positions in function of time, both parameters
individually emphasizing the nonexistence of motion.
Motion and heat—two pieces of physics’ puzzle—united

The puzzle of physics was introduced in the preface.
Heat and motion are two pieces of physics’ puzzle—
namely, thermodynamics and relativity. Here, we find our-
selves in another corner of physics’ puzzle. Our goal is to
unite whatever pieces we encounter.
In the gravimotion theory, a single entity—the motion-
volume, which doesn’t exist in physics—depicts both activi-
ties of heat and motion; it unifies them under one concept
and that reflects the unity of Nature.
11
Chapter 3
Implementation of Gravitation
In its simplest, most direct interpretation, free fall on

Earth is Earth’s very gravitation; and this is the stance taken
throughout this book: Gravitation or free fall is motion.
Gravitation can be identified with motion because in this
book motion is a physical reality. In physics, motion is not a
physical reality and gravitation must instead be identified with
a force.
Introduction and model of radial activity to replace

gravitation
Once it has been decided to unify gravitation and mo-
tion—and, by the way, dropping the concept of force—
gravitation can be represented with motion-volumes. As
shown here, gravitation is modeled with motion-volumes ori-
ented toward the center of gravity of the object they sur-
round.
Gravitation is radial in configuration and, as such, is la-

beled radial activity.
In the following, motion-volumes are also stylized or sim-
plified as shown:
The simplest model of gravity Alternate model with simplified

made of radial activity motion-volumes
Gravitation fading away from Earth is represented with

smaller motion-volumes farther away from center. On the
model, the motion-volumes at 45° start farther from the cen-
ter and are smaller in size. This also reflects that free fall is
actually an accelerated motion. Obviously, gravitation that
also exists above and below the plane of the page is not rep-
resented.
In this interpretation of gravitation, mass is not even con-
sidered, nor is it represented; this goes against physics’ tradi-
tion where mass is represented and gravitation is not. Fur-
thermore, in this interpretation, physics’ concept of time ap-
pears along with the dotted to solid lines’ transition of the
motion-volumes.
14
Just as the air temperature is made of invisible air mole-

cules striking your skin, Earth’s gravitation is made of invisi-
ble motion-volumes that grab your body’s molecules and lit-
erally “ground” you.
Oriented toward Earth’s center, the motion-volumes “pile
up” from that center outward; more energetic and tightly
compacted at the center, they are lighter (so to speak) farther
away, floating unattached, yet oriented and striving toward
that center.
Radial activity is an entity of its own, not dependent on

mass
Gravity—in reality, immaterial and invisible—is in physics
a by-product of mass. Gravity is no doubt related to mass.
The gravimotion theory presented here is revolutionary in
that the dependence of gravity on mass is severed. However,
gravity and mass remain related; a link exists between the two
and we will get back to this link and its physical implementa-
tion.
Radial activity is limited in space around matter

This mass-to-gravitation relationship is used to assert that
radial activity (gravitation around Earth, for instance) occurs
in the very same format as Einstein’s mass-energy, E=mc2.
The two fit perfectly; mc2—namely, kinetic energy—is the
essence of mass just as motion-volume (or motion) is the es-
sence of radial activity.
Radial activity, while related to a finite amount of mass, is
necessarily limited in space. In contradiction with physics’
inverse squared law, which extends gravitation to infinity, ra-
dial activity has a finite range.
15
The characteristics of radial activity

1. Radial activity is made of a number of motion-volumes
of another dimension. Unlike their peers, which move mole-
cules, the motion-volumes making Earth’s radial activity ex-
tend at least to the moon. Yet unlike physics’ force of gravity,
radial activity doesn’t extend to infinity.
2. These motion-volumes are oriented toward the object’s
center. They permeate and appear to trap in their grip matter
or matter’s mass. They are made of the same motion-energy
as physics’ mass.
3. Their overall associative radial cooperation does not
move the object, just as confined activity, but in a different
way.
Physics’ puzzle and the harmony of Nature

Identifying gravitation to what we see or to motion is
harmony. It simplifies our interpretation of Nature; it brings
us closer to its very coherence.
16
Chapter 4
The Mechanism of Motion,
Gravimotion
Motion is radial activity (gravitation) out of balance

Let’s consider a falling coin, and draw its radial activity
(gravitation) within Earth’s own radial activity model. The
motion-volumes of both radial activities, identical in nature
and overlapping, interfere with each other and form the
combination modeled on the next page.
At scale, and locally, Earth’s gravitation is so big it appears
uniform and is represented as such with vertical motion-
volumes; in effect, Earth’s gravitation looks like coordinated
activity.
In this interpretation, Earth’s gravitation acts on the coin’s
own gravitation and not on its mass. The coin’s radial activity
ends up out of equilibrium; the radial activity out of equilib-
rium stumbles over and takes along its own mass.
Model of a falling coin within gravity
Introduction of gravimotion
Because its own gravitation, once modified, puts the coin
into motion, the phenomenon is called gravimotion. That
puts the gravimotion theory into “motion”! The other side of
the coin, so to speak, is that Earth’s gravitation is also modi-
fied locally. Gravimotion is the mutual modification of two
gravitations overlapping each other.
Implementation of motion through gravity

As radial activity is with respect to gravitation, gravimotion
is a revolutionary concept of motion. Gravity, thrown out of
balance, controls its own motion. And that is not unrealistic;
who has not stumbled over an obstacle once and lost her or
his own balance?
18
Gravimotion’s interaction with matter

You might wonder how gravimotion can act on its own
matter. But there is nothing new here; in physics, gravitation
also acts on matter! Rather than a novelty, this is a generaliza-
tion; whereas, in physics, the gravitation of a body acts on all
masses of the universe except its own, in this mechanism the
gravitation of a body, once modified and whether modified or
not, acts primarily on its own matter.
Just as an electric field interacts with the electrical charac-
teristic of an electron, rather than with its mass, to move the
electron, the gravitation of Earth interacts with the gravita-
tion of the coin, rather than on its mass, to move the coin.
Whether electrical or gravitational, the intermingling pro-
duces motion. Gravimotion is the intermingling or the inter-
ference of two or more gravitations.
Introduction of skew activity; folding of gravimotion

The components of gravimotion are as follows:
Earth’s Coin’s own Coin’s

local gravity radial activity gravimotion
Due to the respective sizes of the objects, within gravimo-

tion the stress provided from outside (by Earth’s gravitation),
represented on the very left above (Earth’s local gravity), is
19
on a first approximation, made of identical motion-volumes

and identifiable to coordinated activity.
Introduction of skew. In the end, Earth’s radial activity (on the

left of the model) modifies the coin’s radial activity, as shown
on the right of the equal (=) sign. The horizontal motion-
volumes of the coin’s radial activity deviate in direction only;
they are now at an angle. The top vertical motion-volume is
lengthened only and in the same amount as the bottom is
shortened. The motion-volumes, originally in between the
horizontal and vertical ones, get the two types of modifica-
tion—that is, in direction and in length. These modifications
are best observed as a skew on the model and called as
such—that is, the skew of gravimotion.
Skew equivalent. The skew created by the combination of

the two radial activities essentially unbalances both compo-
nents; that is, both the Earth’s and the coin’s radial activities
find themselves destabilized. That coincides with a force in
our (human) language. In gravimotion, the skew is internal to
the object’s radial activity; in physics, a force is external to the
matter of the body. Whereas two radial activities only interact
with each other in gravimotion, in physics an external force
(the force of gravity) is applied to the matter of a body (the
metal of the coin).
Establishment of skew or folding of gravimotion. The transition

between the two states represented immediately left and right
of the equal (=) sign, while it is occurring, is called the folding
of radial activity. Once the radial activity is folded or skewed,
it becomes gravimotion. Gravimotion can be further folded
20
or further angled. A return toward the radial-activity state is

called unfolding.
Skew activity. In essence, Earth’s gravity skews the coin’s

radial activity and vice versa. The skew, an unbalanced state,
also reflects the intensity of the interaction; it depends on the
respective geometrical sizes of the two radial activities in-
volved. This unbalanced state eventually creates the motion
of the coin (see the next section). The skew is a configuration
of activity just as confined and coordinated activities are.
In this interpretation, the relative positions of the objects,

as defined in physics, and our concepts of time and space,
and even of force, are all irrelevant. In the gravimotion
mechanism, only mutual interactions, through direct overlap
of motion-volumes or various formats of activity, are physi-
cal.
Equalization phenomenon at work

When skewed, gravimotion is in an active, unbalanced
state. Furthermore, if allowed to, gravimotion will internally
balance itself. Essentially, the various motion-volumes at play
will balance or equalize but will not annihilate themselves.
This second equalization, which is an internal redistribution
of motion-volumes, offsets the focal point of gravimotion.
Gravimotion’s focal point is now offset with respect to the
focal point before the equalization of gravimotion took place.
Introduction of offset activity or active offset

Whether folded (skewed) or not, gravimotion’s focal point
before internal equalization is the center of gravity of the
body considered.
21
Offset activity. The offset, another interaction of motion-

volumes, is indirectly a type of activity. The offset is “made”
of a reorganization of existing motion-volumes; the offset is
not merely a distance but is energy in action (activity).
Motion of the object. Gravimotion’s offset activity in turn cre-

ates a new internal dynamic loss of equilibrium, compensated
by what we see as an external motion. A third equalization
now takes place between gravimotion’s internal out-of-
equilibrium (energetic) offset and external motion. The two
are now in balance, as the dynamic aspect of motion compen-
sates for that internal loss of equilibrium, or gravimotion’s
offset. Gravimotion’s asymmetry as a whole is a function of
both bodies at play only. There is no consideration of speed,
distance, or time in this interpretation. Gravimotion is the
cause behind motion’s dynamism.
These various aspects of the equalization phenomenon
(and more are to follow) justify the comment made in the
introduction of the equalization phenomenon about its com-
prehensiveness.
The equalization phenomenon’s intrinsic nature

The equalization phenomenon has been introduced
through the temperature of a body. The antagonistic motions
of the molecules end up maintaining the body in an overall
equilibrium. It is in equilibrium because it remains at constant
temperature and also at rest.
In the case of equalization described in the above section,
the antagonistic players or parts of the whole are gravimo-
tion’s internal out-of-equilibrium state and the external mo-
tion. Their overall interlocking ends in equilibrium. Yet other
equalizations between gravitations of both Earth and coin
22
preceded it when the folding of the skew occurred and then

when the offset built up.
In the equalization phenomenon, the antagonism of the
individual parts of a system enforces the equilibrium of the
whole system. Yet the activities of the individual parts main-
tain their very own integrity. In accordance with physics’ con-
servation of energy principle, there is no annihilation of activ-
ity. The equalization phenomenon takes care of physics’ me-
chanical force, electrical voltage, fluid pressure, and thermo-
dynamic entropy.
The characteristics of activity in terms of physics’ pa-

rameters
Activity unites energy and dynamism into one inseparable
entity.
1. Energy is, above all, potential in concept. Mass, which
is also inertia, is energy in physics, potentially destructive yet
inert. In physics, this potentiality is mathematically expressed
as a scalar; energy as a scalar or without direction is, in effect,
at rest. Energy—potentially mighty and powerful—ends up
innocuous in physics.
2. Kinematics is the study of motion devoid of the energy
“activating” it, as is in relativity’s restricted sense, in which
motion is related to a virtual reference system. Even in Ein-
stein’s special theory, the relativity of motion is exclusively
kinematic, concerned with time and space only. The word
“kinematic” in this book relies on time and space only.
Activity in the gravimotion theory reunites energy and ki-
nematic into one entity, as appears to be the case in Nature.
Why is energy exclusively a scalar in physics? While a
speed can be metamorphosed into a velocity vector, why
wouldn’t energy also be metamorphosed into “energilocity”?
23
Gravimotion’s activity is energilocity, or dynamic energy. The

expression “energy in action” also applies.
Models of active offset and active skew

Being the complement of motion, both offset and skew
activities are also called active offset and active skew.
Model of Model of Model of

Radial activity Active skew Active offset
A first equalization between two independent radial activi-

ties formats gravimotion’s skew. A second, within gravimo-
tion’s own scope, formats the offset. A third balances out
offset and motion.
The model in the middle shows gravimotion in a restricted
state, while gravimotion is deployed on the right. In chapter
6, we will see the physical conditions with which those states
coincide.
Motion has an existence of its own, independent of the

object
As already mentioned, motion is an entity of its own. In
this chapter, we clearly see the implementation of it; it is
Earth’s gravitation itself, an entity definitely independent
from the falling object. This is not surprising, as gravitation
24
was interpreted that way in the first place. Gravitation as ob-

served in free fall is motion.
Overlap and interaction of gravitations; overlap of mo-

tion-volumes
In gravimotion, the gravitation of Earth interacts directly
by overlap on the gravitation of the coin or any falling object.
A major characteristic of gravimotion is that it is made of two
distinct motion activities (in this case, both Earth’s and the
coin’s radial activities) overlapping in time and space.
An obvious consequence is that motion-volumes can over-
lap each other. In gravimotion, direct interactions only occur
and the concept of force acting over distance through particle
force, or any other format, is dismissed.
Gravimotion’s folding generalized to all types of accel-

erations
In a collision, a similar redistribution of skew takes place
but now through the hardness of the matter of the bodies
colliding. The unfolding of the collider’s gravimotion matches
the folding of the collided, as described later in more detail.
No matter the cause of motion, gravimotion is the mixture
of two or more motion activities—in this case, coordinated
and radial activities in space.
Whether motion is provided through gravitation or colli-
sion, the cause is the same—that is, the object’s radial activity
folds, triggering an offset.
Gravimotion’s link to its own visible matter

In the dynamic collision of two billiard balls, the motion
of the first ball is transferred into the second. As such, and
25
through the objects’ solidity, motion can be imported as well

as exported.
Upon collision and through the physical contact of the
two balls, gravimotion’s respective links to its own solid mat-
ter are at work. When no such transfer occurs, when a billiard
ball is simply rolling, gravimotion’s link to its own matter,
which harnesses the two together, literally moves the ball
along. And that occurs for any moving object, whether re-
stricted by friction or not.
Reciprocity in exchanges
The link between gravimotion and its associated matter is
a two-way and multipurpose link. It can import as well as ex-
port motion and, when compelled to, it also implements mo-
tion of matter (gravimotion in action). A model and a physi-
cal implementation of this link are provided later in this book.
That cannot be done now as it involves the electrical nature
(electric charges) of matter, which we have yet to explain.
Gravimotion assimilated to a motion-volume

Gravimotion makes the motion of an object fit the defini-
tion originally given to motion, which is coordinated activity,
or motion-volumes in unison. Gravimotion with the shape of
a motion-volume occurs as such. Gravimotion is a complex
motion-volume made of basic motion-volumes.
The motion-volume’s geometrical elongation in space is
also coincidental to our human concept of time. That is how
motion-volume, the essence of motion, was introduced in
this book.
26
The motion-volume’s internal characteristic is its exis-

tence
Yet now that gravimotion and motion-volume are identi-
fied with each other, the motion-volume’s elongation in space
and in time is, in retrospect, also a loss of equilibrium, com-
pensated by motion. Without such a disparity, the motion-
volume would not exist (no motion). It implies that time and
space must vanish as nothing when in harmony.
Implementation of rest
Rest, as we human beings understand it, coincides with
our own body having no motion relative to the
ground…maybe cozy in a chair.
In the gravimotion theory, rest is implemented through
specific internal configurations of activity that result in no
external motion; relativity to the ground, for instance, is ir-
relevant. These configurations are confined activity and radial
activity (internal thermal energy and gravitation, respectively)
or a combination of both. And both have no offset.
Note that a motion-volume, on its own, is never at rest. A
motion-volume would cease to exist at rest.
To be at rest on Earth, the gravimotion of an object would
have to be compensated by a host of other motions, starting
with the complementary motion of the spinning of Earth on
itself. So the state of rest is, for any object, very unlikely.
The state of rest, in the theory of gravimotion, is to be dis-
tinguished from the concept of physics’ relative position,
which is mathematical in nature. The state of rest is absolute
and physical. Whether made of gravity (radial activity) or of
thermal energy (confined activity), rest in gravimotion is
made of compensated motion.
27
The stability of gravimotion

Why does gravimotion not “even out” instead of moving
along? Why is gravimotion moving itself rather than annihi-
lating itself?
The answer is that gravimotion’s original components are
both independent entities, not compatible for mutual annihi-
lation; once mixed they do not lose their respective integrities.
Either can only be decreased or annihilated by more of the
same yet in the opposite orientation. If unchanged, the com-
ponents remain as they are, and gravimotion, their combina-
tion, does not modify their specific entities. Gravimotion is
utterly stable; it can neither decrease nor increase itself, by
itself! Gravimotion, at most, can reorganize itself within its
own scope—that is, within its own volume of energy in ac-
tion.
Gravimotion occurs free of charge

A consequence of the stability described above is that gra-
vimotion’s out-of-balance state, compensated by motion,
“occurs” free of charge (Newton’s law of inertia).
Superposition of incompatible motions

Here is a phenomenon I discovered inadvertently. You can
do the experiment yourself. Tip over a bicycle. Remove the
two nuts securing the front wheel and make it spin. Now with
your two hands on both ends of the axle (wear gardening
gloves), lift the spinning wheel; once away from the bicycle,
make it wobble with strong, jerky, up-and-down opposite
motions of your hands. The spinning stops! Stop the wob-
bling, the spinning resumes! Although hidden, the spinning
has been “memorized” within gravimotion’s mechanism.
28
I think the phenomenon is unknown in physics. How

would a force “reappear,” out of nowhere, once cancelled?
Note that the cancellation of the spinning occurs through
a motion “perpendicular” to it; similarly, in physics, while
both forces that are perpendicular to each other have an ef-
fect on motion, they have no effect on each other.
Gravimotion’s memory
As described in the previous section, a motion can take
over another without annihilating the one overtaken! Gravi-
motion keeps in “memory” the former as long as it is not an-
nihilated!
When motion or loss of equilibrium is imprinted within
gravimotion, it remains within until cancelled. To do so, one
has to remove the object out of a subjacent radial activity or,
in the case of linear or spinning motion, one has to imprint
the opposite modification through collision or friction.
We will see later in this book how this multihandling of
incompatible motions is linked to relativity’s concept of time
dilation.
A possible explanation of human memory

The superposition of incompatible motions described
above offers a sensible explanation of the mechanism in-
volved in human memory; our memory is linked to the fact
that we can only think of one thing at a time!
Implementation and model of spin

One can easily draw a model of “constant spin”:
29
Model of constant spin
To draw this specific model, one moves clockwise the pe-

ripheral tips of the radial activity’s motion-volumes. And in
the real world, this is what one does too. If one wants either
the tennis ball or the billiard ball to spin, one provides it with
motion on the periphery. The model provides an implemen-
tation of spin.
Spin is coincidental to a “redirection” only of gravimo-
tion’s motion-volumes. Spin doesn’t offset gravimotion’s cen-
ter of symmetry (also physics’ center of gravity).
Gravimotion is also internally unbalanced in constant spin.
Spin is maintained without any additional requirements; spin
is a specific external manifestation counterbalancing a specific
internal loss of equilibrium.
There is no active offset per se (gravimotion’s remote
cousin of physics’ speed) in spin, and that applies only to per-
fectly homogeneous spherical objects. A volume of activity,
spherical in format, replaces the active offset, equivalent to a
motion-volume.
By contrast, physics does not provide a unique law (neither
mathematical nor graphical) to represent both linear uniform
and spin-constant motion. In physics, two (incompatible) in-
dependent types of “inertias,” the second specifically charac-
30
terized as “rotational inertia,” are required to describe them

both.
Note that an object that is only spinning doesn’t change
position. As such, spinning (only) never occurs in reality. In
reality, everything moves along with the expansion of the uni-
verse, whether spinning or not.
Turns
In a spin motion, the object doesn’t move, it only changes
direction. In the theory of gravimotion, a turning motion is a
combination of both spin’s and gravimotion’s models. There
are two configurations; turns can be either stable (the moon
around the Earth, for example) or unstable (a car on a curved
highway).
Relativity, gravimotion, and reality

Departing from physics, motion is no longer relative. Even
though it doesn’t appear that way, physics’ relativity of mo-
tion is not challenged by gravimotion’s absolute implementa-
tion of it. Physics’ relativity describes motion as viewed from
outside and as observed by humans; gravimotion offers a
mechanism of motion that performs from within.
Force and gravimotion

Whereas gravimotion and relativity could coexist, there is a
definitive divorce between the concepts of force (the cause of
motion in physics) and gravimotion’s cause of motion (a loss
of equilibrium).
Physics’ force, external to the object, is only temporarily
effective during acceleration; when the force is suppressed,
motion—if unimpeded—continues, with no cause.
31
In gravimotion, instead, there is a cause of motion during

“uniform motion” while unimpeded; a loss of equilibrium
within causes, on an ongoing basis, that uniform motion (or
constant spin, for that matter).
The initial inflow of coordinated activity, which replaces
physics’ force and acceleration, is not the cause of motion, as
in physics. The very presence of coordinated activity is the
cause of motion. The initial inflow involves another phe-
nomenon, different from the motion of the object.
32
Chapter 5
How, While Physical, the Integrity of
Matter Is Not Made of Mass
The integrity of matter is not what it appears to be.
Matter-to-mass volume ratio

Under a microscope, objects appear as mosaics of mole-
cules; at smaller scales, molecules appear as packs of atoms;
and at smaller scales yet, atoms are merry-go-rounds of sub-
atomic particles.
Coin Molecules Atoms Subatomic

particles
These subatomic particles—namely, electrons, protons,

and neutrons, the heart of the matter—are incredibly small
and active. Mentally enlarging the size of an atom to that of a
football field, in the center is a nucleus, the size of an orange,
actually made of protons and neutrons. Close to the periph-
ery are the electrons, performing their never-ending circular
dance. At that scale, they are the size of pinheads!
Matter is hollow in mass

Matter in volume is, for all purposes, empty of mass! The
proton and the neutron are both just about 1,800 times heav-
ier than an electron. As such, the mass of an atom—called
the atomic mass—is practically concentrated and limited to
its little tiny nucleus’ hard core.
All in all, matter’s mass, the nucleic solid core of an atom,
is negligible in size as compared to the atom’s entire volume.
At the atomic scale and, as a consequence, at our human scale
as well, matter is practically empty and hollow as far as
“mass” is concerned.
The atom’s diameter is just about 40,000 times larger than
that of its nucleus or physical mass.
How matter’s integrity, while physical, is not made of

mass
Considering the volume of space that the nuclei (the at-
oms’ entire mass) occupy within matter, there is ample space
for these nuclei to penetrate other atoms’ territories. At our
scale, we should be able to overlap objects as easily as we
move a comb through our hair; material objects should actu-
ally overlap. A pile of dishes should be reduced to one!
34
Because solid is the opposite of hollow, an object mate-

rial’s solidity is obviously not coincidental to its mass. An
atom’s solidity must instead coincide with its entire volume.
In a nutshell, hardness and cohesion—that is, the integrity
of matter—have nothing to do with matter’s mass!
Introduction of neutral solid plasmas

Neither the hard core of the atoms’ nuclei (way too small)
nor their gravitation (much too weak) implements the physi-
cal hardness of matter. Within an atom though, the electric
force is 1039 times stronger 2 than that of gravity; as such, in-
ternal electric fields do implement the atom’s hardness.
The atoms’ peripheral electrons, called valence electrons,
could also play that role. They bind atoms into molecules and
molecules into objects. The integrity of an object made of
wood or iron—for instance, its strength and certainly its re-
sistance to elongation—is dependent on these electrons. Yet
these peripheral electrons too, as far as their mass is con-
cerned, are physically too small in size to prevent overlap and
intermixing of atoms.
One must conclude that electric fields the size of the atom
itself—in effect, the combination of the electrons’ and nu-
cleus’ electric fields—implement the atom’s hardness, that is,
its resistance to compression and elongation. Within our own
bodies and on larger scales, these electric fields are the es-
sence of matter’s integrity, which is characterized as being
unimpaired by stress and motion.
In addition, these fields made of an equal number of elec-
trons and protons are neutral electrically just as mass (in
physics) is.
Other factors, such as temperature, might have to be taken
in account. Consider water and ice. While liquid, water is as
35
incompressible (as solid in the sense of not hollow) as hard

matter. The point is that the solid integrity of matter, its
hardness, is coincidental neither to the nuclei of the atoms
nor to its mass, but to some incredibly strong electric fields
that are at the same time neutralized electrically. The integrity
of our own body is found in its electrical constitution rather
than in its mass!
This is the first step of a process discrediting mass as con-
ceived in physics.
Once we abolish the role of mass in matter’s physical co-
hesion or solidity and identify the integrity of matter with ro-
bust electric yet neutralized fields, we have to distinguish the
latter from the electric fields existing at our scale, themselves
not solid, biased electrically, and transparent to matter. To do
so, the atom’s electric field implementing that integrity is
called “solid plasma” in the theory of gravimotion.
The atoms’ solid plasmas, which have no mass, are aston-
ishingly larger than the minuscule “solid” nuclei in which is
packed all of the mass; they implement both matter’s solid
integrity and electrical neutrality.
Even though it cannot be anticipated now, we will see how
the sizes of electric fields and of solid plasmas are imple-
mented through motion-volumes.
As a consequence of the above, Newton’s laws, which in-
volve atomic mass, have nothing to do with the integrity of
matter while in motion.
Objects’ solid plasmas are visible, not mass

When there is neither sunlight nor moonlight, we do not
see matter around us. As a “matter” of fact, the appearance
of objects surrounding us consists of reflected light reaching
our eyes; solid matter is invisible by itself—unless matter is
36
under stress, as happens in stars and in our sun, in which case

matter does emit light.
During daylight, if it weren’t for its solid plasmas as de-
fined in the previous section, the light rays (or photons)
would have plenty of room to travel in between the nuclei of
the atoms, right through the (material) emptiness of matter!
Matter would appear as transparent as glass. We would only
be able to see sources of light such as the sun, fires, and light
bulbs.
We are then compelled to conclude that the solid plasmas
implementing matter reflect light rays, and that matter’s mass,
all concentrated in the atoms’ tiny nuclei, does not.
At larger scales, the appearance and integrity of objects, as
perceived by our senses, coincides with the atoms’ own integ-
rity, their solid plasmas.
The appearance of matter has nothing to do with matter’s
mass.
Introduction of gravitation aura and electric aura

The subatomic particles’ radial activities of an atom (their
individual gravitations) overlap each other and extend in
space beyond their host atom’s solid plasma and integrity.
The phenomenon occurs on huge scales. Earth’s radial activ-
ity (overall gravitation) extends at least to the moon. Radial
activity, which overlaps matter at all scales, is also transparent
to other solid plasmas and does not reflect light rays. As such,
gravitation or radial activity is also referred to as a transparent
aura, or simply gravitation aura, in this gravimotion theory.
Gravimotion, which is an out-of-equilibrium configuration of
radial activity, is in turn an aura; that goes along with the fact
that we do not see motion itself.
37
Similarly, the electric fields existing at our scale are trans-

parent to light rays and matter alike; as such, they are called
electric auras in this gravimotion theory.
Mass and solid plasma, dissimilarities and similarities

Because the atomic mass, m, and not the integrity of mat-
ter (that is, the solid plasma of this book) appears in the equa-
tions of mechanics (Newton’s laws and Einstein’s relativity),
the integrity of matter in motion has to be identified with
“mass” in physics.
In this book, you’re asked to break up that identification
of physics; an object’s solidity, coinciding with the contour of
what you see, its very integrity, is physical through strong
electrical properties only. When in motion, matter’s integrity
remains intact—not with physics’ atomic mass, as Newton’s
laws suggest, but through solid plasmas, electrical in nature.
This is as much a physical challenge as an intellectual and
philosophical one! “Immaterial” yet “solid,” the integrity and
cohesion of matter, made of solid plasmas, transcend matter
as we conceive it, in every respect! That puts into question
the validity of many concepts from mass itself to nuclear
force, while other metaphysical concepts in Nature lose some
of their glory!
In addition to the fact that the concept of position is dis-
regarded, this massless matter, when in motion, fits perfectly
with the mechanism of gravimotion, in which mass is not
modeled. In gravimotion, motion is represented independ-
ently of physics’ concept of mass.
While both physics’ mass and this book’s solid plasma are
neutral electrically and are solid, inertia and weight differenti-
ate the two.
38
In the next chapter, physics’ concepts of inertia and

weight—which are one with the atomic mass in physics—are
not interpreted as being made of solid plasmas. In the theory
of gravimotion, they are interpreted differently. That interpre-
tation was implied in chapter 4 and you might already have
guessed it.
39
Chapter 6
Massless Implementation of Inertial and
Gravitational Mass
Here is an interesting quote: “The law of inertia has no

known origin.” 3 Even though inertia is implicitly identified as
mass in physics, why is the word “inertia” used? Why the in-
ertia law, in which inertia (rather than mass) maintains uni-
form motion? And then why does inertia (rather than mass)
resist acceleration? The above quote simply expresses the fact
that physics’ inertia has no physical collateral or implementa-
tion. Let’s see how gravimotion handles this lack of connec-
tion to reality.
Gravimotion’s offset to replace the law of inertia

As a reminder, gravimotion’s skew—the result of foreign
coordinated activity mixed within an object’s radial activity—
amounts to a dynamic loss of equilibrium; an active offset
ensues, compensated by external motion.
The model is shown next page.
Model of uniform linear motion
This configuration accommodates as many active skews

and offsets as is necessary to implement any specific uniform
motion; both a personalization and an implementation of uni-
form motion are introduced, because none exist in physics.
Massless implementation of inertial mass

The model above supplements physics’ concept that one
inertia, in its specific duty of maintaining uniform motion, fits
all speeds. In physics, uniform motion “just happens”; inertia,
which has no known origin, magically does the job, no matter
the situation. In the gravimotion theory, inertia is instead de-
moted as a cause of (maintaining) uniform motion and by the
same token dismissed as a physical entity.
Last but not least, coordinated activity moves itself first as
it moves along the integrity of the object.
The restricted and deployed states of gravimotion

Here is a thought experiment that involves a marble. First,
the marble is on the table, and you imagine it rolling over the
edge and falling. Provided it did not shatter on contact with
the ground, you pick it up and release it now from twice as
high as the table height and off the edge of the table as to al-
low it to fall all the way to the ground once more.
42
At table height, the marble had two different vertical mo-

tions, null and high. Yet at that height, Earth’s gravitation
remained the same whether the marble moved vertically or
not.
The two situations are modeled as follows:
Restricted gravimotion Deployed gravimotion

(skewed with no offset) (with offset)
marble on the table, free fall
null motion or high motion
The circle on the models represents the marble’s sub-

atomic particles’ solid plasmas, and that is the visible integrity
or hardness of the marble rather than its invisible mass (see
previous chapter).
Restricted gravimotion to replace weight and heaviness

On the left model, the table restricts gravimotion. In the
theory of gravimotion, it is the respective solidities of the ta-
ble and of the marble (their solid plasmas) that “restrict” the
motion rather than some reaction forces. In gravimotion, that
restriction prevents the active skew from implementing its
own offset. The skew inflicted by Earth’s gravitation on the
marble is active, yet restricted. The skew can be measured as a
“weight.” The weight is a concept of physics, similar to a
force, and as such could be interpreted as different from
43
gravitational mass and closer (in its effect) to this book’s re-
stricted gravimotion.
All in all, the gravitational mass of an object is not to be
found any more in the tiny nuclei of the atoms than the iner-
tial mass is!
The gravitational mass ends up instead outside matter’s
solid plasma, spread within its gravimotion! Contrary to phys-
ics’ interpretation, the weight of a subatomic particle has no
material, heavy body to it. Physics’ atomic mass is truly and
simply gravitational!
Massless implementation of gravitational mass

In the gravimotion theory, physics’ gravitational mass be-
comes a dynamic entity, a massless, geometrical, and out-of-
equilibrium configuration of the gravitation aura.
A prediction of the gravimotion theory, weight variation

Since our weight is motion, it is affected by Earth’s mo-
tion. The combination of Earth’s spin with its motion around
the sun makes our weight vary during the day. It is between
sunrise and sunset at the equator that one’s weight would
show the maximum variation! Because once a day we move
head first along the trajectory of the Earth around the sun
and twelve hours later we move feet first into that trajectory,
our own gravimotion’s skew due to our motion around the
sun is reversed twice a day with respect to the skew due to
Earth’s gravitation, which remains constant. As such, the
combination of these two skews varies, as does our weight.
Also, imagine that the “model of uniform linear motion”
(page 42) represents Earth’s motion around the sun. The in-
dividual motion-volumes making the front end have more
skew than those of the back end.
44
The transfer of coordinated activity replaces acceleration

Inertia, in its duty of resisting acceleration, has not been
implemented in the above sections.
When the traffic light turns green and we push on the ac-
celerator, you and I are not accelerated as physics suggests.
While the car tends toward its cruising motion, coordinated
activity is transferred into our body’s gravimotion through
our back, which is in contact with the seat of the car. Unsolic-
ited modifications of our own gravimotion’s active skew and
offset are now taking place and sensed by our body—a feel-
ing interpreted in physics as inertia resisting acceleration.
Once the transfer ended (no more of physics’ accelera-
tion), the added coordinated activity remains in effect until
removed or canceled, which happens when we slow down
and finally stop the car.
A transfer of coordinated activity only implements both
physics’ force and acceleration (or friction and deceleration).
Physics’ concept of inertia resisting acceleration is unneces-
sary and is simply declared inconsequential in this book.

In physics, a force is external to the object. The resulting
acceleration is internal as it overcomes inertial mass itself
within the atoms’ nuclei; force and acceleration are two dis-
tinct concepts in physics. Assimilating both force and accel-
eration to a transfer of coordinated activity—that is, to a sin-
gle phenomenon, as done in gravimotion—amounts to merg-
ing two individual pieces of physics’ puzzle.
We will see in part III that physics’ acceleration over dis-
tance is implicitly an increase of kinetic energy, itself a remote
cousin of gravimotion’s coordinated activity. At the end of
the day, no matter the theory, Nature’s harmony prevails.
45
Gravimotion internal reshuffling

In the above marble experiment, the difference in motion
at table height is consequential to the contact (or not) of the
table; no matter the situation at that height, both Earth’s and
the marble’s gravitations have intrinsic values. The transfor-
mation from the left to the right model, when the marble gets
off the table and falls, coincides then to a reshuffling that oc-
curs within the marble’s gravimotion.
Equalization takes place within the marble’s gravimotion,
while both the gravitations of Earth and marble keep their
respective quantitative values.
Collision in gravimotion
In this section, a billiard ball B is at rest and another iden-
tical to it comes and collides with it. The collision occurs in
perfect alignment, the two centers of gravity being in line
with the point of collision.
Both balls’ hard matter (their solid plasmas) are instanta-
neously in contact. In this model, the circles represent solid
plasmas (what you see) rather than physics’ concept of mass
(that you do not see):
Two billiard balls Two billiard balls

before collision immediately upon collision
A stylized motion-volume, drawn across the ball A, shows the

latter is moving before collision.
46
Immediately upon collision, above, and at step 2 below,

neither ball moves—otherwise, they would both move with
The dynamics of collision in gravimotion
47
the motion of the first ball, breaking the energy conservation

law. Besides, the incoming ball cannot possibly decelerate and
the outgoing accelerate while both are in contact.
All in all, the transfer of motion energy has to occur in its
entirety while the two balls are in contact and not moving
relative to each other. In this section, we consider the colli-
sion of two hard bodies that do not collapse, shrink, or ex-
pand on themselves.
In the graph steps labeled 2 to 5, an even exchange occurs.
The coordinated activity in ball A decreases (the skew un-
folds) in favor of an increase in B (folding of B) while no off-
set activity occurs yet. To complete the description, it must be
added that it is the sudden offset disappearance in A, step 2,
which in the first place triggers the transfer
As can be seen, motion literally moves itself through!
Once the transfer is ended, the equalization phenomenon
takes hold within each gravimotion. The gravimotion of ball
B evolves from its transmitted restricted state, with no active
offset, toward the deployed state in which an active offset has
been built and an external motion, compensating it, is in ef-
fect.
The buildup of the active offset, coincident with physic’s
acceleration, is also a transfer of coordinated activity—but
now within gravimotion itself, it coincides with an internal re-
organization.
The mechanism just described, unlike physics’ interpreta-
tion, allows incompressible objects, such as neutrons, to act
as they do. In physics, considering two absolutely hard ob-
jects, there is no procedure allowing one to slow down while
the other accelerates!
48
Rebound of matter
Now the ball B, at rest to start with, is made out of glass
instead of ceramic and is a bit heavier than ball A; its gravita-
tion volume is larger.
As in the previous section, immediately after collision, the
two balls are at a stop. All of the coordinated activity available
in A is transferred to B. The same sequence of events mod-
eled in steps 2 through 5 occurs unchanged.
The following models describing the internal redeploy-
ment take over at step 6. The balls’ respective gravimotions
are represented as separated rather than overlapping, just to
focus on the redistribution occurring within B.
The dynamics of rebound in gravimotion
In B the coordinated activity finds itself in a larger overall

gravimotion-volume than it was occupying in A. Complying
with the equalization phenomenon, it now redistributes itself
within B’s gravimotion, its dilution throughout a larger time-
49
space volume occurs in the ratio of the two balls’ gravimo-

tions (in the ratio of physics’ masses).
Physically, that redeployment occurs at the expense of the
angle of the skew and amounts to an unfolding, as the model
illustrates. A diminution of the angle of the skew is equivalent
to a motion in the opposite direction. As such, that motion
transfers itself back into the oncoming ball A, which re-
bounds. I do not think there is such a physical explanation of
rebound in physics.
If ball B were lighter in weight, only part of the coordi-
nated activity is transferred, allowing B to move with the dy-
namism of the oncoming ball A. The excess coordinated ac-
tivity simply remains within that oncoming ball A, and now
has to redistribute itself. The redistribution of active skew
now coincides with a forward motion that has less dynamism
and that is defined by the ratio of the balls’ two radial activi-
ties (weights). Ball A continues at a slower rate than ball B.
Rebound and reflection of light waves

Light rays (also electromagnetic waves) behave as particles
(and bigger objects) when reflection on hard, even surfaces is
concerned. For instance, the angle of reflection obeys the
same rules. For that to happen, one need only assume that
both waves and motion of matter are made of motion energy
or motion-volumes!
Yet that doesn’t identify light waves with matter! Light
waves do not transfer any matter across space, as the motion
of matter does.
On the other hand, the comparison emphasizes the “real-
ity of motion” when matter is involved, in that motion of
matter behaves just as light, itself made of pure motion only.
50
Later in this book, light is implemented as made of pure, un-

harnessed motion-volumes.
Questioning physic’s strong force

An ion is an atom with a missing (or an extra) electron,
and as such is not electrically neutral as an atom is.
Physics’ interpretation. The internal structure of the atom was

still unknown when ions were discovered and studied. When
it was discovered that an ion made of several protons and
neutrons, behaves as a single bullet, and not as multiple pel-
lets, physicists concluded the protons of an atom were ag-
glomerated together, and that this bundle formed the nucleus
of the atom.
Knowing the atom’s nucleus is an entity of its own while
made of identical protons repelling each other electrically pre-
sents a new challenge. Its actual compactness requires an ex-
tra cohesive force to prevent its disintegration under the tre-
mendous electric repulsive force that exists between two
positive protons—hence, the necessity of a counterforce and
the “invention” of the strong force.
Gravimotion’s interpretation. Yet within atoms, the electrons

and protons in equal number electrically neutralize each
other! Why is the nuclear force needed? Why is the nucleus of
an atom considered as an independent entity, deliberately ig-
noring the very presence of the electrons? And now that the
protons have been independently taken care of, are the elec-
trons not destabilized themselves? Why would the electrons
not fly away? Clearly, the nuclear force introduces an imbal-
ance of energy within the atom.
51
Whether a hydrogen atom or a heavy element, the negative

electric forces of the electrons balance out the protons’ posi-
tive forces. Certainly, in a hydrogen atom, made of a single-
pair proton and electron, there is no need for an atomic force
of this type! And any complex atom could simply be inter-
preted as an assembly of hydrogen atoms. That also fits or
blends in a new way both physics’ concept of mass and gra-
vimotion’s solid plasma neutrality as described in “Mass and
solid plasma, dissimilarities and similarities” (page 38).
Furthermore, this extra force (the nuclear force) is not
needed in the case of an ion either, where the electric charge
does not exceed the unit charge of a proton or of an electron.
Whether an ion is positive or negative, an electrically naked
(uncompensated) proton within the former atom (or an extra
electron) is confronted with the remaining electric neutrality
of the atom. In effect, as long as an ion doesn’t exceed one
electric charge, there is no more antagonism within an ion
than there is within a neutral atom!
Creation of complex elements: Build up of atoms

Corroborating the above, the complex elements are as-
sembled from simpler atoms and this assembly or manufac-
turing occurs right here in our sun. In our sun, helium atoms
are built out of two hydrogen atoms. The assembly requires a
great deal of energy because the solidities of two hydrogen
atoms’ solid plasmas have to be overcome in order to overlap
them into one!
How the so-called weak force of gravitation is at the ori-

gin of the so-called strong nuclear force
In our sun, the assembly energy is provided through brutal
collisions, occurring under heat and motion, all activated by
52
sheer gravitation. The sun’s huge radial activity (gravitation

energy), all radially concentrated at its center, overcomes the
hardness of two hydrogen atoms’ solid plasmas and fuses
them into a neat single helium atom. The fusion phenomenon
leaves some of that radial activity within the new atoms and
the remaining is radiated in the form of light and infrared
heat, among others. The radial activity left within the new
atoms of helium coincides with the activity necessary for the
overlap of the original hydrogen atoms’ solid plasmas. This
specific and so-called atomic fusion is all gravitational.
New interpretation and implementation of the strong

force
The brutal energy—performing the assembly (atomic fu-
sion) of atoms and that is released when the atoms are broken
apart (atomic fission)—is, in essence, radial activity identified
as motion in this gravimotion theory. The atomic force does
not need to be new or to be of an unknown type and magical
because it is so energetic. And in an atomic explosion, the
atomic force is also released as such, into motion format!
The so-called “weak” gravitation force is at the origin of
the so-called atomic “strong” force!
Another argument in favor of this interpretation is Ein-
stein mass energy equivalence, E=mc2, which unambiguously
states that matter’s constituting energy, E, is kinetic energy!
And that indirectly brings to mind the idea that Einstein’s
equation is in perfect agreement with gravimotion’s overall
stance, in which everything is implemented with motion and
motion-volumes.
In this theory of gravimotion, the strong interaction is im-
plemented with motion-volumes provided by sheer gravita-
53
tion and its model is qualitatively similar to the radial activity

model (see the model on page 14).
Alpha particles
Alpha particles are made of two protons and two neutrons
each; as such, their assembly should require a tremendous
compacting energy. But it turns out that alpha particles are
decay products of more complex atoms (heavy elements).
Without explaining how an alpha particle remains in exis-
tence, the above sections at least are not in contradiction with
their assembly, which precedes their “birth,” a process called
alpha decay in physics.
54
Chapter 7
Space, Time,
and Space-Time
Space and time are virtual concepts

Space can only be “thought of.” Space can only be imag-
ined as being the volume occupied by a material entity other
than space itself. Or space has to be imagined as the volume
within material boundaries, such as the inside of the bell of a
vacuum pump or the empty volume between two galaxies.
Space has no entity of its own.
What about time? Ignored as a physical entity in this book,
the concept of time is widely used in physics. Feynman once
said that time happens when nothing else happens, suggesting
that time is not connected to any physical entity. Then time
can neither be touched nor seen. In spite of its appearances in
physics’ equations, time is a virtual entity.
Yet both time and space have physical attributes!

As mind boggling as it may be, the very volume that makes
space virtual is also physical, because volume is also a charac-
teristic of matter.
Similarly, while above all virtual, time has a dynamic char-
acteristic. Time goes on!
Truly, these are paradoxes; one can measure “distances”
made of nothing, such as the distance between the Earth and
the moon. And with a clock one can measure time, an “en-
tity” constantly evading anyone’s reach.
New implementation or interpretation of space-time

In this theory of gravimotion, space-time is made of mo-
tion-volumes, or more accurately motion-volumes make time
and space!
First, motion-volume and space-time have in common
both physical attributes of space-volume and duration of
time.
Then motion is no doubt intimately related to both time
and space because without either, motion stops.
In addition, at its beginning, the universe was an incredibly
hot magma, and we can still measure right out of space the
remnant of this initial temperature. Temperature intimately
involved in space is but another facet of motion in the theory
of gravimotion.
Introduction of pure activity

In view of the above compelling coincidences, space-time
is given the name of pure activity in this theory of gravimotion.
Note that to reach pure activity here on Earth, we would
have to successively eliminate air moisture, air molecules,
56
light from the sun, and the gravitations of our own body and
of the Earth, moon, and sun, and of the Milky Way!
Model of space
Pure activity can be represented as shown in the following
diagram. On the right is a simplified model.
Model of pure activity Simplified model
Either model is physics’ space-time equivalent.

Motion-volumes, the very fabric of space, are not similar
to the strings of the string theory; strings make the fabric of
either matter or force, but definitely not space! And pure ac-
tivity made of motion is not space-time either, as space-time
is “made” of nothing.
Neither totally confined nor totally coordinated, yet made
of both, pure activity on a large scale and in its expansion
(that of the universe) is made of motion-volumes or energy in
action
Pure activity density

A given volume of space is made of more or less activity,
and that varies on a grand scale.
This variation is in line with the fact that in the past the
universe has been extremely dense in activity (energy), along
57
with the fact that the geometrical aspect of space (volume) is

a virtual entity. Pure activity, just as geometrical space, can
overlap itself.
The characteristics of pure activity

1. The very fabric of pure activity is made of motion-
volumes.
2. The motion-volumes of pure activity are not harnessed
to any molecules. They just exist on their own, exclusive of
the matter we are used to seeing them attached to. That is
also the reason we do not see space with our eyes or feel time
with any of our human senses.
3. Pure activity is energy in action; it “happens” just as
time does.
4. Pure activity as a whole, the space of the universe, is
configured just as confined activity is (that is, temperature).
5. Pure activity, as the image of time in physics, is also
configured with coordinated activity as it expands (universe
expansion).
These last two characteristics differ greatly from physics’
interpretation, in which the total mass of the matter existing
in the universe and gravity control the expansion.
Resident activity and resident motion-volumes

Pure activity, the essence of space, is also called resident ac-
tivity, when considered locally.
Resident motion-volumes are in constant motion, never at
rest and constantly jiggling around, and this prevents them
from occupying a specific position as defined in physics.
Constantly overlapping and interacting with each other, resi-
dent motion-volumes are constantly moving and changing
direction.
58
Equalization phenomenon generalization

Even though active in all directions, resident motion-
volumes are tightly anchored within pure activity. They can-
not move very far—that would create a local vacuum, which
would irremediably suck them back into their residing vol-
ume. Furthermore, their resident’s neighbors would reject
them as perturbing their overall own dynamic neutrality.
These two phenomena maintain the apparent neutrality of
space; they also reflect Nature’s thirst for equilibrium. This
fundamental equilibrium-seeking implements the equalization
phenomenon in its most basic form, which is the fabric of
space itself.
Pure activity constantly seeking equilibrium reflects all
other aspects of the equalization phenomenon; its peculiarity
is that the homogeneity of its whole is made of the resident
volumes themselves. Its homogeneity is made of its own dy-
namism.
If you find it difficult to visualize that space is actually
such an active medium, simply think that gravity precedes you
in the space your body occupies! Gravity literally pushes you
toward the ground! Your own body “shares” that activity
temporarily in time and locally in space.
Furthermore, considering that resident motion-volume
activities when overlapped do add up, local motion-volumes
contribute on a grand scale to the expansion of the universe.
Being the descendant of big bang’s energy, today’s pure activ-
ity (space) is in motion (in expansion), complying with a vast
equalization process. That scale generalizes best the equaliza-
tion phenomenon.
59
Other aspects of the equalization phenomenon

The equalization phenomenon appears under many differ-
ent forms and at many different scales. At our human scale,
an example of this is the phenomenon of the diffusion of
odors; other examples are the transfers of heat or of motion
itself.
Physically, the diffusion laws express the fact that the
molecules of a gas in a non-uniform distribution seek a state
of uniform distribution. A lack of concentration of a gas next
to a concentration of it coincides with a lack of equilibrium,
which Nature seeks to fix. And gases can diffuse into solid
matter as well. In the theory of gravimotion, the equalization
phenomenon takes over the diffusion laws. The phenomenon
is identical to the spread of heat across various bodies in con-
tact.
While only its physical aspect has been considered so far,
the equalization phenomenon is general; it applies at all scales
independently of the degree of materiality or immateriality of
things. For instance, Democrats in the U.S. Congress obey
the phenomenon when seeking social equalization. Republi-
cans, on the other hand, obey the phenomenon when defend-
ing individual freedom, which gets indirectly infringed upon
by social programs in that the citizens’ personal time is con-
scripted in an unsolicited way through the payment of taxes.
And the two ideologies, while fighting and affronting each
other, obey the phenomenon once more—they are led irre-
mediably toward an equitable equilibrium!
Anything out of equilibrium seeks equilibrium. And there
are no static situations, only motion-volumes. Equalization
takes place constantly.
60
Radial activity’s (or gravitation’s) structure and ingredi-

ents
With this interpretation of space, one can now provide the
origin (the ingredients or constitution) of gravitation.
Consider the two horizontal motion-volumes in the sim-
plest model of gravity (see the model on page 14); one coun-
terbalances the other and vice versa. Both have been modi-
fied out of the other’s original pure activity background.
Considering the pure activity on the left (see “Model of
space,” above) before configuration, some of its left direction
has been transferred to the right, while some of the right di-
rection of that right side has been transferred to it, enhancing
twice, by default and addition, the direction of both.
Space has been activated radially in a symmetrical format,
and the structure could possibly collapse on itself, vanishing
back into pure activity.
The (physical) implementation of gravitation

In the gravimotion theory, gravitation is a configuration of
pure activity (space). Pure activity is sufficient to implement
it. The fundamental innovation in this implementation of
gravitation is that mass is no longer, directly or indirectly,
needed.
Besides, in this gravimotion theory, physics’ concept of
mass is demoted as a physical entity (see chapters 5 and 6).
Motion is a transient configuration of space

Since radial activity (gravitation) is a configuration of pure
activity (space), gravimotion (gravitation out of balance) is
too. Along the path of an object in uniform linear motion,
space’s pure activity is turned on and off, or “configured” and
then “let go.”
61
Uniform linear motion involves a lot of activity

A lot of “activity” actually takes place within pure activity
shared by gravimotion’s configuration, when uniform motion
goes by or takes place.
This activity implements the motion of objects independ-
ently of, yet in conjunction with, their own radial activity. The
word “independently” here is used in the sense of not modi-
fying the intrinsic qualitative value of the object’s radial activ-
ity.
Resident motion-volumes contribute to and actually en-
force gravimotion’s activity. We will see that this is not the
case for electric charges (chapter 9). Electric charges are not
made of resident motion-volumes but do move across or on
top of resident volumes. On the other hand, it turns out that
light and electromagnetic waves move using mechanisms
similar to that of motion of matter; the translation of light
involves resident motion-volumes or pure activity.

Besides implementing motion, gravitation, and inertia, the
motion-volume now also implements space-time’s very entity.
This represents the merging of a number of fundamental
pieces of physics’ puzzle. The universe and space-time are
unified through one concept of motion-volume; and that il-
lustrates at its best the harmony of Nature.
62
Chapter 8
Quantum
Introduction of quantum
With the premise that space is made of motion-volumes,
can it be proven that a motion-volume (space), when divided
over and over, reaches a minimum (a quantum) that cannot
be divided anymore? A motion-volume is considered rather
than a distance, because motion-volumes are separated by
other motion-volumes rather than by distances.
The answer can be yes, because in that process of dividing
a motion-volume in two over and over again, one could pos-
sibly reach a final indivisible quantum volume.
Yet the answer cannot physically be no, simply because if
one wanted to prove it, one would have to divide indefinitely
the motion-volume, without ever ending, never reaching the
“no” answer! In this book, the simple logic (even though not
absolute), which provides the possibility of a yes answer, pre-
vails over the definite impossibility of a no answer (by a hu-
man).
Space new, noncontinuous interpretation

In quantum and relativity theories, space is an immaterial
continuum. In string theory, space remains as such, essentially
inhabited by strings but not made up of strings.
By contrast, in the gravimotion theory, space has a physi-
cal structure; space is made of discrete, indivisible motion-
quanta and as such is not continuous. 4
Introduction of the resident or space or motion-quantum

With the above concept of quantum, pure activity as in-
troduced in chapter 7 (page 56), in its smallest embodiment,
is likened to a quantum and while “implementing” space’s
very entity is called resident quantum.
Resident quanta take over the role of the motion-volumes
making pure activity; while jiggling around, they are tightly
kept in check by surrounding quanta (space) and are repre-
sented just as motion-volumes are. Resident quanta are never
at rest. Unlike the pure activity motion-volumes, they cannot
be individually divided into smaller units. Should time and
space exist, they would be both merged within the resident
quanta and could no longer be separated from each other.
In the following, the expressions motion-quantum, resi-
dent quantum, pure activity quantum, activity quantum, and
even space-quantum and space-time quantum will be used
indiscriminately.
Agglomeration of matter
As an aside, this notion of quantum, which abolishes the
continuity of time and space or of space-time, allows for ag-
glomeration and formation of stars, as trajectories along the
expansion of the universe no longer occur evenly in all direc-
tions of space or in time.
64
The motion-volume quantum characteristic is its exis-

tence
At rest, a quantum volume would become nothing or void,
and that implies that our concepts of time and space—while
having the ability to merge into each other—must be of the
same nature, a fact implied in the motion-volume, in which
time is interpreted as an active stretch of space. The identifi-
cation of a motion-volume to its very own existence has al-
ready been encountered in chapter 4 (page 27).
It also infers that the universe could be the complement of
nothing; a balanced mixture of time and space personifies
“nothing” while an imbalance of it personifies something—or
the universe itself.
The very characteristic of the motion-quantum (and of the
universe, for that matter) is also its very existence. The other
side of the coin is that nothing has “no volume” (of space)
“nor any duration” (of time).
Size of the motion-quantum and motion-volume unit

Being able to provide a value to that quantum is of the
utmost importance. One can only speculate that it will be a
Planck-related value, just as the string is in the string theory.
But there is an important difference; the string concerns
forces and particles only, both floating in “empty” space. The
quantum here is dynamic and “makes” space. Note that in
physics the energy quantum (the photon) is not the smallest
quantity.
The unit of motion could simply coincide with the mo-
tion-quantum itself, right where we are in the universe. It
would be experimentally implied; yet, while valid within our
solar system, that unit might vary across time and space—
nothing guarantees its uniqueness across the universe.
65
The quantum world and our world make one

Space is made of resident motion-quanta (pure activity),
which cannot be further divided.
Far away from any star or galaxy in the emptiness of the
cosmos, pure activity, made of motion-quanta, is neutral and
not detectable.
What has been said about activity and motion-volumes
applies directly to motion-quanta. There are no discrepancies
between the world at our scale and the quantum world.
We are now left with only one concept, that of quanta in
the form of motion-volume. In other words, quanta “are”
not, but occur—and motion occurs in quanta.
The space-quantum (or resident quantum) and motion

While the moving quantum is incompatible with the con-
cept of position, it fits everything else (including space itself)
because everything is moving along with the expansion of the
universe.
And as a reminder, gravimotion, now made of a number
of its own microscopic-scale materializations (that is, of mo-
tion-quanta), allows for the integrity of an object to be main-
tained through motion.
Integrity of matter and motion

Surprisingly, in this interpretation, the integrity of matter,
its continuity while in motion, is implemented through dis-
crete quanta. These quanta, which cannot be further divided,
actually deprive matter of its static or inert continuity, as in-
terpreted in physics. In the theory of gravimotion, the integ-
rity of matter is maintained through motion in the form of
motion-quanta.
66
Under a different format and hidden from view, the con-

cept also exists in physics; Einstein’s equation identifies mo-
tion (kinetic energy, E) and mass. With such a tight relation-
ship, mass (even as conceived in physics) cannot possibly lose
its integrity through motion. As already mentioned, the har-
mony of Nature percolates through all human interpretations
of it.
Model of pure activity (space-time)
Models of resident quanta
A resident motion-quantum constantly moves, a jiggling

that cannot be reflected by the static model on paper. In addi-
tion, motion quanta overlap and interact, switching back and
forth to turning, spinning, and uniform states. There are no
overlapping restrictions and space can be quite dense.
The model of a spinning (only) quantum should be spheri-
cal in appearance. But spinning (only) is a phenomenon that
doesn’t occur in reality. See “Implementation and model of
spin” in chapter 4 (pages 29–30). As such, the model of a
spinning quantum cannot be a sphere.
67
Chapter 9
The Electric Charge: Matter’s
Fundamental Characteristic
and Very Integrity
The electric charge’s physical implementation

Mass only is materialized or physically implemented in
physics. Space, time, electric charges, and fields are immaterial
or massless; they actually all lack physical implementation in
physics. As a specific example, an electric charge has no vol-
ume in space; whereas the volume of mass can be measured
in physics, the volume of electric charge cannot. At this stage,
and in line with the spirit of the theory of gravimotion, which
is to mirror the coherence of the universe and its elegance if
we could, the subatomic particle’s electric charge—the color-
ful characteristic of electron and proton alike—needs to be
physically implemented.
The electric charge is a configuration of space, a variation
in density of the activity (energy) implementing space itself.
An electric charge is a gradation of pure activity, chosen to be
above average for a proton and below average for an elec-

tron.
The creation of electric charges

Two opposite electric charges came into existence when a
number of motion-quanta (introduced in chapter 8) were
rooted out of pure activity, creating both an agglomeration
and a depletion of motion-quanta.
Nonresident motion-quantum
The accumulation of motion-quanta coinciding with a pro-
ton is made of freed resident quanta, and labeled nonresi-
dents, because they are now free to roam around. Pure activ-
ity (space) is now inhabited by extra quanta for a positive
charge and a lack of it for a negative charge; an accumulation
of motion-quanta or a proton is a heap of nonresident quanta
free to move. As a reminder and by contrast, resident quanta
make space and are compelled, while jiggling around, to re-
main in place when attempting to overlap surrounding peers.
Electric charges complementarity

A proton and an electron are made of the exact same
amount of motion-quanta, simply because each has been
physically built out of the other.
The corollary is that any proton has its companion elec-
tron somewhere in the universe and vice versa.
Model of the electric charge

Electric charges coincide with either an accumulation
(positive charge) or a depletion (electron’s electric negative
charge) of motion-quanta, within pure activity (space).
70
Formation and model of an electron/proton pair
Each speckle of the model represents a dynamic motion-

quantum. Some motion-quanta have been removed off the
right void, creating there a depletion and transferred to the
left, creating there a higher density as compared to the back-
ground.
Electric charges float in space’s volume up and above or
below pure activity. In string theory, additional dimensions
(up to eleven) are necessary to interpret electromagnetic phe-
nomenon and gravity.
The electric charge’s absolute stability

According to the prevailing theory, 5 electrons and protons
appeared immediately after the big bang. For a very short pe-
riod immediately following the big bang and called the “infla-
tion period,” the universe expanded at an incredible rate; dur-
ing that inflation period, the universe literally “broke apart,”
producing the basis of gravimotion theory, the above model
of electric charges.
At this early stage, the universe could be considered to be
made of edges only and highly out of balance, expanding gro-
tesquely in all directions. By comparison, pure activity (space),
right where we are now, within the Milky Way, is surrounded
71
on all sides by pure activity (space), preventing this kind of

drastic event from happening locally.
During the inflation period, space expanded at such a rate
that pockets of it became squeezed in the frenzy; with higher
density, they did not follow as fast, while their complement
voids left them behind and departed with the expanding
space. Leftover heaps of motion-quanta formed the protons,
and the moving holes formed the electrons.
Because big bang’s very turbulence did assemble the elec-
tric charges, their existential stability depends on these initial
conditions and only motions inverse to that of the inflation
period could annihilate two opposite electric charges.
In other words, the motion-quanta constituting an electric
charge are not their only constituents. Their overall packaging
and format represent extra activity (or energy) of mighty (big
bang) proportions. This is what makes the electric charge in-
destructible. Graphically, they would be packed with a con-
figuration of motion-quanta of radial-activity type or of mo-
tion against itself, of gigantic proportion.
Electric charge, or core of matter, characteristics

1. The electric charge is made of nonresident motion-
quanta.
2. The motion-quanta are piled together, unorganized.
3. Electric charges are accumulations or depletions (high
or low density) of nonresident quanta, yet packaged with su-
per activity.
4. They are also provided with an overall motion (coordi-
nated activity) and are always in motion.
72
Solid electric charges implement the atom’s nucleus

As shown in chapter 5, only the combination of electric
transparent auras (electric fields), forming atoms and matter,
resulted in solid plasmas. Certainly, the electron/proton
combined auras in atoms are solid. This combination of
auras, the solid plasma, is solid because it materializes matter,
and it is a combination because it is neutral electrically.
In the theory of gravimotion, the subatomic particles
themselves, excluding their surrounding auras, are also solid.
That is, the very electric charge is solid and not made of mass
as it is in physics.
Solidity is coincidental to strength of agglomeration or to
the original motion of agglomeration. And the solidity of the
atomic nucleus is no longer made of atomic mass but of elec-
tric charges or heaps of motion-quanta, themselves assembled
with big bang type of motion. An electric charge, coincidental
to a subatomic particle (electron or proton), is represented as
a hard core devoid of mass and surrounded by an electric
aura.
Atomic mass dismissal

Since both gravitational and inertial masses have been al-
ready dismissed in this book, it may appear useless now to
dismiss them both again. But it needs to be done because in
physics their mutual identity as a single concept of atomic
mass is of the utmost importance; it is a quality that tran-
scends both. In physics, inertia and weight (heaviness) are
considered to be one, even though they end up being distin-
guished according to circumstances.
In any case, as a consequence of the previous section, an
atom’s nucleus has no mass and is exclusively electrical.
73
Prediction: The Higgs particle will not be found!

Interestingly enough, in particle physics, particles are de-
signed (mathematically) with no mass. According to popular
scientific magazines, the Higgs field or Higgs particle has
been designed (also mathematically) to palliate that (apparent)
deficiency. And a physical manifestation of the Higgs particle
is still being sought. A powerful accelerator has just been built
in Europe to bring into evidence the Higgs field. However, in
the view of gravimotion theory and specifically of this chap-
ter, the Higgs particle does not exist and will not be found!
On the other hand, should the so-called Higgs boson be
discovered, proving the reality of mass and inertia, gravimo-
tion is history! In addition to being ignored by physicists, gra-
vimotion will then rest in peace! Only you, the readers who
have reached this page, and I, the writer, will then have had a
glimpse at another, different interpretation of Nature.
The origin and guarantor of the subatomic particle’s

gravitation aura or radial activity (gravitation)
Now that the inflation storm went by, right where we are,
the mere presence of extra motion-quanta (for a proton)
within residential pure activity (space) displaces the latter (the
resident quanta). The displacement occurs radially around the
electric charge, modifying unexpectedly the existing motion
of the surrounding residents. Similarly, wherever a lack of
motion-quanta (a hole in pure activity forming an electron)
occurs, some of the surrounding motion-quanta (pure activ-
ity) transfer their own motion toward the center.
Whether pushed back or pulled in, the resident quanta
move radially, and this added motion forms a radial configu-
ration of space, implementing the gravitation aura.
74
Radial activity comes into existence and is subsequently

maintained in its state of stress through the mere presence of
an electric charge.
Implementation of gravimotion’s link to its own visible

matter
Supposing one could separate the gravitation aura from its
cause—that is, the electric charge—the latter would survive,
and the gravitation aura would vanish, collapsing on itself as
described in “Radial activity’s (or gravitation’s) structure and
ingredients” (chapter 7, page 61). Pure activity (space) there
would return to normal. Evidently, a gravitation aura would
pop up anew elsewhere around the electric charge.
The dependency of the gravitation aura on the electric
charge constitutes and is referred to as the link that harnesses
the two together; it has been introduced in chapter 4, page 25
in the section “Gravimotion’s link to its own visible matter.”
A proton displaces the local resident quanta.

The displacement is radial activity.
Above is a simplified model of gravity created by the den-

sity of an electric charge of proton type (positive). The resi-
dent activity quanta are displaced by the charge that “di-
75
rected” them away, creating a back tension toward the center.

That displacement is motion or gravity as defined in this gra-
vimotion theory.
Implementation of the subatomic particle’s electric aura

Along the orientation (implementing gravitation) of the
motion-quanta is also a decrease of their density (implement-
ing the electric field), as shown on this graph:
This graph shows how the electric charge, made of non-

resident quanta and represented as a vertical ellipse, displaces
resident quanta, and how the resulting higher concentration
of the latter forms the electric field. Note that the very dis-
placement (motion not representable on a graph of density)
of the nonresident motion quanta forms the gravitation.
Model of the electric aura

As shown above, an electric charge (accumulation of free
motion-quanta) creates an electric aura identified with an ac-
cumulation of pure activity (accumulation of resident motion-
quanta).
An electric aura coincides with the translation of space-
quanta, the effect of which is to redistribute locally their den-
sity.
76
The model illustrates the displacement of one space-

resident quantum from the thinner toward the thicker repre-
sentation.
Model of the electric aura
When not disturbed, the resident motion-quanta are

intrinsically restless, constantly jiggling around, a motion not
represented on the model. The displacements consequential
to the presence of the electric charge also amplify this jig-
gling; the additional and localized loss of equilibrium contrib-
utes to the electric aura, which in the first place is an increase
of pure activity density. As such, the electric auras’ existence
is consequential to the presence of the charge.
As a reminder, the translation itself—the very motion of
the quanta, not represented geometrically on the model—
coincides with the radial activity surrounding the particle.
The electric aura characteristics

1. The electric aura is made of resident motion-quanta.
2. The resident motion-quanta are pushed away or pulled
in by an electric charge itself made of nonresident quanta.
3. Electric auras are accumulations or depletions (high or
low density) of resident quanta, the offshoot of an electric
charge.
Differentiating mechanical and electrical entities

At human scale and larger, there only are two entities: first,
mechanical entities, which are made of confined, coordinated,
and radial activities—that is, of motion-volumes’ orientation;
77
then, electrical entities—that is, electric charges and auras,

made of motion-volumes’ density.
Gravimotion’s relationship to physics’ atomic mass and

Newton’s laws
Getting back to the gravitation aura, now that each electric
charge of an atom—whether a proton, an electron, or a com-
bination of the two (a neutron)—has its own gravitation off-
shoot, the gravitation of an atom is physically linked to its
electrical elements. Radial activity merges physics’ atomic
mass (coincidental with the number of protons and neutrons
in the nucleus) with the mass appearing in Newton’s laws (co-
incidental with motion). These two masses, not specifically
linked in physics, constitute two pieces of the puzzle; their
identification is simply taken for granted in physics. And they
do fit perfectly according to gravimotion. On the other hand,
gravimotion’s activity is now linked to both physics’ atomic
mass and the mass appearing in Newton’s laws of motion.
The motion of electric charges

The electric charge itself is as susceptible to be turned into
motion as its radial-activity offshoot is. Coordinated activity
provided to a subatomic particle formats its gravimotion and
also diffuses throughout the nonresident motion-quanta
(MQs), forming its electric charge. The latter, as a whole, will
simply move in the direction of its own MQs.
Whereas the translation of gravimotion involves configura-
tions of local (resident) MQs only, with no transfer of these
over significant stretches of pure activity (that is, over space
or distance), motion of the electric charges, which is at the
center of gravimotion, does involve the transfer of nonresi-
dent MQs. The indestructible electric charge is free to move
78
or glide within pure activity (within space), and when it does,

it involves a translation of all of its MQs, or lack of them, for
electrons.
The electric charge per se could possibly be energized with
motion more dynamic than light, leaving behind its own ra-
dial activity, gravimotion, and electric aura, which could all
reappear elsewhere before disappearing.
Motion of the integrity of matter

The electric charge and its surrounding electric aura make
the integrity of matter; electric charges and surrounding auras
implement matter’s solid plasma. As such and according to
the previous section, we now also have a physical explanation
of the translation of the integrity of matter.
The various colors of objects and things

The solid plasmas, constituted of a combination of electric
charges and fields, best explain the colors of things. How
would inert mass be able to select or maybe change the fre-
quencies (colors) of light reflected by matter?
Prediction about gravitational waves

Could gravitation waves emanate out of radial activity’s
own collapse or motion? Even though that contradicts Ein-
stein’s predictions, it doesn’t look like that could happen, as
all of gravitation’s activities are radially symmetrical and sim-
ply vanish when left to themselves within pure activity.
Massless matter summary

The mass as conceived in physics—that is, the subatomic
particle’s heavy hard core, the atomic mass—altogether van-
ishes.
79
In the first place, its heaviness has been found to be irrele-

vant to both solidity and visibility of matter (chapter 5). The
integrity of matter, kept intact through motion, is definitely
identified with solid plasmas, electrical in nature. Then we’ve
seen how uniform motion occurs through coordinated activ-
ity independently of any concept of inertia and also how the
concept of gravitational mass has been dismissed in favor of
gravimotion’s skew (chapter 6).
Finally, in this chapter, physics’ atomic mass (the nucleus
of the atom), electrically neutral, is taken care of by the elec-
tric charges themselves. And the method used in physics to
measure its cross-section, described later in this book, justifies
that implementation.
There is no event justifying the atomic mass within the
nucleus’ hard core, neither in this book nor in particle phys-
ics, in which particles are mathematically designed without
mass.
Electron radial activity

The models of gravitation provided so far (chapter 3) co-
incide with a proton. Within an electron, the gradation coin-
ciding with the electric charge is inversed and the model of its
gravitation is reversed. An electron’s gravitation is repulsive:
A naive model of an electron’s gravitation aura
80
Since the model in chapter 3 represents a proton, one

might ask how a neutron should be represented. The answer
is, a neutron’s gravitation aura is quasi similar to that of a pro-
ton.
These models represent gravitation auras, not the cores of
the electric charges. The core of the electric charge—
differentiating the particles and also the guarantor of the
gravitation aura—is not represented here.
In the gravimotion theory, gravitation auras are biased just
as electric auras are! And that reflects the unity of Nature.
That is not the case in physics; in physics, gravity is attractive
only.
Repulsive gravitation, negative gravitation

Turning our attention again toward the electron’s gravita-
tion, an electron radial activity within Earth’s gravitation is
attracted toward Earth.
An electron repulsive gravimotion (radial activity)
On the other hand, a cloud of electrons’ cumulative gravi-

tation would be repelling. Neglecting their electrical nature—
81
whether you consider, within such a repelling aura, a proton,

a neutron, or another electron—the latter would all be re-
pelled. This repulsive gravitation has no common features
with physics’ negative gravitation, itself responsible for the
acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Electron-to-proton mass ratio

Even though opposite electric charges are equal quantita-
tively, their materialistic (gravitational) structure and their ef-
fect are fundamentally different.
The presence of an electron in pure activity (space), which
amounts to a lack of resident quanta, has the effect of dis-
placing and orienting the surrounding resident quanta. On the
other hand, the presence of a proton, besides having the ef-
fect of disturbing the same amount of surrounding quanta (in
the opposite direction), also displaces the resident quanta that
were there in the first place.
As such, the gravitation aura of the proton involves many
more resident quanta, and one might be tempted to say its
resulting gravitation aura is larger in size (activity size) than
that of the electron.
Physics provides us with the ratio: a proton is 1,800 hun-
dred times heavier than an electron. A proton’s electric
charge would then radially displace 1,800 quanta for each
quantum that an electron electric charge displaces and orients.
The neutron and proton weights

The neutron, made of a proton and an electron, surpris-
ingly “weighs” 1 proton and 2½ electrons in physics.
In gravimotion, however, the repulsive gravitation of the
electron within the proton’s radial activity counterbalances
part of the gravitation of the latter, at same time acting nega-
82
tively on physics’ concepts of weight and inertia. I did not

explore how physics takes care of its own problem of 2½
electrons and whether physics’ measurements can accommo-
date gravimotion’s interpretation.
Electron’s fundamental characteristic

In physics, “thinking of the electrons as little pellets or
bullets” 6 is done more often than thinking of them as electri-
cal entities. In particle physics, the energy of an electron is
identified with its speed, a mechanical entity ironically ex-
pressed in electron volts. In physics, these pellets or bullets
are also identified as waves, yet the frequencies of these
waves are equivalent to mechanical and not electrical energy.
All that fits nicely the photon, which is electrically neutral.
In the gravimotion theory, an electron is above all an elec-
tric charge. From outside, an electron is observed, detected,
and studied through its electric and magnetic auras and/or its
emission of electromagnetic waves; its mass is nonexistent.
(Period!) Its mass is also negligible in physics; why does phys-
ics replace the electron’s electrical entity with either a speed
or an electrically neutral frequency, systematically downplay-
ing its electrical nature and electromagnetic effects?
Gravimotion merges body and spirit

The hard core of a subatomic particle, as presented in
physics and as our mind imagines it, is only a “projection” of
what our body experiences at our own scale!
In its psychological meaning, a projection is the naive or
unconscious attribution of one’s own feelings to others. In
this particular case, our own feelings about matter and mass
are attributed (projected) to subatomic particles.
83
Gravimotion’s dismissal of physics’ concept of mass,

which is supplanted by immaterial motion-volumes, has the
effect of merging our very own body, made of flesh and
bone, with our psychic state.
And that brings to mind an even more inconspicuous en-
tity that exists within our body, and that is the spirit of life.
Even though we have not broken life’s code (its motion-
volumes’ configuration) yet, we intuitively know it is not ma-
terialistic either!
84
Chapter 10
Electromagnetic Phenomenon
and Its Physical Implementation
Magnetic and electromagnetic auras: Introduction

Magnets are spectacular; they lift iron objects and attract
or repel other magnets. In physics, magnets perform their
feats through a surrounding field in space; this field of phys-
ics, being transparent to both mass and light, is called an aura
in the gravimotion theory.
The electrons of the atoms making the magnet, all spin-
ning in unison, generate the magnetic aura surrounding it.
Magnetic auras also appear in the space surrounding a wire
within which an electric current flows. As can be seen, a
magnetic aura is always the by-product of the motion of elec-
trons.
In addition, just as in physics’ field theory, magnetic auras
are always accompanied by electric auras; as such, the auras
surrounding any electric current are also labeled “electromag-
netic” auras in this book.
Model of the magnetic and electromagnetic aura

In the gravimotion theory, a magnetic aura is a local rota-
tion of space’s motion-quanta; the rotation is coincidental to
the spin of the electrons’ electric auras, themselves in sync
with the spinning of the electrons’ electric charge.
Model of a pure activity quantum rotation or magnetic aura
As in the model of the electric aura (chapter 9, page 77),

the model illustrates the displacement of one quantum from
the thinner toward the thicker representation.
An electromagnetic aura is a combination of magnetic and
electric auras. Even though physically identical, electric auras
associated with particles differ from electric auras associated
with magnetism. The latter depends on the motion of electric
charges; by contrast, the aura of a particle depends on the
electric charge at the core of the particle and not on its mo-
tion.
The characteristics of an electromagnetic aura

1. An electromagnetic aura is a local or limited displace-
ment of resident quanta.
2. The displacements are of two kinds, linear and spin-
ning
3. The effect is a change of density of the resident space-
quanta, rather than an orientation, as it is in gravimotion’s
86
mechanism of motion. As a reminder, electric charges are

made of nonresident quanta.
Variation of electromagnetic auras

An electrical current that travels in an electrical wire is ac-
tually made of electrons that travel in pure activity (space)
that is within the empty volume of the wire. The electrons’
electric auras jostle the space-quanta local to the volume of
the wire; these in turn overlap and interact with the adjacent
space-quanta, and so on. That activity forms the electromag-
netic aura, which emanates from the wire and travels away
from it.
Should the electrical current be increased, another phe-
nomenon occurs. A countercurrent appears within the wire,
slowing the original down. Should the electric current de-
crease instead, the decrease is also fought back with a counter
electrical current, this time tending to maintain the original.
Such a behavior brings to mind physics’ concept of inertia,
which resists any increase or decrease of motion.
Acceleration and electromagnetic wave similarity

In the establishment of uniform motion or during accel-
eration of matter, coordinated activity is transferred from out-
side into gravimotion’s volume; that unsolicited modification
triggers a counter effect. In physics, inertia is said to resist
acceleration.
In the case of the establishment of an electromagnetic aura
or in the case of the variation of it (the wave), coordinated
activity is transferred outwards and a countercurrent appears.
In both cases, a reaction occurs, similar in essence—that
is, a reaction to an unsolicited transfer of motion-volumes or
quanta. In both cases, the initial action is counteracted upon.
87
Ether and electromagnetic phenomenon

In the case of an electromagnetic wave, the displacements
of the space-resident quanta represent activity that is fed back
in the form of an opposite current when the original current
stops (sections above).
Yet the current in the wire along the wire itself has no
counterpart other than space upon which the electromagnetic
phenomenon could be reflected, in effect mandating the exis-
tence of space quanta or the existence of ether.
The equalization phenomenon in another dynamic

situation
Once the electromagnetic aura is established, as it is
around a permanent magnet and within an electromagnet in
which the current is kept constant, it remains stable as long as
no change in current or in motion (with respect to pure activ-
ity or space) occurs.
It is not because there is no change that there is no activ-
ity. Just as uniform motion involves a lot of activity, a con-
stant magnetic aura (constant field) is counterbalanced by a
lot of activity in the form of a constant current.
Alternating currents induce alternating currents over

space
A current of electrons traveling back and forth within a
wire disturbs the local space-resident quanta accordingly
(back and forth) and as described in a section above (varia-
tion of electromagnetic auras); the variable aura transfers it-
self over space and is now able to create an alternating cur-
rent of electrons within a distant receiving antenna or wire.
88
Introduction of electromagnetic waves (variable auras)

The cyclic disturbances in pure activity, just described, are
called electromagnetic waves. The cycles of the waves are in
tune with the electric currents variations, which can be de-
tected at their peak intensity; the rate of repetition is defined
as the frequency, and the frequency of the wave in pure activ-
ity is coincidental to vibrations of space-resident quanta.
By contrast, in physics, electromagnetic waves travel in
vacuum and have no support.
Light and electromagnetic waves make one

Electromagnetic waves and light are of the same nature;
the two expressions are used indiscriminately in this book and
in physics.
Respective entities of electric currents and electromag-

netic auras
It is clear that the models involving space-quanta are not
accessible to humans or to any apparatus. Their existence is
inferred from the relationship existing between the respective
behaviors of two distant electric charges. In all of the above,
the motions of some electrons and their electric charges yield
some electromagnetic auras or waves that travel in space and
in turn overlap the electrical auras of some distant electrons,
moving the latter accordingly.
The electromagnetic waves’ intrinsic characteristics

1. The frequency of the source of the emitting alternating
current is called the intrinsic frequency. When the frequency
of the wave in pure activity matches that frequency, it is
called the wave’s intrinsic frequency.
89
Short of knowing the intrinsic frequency of the emitter,

the latter can be measured on the wave provided one moves
in unison with the source or is at rest with respect to the
source. Should the observer move with respect to the source,
the Doppler effect would appear and the frequency observed
would be modified.
2. The amplitude or intensity of a wave coincides with the
intensity of the source. In physics, the area of the curve rep-
resenting the wave is also proportional to the energy trans-
mitted. Because the source radiates in all directions, both the
intensity of the wave and the energy transmitted decrease
while the wave recedes in pure activity (in space) from the
source.
3. In physics, there is another intrinsic characteristic
(which has no significance in this book), and that is the speed
of the wave. The speed of the electromagnetic wave is con-
stant (in vacuum); it cannot be used to distinguish one wave
from another. From that point of view, ignoring physics’
concept of speed, as done in this book, has no consequence.
Interaction of a wave with the motion of matter

The measured frequency of a wave (by a human) departs
from the intrinsic frequency when the source of the wave is
in motion with respect to the observer and vice versa.
In the theory of gravimotion, the observer is a receiver
who interacts with the energy of the wave wherever both
meet in space. Both wave and the gravimotion of the mole-
cules of the observer’s eyes (or of any light-sensitive appara-
tus) are implemented with space-quanta or motion-volumes.
And when these two absolutely independent entities share
the same volume, they also interact.
90
Electromagnetic waves, gravitation interaction

As just seen, gravimotion (or radial activity) interferes with
light waves, a phenomenon first discovered mathematically by
Einstein.
Electromagnetic waves’ energetic characteristics

In physics, the electromagnetic waves’ energetic character-
istics are either of heat and wave type (Maxwell equations) or
of frequency and photon type (a mathematical concept in-
vented by Einstein). This mathematical distinction matches
the wave’s respective intrinsic intensity and frequency as de-
scribed above.
In the theory of gravimotion, these two characteristics are
reunited; the variation of the slope of the wave takes care of
both the wave’s amplitude and frequency energetic effects.
The models below represent an electromagnetic wave
(solid line) and a modification of it (broken line), overlapping
the first. A single cycle is represented and the front edge of
the curve is not simultaneous with the trailing edge.
The motion-volume (labeled M-V) is there as a reminder

that first the wave occurs in an environment made of motion
(pure activity) and that it is also made of pure motion itself!
In this model, the amplitude is modified, and only the
peaks and troughs are increased; the wavelength and fre-
quency remain unchanged.
91
The area or the amplitude of the wave is implemented in

the gravimotion theory through the displacement of a num-
ber of space-quanta (physics’ electromagnetic field intensity).
The modified wave, covering more area, is more energetic
than the original. In accordance with Maxwell’s first equation,
gravimotion’s number of space-quanta displaced and physics’
field are both proportional to the electric charge or to the
number of emitting electrons. A wave will then displace in a
remote receiving antenna a number of electrons proportional
to the number of space-quanta involved, which is propor-
tional to the number of emitting electrons.
In the second modification, the frequency instead is modi-
fied. It is twice as high, and the period or wavelength is twice
as short.
As can be seen, the area covered by the wave diminished

greatly. Yet the photoelectric effect shows conclusively that
an increase of frequency, such as the one represented, also
increases the energy of the wave. And the scientific commu-
nity, in the footsteps of Einstein, interpreted Maxwell equa-
tions as not taking care of the effect.
In the gravimotion interpretation, the period/wavelength
of the wave in pure activity (space) is implemented through
vibrations of space-quanta. These vibrations (motions) are
engendered by the motion of the emitting electrons and are
directly proportional to it. The faster those electrons (the
92
higher their emitting frequency), the faster the vibrating mo-

tion of the space-quanta (the higher the frequency of the
wave in space), and the faster (the more energetic) the in-
duced motion of electrons in a distant receiving antenna.
In the two cases represented, the slopes of the ascending
part of the wave as well as that of the descending part have
increased while going from the solid to the dotted waves. A
single physical parameter, the variation of the slope, is behind
both the number of the emitting electrons and their gravimo-
tion (energies).
By contrast, the variation of that slope is interpreted as
either an area (heat energy) or a photon (frequency energy) in
physics.
Electric current energetic duality

In conventional physics, a current is defined as the num-
ber of electrons (electrical charges) passing through a cross-
section of the wire, per unit time.
Interpretation of the energy carried by a current of electrons in gravi-

motion’s theory. As such, a specific electric current can be im-
plemented in one of two ways (or a combination of the two):
either the number of electrons is high while they have little
coordinated activity (many electrons in low motion) or the
number of electrons is low and their coordinated activity is
higher (fewer electrons but faster).
It turns out that two identical currents create sizeable dif-
fering energies! Doubling the number of electrons and main-
taining their speed constant doubles the energy dissipated as
heat in an electrical load (resistor), while doubling their coor-
dinated activity (their velocity) and keeping their number con-
stant quadruples that energy.
93
Physics’ interpretation of the energy carried by a current of electrons.

Evidently, physics is not missing any of these subtleties. But
in physics the distinction is taken care of by an additional pa-
rameter, and that is the voltage. In physics, the speed of the
electrons is ignored and both voltage and current characterize
the energy, rather than the current only. Remote from reality,
voltage (actually measured with a current measurement de-
vice) makes the connection with electromagnetic waves diffi-
cult if not impossible.
Electromagnetic waves and electric currents match

As you certainly noticed, there is a direct and simple coin-
cidence between the constitutions of an electrical current as
interpreted from gravimotion’s point of view and the slope of
the resulting electromagnetic wave. The energetic characteris-
tics of the two fit hand in glove.
Considering an emitting electrical current made of one
electron only, the amplitude of the wave is defined by Max-
well’s first equation, which states that the field is proportional
to the electric charge; with a single electron, only the fre-
quency can be modified through the motion (the energy) of
the electron. Upon adding a second electron, the amplitude
doubles yet remains fixed as double, while the frequency
again may be adjusted with the motion of the two electrons.
All in all, the number of electrons defines the amplitude or
the area covered by the wave, and their motions only define
the period and wavelength of the wave; both amplitude or
area and period or frequency define the slope.
Physics’ interpretation is much more complex; in each of
the two cases, it is split in two ways. The energy of the elec-
tromagnetic wave is either of wave type (its amplitude, Max-
well’s equations) or of particle-photon type (its frequency,
94
Einstein’s interpretation), while the energy of an electrical

current depends on current and voltage.
There is harmony in reality. The electromagnetic waves
match the electrons’ behavior and, realistically, “reality” needs
only half of the concepts used in physics. Besides, physics’
photon-wave duality is conspicuous with its internal conflicts
of interest.
Simpler, gravimotion’s interpretation is closer to reality.
The motions (direction and spin) of the electrons (whether
emitters or receptors) match the wave characteristics. At a
distance, higher amplitude (or greater wave area) provides
more electrons, and higher frequencies correspond to more
active (more energetic or faster) electrons.
The puzzle of physics

A current/voltage duality on one side of the coin and a
wave/photon duality on the other appear as four disparate
pieces of physics’ puzzle, from the view of gravimotion’s the-
ory.
In gravimotion, current and voltage are united in the num-
ber and motion of the electrons, and wave and photon are
united in the number and motion of space-quanta, graphically
represented as the slope of the wave, its very electromagnetic
constitution.
These four pieces of physics’ puzzle find themselves com-
pacted in the gravimotion’s motion-volume, in its various
configurations and behaviors.
The frequency of a wave is independent of time

The frequency of a wave is often expressed as a number of
cycles per second. As such, it looks like the frequency is re-
95
lated to time. And mathematically, higher frequencies are co-

incidental to shorter periods.
Yet the unit of frequency is the Hertz, a number of time
periods per unit time or a number independent of time. In
fact, the frequency could as well be expressed as a ratio of
lengths, a number of cycles or wavelengths per unit length. A
frequency in Hertz is also a number of cycles per meter. In
physics, high frequencies are also coincidental to shorter
wavelengths!
Because the expression “cycles per second” has the format
of a speed, it identifies frequency with mechanical (electrically
neutral) energy. In physics, this identification is reinforced in
two ways: first, both frequency and speed are relative; then
and above all, physics’ concept of a photon is electrically neu-
tral, neither positive nor negative.
All in all, in view of the gravimotion theory, the expression
“cycles per second” is not recommended because it identifies
frequency with speed, depriving the wave of its fundamental
characteristic, which is to be electromagnetic.
In the gravimotion theory, the frequency of the electro-
magnetic wave in space is made of vibrations of space-quanta.
Here, the density of space and its variations coincide and im-
plement the wave’s (and any electric field’s) very electromag-
netic aspect.
Apparent frequency or frequency modification

The frequency of a wave in space can be modified in one
of two ways. Either the oscillation of the source varies and
the observer sees a variation of the intrinsic frequency, or the
intrinsic frequency remains constant and the observed fre-
quency is different, because the observer and the source
move with respect to each other.
96
Light and electromagnetic waves are pure motion

Because electromagnetic waves are made of motion-
quanta vibrating in unison, no mass is involved in them;
waves are pure motion!
The electromagnetic wave offers a practical verification
that motion, when attached to matter, is an independent en-
tity from the matter it moves.
That goes along with physics’ teaching that light waves
have no mass. Yet having no mass, they must be made of
something else! In physics, this something else is clearly not
physical (not defined).
The electromagnetic wave physical translation—in gravi-
motion’s theory, pure activity—differs greatly from the mo-
tion of an electric charge; an electromagnetic wave involves
local resident quanta only, just as sound waves involve local
molecules of air. The displacement of an electric charge in-
volves free motion-quanta, just as the oxygen within a drop
of rainwater is independent of the oxygen of the air.
Wavelength and motion-volume similarity

The cycle of an electromagnetic wave (such as a radio
wave, visible light, etc.) in physics is very close to the concept
of motion-volume. A cycle, whether a wavelength or a time
period, doesn’t end in space at the same time it started else-
where in space. Similarly a motion-volume does not end in
space at the same time it started elsewhere in space.
Unfortunately, physics’ usual representation of a wave
does not express this essential reality. In physics, waves are
either represented in space (frozen in time) or in time (and
independently of space).
97
Electromagnetic wave emission

Actually, the models representing the electric and magnetic
auras (provided in chapters 9 and 10, pages 77 and 86 respec-
tively) occur perpendicularly to each other in space.
An antenna that is a linear, filament-like (filiform) conduc-
tor, in which an electrical current is driven, emits waves pro-
portional to that current and its variations as follows.
The waves are a combination of translations of electric
auras that spread in directions parallel to the wire and mag-
netic auras that spread in circles perpendicular to the wire.
Both expand away from the wire. In physics, these are fields
represented geometrically with directions. The electric aura is
moving away in lines going from one end of the antenna to
the other, while the magnetic aura follows the right-hand rule:
Setting your right thumb in the direction of the electrical cur-
rent within the antenna, the magnetic aura follows circular
trajectories in the direction of your curved remaining four
right fingers. So both the electric and the magnetic auras
change directions twice during each cycle.
In this book, magnets are considered to emit a specific
case of electromagnetic waves; the magnetic aura of a magnet
is a uniform electromagnetic wave emitted at frequency zero.
Prediction: the universe spins on itself

In the gravimotion theory, the universe spins on itself.
The spin of the universe is an intuitive, totally speculative,
and hypothetical interpretation. It doesn’t exist in physics, for
instance.
The logic behind it is the perfect synchronization that ex-
ists between electric and magnetic auras within the electro-
magnetic wave and as developed in the next section.
98
Electric current and electron spin

An electron traveling within a wire is compelled to spin
due to the spin of the universe, just as the water going down
the drain is compelled to swirl due to the spin of Earth.
In this theory of gravimotion, while the linear motion of
an electron in the wire creates an electric aura surrounding
the electron, the spinning associated with it generates the
magnetic aura, which obeys the right-hand rule.
In addition, the spin-to-linear-motion link provides a
physical support to Maxwell’s third mathematical null equa-
tion. (The Maxwell equations are described in Part II of this
book.)
The spins of electric charges occur right upon the charges’
occurrences, as their occurrences are consequential to their
motion. (See the section “The electric charge’s absolute sta-
bility” chapter 9, page 71.)
The link between the electrons’ linear and spin motions

The reason the spin of the electron depends on the elec-
tron’s linear motion and vice versa is mandated by common
sense. The electromagnetic wave is made of two components,
the electric and the magnetic auras, which are always in sync
with each other; because the two auras depend respectively
on two differing motions, the latter have to be in sync.
The wavelength of the wave emitted out of a linear an-
tenna coincides with the back-and-forth trip of the electrons,
as they “stop” and reverse their course. These reversals in
turn produce reversals of electric and magnetic auras.
Considering linear noncyclic currents of electrons, the
spinning of the electrons is continuous; there is no stopping
or any reversal just as Maxwell’s fourth equation suggests.
99
The electromagnetic wave is not made of photons

A current of electrons in a wire dislodges the motion-
quanta that enact the pure activity (space) shared by the mate-
rial emptiness of the wire. A dynamic equilibrium occurs,
whether the engendering current is constant (constant mag-
netic aura) or varies (electromagnetic waves).
This is not the case in conventional physics (see the next
section). In physics, photons and not waves of resident
quanta implement electromagnetic waves.
Planck’s formula
In conventional physics, the two situations are differenti-
ated by Planck’s formula, E=hν (read H new), providing the
energy of a photon of frequency ν. The formula implies there
is no energy for ν=0, in spite of the magnetic field associated
with a constant current or to a permanent magnet. In the gra-
vimotion theory, there is energy in space when a magnet con-
figures pure activity.
Speed of light and frequency

Even though not specifically mentioned, this chapter high-
lights the reason for which the frequency of a wave is not re-
lated to its propagation (its speed).
The frequency coincides with vibrations of local space-
quanta.
The propagation coincides with the translation of these
local vibrations to their neighbors; that translation is inde-
pendent of the frequency because it is exclusively a character-
istic of pure activity’s density (or density of space).
The frequency instead is coincidental with the energy car-
ried by the wave.
100
Chapter 11
The Justification of
the Theory of Gravimotion
Gravimotion’s relation to reality

The following quotes are from Richard Feynman’s book
The Character of Physical Laws:
… take Newton’s law for gravitation, which has

the aspects I discussed last time. I gave you the
equation:
F = G mm′/r2
just to impress you with the speed with which
mathematical symbols can convey information. I
said that the force was proportional to the prod-
uct of the masses of two objects, and inversely 7 …
Feynman goes on and on with a lengthy worded version of

the very same law and ends with
Those are words all right, and I did not necessar-

ily have to write the equation. Nevertheless it is
kind of mathematical, and we wonder how this
can be a fundamental law. What does the planet
do? Does it look at the sun, see how far away it is,
and decide to calculate on its internal adding ma-
chine the inverse of the square of the distance,
which tells it how much to move? This is certainly
no explanation of the machinery of gravitation! You
might want to look further, and various people
have tried to look further. Newton was originally
asked about his theory—“But it doesn’t mean
anything—it doesn’t tell us anything.’ He said, ‘It
tells you how it moves. That should be enough. I have
told you how it moves, not why.” But people often are
unsatisfied without a mechanism, and I would like
to describe one theory, which has been invented,
among others of the type you might want. This
theory suggests that this effect is the result of
large numbers of actions, which would explain
why it is mathematical. 8 (emphasis added)
Feynman goes on to explain how high-velocity particles,

which would be everywhere, would have a physical effect
whose result would be like gravitation.
But then he shows that that theory would also have other
effects that would prevent the Earth from having been on its
orbits for millions of years. He concludes,
So that is the end of that story. “Well,” you say,

“it was a good one, and I got rid of the mathemat-
102
ics for a while. Maybe I could invent a better

one.” Maybe you can, because nobody knows the
ultimate. But up to today, from the time of New-
ton, no one has invented another theoretical de-
scription of the mathematical machinery behind
this law, which does not either say the same thing
over again, or make the mathematics harder, or
predict some wrong phenomena. So there is no
model of the theory of gravitation today, other
than the mathematical form. 9 (emphasis added)
The italicized text emphasizes physics’ goals and accom-

plishments; physics describes. Physics doesn’t explain, which
is what this book attempts to do. However, a “mechanism”
and its “model” (also italicized in the citations above) consti-
tute the heart of the theory of gravimotion.
This theory’s geometrical gravimotion far surpasses the
mathematical character of Newton’s physical law of gravita-
tion, as it provides an interpretation of Nature’s way to first
calculate and then to implement the mathematical force of
gravity. Even though Einstein’s curved space-time also ac-
complishes both, his theory is not as elegant because it in-
volves the “remote and reciprocal” effects occurring between
space-time and mass. In gravimotion, only one ingredient (ra-
dial activity), shared by both objects, is on the scene and at
play.
Unlike any known entity of physics, gravimotion on its
own performs the calculations and the implementation of its
own motion.
This book provides a sound theoretical explanation of the
mathematical machinery behind Newton’s law of gravitation.
103
Physics’ customs and procedures

The goal of physics as expressed by Newton is to describe,
not to explain or to be logical. As Feynman writes, “If you
thought that science was certain—well, that is just an error on
your part.” 10 Yet without explanation, a lack of coherence is
inevitable. And Einstein, who decided to keep intact both
Maxwell’s equations and Newton’s laws, artificially distorting
Nature with the photon and the theory of relativity, initiated
that lack of coherence found in physics.
Obviously, the respect of the ancients doesn’t restrict the
will of humankind to pursue accuracy of description at all
costs, though, and physicists succeed in their pursuit of accu-
racy! In spite of the successes encountered, the historical con-
tingencies seem to drive physics straight into fiction! Evi-
dently, physicists do not agree on this latest point; and this
author humbly recognizes as being himself a hobbyist layman.
The string theory and gravimotion

One of the beauties of the string theory, as advanced by
Brian Greene, is that gravity is inherent to the theory as it is
to the fabric of Nature. The mathematics of the theory in-
cludes gravity beforehand. A specific string vibration mathe-
matically coincides with the graviton, which is the force parti-
cle of gravity.
Unfortunately, the physical size of a string is so remotely
distant from any measurements we can perform that physi-
cists cannot physically prove the theory is true.
So the gravimotion theory with its lack of mathematical
edifices is not any more conjectural than the string theory is...
104
The fundamental dilemma

The fundamental dilemma, independent of human beings,
is: Why does anything (the universe) happen? Where does its
occurrence come from (rather than how does it behave as it
does)?
Is “nothing” the origin of the universe?

Asking the question, in view of the gravimotion theory, is
akin to render complementary “nothing” and “motion”; if the
eternity twin of infinity is not an alternative, the universe has
to “move” out of nothing! And at present, the universe
would be the complement of nothing!
Amazingly, that doesn’t prevent coherence and harmony
from prevailing.
105
Part II
Gravimotion and Physics
Classical Physics and Gravimotion
With the gravimotion mechanism in mind, let us see how

the laws of physics were developed over time. As shown next,
this chronological order turns out to be of major importance
in the development of physics’ theories.
In spite of their nonexistence in gravimotion, the concepts
of time, space as a vacuum, mass, force, acceleration, and
speed are used extensively in this part of the book, simply
because they are part of the world of physics.
Kepler’s second law

A line joining any planet to the sun sweeps out equal areas
in equal times.
In this law, time is coincidental to a surface area

The concept is fascinating. The motion-volume of the gra-

vimotion theory, which represents motion as a volume of
space extending in time, might have unconsciously been in-
spired by this law, which essentially links time to space.
Newton’s first law

Newton’s first law, 11 also known as the law of inertia,
states that an object, when at rest or in uniform motion and
far remote from any other object, star, or galaxy, remains at
rest or in uniform motion. Uniform motion is defined as con-
stant speed with no change in direction; as such, uniform mo-
tion excludes turns and spins.
To Einstein, the most important point of that law is that it
defines a coordinate system through the words “far remote
from any object, star, or galaxy.” For Einstein, the fixed celes-
tial bodies define that coordinate system (fastened to the fir-
mament) and allow the successive positions of the object to
be plotted on a graph.
To the uninitiated, uniform motion occurring without
force appears magical. It is amazing—dynamism occurs ef-
fortlessly!
In the gravimotion theory, the magic disappears. Uniform
motion is maintained by an entity remotely related to physics’
kinetic energy that is called coordinated activity, whose char-
acteristic is to be coordinated in direction. Departing from
the inertia law, a lot of activity actually takes place along with
the uniform linear motion in gravimotion. Pure activity or
space-time is alternatively turned on and off.
Uniform linear motion breaks the cause-and-effect rule

The interpretation of uniform motion in physics can be
seen as the most cunning concept invented by man. While it
110
Part II: Gravimotion and Physics
occurs, motion occurs with no cause! In other words, there is

an effect and no cause. The principle of cause and effect
magically disappears while uniform motion occurs.
And there is no explanation as to how uniform motion
manages the various speeds at which it performs, either.
Worse, the first law “identifies” or “merges into one” two
opposite concepts—namely, inertia and motion!
While respecting the principle, gravimotion provides a
logical alternative to that strange concept called the inertia
law. Gravimotion provides a mechanism implementing the
details of uniform motion for objects of any mass at any
speed; that mechanism is a transient configuration of pure
activity or space-time.
And in the gravimotion theory, uniform motion is defi-
nitely dynamic and not inert. When uniform linear motion
occurs, a lot of action occurs within gravimotion. Resident
quanta are successively oriented and turned back untamed.
Uniform linear motion is independent of energy

In physics, uniform linear motion, due to inertia, performs
independently of any energy.
The inertia law and energy

Even though kinetic energy is there somewhere in the
background, the law of inertia deprives it from playing any
role.
Inertia discredits time

Another hidden consequence of the first law is, since uni-
form linear motion is due to inertia, itself independent of
time, uniform linear motion has nothing to do with time.
Even though assigned a speed in physics, uniform linear mo-
111
tion is physically liberated from time! Even though time is

there somewhere, involved through speed, the inertia law de-
prives it of any role.
Time is a useless onlooker

Time in the law of inertia is a spectator, letting motion oc-
cur on its own. Gravimotion theory matches that point of
view, where time is a useless onlooker. Time as conceived in
physics is ignored in the gravimotion theory.
Inertia/relativity conflict of interest

Newton’s first law uncovers an unsuspected contradiction
in physics. Inertia crashes head on with the relativity princi-
ple! Uniform linear motion through inertia occurs on its own
and is not relative!
Surprisingly Einstein sees the relativity of motion in the
enunciation of the law. Yet how can motion be relative to a
reference “sufficiently remote” as not to interact or having no
relation with it? If the relation is not physical, it can only be
intellectual, its mathematics existing only in our minds.
This is another incomprehensible duality in the science of
physics. The inertia law and relativity are at odds with each
other, yet they coexist.
Uniform linear motion occurs without the principle of

relativity
In the gravimotion theory, the cause of motion is internal.
Motion complements an internal loss of equilibrium. In gra-
vimotion, inertia (inertial mass) doesn’t exist as a material en-
tity; uniform motion is due to the object’s own gravimotion.
Strangely enough, inertia—physics’ cause of uniform mo-
tion—is also part of the object in physics.
112
Among all the laws of physics, the inertia law might be the
closest ally of gravimotion; the law of inertia no doubt exists
in spirit deep within gravimotion.
The concept of motion in physics (at our scale)

In physics, the description of motion involves positions in
space as a function of time. And a position is defined relative
to a stable material body or an imaginary yet fixed coordinate
system. As such, motion is relative to the reference chosen in
physics. Even speeds are relative.
Now when thinking about relativity, turn your attention
away from Newton’s first law and the concept of inertia. Ein-
stein’s favorite example is the train and the embankment. He
explains how one cannot decide whether the train or the em-
bankment is moving!
Einstein argues (a) a passenger in the train, looking out-
side, sees the landscape moving, while at the same time (b) an
onlooker sitting in the station, looking at the train, sees the
train moving.
The principle of relativity, in its restricted sense

Einstein refers to the two statements above as the princi-
ple of relativity in its restricted sense, and adds that it is also
self-evident. He teaches that these statements must not be
confused with the much more comprehensive statement
simply called the principle of relativity.
Motion-energetic aspect and the principle of relativity

The energy required to bring to speed the locomotive and
the carriages attached to it, expressed in kilograms of coal (in
the early 1900s, the locomotives were propelled by coal) is
much less than the energy required to bring to the “same”
113
speed (but in opposite direction) the embankment and the

whole of Earth attached to it! The coal transformed into mo-
tion fits the mass of the train, not Earth’s mass at the same
speed.
In reality, the train is moving, and the Earth moves a little
backward relative to the train, a motion engendered as a reac-
tion to that of the train (Newton’s third law). Their respective
speed squared (and in opposite directions) is the inverse ratio
of their mass.
This latest description, which involves the respective ki-
netic energies and masses in action, fits reality much better
than the above two lines (a) and (b). These lines depart
greatly from reality in neglecting much of it, or neglecting the
energetic aspect of motion.
Since the principle of relativity is so important in theoreti-
cal physics, here are two rebuttal arguments in favor of its
insignificance as viewed in light of the unity of Nature.
• Consider a second train, with another observer in it,

traveling in the opposite direction, and try to imagine
the relative motion of the embankment in between the
two trains! How does Earth move simultaneously in
two opposite directions?
• Everybody knows that “in reality” Earth spins on it-
self, making days and nights, and does not move as
observed from the window of the train!
From the point of view of gravimotion theory, physics

ignores the reality of motion, let alone motion’s own trans-
portation by itself. There is not even an entity called “mo-
114
tion” in physics. In physics, both the object’s relative position

and time take precedence.
On the other hand, the success of the theory of relativity,
its exquisite fit with reality, can only be coincidental to a true
mathematical description of reality.
Relativity and gravimotion (absolute motion) can coex-

ist
The above two rebuttal arguments do not belittle the prin-
ciple of relativity; they only point to its insignificance from
the point of view of the gravimotion theory, whose simple
message is that direct interactions make more sense than dis-
tant relativity. This book departs from physics’ concepts,
which depart from common sense, even though the former
might end up extremely valuable and useful as the latter-at
least as far as our daily lives are concerned.
Gravimotion’s interpretation of motion, in which motion
inhabits the object in motion, is absolute. That does not ex-
clude the relativity of motion, as interpreted in physics. Nei-
ther one forbids the other.
Relativity and entropy

Physicists assert that the laws of Newton—along with the
laws of Einstein, which replaced them—do not involve the
arrow of time. As such, physics’ concept of entropy becomes
a requisite for reality to be as is.
In the theory of gravimotion, motion-volumes, which are
oriented, replace relativity. That indirectly justifies the elu-
siveness (no physical existence) of the concept of entropy.
115
Newton’s second law

A force, F, applied to an object of matter, m, provides it an
acceleration, a, given by the equation F = ma.
Gravimotion unifies force and acceleration

Besides showing that the atomic mass is also the mass ap-
pearing in Newton’s second law, a fact taken for granted in
physics, gravimotion integrates both sides of the equation.
The external force is integrated to the internal acceleration in
gravimotion. See the sections “Gravimotion’s relationship to
physics’ atomic mass and Newton’s second law” and “Mass-
less matter summary” in chapter 9 (pages 78 and 79).
Gravimotion and life: Common denominator

Our own life is animated from within. Everyone feels the
spirit of life; it is embedded within our own physical body,
within matter’s very molecules and the atoms implementing
it. When life exits, the primordial effect is that the body at
first remains motionless.
The spirit of life appears unique and magical to us; internal
to us, it clashes head on with the motion of inert matter as
interpreted in physics. Mostly external forces, such as the
force of gravity, energize motion in physics.
The theory of gravimotion turns things around. Now, inert
matter is animated from within; the motion of matter and the
spirit of life are now similar; and since everything is in mo-
tion, the two now blend in the whole of Nature. This inter-
pretation fits the harmony of Nature.
Life is very likely the most extraordinary invention of Na-
ture. It deserves respect. And with gravimotion in mind, we
should also contemplate the simplest motion with high re-
gard. Cells—out of which life activity is configured—no
116
doubt fit better with life’s complexity than do subatomic par-

ticles, atoms, and molecules, which only configure inert mat-
ter. Yet internal activity very likely mends them all in har-
mony.
Newton’s third law

When an object exerts a force on another, the latter exerts
an equal and opposite force on the former.
The paradoxes of Newton’s laws

Newton’s first law is implicitly contained within Newton’s
second law. Simply make the force equal to zero in the sec-
ond law, and there is no acceleration; both motion and rest
remain unchanged! What is the purpose of Newton’s first
law?
On the other hand, the third law is mandated and once
stated, it backfires. The third law comes in contradiction with
the first! Let us see how the third law is mandated, and then
how it contradicts the first.
1. In some specific situations, Newton’s second law needs
to be adjusted, if not annihilated, in order to comply with the
first. Consider your own body on the ground—it is submitted
to the force of Earth’s gravity, yet not moving (not accelerat-
ing).
This is where the third law comes in handy; it takes care of
the situation! Newton’s third law magically annihilates that
force; it conveniently counterbalances it with the existence of
another force, which happens to be exactly opposite!
2. The contradiction is in its very necessity! According to
the first law, there is no force applied to objects at rest, so
why is there a force of reaction necessary when I am at rest
117
on the ground? The third law contradicts the first, which

states that no force is applied to an object at rest.
Yet there are some other justified questions. How would
an inert ground exactly know which force has to be provided
as to precisely counterbalance the force of gravity? Think of
it: that would involve the measurement of the weight of each
object and the subsequent application of a specific force!
Worse, taken to the letter, the third law forbids motion.
Here is the third law: when an object exerts a force on an-
other, the latter exerts an equal and opposite force on the
former. In all logic, when taking off in a plane, your body
should exert a force as strong as it is given…and you and
your seat should remain at rest on the tarmac! As such, the
third law applies only in very specific cases, the specificity of
which is not mentioned in the law.
Another paradox of Newton’s laws is in our mental ability
to combine linear and rotational motion. In some situations,
we intuitively choose the appropriate laws while we somehow
neglect to apply the detrimental laws.
Einstein explains how the motion of the fixed stars in the
firmament—for which the law of inertia certainly applies—
mandates a coordinate system relative to which these stars do
not move around and around as they would if the coordinate
system were attached to the Earth.
Applying Einstein’s argument to our own Earth, which
does move in circles around the sun, why is the law of inertia
held to a high degree of approximation for Earth’s own circu-
lar motion? As everyone knows, it is the law of inertia (com-
bined with the sun’s gravity) that maintains the motion of
Earth in a circle around the sun.
118
Somehow, our human mind accommodates, with the most

natural ability, these opposite situations and chooses the ap-
propriate laws!
The most extravagant paradox of all concerning Newton’s
laws is its omission of constant spin, exposed later in this
book.
Maxwell’s equations
Even though it might appear out of context, Maxwell’s
equations belong here, 12 after Newton’s laws and before rela-
tivity theory, as they play a primordial role in the develop-
ment of the latter.
The Maxwell equations involve electric charges, their mo-
tion, and ensuing fields, and are traditionally reduced to four
in number.
The first equation states that electric charges create electric
fields and the latter are proportional to the density of the
former.
The second states that a variation of a magnetic field cre-
ates a rotational electric field.
The third states that magnetic fields, unlike electric fields,
are always balanced. There is always a south pole neutralizing
a north pole, and as such there is no mathematic need for a
magnetic charge as there is for an electric charge. A magnetic
charge is null.
The fourth states that an electric current generates a rota-
tional magnetic field.
In the following, we will see how the first equation fails to
explain the subsequent discovery of the photoelectric effect
and how that deficiency contributed to the establishment of
the theory of relativity.
119
Before we get there, though, it must be mentioned that

Maxwell also discovered through his own theory that the
speed of light is finite; he even calculated that speed with
amazing accuracy.
Speed of light and speed of matter

Before Maxwell, the speed of light was thought to be infi-
nite.
Although Maxwell asserted that the speed of light is finite,
his equations do not forbid matter to travel faster than light.
To summarize, up until 1865, neither the speed of light nor
the speed of matter was limited; in that year, speed of light
became finite yet motion of matter remained unrestricted—
and that did not change until the advent of relativity with
Einstein early in the twentieth century.
The Lorentz transformation

In between Maxwell and Einstein came Lorentz, a mathe-
matician.
Lorentz mathematically related time, distance, speed of
objects, and the finite speed of light, newly calculated by
Maxwell. And that relation is now appropriately called the
“Lorentz transformation.” It allows one to calculate the
“time” it takes light to travel from its own source to a moving
object. The Lorentz transformation provides that time as a
function of the respective speeds of the moving object and of
the light.
Introduction of the ether

In the Lorentz transformation, the speed of the object is
relative to the source (of light) chosen as reference; and the
invariant speed of light is referred or relative to a third party,
120
which in the mind of Lorentz was an ether that filled an oth-

erwise empty space and that was transmitting light just as air
transmits sound.
The time provided by the Lorentz transformation is in the
form of a fraction whose denominator becomes zero when
the speed of the object reaches the speed of light. 13
Simply speaking, in physics, when an object reaches the
speed of light, time becomes “mathematically” infinite.
At this point, you, the reader, are dealing with three
worlds: the world of reality, which each one of us experi-
ences; the world of physics, which is the world of Newton,
Maxwell, and Einstein; and the gravimotion’s theory world.
The finite speed of light

Since Maxwell’s time, light has been a moving entity,
whose motion is absolute—that is, in accordance with reality
(experiments)—and all physicists concurred, including Ein-
stein. In physics’ terms, the speed of light in a vacuum is in-
variant—300,000 km/s.
The flashlight experiment

With that finite speed of light in mind, let’s hold in our
hand a flashlight, turn it on, and send its beam away from us
and toward a mirror in such a way our eyes can see the re-
flected beam.
Now imagine the mirror is receding from us. And instead
of going along with the belief that nothing material can move
as fast as light, let the motion of the mirror increase and ex-
ceed that of light. In these conditions, the light beam, which
now is slower than the mirror, will no longer be able to reach
the latter and will never return to our eyes. This is “simple
mechanics”!
121
Common sense along with simple mathematics show and

dictate that the time it takes the beam of light to reach the
mirror becomes infinite when the mirror reaches the speed of
light; “physically,” the light cannot reach the mirror if the
mirror escapes at an equal or faster rate (than light).
Note that this juxtaposition of motions (namely, motions
of light and mirror) doesn’t put into question the absolute
motion of light.
Light interpreted as a messenger and its limitations

In the flashlight experiment, light is considered as a mes-
senger, going back and forth between the mirror in motion
and our eyes; should we choose another messenger, even in
physics, the object in motion (the mirror) would have to
move in slower motion than that of the messenger chosen,
otherwise the latter would lose track of it and so would we.
An analogy can be found with the propagation of sound
waves. Bats are known to locate objects and prey with built-in
sound radar. They emit a sound that rebounds on the prey
and returns to an earlike organ. Sound plays the role of the
messenger for the bats. Their brain compares the emitted and
returned sound waves and provides them an exact direction
and distance of the prey. Evidently, if a plane goes by at Mach
2 (twice as fast as sound), the bat’s sound radar will not be
able to locate it!
This is simple mechanics, and the loss of reflection or loss
of signal is inherent to waves and matter alike. Think of a
Ping-Pong game and ball. If the racket on which the ball is
supposed to rebound is moving backward (instead of for-
ward) faster than the incoming ball, the ball has no chance to
rebound and the point is lost!
122
In the theory of gravimotion, light is but a tool that allows

us to observe motion; light acts as a messenger—between the
observer and the moving object—and has its own limitations.
Most importantly, in the gravimotion theory, light is not
empowered by Nature to prescribe its own speed as a limit
for the motion of material objects.
Evidently, since it is the motion of electrons that creates
light waves and, in return, light waves have the ability to
move electrons, interactions occur between light and matter
(electrons) if an object is reduced to an electron. An electron
is above all an electrical entity, just as light and electromag-
netic waves are.
Why do speeds of material objects not exceed the speed

of light in physics?
In the previous section, motion is considered to be abso-
lute for both light and mirror. The motion of either one is
compared to the other.
In physics, motion doesn’t exist. Only speeds appear in
equations of physics. Now choosing the speed of light as a
reference for the speed of the mirror, as expressed in the
Lorentz transformation (V/C), it is evident that the speed of
the former will never reach the speed of the latter. In physics
and according to the Lorentz transformation, the mirror will
instead take an infinite time to reach speed of light.
Light (electromagnetic waves) and matter interaction

Behind the human invention of relative speed, as used in
physics, a physical phenomenon—a factual interaction—
occurs within the space shared by the human eyes or the ex-
perimental apparatus detecting light.
123
The resident quanta implementing the translation of the

electromagnetic wave in space interact with the eyes’ elec-
tron’s electric auras and gravimotion’s motion-volumes.
Should sound waves be considered instead, they would
interact locally with the gravimotion of the human’s inner
ears’ cells.
In all logic, in addition to the very existence of light rays
and of our human body, such interactions only occur physi-
cally.
The photoelectric effect

When light rays hit a photoelectric material, the electrons
within (when sufficiently energized) are extracted through the
material surface barrier. The phenomenon is known as the
photoelectric effect.
Precise measurements show that the extraction of the elec-
trons is independent of the intensity of the light, as defined
by Maxwell’s first equation, but instead directly controlled by
its frequency.
If the frequency is too low, no electrons are emitted, and
increasing the amplitude will just not change the situation.
Higher frequencies, though, will emit electrons, with energies
(their speed) increasing with the frequency.
Once the frequency is high enough to emit electrons, an
increase in the amplitude of the wave increases the number of
electrons emitted but not their energy. On the other hand,
once the frequency of a wave emits electrons, it does so, no
matter how low one reduces its amplitude.
The photoelectric effect pretty well matches the “Electro-
magnetic waves’ energetic characteristics” as expressed in this
gravimotion theory (chapter 10, page 91).
124
Gravimotion and the Relativity Theory
Einstein’s interpretation of the photoelectric effect; the

introduction of the photon
The Maxwell equations are clear: the amplitude of the elec-
tromagnetic wave only carries energy; as such, the en-
ergy/frequency relationship of the photoelectric phenome-
non presents a dilemma.
At the turn of the twentieth century and to explain the ra-
diation of hot matter, Max Planck suggested that light came
in quanta of energy.
In order to interpret the photoelectric effect, Einstein used
the idea; he declared that light acted as matter particles collid-
ing with the electrons, giving up energy. He mathematically
assimilated that energy to the frequency of the wave, which
explained the lack of emission at low frequencies, and Max-
well’s equations remained as is.
The quantum of light, since labeled the photon, is a virtual
particle. Its virtual mass is neutral electrically, just as real
mass; its mathematical identification to frequency is a perfect
(virtual) match because the photon behaves as material parti-

cles do in that the energy carried by their frequency is relative,
just as kinetic energy in motion of matter is.
While that plugs the loophole left unknowingly by Max-
well in his equations, it also introduces incoherence in the
theory. Physics’ wave/photon duality is impossible to under-
stand, let alone to implement physically. In addition, physics’
photon, neither positive nor negative electrically, deprives the
wave of its electromagnetic fundamental characteristic.
Nevertheless, since then, physicists have embraced this
interpretation, and Einstein was even awarded the Nobel
Prize for it.
The photoelectric psychological effect

The interpretation of light waves as particles is quite dras-
tic in itself. Yet that is of little consequences when compared
to the impact that invention has on physics’ interpretation of
the motion of matter.
In physics, light waves, as particle photons, now travel as
matter does—without any support—and must now comply
with the rules of mechanics!
The sudden apparition of this new contingency in phys-
ics—here labeled the “photoelectric-psychological effect”—
triggered an unprecedented chain of events in physics.
In a nutshell, Einstein’s interpretation deprives the elec-
tromagnetic wave of its fundamental characteristic, which is
to be electromagnetic. With the photon, the wave’s activity
becomes electrically neutral; its frequency acts as the neutral
mass of any other material particle.
And as a consequence, in the photoelectric phenomenon,
an electron is dislodged through mechanical rather than elec-
trical effects—a procedure too often used in physics.
126
In gravimotion, by contrast, light remains electromagnetic

and the electron is above all an electric charge and aura; it
doesn’t even have any mass that could be grabbed to move it
around. In this theory of gravimotion, electromagnetic inter-
actions only take place in the photoelectric effect.
The triggering events behind the theory of relativity

Einstein uncovered an anomaly. He stated that the abso-
lute motion of light creates a dilemma with respect to the
relative speed of matter and that a new theory was manda-
tory.
Obviously, light rays traveling at an absolute speed do not
obey the rules of mechanics’ relative speed. This dilemma no
doubt originates out of the photoelectric-psychological effect,
which puts motion of light on par with that of matter. Only
once light waves have been deprived of their electromagnetic
characteristics and muted to become electrically neutral parti-
cles does that contradiction become apparent.
Einstein asserts that we cannot abandon the principle of
relativity. Because it is so evident and simple, it must be true.
Yet the speed of light constancy in vacuum, now interpreted
as photons’ particles, is also a reality!
The theory of relativity in a nutshell

The relativity theory consists of three sections: the princi-
ple of relativity in its restricted sense introduced earlier in this
book, and the special and the general theories described next.
The special theory of relativity

Einstein invented the special theory (1905) that allows the
principle of relativity to be kept as is, in spite of the absolute
motion of light.
127
The special theory of relativity reconciles the principle of

relativity with the law of propagation of light at the expense
of the traditional concepts that we have of space and time.
The theory compels both space and time to be variable. The
traditional view that prevailed until then was that time runs
independently of anything else and that both time and space
were invariant.
The special theory of relativity. To dissolve the apparent in-

compatibility between the principle of relativity and the speed
of light, Einstein came up with a revolutionary idea; he stated
that both space and time are variable rather than unalterable.
Now space and time vary along with the speed of an object
relative to that of light. When the speed of a rocket increases,
time on board, as observed from outside, slows and space
within the rocket shrinks in on itself.
These subterfuges reconcile the absolute speed of light,
whose speed cannot be modified, to the relativity principle,
which states that speeds are relative or depend on the refer-
ence system chosen.
In that theory, the dependency of time on speed is called
time dilation, and the exact dependency obeys the Lorentz
transformation.
Allowing time periods to lengthen with increasing speeds,
relative to the absolute speed of light and in accordance with
the Lorentz transformation, consequently renders the dura-
tion of time infinite when reaching speed of light. In effect,
the speed of light becomes an absolute speed limit that can
no longer be reached.
Another consequence of the theory is that nothing occurs
“instantaneously” across space from one place to another;
with respect to gravitation, since its origin is mass (in phys-
128
ics); at best, it is translated from mass to point of effect at the

speed of light.
Speed of light as a maximum speed limit for matter

Suddenly, in physics, the speed of light becomes an abso-
lute speed limit that cannot be reached by matter. This for-
bidden speed is neither natural nor intuitive for us human
beings. Light speed imposed as a speed limit upon matter is
implied by the combination of an intellectual principle (rela-
tivity) and a mathematical proposition (Lorentz transforma-
tion). Amazingly, the cosmos complies with the “idea” we
make of it, using exclusively electromagnetic waves as mes-
sengers.
Light: One reality, two drastically opposite interpreta-

tions
Common sense prescribes that we lose visual contact with
an object that gets close to speed of light simply because the
speed of light is finite. And the Lorentz transformation goes
along, stating mathematically that a beam of light will take an
infinite time to reach an object moving at its own speed (of
light). Simply speaking, light cannot catch up with objects
moving as fast as it does.
Einstein’s theory of relativity interprets that same reality
the other way around. In his theory, it takes instead an infinite
time for an object to reach speed of light. That represents a
drastic turnaround in human thinking and I personally believe
this is why the theory is so attractive and why, since then, all
physicists have embraced it. Lo and behold, the Lorentz
transformation confirms that interpretation; better yet, the
Lorentz transformation is the basis of the relativity theory.
The transformation allows values of time to be calculated as a
129
function of speed or, more exactly, as a function of the ratio

of speed of matter to that of light. For example, should the
speed of an object reach that of light, the time calculated be-
comes infinite.
Light speed in physics and in gravimotion

In the gravimotion theory, light is not granted any specific
power that allows it to forbid an object to move faster than it
does. The speed of light is finite and can be reached, even if
that mandates the stalling of time or its physical demise. Light
rays are only messengers and play no role in the motion of
objects. Only common sense is involved there!
Evidently, if an object is reduced to an electron, some in-
teraction will occur between the electron and the wave. That
is only natural because, in the first place, electrons in motion
produce light rays.
One point is clear: both interpretations of Nature, relativ-
ity and gravimotion, though opposite each other, are mathe-
matically valid through the Lorentz transformation.
Light behavior in gravimotion and in physics

As a variant of the flashlight experiment described earlier,
suppose that you see a flashlight moving toward you instead
of holding it. And let us furthermore suppose that it acceler-
ates and ends up moving faster than light; then, faster than
instantaneously, the flashlight would hit you from “out of
nowhere” while you still see it “out there”!
In this latest experiment, the flashlight and the observer
are moving with respect to each other; they do not in the first
experiment, in which the observer holds the flashlight and
where only the mirror is moving.
130
To explain the first or the mirror experiment, the theory of

relativity limits the speed of the mirror to that of light, a con-
tingency judged unjustified and unnecessary in this book.
Then to explain this second experiment, physics is com-
pelled to introduce an additional phenomenon yet, that of
antiparticles, which takes care of motions that are neverthe-
less faster than light. If speeds faster than light occur, physics’
concept of antiparticles is not needed. For instance in physics
there are three types of beta decay. In the positive beta decay,
the unstable nucleus of an atom ejects a positron (electron
antiparticle), while a proton of that nucleus becomes a neu-
tron, in effect gaining an electron. Later, somewhere else in
space, the ejected positron annihilates an electron that “hap-
pens” to be there. Through that interpretation, the hit occur-
ring “out of nowhere” in the second flashlight experiment
would create both a flashlight and an anti-flashlight; the latter
would travel backward toward the apparent flashlight over
there in space and upon encounter would cause it to disinte-
grate.
Light considered as a messenger between the various mo-
tions—the interpretation in gravimotion theory—takes care
of both experiments indiscriminately, without any added con-
siderations or inventions.
Physics will always be right

As long as we consider motion to be relative, as done in
physics, and at same time use light to observe motion, we
cannot be wrong! The Lorentz transformation will corrobo-
rate all experimental results that involve observation of mo-
tion through light. Furthermore, with the invention of anti-
particles, speeds faster than light (motion not observable with
light) are mathematically taken care of.
131
Einstein’s interpretation is not only clever, it also is prag-

matic because everything in the cosmos is observed using
light and electromagnetic waves. Physics cannot be wrong!
The hinge between relativity and gravimotion

In gravimotion, motion itself is interpreted independently
of the light used to observe it.
The Lorentz transformation acts as a hinge between gra-
vimotion and the theory of relativity; intrinsically true, it mir-
rors Nature in the real background, while it can be interpreted
in either of two ways, relativity and gravimotion.
Relativity and gravimotion

There is no conflict between the special theory of relativity
and gravimotion. The special theory of relativity resolves a
conflict of interest internal only to physics.
In gravimotion, all propagations are absolute; distant rela-
tivity is physically inconsequential. Physical interactions,
within shared time and space, replace relativity and ignore the
necessary times needed to enforce that distant relativity.
The relativity of relativity of motion

The speed of light is the basis of the theory of relativity.
And as a matter of fact, light is coincidental to our ability to
observe relative motion and not motion itself.
We do not see nonrelative yet real motion; we do not see
the motion of Earth while standing on it, for instance. While
standing on Earth and acting as a reference system, we can-
not describe the motion of Earth’s landscape relative to the
sun. In physics, the reference system has to be carefully cho-
sen relative to the very motion to be described; in effect, the
relativity of motion is arbitrarily relative—its relativity de-
132
pends upon human selection of an appropriate relative refer-

ence system.
The relativity of motion is all relative!
The perception of motion and motion

As mentioned in above section, we do not see nonrelative
motion; we exclusively perceive relative motion and we con-
clude motion is relative.
In the gravimotion theory, motion is nonrelative; relativity
is specific to our perception of motion and is not a character-
istic of motion itself. Motion is energetic.
Einstein’s incongruous interpretation of Fizeau’s ex-

periment
Einstein cites the experiment of Fizeau as a fundamental
proof in favor of his theory.
The experiment consists of a glass pipe filled with water.
Light aligned with the pipe is fed into it. Fizeau measured
physically that when the water is in motion, the speed of light
with respect to the tube follows the Lorentz transformation
rather than the basic addition of speeds.
Einstein compared the experiment to his favorite analogy,
which is the train, the embankment, and the man walking in-
side the train. He states that the pipe plays the role of the
embankment, or the role of a coordinate system K; the water
plays the role of the train, or the role of a coordinate system
K′; and the light plays the role of the man walking inside the
train.
But how can matter (the man) play the role of light? Or
how do light rays, which are assimilated to the man, climb
133
“on board” water? In the train example, the light rays travel
in a vacuum and not in the train.
Maybe the comparison is valid, yet simple logic suggests
that light cannot be likened to matter (the man in the train).
The special theory of relativity dilemma

Once enunciated, the special theory of relativity created a
problem of its own.
Einstein realized that his scientific impressionism, namely
the mysterious yet incredibly realistic image of space and
time—the special theory of relativity instilled in the human
minds—was in direct conflict with Newton’s cause of gravita-
tion. Newton’s force of gravitation, which involves mass and
distance, occurs instantaneously across space and that cannot
be, because the special theory of relativity states that nothing
can go faster than the speed of light.
By the way, this latest dilemma and its solution prove be-
yond any doubt that physicists believe that gravitation travels
in empty space from mass to the point of effect. Physicists do
not think that gravitation is an entity of its own; they think it
is a by-product of mass. However, in gravimotion theory,
gravitation is a configuration of space and not an offshoot of
mass. Actually, in this book, gravitation is also a by-product
of matter—but matter is not made of mass, it is made of solid
electrical plasma. That reverses the situation; the concept of
mass, which produces gravitation in physics, is instead a by-
product of gravitation in this book, as shown in chapter 6.
In the meantime, Minkowski, Einstein’s own former pro-
fessor of mathematics, came up with the concept of space-
time. Using imaginary numbers (square root of −1), Min-
kowski showed that space-time’s four dimensions could be
134
mathematically manipulated just as space’s three dimensions

are.
The general theory of relativity

The general theory of relativity’s essential feature is that
mass curves space-time on itself. Now, time as well as space
is involved in the transmission of gravity, whose origin is
mass; the space-time curvature overcomes the problem posed
by special relativity.
Space-time conflict of interest and curvature incongruity

Whereas traditional physics’ reference system is three di-
mensional in space, the theory of relativity introduces a
fourth dimension: time. And in the science of physics, both
the four-dimensional space-time and its old counterpart
three-dimensional space are essentially treated on the same
footing. For example, both are continuous.
Yet while we can move at will, in any direction within any
one of space’s three dimensions, and that is the essence of
our very freedom, we are manipulated instead by time! Should
time exist, it is acting on our body! Even though we would
like to go backward in time, it compels us to move ahead!
What kind of dimension is that, which evolves in us as we do
in space? In spite of Einstein’s assertion, the concept of time
as a fourth dimension doesn’t fit at all space’s very three di-
mensions! Time is a live entity, not an inert dimension!
In favor of the theory of relativity, physicists like to men-
tion that in addition to its remarkable predictions, it provides
motion with a physical cause. They claim that through gravi-
tation an object in motion is physically managed by space-
time. In the theory of relativity, mass physically curves space-
time and space-time physically moves mass. But that creates a
135
contradiction; space-time becomes physical in spite of space’s

nonexistence in its vacuum format. In the 1880s, Michelson
and Morley proved experimentally that light travels inde-
pendently of any support in vacuum—a result rebutted later
in this book.
In addition, how does one envision emptiness (the lack of
any ether) as being curved and stressed? This incongruity re-
joins physics’ list of incompatible dualities.
The justification of the concept of gravimotion

When accelerating in a gravitation field—for instance,
when diving head first into a pool—we do not feel a force
pushing on our feet. The individual cells of our entire body
are individually accelerated. Strangely enough, this is not the
case in the theory of relativity. In relativity, the diver feeling
no force is not accelerated! Gravimotion’s theory differs on
that point and we will come back to that subject.
A mechanical acceleration such as the one we feel when
riding in a car accelerating itself is definitely different. In the
car, the seat pushes us; we specifically feel something on our
back.
Because it is felt under our feet when at rest on Earth, it is
the latter (the acceleration felt on our back) that Einstein
identifies with the force of gravitation (felt under our feet),
even though we are neither moving nor accelerated!
In this book, the forces of gravity at rest and acceleration
(the latter being mechanical or gravitational, as in free fall) are
interpreted and modeled separately. Depending on the situa-
tion, gravimotion provides many more details than does phys-
ics; for instance, the force of gravity under our feet is static
(gravimotion’s active skew only) and the force of gravity in
136
action while under free fall is dynamic (internal active offset).

That distinction alone justifies gravimotion.
Strong force and black hole

The law of physics states that the smaller the distance be-
tween two objects, the higher the force of gravitation. At its
limit, if the distance is null, the force of gravity becomes infi-
nite. Why is this potentially infinite force ignored and a brand
new strong force invented for the atom’s nucleus? Why the
invention of a strong force that happens to act only at minute
distances?
It is even more surprising in view of the black hole singu-
larity! The infinite energy at the center of the black hole is
consequential to the fact that at infinitely small distances the
force of gravity becomes infinite. In physics, the strong force
is used in the atom’s center yet ignored at the center of the
black hole, while the gravitation force is ignored in the atom
nucleus and used in the black hole singularity.
Speed as fast as light

And, by the way, black holes add another controversy be-
cause they create forces allowing for the speed of light! Ob-
jects now move at light speed energized out of huge, yet fi-
nite, concentration of matter. Inside black holes, physics’
speeds occur as fast as light! And the origin of any black hole
is a finite amount of matter.
In gravimotion, finite energies, precisely mc2, simply do
the job reaching speed of light.
137
Einstein’s inspiring role

Introduced after Newton’s virtual gravitation field, Ein-
stein’s space-time represents a fundamental step in the human
interpretation of reality; it is a revolutionary idea. Yet Einstein
could have gone one step further: Why would space-time
around Earth not mingle with any falling object’s own space-
time?
Gravimotion unifies cause and effect

In physics, matter acting on space-time and vice versa is an
intricate and confusing maze of one-way paths. How does
matter “decide” whether it acts on space (curves space-time)
or is acted upon by space (is deviated by space-time)?
This confusion all but disappears with gravimotion’s own
logic, which unifies cause and effect. If we had used physics’
notion of space-time, its curvature would not control the de-
viation of the matter as a retaining barrier does; its curvature
would mix instead with the object’s own space-time, which
then would control the motion of its own matter.
Cause and effect are unified in the gravimotion theory,
simply by redefining them as being of an identical type.
Not surprisingly, integrating cause and effect comes at a
cost. First, we lose the exquisite mathematical accuracy ob-
tained in physics, and then it tremendously complicates the
presentation because now much less represents much more.
As an illustration of this, try to imagine a treatise of physics in
which those two simple words “speed” and “position” would
be banished!
Yet in the theory of gravimotion, much more is provided
to distinguish free fall and weight than there is in physics.
138
Physics of Uncertainty
Uncertainty of measure, margin of error

Unlike mathematics, which is an absolute science, physics
is not. In physics, any measurement is provided with a spe-
cific margin of error.
This is actually comforting because one is assured, within a
provided range, that the results are “true.”
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle enunciation

Let’s consider a particle, such as an electron, moving along
a straight line. Let’s mark on the line a point P, defining its
position in time. Let’s call its velocity vP. Heisenberg discov-
ered that the more accurate our knowledge of position P is,
the less accurate our knowledge of the velocity vp is. Con-
versely, the more accurate our knowledge of the velocity, the
less accurate our knowledge of the position.
Another expression of the principle involves momentum
rather than velocity. The uncertainty of the particle’s position
and momentum are complementary in such a way that the
product of the two is constant. The knowledge we have of

either one is at the expense of the other.
In the first enunciation above, the principle opposes speed
and position, while the second opposes momentum and posi-
tion. The above two enunciations are only specific aspects of
a much more comprehensive principle that applies to many
other entities.
The concept of position is doomed anyway

When an object is moving, no mathematical position can
be considered, and that makes sense because the object is not
at rest. So if we know its speed, its position is indeterminate.
Yet when in a well-known position, an object is not de-
prived of motion either; disregarding the motion of the refer-
ence system doesn’t physically suppress the real motion of
reference and object as a whole.
Besides, the uncertainty of measure is another insur-
mountable uncertainty embedded within the mathematical
concept of position. By the way, the concept of position is
dismissed in this book, thereby solving that insurmountable
uncertainty.
Physicists’ interpretation of the uncertainty principle

In its intrinsic interpretation, if the position of a moving
object is precisely known, its speed becomes undefined; if the
speed is known instead, the position is absolutely undefined.
Modern physicists give the uncertainty principle an entirely
different meaning, in which the position loses its theoretical
meaning.
To illustrate this other interpretation, according to the
principle, the center of gravity of a golf ball traveling in an
intercontinental jet can be positioned well within the nucleus
140
of an atom on Earth. On the other hand, the exact position

of an electron cannot be defined to better than a volume 500
times the size of an atom!
And here is an application of the principle. As already
mentioned, the atom is just about 40,000 times larger than its
own nucleus. Evidently the electrons, charged negatively,
should fall in on the positively charged nucleus. But physicists
assert that if an electron were to be close to the nucleus, it
would then occupy an exact position. Yet that is contrary to
the uncertainty principle; it would instead have to be ex-
tremely agitated and would have high momentum and high
kinetic energy. And such an erratic energy would then expel it
away. Any electron ends up in an indecisive state, electrically
attracted to the nucleus, while expelled by the uncertainty
principle. In spite of our uneasiness about the application of
the principle in this specific case, physics’ interpretation is
that an energetic equilibrium occurs, which in turn defines the
size of the atom. Yet, by the same token, the physical concept
of position becomes in physics the opposite of its mathemati-
cal definition. A position becomes an impossible situation
instead of a place well defined with coordinates.
The uncertainty principle applied to the electron’s velocity
provides further enlightenment. The more precise the meas-
urement of the position, the less precise the measurement of
the velocity—and vice versa. Suppose you could trap an elec-
tron in an electron-proof container and reduce progressively
the volume of that container in order to compel the electron
into a precise position: The electron would become more and
more agitated, as if the disappearance of its vital space created
a despaired situation. Now in physics, the electron’s position
is assimilated to an energetic motion and a position assimi-
lated to a frantic motion.
141
Uncertainty principle, physicists’ interpretation rebuttal

In the first example, described in the section “Physicists’
interpretation of the uncertainty principle” immediately
above, the position of an atom’s electron is not better known
than within the 500 surrounding atoms. This is contradictory
to the composition of molecules as explained by the quantum
theory. In matter, the valence electrons occupy a very precise
“orbital,” within much tighter quarters. And that allows us,
for instance, to precisely know with which angle two atoms
of oxygen are attached to the atom of hydrogen in a water
molecule. The valence electrons, even if considered as clouds,
must be located within the molecule of water; otherwise, the
water molecule would have no integrity of its own.
The second example—which, by the way, is itself in fla-
grant contradiction with the first because the electron is now
kept well within tighter quarters—involves Feynman’s expla-
nation of a hydrogen atom. In this book, a physical resonance
phenomenon naturally maintains the electron close by (see
the next section). Feynman’s evocation of the uncertainty
principle coincides with an unnatural situation; the electron is
constantly (and magically) mandated to act in the opposite
way it is striving for.
In the third example, an electron becomes frantically agi-
tated when confined in a smaller and smaller volume. While
compelling, this evidence is not conclusive! It suggests that
when you reduce the volume in which you consider the elec-
tron, the latter magically gets more kinetic energy! But that
would break the conservation energy law unless some energy
is given to the electron while its motion becomes more and
more frantic. Now think of a Ping-Pong paddle getting closer
to (moving toward) the Ping-Pong ball; it is easy to under-
stand how the electron in its diminishing solid box gets more
142
and more frantic! Its behavior is not due to the uncertainty

principle but to the very motion of the sides of the diminish-
ing solid box, on which it relentlessly rebounds.
Interaction resonance
In gravimotion, the electron does not fall onto the nucleus
of a hydrogen atom for another reason, which is a resonance
phenomenon. In this book, the electromagnetic properties of
the moving electron are opposite to that of the nucleus (a
proton), which is also spinning and vibrating; the two happen
to be in tune with each other, and that resonance is sufficient
to define the physical (geometrical) size of the atom. Should
the electron get closer to the nucleus, their mutual motions
would vary, their mutual interaction getting untuned—in ef-
fect, forbidding the electron to get closer to the nucleus. The
same phenomenon would occur should the electron try to
escape the atom. In this interpretation, the interaction is in
dynamic equilibrium (in tune).
The concept of position identified with its opposite

(frantic motion)
The most compelling criticism one can have about the
above interpretation of the uncertainty principle is that
nowadays the notion of position (per definition at rest and
well defined mathematically with four stable coordinates in
space-time) is mysteriously identified with its opposite! Fran-
tic motion is identified with rest. This is as difficult to under-
stand as the duality of light is! With this interpretation of the
principle, the “exclusive” knowledge we have at either one of
the two limits is merged instead with the other to form an-
other of physics’ impossible physical dualities.
143
Now extremely high energy and jerky motion are inti-

mately associated with the notion of position.
Motion ambiguity in physics

The appeal of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle resides
in the fact that it packages the two contradictory concepts of
dynamism and position into a neat, rigorous, concise mathe-
matical expression. Yet that new paradox is just another as-
pect of the Zeno paradox described at the beginning of this
book.
It is evident that while in motion one cannot occupy “a
position.” On the other hand, that doesn’t mean or mandate
that if a subatomic particle should slow down, its motion
should also become unpredictable and go haywire!
The magnificent mathematical simplicity of the uncertainty
principle induces our thinking ability to abandon all logic!
The quantum vacuum

The very emptiness of space or vacuum is what makes the
“quantum vacuum” magical! From gravimotion’s pure activity
point of view, that magic disappears. Yet pure activity and its
various configurations (radial activity, gravimotion, and elec-
tric auras) are as fascinating as the quantum vacuum, if not
more so, simply because the theory is realistic!
Physics’ quantum vacuum is quite different; it allows anti-
particles encountering real particles to magically annihilate
each other. Under special conditions—near black holes, for
instance, a phenomenon discovered by Stephen Hawking—
paired particles/antiparticles can emerge out of nothing; now
the quantum vacuum (nothing) is also something as it plays a
role. Out of it, something emerged, even though that happens
close to a strong source of energy.
144
In particle physics, space-time—which is empty—also

swarms with an untold number of unseen particles that can
promptly appear in existence and annihilate just as quickly.
This highlights the differences between physics and this
gravimotion. In physics, only particles, virtual and real, exist;
they roam in an otherwise empty space. In gravimotion, there
is no empty space—space is a physical entity implemented
through pure activity, similar to heat energy, discontinuous
and made of quanta (see chapters 7 and 8).
Space is continuous in physics

Starting with Galileo, physicists have believed space is con-
tinuous. Newton came up with the differential calculus that
mathematically implemented that belief, and Einstein concurs
that space-time is continuous. Since then, in both quantum
and relativity theories, space is considered to be continuous
even though nonexistent as a physical entity and certainly not
in the form of an ether.
Mathematically, an infinite sum of infinitesimal quantities
of space (distance, surface, or volume) yields a finite quantity
of the same entity of space.
The concept of quantum in physics

In physics, the notion of quantum doesn’t forbid the no-
tion of continuity. And a quantum of energy is not necessarily
the smallest quantity of energy.
By contrast, in the theory of gravimotion, there is nothing
smaller than a motion-quantum, space is not a continuum and
the integrity of matter is maintained through motion-quanta.
145
Part III
Thoughts about …
Thoughts about Speed
As a reminder, speed is a concept of physics and is not

honored in the gravimotion theory.
Speed relativity is complex

Relative speeds add up. If you walk at a speed of two miles
per hour while you are inside a train that is traveling at sixty
miles an hour in the same direction, you are moving at sixty-
two miles per hour. And this is physically “true,” because if
you make the experiment, once you walked an hour you
would have moved exactly sixty-two miles in the countryside!
Evidently that represents a long train!
In this example, speeds are relative to the countryside and
this is physically all right.
The fact that speeds do add up appears physical; by con-
trast, the relativity of motion appears mathematical in es-
sence, with no physical support. Relativity appears elusive
because there is no physical link relating the motion consid-
ered and the reference system considering it. In the train ex-
ample, in “reality,” there are contact points between the feet

of the pedestrian and the train and others between the wheels
of the train and Earth. In “physics,” when the reference sys-
tem is chosen, these contacts all but disappear. The physical
relation from “material” is switched to “imaginary” (namely,
the coordinates); the relation becomes detached or remote
with no physical contact. The physical relation becomes
imaginary. Relativity is now virtual.
Relativity is complex because while ignoring the physical
contacts, it introduces another type of connection (light).
Speeds are not simply relative; they are remotely relative (re-
lated) through light.
In gravimotion theory, physical contact—better yet, physi-
cal overlap—remains primordial. And if there is none visible
to us, as in between the relative motion of moon and Earth,
there is nevertheless one, namely gravimotion.
Speed of light is absolute

If one measures the speed of the light of a star, it is always
found to be 300,000 km/s, no matter the motion of Earth
with respect to the star.
The speed of light is independent of the motion of the
source with respect to the observer. That is the main factor,
which makes it absolute.
And in physics, light is neither carried by nor part of ether.
Speed concept inconsistency

Speed is relative; it can only be expressed with respect to a
reference, yet the speed of light is not, and does not need any
reference to be expressed.
150
Part III: Thoughts about…
How can one use the same word—speed—for two oppo-

site concepts? How can the concept of speed (itself) be rela-
tive and absolute at same time?
If one believes in the unity of Nature, speed can only be
either all relative or wholly absolute, but certainly not both.
This controversy comes and adds to speed’s own mathe-
matical inconsistency (covered in the next section).
The solution, adopted in the gravimotion theory, is to
dismiss the concept of speed altogether and consider activity
(energy in action) instead. In this book, interactions between
things are energetic. Relativity across space and speeds at dis-
tance has no physical implementation or equivalence. Elec-
tromagnetic waves and objects’ gravimotions and electric
auras interact only when they meet physically in time and
space. Light energy is interactive through both its frequency
and intensity.
Nevertheless, the theory of relativity mends both absolute
speed of light and relative speed of matter, rendering their
physical incompatibility mathematically compatible. And the
cost of the operation is very high: time and mass lose their
immunity and become a function of (relative) speed. Then,
while mass increases with (relative) speed, maximum (abso-
lute) speed is reached only by entities having no mass (light)!
Speed mathematical inconsistency

In elementary school, one learns how one cannot remove
apples from a bag of oranges. Mathematically, one can only
subtract oranges from oranges.
Then, in arithmetic, one learns how division is extended
subtraction. Out of a bag of ten oranges, one can subtract
five times two oranges, to end up with five equal amounts of
two oranges each—an operation called division in mathemat-
151
ics. One cannot divide ten oranges into five amounts of two
apples each!
With these fundamental principles in mind, how does one
explain the concept of speed, which is the division of distance
by time? Consider a distance of 120 miles physically material-
ized with milestones on the side of the highway. How do you
divide that stretch of highway into two hours?
While the question makes sense, everyone ignores it! And
if you travel at sixty mph, it will take two hours, so the divi-
sion does work!
How does our mind accept such incongruity?

It could be that the dynamic aspect of motion makes us
unconsciously identify the concept of a time unit to that of a
distance unit, in effect blurring the evident mathematical non-
sense.
Here is an illustration. Consider the rotation of Earth on
itself; the motion of a human being on the equator is just
about equal to 1,000 miles per hour; one hour of time is
therefore equivalent to 1,000 miles around the Earth’s axis at
the equator. With that equivalence in mind, a speed of 60
miles/hour becomes a valid mathematical rate of motion of
60/1000 of the equator’s motion. The concept of speed is not
distance over time but motion over a standard motion.
No matter the angle under which you confront the prob-
lem, should the concept of speed make any sense, time and
space must coalesce and be of same entity.
In the theory of gravimotion, temperatures replace speeds
squared. 14 Using temperatures allows us to avoid the concept
of speed and its unrealistic definition.
152
Space, time, motion-volume, and energy in action

In the theory of gravimotion—that is, independently of
the science of physics, yet using physics’ parameters—time
and space are intertwined through the concept of energy
when in action. The higher the energy spent, the longer the
distance covered in a given time by a car and the lower the
time necessary to cover a given distance by the same car. Dis-
tance (space) over time is equivalent to energy in action. Con-
cisely, distance/time ≈ energy in action. For a unit mass
(m=1), kinetic energy (mv2) and mass energy (mc2) are both
reduced to x2/t2, with x being a distance and t a time. Consid-
ering either the motion or the very entity of an object of unit
mass m=1, the equivalent energy is the ratio of a distance
over time.
The motion-volume does just that: it merges finite time
durations and finite stretches of space into energy in action.
See the section “A motion-volume is energy in action” in
chapter 2, page 8.
Justification of the expression “coordinated activity”

In the gravimotion theory, coordinated activity replaces
(more or less) the concept of velocity, as motion is above all
directed, the opposite of “at rest,” which has no direction.
Coordinated is also directed in the sense of managed. In
the word “coordinated” is the meaning of in concert or or-
chestrated—which is now the opposite of the heat phenome-
non.
Most importantly, coordinated activity is physically dy-
namic. The phrase “kinetic energy” is not used for two rea-
sons: first, it has no directional connotation, and second, ki-
153
netic energy can be inert. In Einstein’s equation, kinetic en-

ergy is equivalent to mass energy or inertia.
Theory of relativity, speed of light, and gravimotion

In the special theory of relativity, speeds take over practi-
cally everything. Speed becomes the controlling factor.
When speed increases, with respect to an observer, the
time (a clock) on the moving object appears to be slow (time
dilation) to the external observer. Then the mass of the object
increases, and along with its mass, the energy required to
speed it further. Beyond that, an infinite energy is required to
reach the speed of light. And that infinite energy is required
no matter the amount of mass accelerated to start with. The
speed of light becomes an absolute (forbidden) speed limit.
These are all the ingredients necessary to the special theory
of relativity in order to justify the fact that we always measure
the speed of light to be 300,000 km/s, no matter our own
motion with respect to it.
And all physical experiments and verifications that use
light to measure the speed of an object agree without excep-
tions. 15
In gravimotion theory, though, simple physics takes
precedence over the relativity of speed.
Whenever light interferes with motion, it does so for sim-
ple physical reasons too. For instance, electrons and light rays
(and electromagnetic waves at large) do interfere with each
other. The mutual interference existing between the two is
only natural, since it is the motion of the electrons, which in
the first place creates electromagnetic waves.
On the other hand, in gravimotion theory, light (when
used to observe motions, with which it has little interference)
154
is considered to be a messenger rather than an interfering en-

tity that has the power to enforce a speed limit.
One reason that could possibly be used to prove that the
speed of light is an absolute limit for matter is gravimotion
theory’s interpretation of matter being electrical in nature.
One could argue that matter cannot go faster than light, as
both are electrical in nature. But that doesn’t hold because the
core of matter is made of electric charges, while electromag-
netic waves are not. The two differ. And the speed of an elec-
tric charge could very well be higher than that of light, just as
a jet plane can go faster than the sound it emits.
An interesting coincidence between the theory of relativ-

ity and gravimotion.
In gravimotion, coordinated activity (a cousin of kinetic
energy) provides an interpretation of physics’ various speeds
of uniform motion. The intensity of motion is proportional
to it. This departs from (actually, is in conflict with) Newton’s
first law, which attributes uniform motion to inertia.
But with the advent of relativity, mass—and along with it,
inertia—increases with speed.
This section also highlights once more how physics misses
the coherence existing in Nature. Why is this phenomenon
(the added kinetic energy) not used as a cause for uniform
motion (it is mathematically ignored in Newton’s first law),
while it is used in the case of temperature? In physics, thermal
energy is kinetic energy added to the molecules of a body.
Motion at the speed of light and beyond

Both gravitation and gravimotion are limited in space.
Should gravitation and gravimotion be chosen in the mθc
155
(pronounced M theta C) amount, 16 only the finite amount mθc

would be needed to reach the speed of light.
This is in contradiction with the theory of relativity, in
which an infinite amount of energy instead is required to
reach the finite speed of light.
In this book, the amount of energy mθc is sufficient to
reach speed of light and, by the way, in physics that is pre-
cisely the energy level at which antiparticles happen to appear.
How can a particle exist in two places?

Suppose a particle travels on a trajectory A B. Up to A, it
travels at a speed lower that that of light; in between A and B
it travels faster than light. Finally, starting at B and beyond,
the particle again travels at a speed lower than that of light.
And let say that the light takes exactly a split second to get
from A to the observer’s eye. When the particle arrives in B,
the light will take precisely half a split second to appear in the
eye of the observer, because the distance from B to the ob-
server is chosen to be half of the distance A to the observer.
Now if you assume that the particle between A and B has
been accelerated faster than light at such a speed that it trav-
eled the distance A-B in exactly half a split second, the observer
will see the particle simultaneously in A and B!
156
In my opinion, this is exactly what happens in accelera-

tors, when physicists claim that a particle “can exist” in two
places at once!
157
Thoughts about Acceleration, Gravitation,
and Force
Force and acceleration energetic equivalence

Because acceleration, a, is a variation of speed over time,
Newton’s second law, F=ma, can be rewritten F=mv/t. Over
a distance L, this equation becomes LF=mvL/t. The term LF
is nothing else than work or energy, E, and the second term,
mvL/t, is mvv or mv2, which is kinetic energy (twice ½mv2).
In physics, both the force over distance, external to the
object, and the acceleration over the same distance, itself in-
ternal to the object, are equivalent to a modification of kinetic
energy over that distance.
Force and acceleration are unified in gravimotion

Force and acceleration are unified in gravimotion. 17
In this book, an influx (or outflow) of coordinated activity
into (or out of) gravimotion precisely coincides 18 with phys-
ics’ implicit kinetic energy variation over distance.
Justification of the motion-volume

Even though two absolutely different concepts in physics,
force and acceleration are identified, over distance, with a
variation of kinetic energy E=mv2 (see above). It mirrors and
justifies this book’s variation of coordinated activity and mo-
tion-volume.
Kinetic energy (mv2) also reminds us of Einstein’s equation
E=mc2. In physics, force and acceleration over distance also
look like mass energy!
In this book, everything is made of motion-volumes,
whose sizes mimic physics’ kinetic energy.
The strange concept of force

If one can materialize the force F in the formula F=ma
because it accelerates an object in a specific direction (it is
potentially physical), how does one materialize the force
f=Gm1× m2/x2 given by the gravitational equation also known
as the inverse square law? Is that force split into two opposite
entities in direction? How can that single force f activate two
antagonistic motions at same time?
Whatever the answer, this force f is obviously not of the
same type as Newton’s force F. In the theory of gravimotion,
such inconsistencies are unacceptable, and the invention of
the graviton upon which the string theory relies so heavily
doesn’t do away with that inconsistency! Both the graviton
and the inverse square law isolate and make distinct the force
of gravity with respect to mechanical forces.
Oddly enough, it is force, rather than energy, that has been
materialized in string theory! In string theory, only physical
particles exist in an otherwise empty space. There are material
particles (Higgs particles) and force particles (photon, gravi-
160
ton, etc.). By implementing particles of matter and force only,

physicists definitely compromise any chance of integrating
matter and motion, even though Einstein clearly laid the path
for us. In Einstein’s equation, matter is equivalent to kinetic
energy, E is mc2, opening the door toward integration of mat-
ter and motion (or energy).
In physics, a force provides dynamism. The force of grav-
ity materialized (in both particle and string theories) by a par-
ticle (the graviton), emitted by mass, creates dynamism. Mo-
tion itself (energy, from the gravimotion theory point of view)
is relegated to a secondary rank in physics, mathematical in
essence.
The strange concept of “force particle”

In the newest theories, forces are implemented as particles.
Whereas a photon could possibly be understood, as its impact
on the skin provides sunburns, the graviton goes beyond any
imagination! How can gravitons emitted from Earth and hit-
ting my body be physically transformed in an attractive force?
Acceleration and force of gravity equivalence

When accelerated (provided one keeps one’s eyes closed),
one can declare oneself to be at rest, arguing that the force
one feels is due to a force of gravity instead. But that equiva-
lence has its own contradiction. If you pretend that accelera-
tion is equivalent to gravity, you and I should reach the speed
of light 19 in about eleven months, through Earth’s gravity!
And by now, you and I would have infinite masses!
With gravimotion’s mechanism, the interpretation of
weight, or force of gravity, is crystal clear: it is static, it in-
161
volves no offset of coordinated activity, and such a mishap

does not occur.
Gravitation traditional interpretation

Physics provides us a description of the effects of gravita-
tion with exquisite details, yet that interpretation remains
most archaic.
Our senses of sight and touch, shared with the animal
world, seem to be the basic factor behind physics’ interpreta-
tion of gravitation. Seeing and feeling matter, but not seeing
or feeling gravity as we see or feel matter, our body concludes
that gravitation is a by-product of matter. That assumption
might originate back to the emergence of conscience in man-
kind! And it has been traditionally kept intact in modern
physics! Isn’t it time to question this “evident” relationship?
Why wouldn’t matter be a by-product of gravity? Or why not
explore other schemes, as done in this book?
In Newton’s physics, matter provides a gravitational force
that acts on matter. For instance, the Earth’s gravitation in-
flicts a force on our body. It is the law of universal gravitation
F=Gmm′/x2, x being the distance separating the two masses
m and m′.
Keeping part of this scheme, Einstein, with his famous
curvature of the space-time continuum, introduces an inter-
mediary link between matter and the effect of gravity, yet
matter is still at the origin of the effect, 20 as it was in New-
ton’s law.
No “matter” the theory; in theoretical physics, matter cre-
ates the force of gravity. Whether transferred through space
as a force, a curved space-time, or a graviton particle, matter
controls the effect of gravity.
162
In this book, radial activity (motion-energy) is a specific

entity that has little to do with physics’ concept of gravitation
and frankly nothing to do with physics concept of mass.
Acceleration and free fall in relativity and gravimotion

“A man falling off a roof does not feel any force of grav-
ity.… Only in avoiding falling does any force come into play.
The weight you feel on the soles of your feet is pushing up-
wards, not downwards.” 21
“Since gravity and acceleration are equivalent, if you feel gravity’s
influence, you must be accelerating. Einstein argued that only those
observers who feel no force—including the force of grav-
ity—are justified in declaring they are not accelerating.” 22
In this interpretation of relativity, while falling off the roof,
one is weightless, feels no force, and is not accelerated!
Note that the very words “only those observers who feel
no force—including the force of gravity” make no sense!
How does one feel no force that is a force?
This book’s interpretation is the opposite. It is not because
the table under the marble 23 disappears that the force of grav-
ity magically disappears. In this book, while in free fall, each
atom of the body is accelerated 24 through Earth’s subjacent
radial activity, which it shares, and that is why “we feel no
force.” The force is simply spread throughout the entire
body, creating no pressure discrepancy (no feeling) between
feet and head. The diminishing distance between body and
ground, though, and the ensuing painful collision are definite
proof of motion—or are interpreted as such in the gravimo-
tion theory!
163
Thoughts about Spin and Inertia
Constant spin and uniform motion, no doubt, are two dif-

ferent aspects of a single entity, that of the inertia of matter.
As such, in theoretical physics, uniform motion and con-
stant spin should both derive from a single entity, inertia.
Yet this is not the case.
The divorce existing between Newton’s laws and con-

stant spin
Newton’s first and second laws seem to describe motion
in all cases. Newton’s first law, the inertia principle, takes care
of uniform linear motion, while his second law takes care of
acceleration through force. And an object moving linearly yet
forced to turn is accelerated laterally rather than linearly.
Now consider the constant spinning motion of a gyro-
scope; the spinning motion’s essential characteristic is to con-
stantly change direction; in fact, it does only that! And it is
certainly not at rest, as it is moving or spinning. So the first
law doesn’t take care of constant spinning.
On the other hand, constant spinning, because it is con-

stant, is not accelerating and in reality its motion doesn’t re-
quire any force. Occurring with no force applied, the second
law doesn’t describe it either!
There is a physical loophole in Newton’s theoretical laws!
A graphical illustration of the discordance

The fundamental discordance between man-made laws
(Newton’s laws) and reality is that according to the laws,
Earth’s constant spin coinciding with a constant change in
direction should slow down unless maintained by force—
independently of any other legitimate factors that actually
make it slow down, such as the tides. This discordance is il-
lustrated with a graph representing the motion of your own
body standing up on Earth along with the force necessary for
its rotational motion.
Both body and force are respectively represented with a
rectangle and an arrow on the graph below.
As can be seen, some kind of (lateral) force, as defined by

Newton’s second law, has to inflict the rotational motion of
our own body in order for it to happen. And that is true of
166
each and every atom making up the Earth! Yet there are no
forces applied.
As shown in the following, this incongruity is taken care
by the comprehensive perception we have of the inertia prin-
ciple.
Physics’ solution is to introduce a new inertia called ro-

tational inertia
Newton’s laws are so expressive they dribbled from the
high spheres of theoretical physics down to everybody’s un-
derstanding. For generations, the human species silently as-
similated the concept of inertia. In return for this universal
acceptance, these laws are considered rock solid by physicists.
Yet physics surreptitiously designed specific mathematical
laws of angular speed, angular momentum, and rotational in-
ertia to take care of that incongruous phenomenon of con-
stant spin that defies Newton’s law (see the previous sec-
tions).
Now a “microtheory” within the theory plugs up an un-
suspected, undeclared loophole of the theory!
Unfortunately we are, by the same token, provided with
two distinct inertias in theoretical physics!
While rotational inertia is indispensable to explain constant
spin, it is incompatible with Newton’s inertia. Should you not
be convinced, why does Newton’s inertia law not take care of
constant spin? And then what would be the purpose of the
rotational inertia?
The ultimate irony is that rotational inertia, explaining
constant spin, is defined by analogy to the inertia law, while
the latter flatly denies the former! The meanings of the words
speed, momentum, and inertia, associated with linear motion by
167
Newton, are incomprehensibly twisted (in terms of physical

phenomenon) with the adjectives of angular and rotational.
Yet the choice and use of the very same words—namely
speed, momentum, and inertia—for both uniform linear and con-
stant spin motion, in my opinion, show how deeply physicists
feel there is only one phenomenon behind the two incom-
patible physical laws of linear and rotational inertias.
Everyone, physicist or not, is convinced that there is only
one real inertia behind the two inertias of theoretical physics.
So the (mathematical) concept of rotational inertia is a dis-
grace to the elegance of the universe.
In this book, constant spin is implemented through a spe-
cific configuration of gravimotion; a unique cause for uni-
form linear motion and constant spin explains both, and that
is internal loss of equilibrium.
Inertia, the biggest blunder of physics

This is much more serious than one would think! Rota-
tional inertia presents a fundamental dilemma, systematically
ignored by physicists and laymen alike. Whether the fact that
physics uses two different laws is a problem or not and
whether they are incompatible with each other or not, the
point is, physics misses reality!
Physics does not interpret Nature as Nature is; Nature’s
coherence is ill-treated.
This constitutes a major blunder simply because inertia is
at the base of all of physics, including Einstein’s relativity.
Coherence and physics

Let’s face it: coherence is the least of theoretical physics’
worries. In theoretical physics, whenever the result of a new
168
physical experiment doesn’t fit the existing theory, a new law

or a new force is simply invented to fix the problem.
In spite of its undeniable accomplishments—through ap-
plied physics, for instance—theoretical physics does not re-
flect reality. Theoretical physics is closer to science fiction
than to reality.
Distinguishing spinning object from object in orbit

This section compares the motion of an astronaut in a
man-made satellite to the motion of the same man resting on
Earth, spinning along with the surface of Earth.
The comparison of those two motions highlights the con-
troversy introduced above with a physical example.
The man in orbit. Consider an astronaut within a satellite in

orbit around Earth; it is subject to the force of gravity. This
force of gravity compels both man and satellite to fall; noth-
ing physical prevents their fall. But the fall doesn’t happen. So
what really happens?
The satellite is also animated with a very specific linear
speed remotely tangent to the surface of Earth, provided
once and for all by the launching rocket. This speed is main-
tained in accordance to Newton’s first law (the inertia law): it
acts linearly. It translates the satellite over a straight line, and
this rectilinear trajectory causes the satellite to deviate from
its orbit; this rectilinear motion actually pushes the satellite
above the orbit. But the force of gravity comes and pulls it
promptly back on orbit. The lateral speed is precisely calcu-
lated as to make sure that the vertical drop, performed by
gravity, precisely matches the deviation performed by the lin-
ear motion. The following graph illustrates the compounding
of the two motions.
169
In effect, the “direction” of the linear motion is constantly

modified, and the resulting motion is a perfect curve around
Earth.
Spin, rotation graphical comparison
As can be seen, the velocity of the satellite is the combina-

tion of two vectors, a lateral velocity and a vertical velocity.
Physicists say that the satellite constantly falls. And it is this
constant falling that causes it to constantly deviate (accelerate
laterally) from a linear motion to a circular motion.
170
An object in orbit is meticulously following man-made

laws of physics—and more precisely, Newton’s laws.
Spinning object. Let’s now consider the same man back on

Earth and rotating along with the spinning of Earth. He is
now subjected to the force of gravity, just as he was in the
satellite. Yet the vertical motion of the man on Earth is re-
stricted by the ground, which subjects the man, in accordance
with Newton’s third law, to another force that is neutralizing
the force of gravity. On Earth, the man has no vertical veloc-
ity. And this is also illustrated in the previous graph.
This is the fundamental difference existing between the
two motions of rotation and spin.
In the spinning mode, which you happen to experience at
this very moment, you can feel that additional force as a pres-
sure under your buttocks or your feet while sitting or stand-
ing up (on Earth). An astronaut in free space within the satel-
lite above does not feel that pressure.
Whereas the motion of the astronaut is described with two
velocities, vertical and lateral, the motion of the man on
Earth cannot be broken down; it cannot even be represented
with physics’ concept of velocity.
As far as physics’ language and laws only are concerned,
this fundamental difference has drastic consequences; New-
ton’s laws cannot be used to explain a spinning motion. The
single vector represented on the graph has no significance in
physics; physics is compelled to switch methods and invent
the concept of angular speed and rotational inertia, introduc-
ing a major inconsistency in the theory.
The inconsistency goes unnoticed in physics because angu-
lar speeds are cleverly designed to fit rotational motion, which
171
is then applied to orbital motion and surreptitiously extended

to spin motion.
Right where we are, in order to be in the same state as an
astronaut in orbit or to feel weightless, we would need a
speed of 11 million miles per hour. 25
Spin and rotation: Different causes and common feature

An object in orbit that performs precisely one revolution
(in orbit) also accomplishes precisely one spin on itself. The
following graph illustrates that common feature.
Spin and rotation common feature
While one spin occurs at the same time as a full rotation

does, the latter requires a force (gravity force in case of a sat-
ellite), but the spin doesn’t. There are 365 days in a year due
to Earth’s own spin plus 1 due to its trajectory around the
sun. Within a year is an extra long day spread over 365 days!
172
Rotation and spin are two different motions, yet linked as

shown in the section “Turns” in chapter 4, page 31.
Precisely where is the inconsistency found in the theory?

Consider the next two propositions:
P-1. Rotational motion and linear motion, whether accel-
erated or uniform, can both be represented with a vector
called velocity, whose characteristic is to have a linear direc-
tion, even if that direction can change.
P-2. Rotational motion and spin, whether accelerated or
constant, can both be represented with an angular speed,
whose characteristic is to have no linear direction; it is not a
velocity.
The words “motion” and “spin” are coincidental with

phenomenon that we can observe or reality as is. The words
“velocity” and “angular speed” are coincidental with the
mathematical representations of these physical phenomena.
Now here are the gears of the logic at work in our minds:
L-1. The “real” rotational motion, appearing first in both

propositions P-1 and P-2, connects in our minds the two rep-
resentations of uniform linear motion and constant spin, re-
spectively following that real motion.
L-2. In addition, in our minds, we know that in reality, uni-
form linear motion and constant spin have a common cause;
we know beforehand inertia is behind both.
And this is the logical conclusion: The two man-made rep-

resentations (expressed in L-1) along with our live knowledge
of reality (L-2) merge in our minds both the man-made inertia
law and the man-made rotational inertia.
173
Yet there is a discrepancy in these laws of physics:

Velocity, considered alone, fails to represent both uniform
linear motion and constant spin.
Similarly, angular speed, considered alone, also fails to
represent both uniform linear motion and constant spin.
Physics and reality

The evidence of reality precisely hides physics’ discrep-
ancy. That discrepancy exists only in theoretical physics, not
in reality and not in our minds!
About the message conveyed and reality

This is another situation about which some readers have
been misled. They understood that this book uses the physi-
cal laws to try to convince them that reality or Nature is in-
consistent! But that is not the case.
In this book, and in tune with everyone’s common sense,
reality is harmonious and consistent. That harmony, felt by
everybody, is always close by in our minds; it is so present
that the inconsistencies of the laws of physics are overlooked
or at best minimized by our minds.
In short, this book shows that it is not because the physi-
cal laws have the label “physical” that they are physical!
Newton’s spinning water bucket

An interesting phenomenon is Newton’s bucket, full of
water, held through a rope attached to its handle and spun.
Why does the water surface curl? And that happens
whether the plane in which the bucket spins around the man
is vertical, horizontal, or anywhere in between. Two explana-
tions were proposed.
174
Newton thought that motion was relative to absolute

space and that could explain the curling of the water’s sur-
face. Unfortunately, he never proved how motion could be
relative to absolute space.
An idea brought forth later by Mach is that motion is rela-
tive to all the masses of the universe and that also would ex-
plain the curled surface of the water in the spinning bucket.
Einstein took Mach’s idea seriously.
In the theory of gravimotion, only conditions local to the
bucket are physical. Watching the water is spectacular as the
phenomenon defies gravity. Let us liken the trajectory of the
bucket to the satellite orbit shown earlier. Gravimotion’s
skew (physics’ centrifugal force) pressurizes each molecule of
the water toward the bottom of the bucket and away from
the person spinning the bucket. This skew opposite the grav-
ity of Earth (in the satellite graph) is also acting on the water
of the bucket. The lateral motion of the bucket creates it. The
difference between the satellite case and the bucket is that the
vertical motion on the graph (Earth’s gravity) is no longer
there to compensate for the centrifugal skew.
Now consider a column of water molecules perpendicular
to the bottom of the bucket—the whole column applies a
pressure on that bottom. The column in the middle of the
bucket is surrounded by water on all sides, the molecules of
water at the base are diverted in all directions, and the column
loses some of its height. On the other hand, a column on the
edge of the bucket encounters a hard surface on one side and
is unable to push water molecules toward it. The difference of
resistance, which varies from center to edge, explains the wa-
ter’s meniscus.
Another factor must be taken in account, though. Suppose
one would swing around an Olympic-size pool instead. The
175
edges of the pool are traveling on an orbit farther away than

the center of the pool. Physics teaches that for a given angu-
lar speed, as in this case, the farther the orbit, the stronger the
centrifugal skew (the force). As such, the meniscus on the
surface of the water could turn convex instead of concave.
And in between is a bucket diameter and depth for which the
water remains flat.
176
Thoughts about Mass
The concept of mass

Generally speaking, mass is interpreted with the percep-
tion we humans have of hard matter and solid objects. Even
in the superstring theory, mass is implemented as a materialis-
tic one-dimensional string. Mass is heavy, solid, and inert. In
physics, both inertial and gravitational masses are merged
within the atomic mass, all concentrated in the nucleus of the
atom; that mass also appears in Newton’s laws.
In this book, things are quite different; mass is immaterial
and is interpreted instead as a specific configuration of mo-
tion.
Einstein’s equation as interpreted in physics

In physics, the mass of an object, or the combined atomic
masses of its atoms, is also energy. Physicists identify the
speed of light, c, to a constant; choosing an appropriate unit
system, that constant can be made equal to 1. Einstein’s fa-
mous equation E=mc2, with c2 equal to 1, then identifies

mass m and energy E.
This mass energy was first put to use in the atomic bomb.
Toward the end of World War II, commandeered by the U.S.
government, a little group of scientists worked on a device
that would release that extraordinary amount of energy.
Two bombs, released separately in Japan on the towns of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, proved physically that the
concept had a physical collateral.
No longer inert, mass becomes incredibly energetic,
equivalent to twice the kinetic energy it would have at the
speed of light and at the same time is metamorphosed (dis-
missed and replaced) into motion-energy.
While mass is identified with energy in physics, the oppo-
site is not true; energy has no mass in physics! Light, which is
massless, is also energy! In this book, the equivalent of phys-
ics’ mass while energetic is immaterial (massless). See the sec-
tion “Massless matter summary” in chapter 9, page 79.
Mass has no units in gravimotion (mass’ mathematical

demise)
In physics, motion has no physical significance, but mass
has; motion described as a position in function of time is rela-
tive. Only mass and forces are physical in physics and, more
specifically, in particle physics and superstring theory, in
which only these two are implemented physically.
In this book, on the contrary, mass has no physical signifi-
cance—only motion has, which is a stance opposite physics’
interpretation.
Einstein’s equation E=mc2 has been rewritten mθc in this
book; 26 and mass m, physically dismissed, becomes a number
178
of motion-volumes, θc, in accordance with the section “Light

and electromagnetic waves are pure motion” in chapter 10,
page 97; the mass, m, is a number with no units.
Mass, reduced to a number or a quantity only of another
entity—namely, activity (energy in physics)—has no longer
any energetic significance of its own.
As a reminder, the mass in question here refers to physics’
inertial and gravitational masses (the atomic mass) and not to
this book’s matter made of solid plasma.
Mass in Einstein’s equation clashes with the atomic

force
In physics, Einstein’s mass m is convertible into energy; as
such, that energy, before the conversion, has to reside within
that mass or within the protons’ subatomic particles’ very
heavy cores (the atomic mass).
It is then of another type than the energy of the atomic
force that binds together these protons. The latter, called the
strong force, can only be external to the proton’s very solid
cores or mass, because if it were internal to the protons, it
would have no effect on their surrounding peers.
These two types of energies appear then at odds with each
other! How do they behave in atomic reactions? Do they
share the burden in the fission process? Is the hard core’s
mass really converted to energy? Does mass disappear when
the strong force is released, and how?
In this book, the strong force is implemented through the
manufacturing process of complex atoms (other than, yet
with, hydrogen atoms) or implemented as motion as de-
scribed in the section “New interpretation and implementa-
tion of the strong force” in chapter 6, page 53.
179
Antiparticles and speed faster than light

In some high-energy collisions, real subatomic particles
appear somewhere (out of nowhere) and then disappear else-
where. In physics, where the real particle appears, an antipar-
ticle also forms, and then it travels in space and annihilates
somewhere else with a real particle. Should subatomic parti-
cles be able to travel faster than light, the concept of antipar-
ticle would no longer be needed! A hint in favor of dismissing
the concept is that both the particle and its antiparticle in
physics are allotted the same (positive) mass; how could two
identical masses annihilate each other?
There are two ways to think about the phenomenon. We
can either use physics’ parameters, or use the motion-volume.
Let us start with physics’ parameters. Physics’ concept of
time in some conditions becomes imaginary (in the mathe-
matical sense); in that imaginary world, time can turn back-
ward and run in the other direction. 27 In these conditions, a
particle, when hit with sufficient energy, moves faster than
light. While traveling in space, it runs backward in time and
we do not see it moving, because we live in (apparently) real
time. We see the particle as if it were not moving. When it
arrives at its destination, it slows down and its own time
frame rejoins our human time frame; we see it in its real loca-
tion. The particle can now disappear from its departure posi-
tion (back in space).
However, using gravimotion’s concept that matter can
travel faster than light, the light we see coming from the par-
ticle in its original position is slower than the particle itself;
that is why we see it disappear after it arrives. Using gravimo-
tion’s parameter, the particle’s motion-volume is allowed to
move faster than light. 28 The motion-volume animating it is
compressed from both ends to the point that the two ends
180
get inversed, inside out. The motion-volume now moves in

the direction of the dotted end (see Introduction of motion-
volumes, page 7); the object moves faster in time than in
space, as compared to motions we observe usually through
light. This interpretation also reflects the fact that time and
space are inversely related in the concept of energy 29 when in
action.
Overview
Motion and quantum-volumes are made of speed squared
(v and c2), which is also equivalent to temperature (θv and θc).
2
When organized in such a way that they could be counted,

as is the case in gravimotion and gravitation format, the count
of motion-volumes would be a number m linked 30 to physics’
very concept of mass m; that is mc2 or mθc for gravitational
mass, and mv2 or mθv for kinetic energy.
In the form of electromagnetic waves, motion-volumes
made of θc and radiating in all directions cannot be counted
as easily, yet coincide with specific motions of electrons.
In this book, both motions of mass and light are made of
motion-volumes; they reflect the harmony of Nature.
181
Thoughts about Time
Since time is so intricately involved in our modern lives

and because it ends up being dismissed in this book, the sub-
ject requires great care. On the other hand, the subject of
time is fascinating from the human or psychological point of
view—and one gets easily ahead of oneself.
The two significances of the word “time”: Duration and

event
One use of the word “time” is the time at which an event
occurs. Einstein describes such a time as being given by the
reading of the clock next in space to the event. A naive illus-
tration of Einstein’s concept is the time of the day—look at
the clock, it is 1:00.
Then what is the concept of duration of time? How much
time will it take you to get there? It will take me one hour.
Time dilation deals with time duration.
A time event (within a time duration) is compared in this
book to a position in space. In spite of the fact that a time
event is primordial in physics’ description of motion, in this

book and as shown in this section, a time event cannot be a
real entity, just as a position in space does not exist.
Time definitions are perplexing

The particular motion (spin of Earth) chosen as a standard
for days, hours, and seconds doesn’t fit any other standard
such as the seemingly related (in our minds) standard of years.
If the two were related there would be a fixed number of
days, hours, and seconds, whole or not, within a year.
And the atomic clock doesn’t do better, because its sec-
onds don’t fit Earth’s seconds, which vary with the slow but
irremediable departure of the moon from its trajectory and
other phenomenon such as tsunami waves.
Time to motion relationships

The latest standard, the atomic clock, allegedly precise to a
billionth of second per century, would provide a different
standard of time as soon as removed from Earth! And its
standard would be thrown to pieces again and again should
its overall motion be modified again and again!
In physics, the fundamental role of time clashes head on
with the arbitrariness of its definition.
Strangely enough, physics’ time definition backs up gravi-
motion’s theory in that gravimotion is entirely based on mo-
tion.
Time doesn’t qualify as a basic quantity of physics

This lack of coincidence between various standards of
times proves that time does not qualify as a basic quantity of
physics.
184
Time instants are disregarded in the theory of gravimo-

tion
If we accept as a reality the integrity of things, a reality
linked to the energy conservation principle, the concept of
position as defined in physics is not a reality. 31 And the con-
cept of an instant in time as defined in physics is no more a
reality than a position in space is. An instant in time cannot
exist simply because it compels the notion of position in
space. An instant doesn’t exist if you move in space.
Nevertheless, suppose that instants do exist as a reality; the
following shows that those instants have to be connected in
time.
If our world were made of instants only, not connected
through durations of time, 32 anything that exists instead of
going (happening) from an instant to the other would be dif-
ferent from that instant to the other, simply because we age
or we change.
Then how could logic remain logical in my brain? Why
wouldn’t my brain lose track of the logic exposed along those
words in between two instants? Similarly, why would the
branch on the tree facing me remain attached to the tree? If
there were discontinuities between two instants, then what-
ever attaches the branch to the tree would cease to exist in
between two instants and the branch would have no reason
to stay attached.
No matter the object considered, there has to be a link
between the reality of one instant (if that exists) and the real-
ity of the next. Whether you call it “energy conservation prin-
ciple,” “integrity of matter,” or “memory,” something en-
forces the lack of chaos that happens to happen between any
two instants (if they exist).
185
Then we’re back to square one or the beginning of this

book.
Time of an event and simultaneity

The time of an event, as defined by Einstein, can only be
figured out through the notion of simultaneity.
By the way, Einstein, in his book, spends a much longer
time describing “instantaneous time events” than he spends
describing much longer time durations!
Simultaneity
Simultaneous and instantaneous are two words that, in
spite of their definition in terms of time (respectively, at the
same time and without delay), involve no time! Or instanta-
neous and simultaneous are two words best understood when
time is not involved! As such, their real meaning can only oc-
cur in space.
In this book, simultaneity and instantaneity occur primarily
in space and not at all in time. Suppose you observe two ob-
jects that fall and hit ground simultaneously; the simultaneity
is in the physical, maybe painful, contact with Earth. It in-
volves matter and space; in this book, the simultaneity in time
is interpreted as an added, unnecessary ingredient.
Einstein’s simultaneity experiment, setup, and ingredi-

ents
Einstein defines how two events (strokes of lightning) in
A and B can be declared simultaneous. One stands in the
middle, M, of AB; with two mirrors conveniently oriented at
90°, one can observe the two flashes of light instantane-
ously. 33
186
In addition to the geometrical condition (M in the middle

of AB), the only stipulation is that the light takes the same
time to travel from A to M as it takes to travel from B to M.
Einstein “simultaneity” thought experiment

Einstein considers a long train traveling along the tracks
in the direction indicated on the illustration below. According
to the above, two events, two strokes of lightning in A and B
along the track occurring at the same time, appear simultane-
ous to an onlooker who is situated in the middle, M, of AB.
When the two strokes flash, the train passes by and the
three positions—A′, B′, and M′—on the train precisely coin-
cide with the three positions A, B, M of the embankment.
Whereas Einstein represents the overlapping situation (on

his graph M′ is precisely over M), this graph represents the
two situations in space, as the traveler moved from M to M′.
Furthermore, Einstein does not represent the light beams, as
done here (nor does Einstein draw such an artistic carriage!).
According to the previous section, if an observer were to
sit at M without moving, the light rays emitted by the flashes
of lightning A and B would reach her instantaneously. They
would meet precisely at M where she is sitting.
187
Should the observer move, though, with respect to the

embankment, as is the case for a traveler sitting now inside
the train, she would rush toward the beam of light coming
from B, while moving away from the beam of light coming
from A. As such, the light ray emitted from B will appear to
her earlier than that emitted from A.
And looking at the above graph it is evident that simulta-
neous events with respect to the embankment, are not simul-
taneous with respect to the train; simply because M′ is no
longer in the middle of AB, and the conditions of simultane-
ity are no longer met.
How Einstein’s simultaneity thought experiment is not

convincing
As mentioned above, Einstein is categorical; once the
speed of light is “stipulated,” only the position of point M in
the middle of AB is primordial when deciding on the simul-
taneity of the two strokes of lightning.
Unfortunately, the reasoning that Einstein applies to the
traveler can be applied to the onlooker at M too, as the latter
moves along with Earth’s spin, whose motion is approxi-
mately 650 miles per hour (at the appropriate latitude 34 ) or
ten times as fast as the train! With such a speed, and with
Einstein’s own reasoning, the observer in M while rushing
toward B (on Earth’s embankment) has ten times fewer rea-
sons to see the flashes simultaneously than Einstein takes for
granted!
Simultaneity is flawed
The whole controversy in the above simultaneity experi-
ment is in the fact that Einstein makes us think that the posi-
188
tion at M is not only in the middle of AB but also that A, B,

and M are all at rest or “absolutely” not moving, because if
they were, the simultaneity would no longer be enforced and
observed. Yet Einstein stops short of stating that M along
with A and B are at absolute rest. It is implied, and the reader
thinks that the onlooker on the embankment is at rest by
comparison with the moving traveler. The fact that the
onlooker is not at rest is not stated because it is not true; it
cannot be stated!
Whereas Einstein had in mind to show that the simultane-
ity of two events is relative to the observer, he took the con-
cept of simultaneity for granted; he never questioned the very
existence of the concept. Yet Einstein’s experiment proves
also that simultaneity cannot occur!
In this book, a time event, such as a coincidence observed
by the onlooker at M, is no more real than a position in
space. Both time events (flashes within the duration of time)
and positions (in space) are ignored. Time events and posi-
tions are nonphysical.
Time is relative
Einstein states that the definition of simultaneity gives an
exact meaning to two or more events and that leads to a defi-
nition of time in physics.
Since simultaneity is relative to the reference system cho-
sen, he concludes that the time of an event is relative to the
reference system chosen. From that point of view, a time in-
stant is similar to a position in space.
In reverse—and as constraining, if not more so—even in
physics the time of an event has no meaning if we do not de-
fine the spatial reference system to which the time refers!
189
The rate of relativity or relativity of relativity

Another detail not mentioned by Einstein is that two
events on a line perpendicular to the embankment, and also
perpendicular to the length and motion of the train, yield the
same simultaneity for the onlooker as for the traveler!
Since the relativity of time depends on the relativity of si-

multaneity, in between the situation chosen by Einstein and
this situation exist a great number of different losses of simul-
taneity, each yielding a rate of relativity of time. Relativity of
time is relative itself and the rate of relativity chosen is arbi-
trary. 35 It can as well be chosen null as shown with this new
graph.
Time in physics and in this book

Besides the two aspects (instantaneity and duration) of
time, time is one dimensional and one directional in physics.
These two characteristics seem to fit the so-called arrow of
time, which is directional, and the concept of space-time,
which has now four directions.
In this book, should it exist, time would only be a mathe-
matical “gear” pertaining to the engine “energy.” But should
190
it be singularized as a physical part of it, it would coincide

with a one-way path rather than a one-directional dimension.
Imagine a town whose streets are one way—the traffic is
moving one way only, yet in all directions. Energy is of this
type; energy is a scalar and time has to be too.
The scalar aspect of time is expressed in the motion-
volume, which has only one direction, but whose direction
can point in any direction.
In this book, time is intrinsically useless. Time is an
onlooker rather than an actor. If its dynamism exists, it is not
the cause of motion; should it exist, time would not contrib-
ute physically to anything.
The evolution of time

With Newton, time is an absolute (invariable) and inde-
pendent entity. And the theory of relativity deprives time
from that independency—time depends on motion.
In this book, time becomes a useless onlooker. With no
raison d’être other than for our human convenience, time is
dismissed as an entity; time is abrogated!
In this book, Einstein’s clock is a mechanical device, made
of springs and gears; the modern digital clock is another de-
vice made of electronic circuitry and batteries. What you see
is what you get! There is no time behind either. There is only
energy, identified as motion in the theory of gravimotion.
Time’s physical insignificance yet extraordinary role

When it’s time to save energy, gasoline is the target. In ef-
fect, once the road is built and once you have a car, the only
thing you need to move from one town to the next is gaso-
line. Suppose 120 miles separate the two towns and your car
at 60 mph covers 30 miles to the gallon; the only thing you
191
need is four gallons of gas. And if you set the accelerator to

cover 30 miles to the gallon, you can say that you are halfway
after having consumed two gallons, rather than after an
hour’s time. Liquid gasoline can replace the notion of dura-
tion of time.
Whereas time is useless as far as the occurrence of motion
is concerned, time is priceless at organizing our social life.
The notion of time even becomes expensive when speeding
tickets get involved!
Is the arrow of time a reality?

The laws of mechanics are two-ways laws, with respect to
time. Yet physics takes also the position that in reality things
are irreversible and happen along time’s way. They follow the
so-called arrow of time.
In physics, the entropy concept comes and resolves the
dilemma. Entropy compels the laws of mechanics to comply
with the arrow of time. The two-ways laws become one way.
From our human point of view, the most drastic impact of
the arrow of time is its irreversible effect on aging. Aging is
the “incarnation” and “live” proof of the arrow of time.
Yet think about the extraordinary phenomenon of concep-
tion and birth (not a concept)! Whenever that occurs, the
(concept of the) arrow of time works backward! A regenera-
tion of the human race occurs. Should time exist, that process
reverses the arrow of time. New lives are constantly reen-
acted.
And that applies to any cyclic phenomenon. Once twenty-
four hours go through, the day starts anew at zero hour.
An example of entropy given by Feynman is the breaking
of an egg; once broken, you never see an egg coming back to
its former state. But one can argue that the order of Nature
192
existed prior to the egg in the existence of a bunch of atoms,

that the chicken assembled these to make an egg. And break-
ing now the egg amounts to a return to the original order of
Nature.
Time as a function of (relative) speed

Since Lorentz provides time in the form of an equation, 36
it can be represented as a graph.
Such a graph follows. It represents time as a function of
the speed of the object, which is relative to the speed of light
in the Lorentz transformation; and light is a messenger in this
book. 37
As mentioned in the flashlight experiment, 38 if the object
(the mirror) reaches the speed of light (that is, the speed of
the messenger), the time it takes the latter to reach the object
becomes infinite (right top end of the left curve).
193
Should the object be able to go faster than the messenger

(left bottom end of the right curve), time (squared) reappears
(negatively) in an unreal world (imaginary world and num-
bers) and while speed continues to increase, negative time
squared tends toward zero.
The graph applies whether the messenger is light (as used
in physics) or sound (as used by bats).
Imaginary times
The imaginary world is definitely controversial to the sim-
ple mind. How is this so-called imaginary world made of
mathematics related to our physical world made of beings,
landscapes, and stars? It obviously originates out of the Lor-
entz transformation as interpreted by Einstein and simply
doesn’t fit in the theory of gravimotion. Consider the bat’s
coinciding imaginary world: It is real as far as we are con-
cerned!
Negative time periods and gravimotion

Let’s compare gravimotion’s flashlight experiment and
physics’ (Einstein inspired by Lorentz) mathematics.
When the speed of the mirror V in the flashlight experi-
ment gets close to and reaches that of light C, physically (in
gravimotion) we simply lose track of the mirror.
Mathematically (physics), time “becomes” infinite. Going
faster than the speed of light mandates us to imagine negative
squared times.
Face-to-face with such extravagant mathematics (negative
squared times), the theory of relativity makes sense, which
asserts as a law of Nature that neither an object nor a sub-
atomic particle can go faster than light.
194
In this book, we declare that the speed of a material object

is not limited by that of light. We assert instead that simple
logic dictates that time is an invention that leads to absurd
contradictions and as such does not exist!
In the theory of gravimotion, if we were able to travel
faster than light, that would allow us not to go back in time
but to catch up with signals that occurred back in time. This
is not extravagant. We could, for instance, catch up with TV
signals that were emitted in previous days and years! Or we
could simply catch up with images of past landscapes, as re-
flected by the sun’s rays and as observed by astronauts.
Time dilation, or time dependency, on (relative) speed

A primordial aspect of the special theory of relativity is
time dilation. The essence of the phenomenon is that time is
not constant; time instead depends on motion. For instance,
if you were going to ride in a rocket at close to the speed of
light for a few minutes, many years would go by on Earth and
you would land back here several millenniums later, yet not
older!
In 1971 Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating flew

state-of-the-art cesium-beam atomic clocks
around the world on a commercial Pan Am jet.
When they compared the clocks flown on the
plane with identical clocks left stationary on the
ground, they found that less time had elapsed on
the moving clocks. The difference was tiny—a
few hundred billionths of a second—but it was
precisely in accord with Einstein’s discoveries.
You can’t get much more nuts-and-bolt than
that. 39
195
On board, time had been dilated, relative to the time on

Earth.
This phenomenon (time dilation) shook the concept I had
of time when I first read about it. It illustrates the power of
the theory of relativity! Yet if one thinks further, it irremedia-
bly leads to grotesque consequences about time itself. 40 That
can only be solved by the abolition of time, as done in this
book. On the other hand, one must recognize that physics’
magic realism is undeniably compensated by the beauty and
ingenuity of its mathematics.
This book provides a physical interpretation of time dila-
tion (see the next section) that, in spite of the name, dissoci-
ates time out of the phenomenon.
Time dilation, a physical interpretation

When traveling at high speed, time is slowed down. It
turns out that the mechanism of a clock, whether it is me-
chanical or atomic, is simply slowing down.
Time dilation interpretation, using simple logic. On Earth, the

clock’s gears move with respect to each other, and the hands
of a mechanical clock move with respect to its dial.
Now if you force the whole clock to travel at speed of
light, all the gears travel at the speed of light—they literally
have no ability to move with respect to one another, because
if they did, some gears or hands would then move faster than
the speed of light, contradicting the theory. The relative mo-
tion of the hands and dial literally stops when the whole clock
travels at the speed of light.
In between the frozen state at speed of light and our pre-
sent state of gentle motion (on rotating Earth), there are a
great number of intermediary situations where the clock runs
196
faster than when frozen yet slower than on Earth—clearly

indicating that time is a function of speed.
It is as simple as that! At the speed of light, the clock
mechanism is frozen! Physics’ interpretation is that time
stopped.
This book’s interpretation of time dilation. The above interpreta-

tion (simple logic) actually uses physics’ ingredients (speed,
time, and theory of relativity). In this section, the same simple
logic is also used, but applied to motion-volumes and activity.
Consider the temperature or the confined activity of an
object; it is made of the motion of its molecules. If coordi-
nated activity overcomes this confined activity, the latter will
be constrained and the temperature of the object will drop.
The same phenomenon occurs at larger scales (motion of ob-
jects instead of molecules) and slows the clock mechanism.
As already mentioned, though, the clock mechanism is not
backed up by the concept of time. There are neither hours
nor any minutes running behind the scene. Ignoring time, the
phenomenon is clearly mechanical.
Note that the motion of the hands of the clock is not an-
nihilated, for that matter. The tension within the spring re-
mains and the clock will resume its internal motion if its
overall motion is slowed. 41 Similarly, when coordinated activ-
ity overcomes confined activity, the latter is not suppressed;
the former smothers or conceals the latter, which is now hid-
den yet still existing.
To get back to the time dilation phenomenon, nothing in
gravimotion predicts that the clock will stop precisely when it
reaches the speed of light. The stopping of the clock could
occur at twice the speed of light or half of it, but no parame-
ters have been set allowing for a precise prediction. In phys-
197
ics, time stops at the speed of light because antiparticles ap-

pear at the mc2 level of energy.
Time and gravity

In the theory of relativity, gravity affects time. Experi-
ments have been conducted by flying clocks at high altitude
and comparing these to identical clocks kept on ground.
Clocks on the ground are slow when compared to clocks in
altitude. This experiment is not to be confused with the ex-
periment showing the dependency of time on speed (de-
scribed on page 195). While flying, a moving clock slows
down; while elevated in altitude, a clock runs faster instead. If
you believe in the concept of time, gravitation time interac-
tion (stop reading to think about it) is mind-boggling!
In this book, there is no time behind the motion of the
gears and hands of the clock. Gravity acts “on the various
motions” internal to the clock—a fact everybody knows
about, as gravimotion accelerates matter; gravimotion by
definition modifies motion and does so in clocks.
Heat and motion equivalence

Unifying thermal energy and motion, as done in this book,
has drastic consequences. For instance, the concept of en-
tropy loses its glamour.
No matter the size or constitution of an object, once its
mass is defined, a temperature θv (other than its own) could
be used rather than speed to characterize the intensity of its
motion.
As such, the motion-volume, which unites the two, makes
sense even though our body senses both temperature and
motion very differently.
198
Yet as explained in the next section this unification also

demonstrates the irrelevance of time!
Time disappearance in physics equations

Most perplexing, when heat and motion are merged, the
parameter time vanishes from physics equations, as if time
had been diluted within energy! 42
Because there is no time involved in temperature, the
equivalence of thermal energy and motion shows time is use-
less in explaining motion.
And that is not in conflict with the fact that, in physics,
time is essential in describing motion.
Time and the overlap of gravimotion’s motion volumes

In the theory of gravimotion, the word “overlap” applies
to time as much as it does to our human concept of space.
Motion overlaps our human concept of time durations as
much as stretches of space.
199
Thoughts about Thermal Energy and
Temperature
Temperature versus speed

The mathematical expression of motion as a function of
temperature as used in the theory of gravimotion 43 doesn’t
provide any advantage when compared to physics’ expression
of motion as a function of time and speed. It actually is a re-
gression. Practical applications, such as speedometers and
clocks, would not be possible without the concept of time,
nor could we predict eclipses.
Replacing the elusive time factor by another of tempera-
ture, as done in this book, doesn’t help much.
In the theory of gravimotion, it is done in the name of co-
herence of interpretation. It allows us to avoid the concept of
speed. 44
The concepts of heat and temperature

Heat and temperature are concepts of physics, specifically
of thermodynamics.
Physics teaches that the temperature of a body of gas (or

of matter) is linked to the chaotic motion of the molecules
forming the body (kinetic theory); in physics, the molecules’
motion is called thermal energy, essentially ignoring that mo-
tion and its reality altogether!
In physics, an increase in temperature is the result of a
transfer of heat energy from a hotter body. After such a
transfer, the molecules are more active than before—an extra
activity that, while recognized, is also ignored in physics.
This activity is ignored simply because it is too complex to
be mathematically described in all of its details.
Thermal and heat energy are therefore assimilated to
global or statistical entities. And the two concepts of tem-
perature and heat, being immensely convenient, now make
their way back in reverse and justify the scientific method and
more specifically the science of thermodynamics.
But in doing so, physics deliberately chooses the effects at
our human scale to describe thermal energy. In a partisan
way, it intentionally ignores the agitation of the molecules.
Clearly, physics—with the use of statistics and averages—
ignores the very nature of the phenomenon.
While physics’ interpretation is invaluable in everyday life,
it lacks coherence when we try to understand Nature.
There is at least another interpretation of heat in physics, 45
in which heat is made of electromagnetic waves. Obviously,
there is a divorce between the kinetic interpretation of heat
and the one presented by Brian Greene in his book The Ele-
gant Universe.
In the theory of gravimotion and for the sake of coher-
ence, qualitative and graphical, rather than quantitative and
mathematical, interpretations of both heat and motion have
been chosen.
202
Confined activity (internal or thermal energy) is exclusively

representative of the motion of molecules. There is energy in
the electromagnetic waves but it is not heat energy. Waves
have first to interact with matter to provide an increase in
temperature.
Justification of the expression “confined activity”

Why the words “confined activity” and not heat energy or
temperature or other expressions such as confined energy?
The phrase “heat energy” is not used because heat flows
from one body to another; “heat” is not internal, as confined
activity is. On the other hand, temperature, which is physics’
closest interpretation of confined activity, doesn’t express the
fundamental reality of the phenomenon; the concept of tem-
perature specifically excludes the agitation of the molecules,
which is an agitation in confinement. A temperature, such as
75°, appears static, which is the opposite of dynamic activity;
as such, the word “temperature” cannot be used with this
book’s interpretation of the phenomenon.
Then activity, even though similar to energy, is not energy.
Energy is emblematic as it can be potential (potential energy),
whereas activity is always occurring. Activity occurs; confined
activity is physical—it can burn your skin by mere contact
with a hot object.
Finally, the words “confined activity” express most accu-
rately the physical phenomenon of molecules in motion (in
activity), which are constrained to remain within boundaries
imposed upon them from outside.
The expression “confined activity” reflects both the physi-
cal activity of a source of heat at our human scale and the en-
ergetic molecular confinement.
203
Thoughts about Space
In modern physics, space—even when inhabited by energy

(quantum vacuum)—is made of “nothing” and light rays
travel with no support.
By contrast, in this book, the very fabric of space is pure
activity, and that pure activity contributes to the propagation
of light.
Michelson-Morley experiment
There is one stipulation that Faraday, the experimenter,
Maxwell, the theorist, and Lorentz, the mathematician, all
agreed upon: Space is either made of, or is filled with, an
ether that carries the rays of light.
Michelson and Morley performed an experiment in the
1880s to prove physically that the assumption was true. As
shown in the following, they ended up claiming instead that it
was false. In this manner, they were the first to prove scien-
tifically that space is “empty,” as is now thought in modern
physics.
The Michelson-Morley experiment
The experiment involves a beam of light A1B1 that is split

and travels back and forth through various paths at right an-
gles, to be reunited and interfere or form interferences lines.
The beam A1B1 first encounters a partially silvered plate
of glass, which splits it into B2 across the plate and A2 re-
flected by the plate. A2 then reflects on mirror A and contin-
ues as A3 and A4 to reach the observation screen. The other
half, B2, is reflected into B3 by the mirror B and by the plate
into B4 and finally interferes with A4 on the observation
screen.
206
The whole is mounted on a solid base, and the direction

from source to mirror B is aligned with the motion of the
Earth around the sun, which can be done either at midnight
or at noon. The Earth moving around the sun is considered
to move within the ether and its speed with respect to it is
about 30 km/s. 46
The experimenters expected that the light waves, traveling
in the same direction as Earth’s motion and against the seem-
ingly moving ether, would be slowed and arrive back after
reflection later than the light waves traveling across or per-
pendicularly to that seemingly moving ether.
Similarly, Einstein expressed the opinion that a difference
in time between the motions can be calculated. And Feynman
presents a detailed calculation of the times it takes the beams
to travel back and forth. 47 He shows how the beams of light
B2, B3, which travel along the line of the apparatus’ own mo-
tion (motion of Earth), take slightly less time than the beams
A2, A3 cutting across that motion.
The experiment consists in rotating the entire apparatus
90°. That amounts to replacing the light beams A2, A3 with
B2, B3 and vice versa. Now the beams cutting across are re-
placed by the beams traveling along the line of the apparatus
and vice versa. The time difference between the arrivals of
the two beams is also reversed, as well as the phase difference
between the two waves; and that, in, turn should modify the
interference pattern observed on the screen.
While the apparatus is rotated, we then expect a shift of
the interference fringes. And such a shift would prove that
light would be transmitted in the ether as sound is in air.
Yet when the experiment was performed, no shift of the
fringes was observed; in spite of the calculations, the propa-
207
gation times were said to be equal. These results were puz-

zling at the time. Yet Lorentz provided a physical interpreta-
tion along with a mathematical description of the phenome-
non and eighteen years later Einstein provided the fundamen-
tal theory, untangling the apparent enigma.
The downfall of ether

Since there were no shifts of the interference fringes in the
Michelson-Morley experiment, the scientific community
made two conclusions.
First, it was decided that the experiment shows that the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the apparatus
with respect to the hypothetical ether.
Then, since the experiment was supposed to prove the
existence of an ether and it failed to do so, physicists asserted
there is no ether. And that was and remains to this day (and
up to the time of this book) the end of that!
The Michelson-Morley experiment’s interpretation re-

visited
In physics, there is no ether because the Michelson-Morley
experiment, which was supposed to prove its existence, con-
tradicted the expected (calculated) results.
Yet the logic behind these conclusions is not rock solid!
There are obviously two motions involved: the linear mo-
tion along Earth’s own motion in space and the rotational
motion of the apparatus.
The procedure as exposed above is far from being logical
in that the calculations concern the linear motion only. Why
are there no calculations concerning the rotational motion?
The influence of the rotational motion is not “calculated” in
208
both Feynman’s 48 and Halliday and Resnick’s 49 treatises of

physics.
Even notorious physicists such as Einstein and Feynman,
among others, have followed in the footsteps of Michelson
and Morley for over one hundred years and have simply as-
sumed that the rotational motion should provide a shift of
the fringes. So who am I to question this evidence?
The argument is very simple indeed. Since Michelson and
Morley have omitted the rotational effect mathematically,
they must have done so on purpose. They consciously de-
cided the rotation would have no effect—otherwise, they
would have mathematically calculated that effect.
In these conditions, where is the logic in stating that the
experiment consists of looking for a shift of the interference
fringes as the apparatus is rotated? The point can be summa-
rized as follows:
1. The calculations involve only half of the experiment—
the linear motion but not the rotational.
2. Then “worded” logic, rather than mathematics, takes
over and is used to complete the “demonstration.” This
amounts to a shift of procedure right in the middle of the
process. The decisive factor, no longer mathematical, sud-
denly becomes a “reversal of situation” when the rotation
takes place. And those few words, even though not proved
mathematically, are supposed to ensure a shift of the fringes.
This is where the consistency of the whole is lost! Because
there is no reversal. During the rotation, while one beam
takes progressively longer to travel, the other takes progres-
sively less time, each trending precisely toward the original
travel time of the other. Rather than a reversal of the situa-
tion, the respective variations of the two beams are compen-
sating each other. And a fringe pattern doesn’t take into ac-
209
count which beam is ahead of the other. A mere frequency

comparison is not of the essence, but an interaction of the
two beams’ energies is!
Michelson-Morley error of judgment

In both treatises of physics my daughter Nathalie owns,
the calculations use the relative speed of light with respect to
the ether to find out the times the light takes to travel within
the apparatus. These speeds, along and against the motion of
Earth within the ether, are written to be w=c−v and w=c+v
where c is the speed of light in vacuum, v the speed of the
apparatus (or of Earth), and w the resulting speed of light
with respect to the ether.
These are the departing point of the calculations.
It turns out that, while not knowing about the experiment,
Einstein gave it thought a couple of decades later. In his ex-
ample, the role of the ether is played by the embankment and
the role of the Earth moving with respect to the ether by the
train moving with respect to the embankment.
Now Einstein considers the speed of light c with respect
to the embankment and knowing that the train travels at the
speed v, the speed of light w with respect to the train is given
by the formula w=c−v, as above. Yet Einstein adds promptly
that this is impossible because that comes into conflict with
the law of transmission of light in space, which is invariant; as
such, the speed of light is the same with respect to the railway
carriage if chosen for reference as it is with respect to the
embankment when chosen as reference. The equation above
should be w=c and not w=c−v.
All in all and according to Einstein himself, Michelson and
Morley are not allowed to use the relative speed of light in
210
their calculations! Now that the calculations are invalidated,

the existence of the ether resurfaces.
And the interpretation of space-time as pure activity, as
done in this book, becomes plausible.
Michelson-Morley experiment, a logical interpretation

Let’s consider the travel times (object of the calculations)
of the two beams in two distinct positions that are at 90°
from each other.
The time it takes the beam A2A3 to travel varies from a

maximum (cross-stream) to a minimum (down- and up-
stream) when the apparatus is rotated 90°. During the very
same rotation, the travel time of the beam B2B3 varies from
the very same minimum to the very same maximum and in an
exactly reciprocal manner.
211
In order to satisfy the physical results, one has simply to

imagine that the two individual curves representing the re-
spective shifts are inverse functions of each other and their
product is constant.
This author is not inclined (and not capable) to make the
calculations, which have been evaded by Michelson, Morley,
and physicists at large; as such, the following graph is pre-
sented as a matter of necessity—the necessity that mathemat-
ics match reality.
A phase change (A or B) is coincidental to a frequency

variation. So the increase of frequency in one beam, multi-
plied by the decrease of frequency in the other, must, accord-
ing to the experiment, remain constant.
Pure activity justifications

In this book, pure activity, even though not proven to ex-
ist, does exist simply for coherence.
Pure activity, as space-time, is undetectable. And pure ac-
tivity is potentially active just as space-time has the potential
to be when curved.
212
Even though external to objects, pure activity is shared by

objects and acts as confined activity (thermal energy) does,
and it does not interfere with uniform motion. Both New-
ton’s first law and pure activity comply with Nature’s way.
Pure activity has the merit—as much as space-time has, if not
more—to provide a reason for the fact that space doesn’t in-
terfere with the inertia law!
In addition, physicists came up with the concept of quan-
tum vacuum, 50 which is space occupied by turbulent, unde-
tected energy—just as pure activity is.
Above all, as far as we human beings are concerned, right
where we live, there is gravitation. Gravitation is literally en-
ergy, or energy implementing space. The idea of interpreting
gravitation as “being” motion made me, in the first place, as-
sume that space is energy.
Because they are both invisible, time and space could be
merged in this famous space-time entity. Similarly, because
they are both invisible, space and energy can also be merged
and give birth to a new single entity called pure activity. Yet
in this new entity, space is not filled with activity, as if the
container called “space” were different from the contained
activity; volumes of activity replace space. The concept of
“activity,” which “occurs,” is itself an active volume. What we
interpret as being inert space becomes dynamic activity.
Pure activity, dynamic in essence, is much more realistic
than space-time. It integrates all motions. Space-time curva-
ture does nothing for constantly spinning objects or for uni-
form linear motion, both depending on inertia in physics. In
addition, pure activity has the merit to provide a physical tex-
ture to light and to electromagnetic waves, while providing an
explanation of them. By contrast, the behavior of light in
213
physics is isolated or differs from the behavior of all other

waves.
Space-time and pure activity

In physics’ theory of relativity, space and time are func-
tions of relative speeds.
This book’s “pure activity” is absolute in the sense that its
variation depends on parameters not linked to the motion of
an observer. Yet pure activity is not absolute in the sense that
it does vary across the universe. Furthermore, pure activity—
right where we are—is decreasing in intensity or in density
along the expansion of the universe.
Vacuo and space

Einstein uses the term “vacuo” when he speaks of the
propagation of light, and that fits his concept of light as
packets of energy. 51 Einstein thought that space was made of
nothing; his “vacuo” was a vacuum devoid of any ether.
For Einstein, space is a continuum in which an infinite
number of positions, infinitely close to each other, can be
mathematically defined with coordinates of space and time.
The concept of space in physics

1. Space interpreted as made of nothing
In physics, space is empty. In physics, once you remove
everything out of space, as done in a vacuum bell, nothing is
left. The classical implementation of such a vacuum is ob-
tained by filling a tube with mercury at fairly high tempera-
ture, sealing the tube, and letting it cool. The mercury con-
tracts back to its original volume, and at top of the column
there is “nothing” but “empty space.” In this book, though,
gravitation permeates the inside of the tube!
214
Yet in physics, the Michelson-Morley experiment (de-

scribed above) proves that there is no “ether” in space. As
such light waves travel in “vacuo,” to use Einstein’s word. In
physics, space is absolutely “empty.” Nothing makes space.
This is also extended to the string theory, in which every-
thing in the universe except space is made of strings; and eve-
rything evolves in “empty” space. This has clearly been an
article of faith since Einstein. 52
Strangely enough, even though made of nothing, space is
somehow also “continuous” in physics. How do we know
that “nothing” is continuous?
2. Space interpreted as made of something

Yet in the general theory of relativity, space “is” neverthe-
less intimately intertwined with “time.” And space-time with
no physical attributes at all, can be “curved” by mass—not to
mention, “act” on mass.
Then, even though made of nothing, empty space can be
measured! For instance, we (the human specie) precisely
measured the distance from the Earth to the moon.
And space is also a quantum vacuum, in which both parti-
cles and antiparticles vanish when colliding and out of which
similar pairs can reappear.
Then there is the concept of “field” in physics, which
comes and complicates immensely the situation.
The least that can be said is that physics’ field of interpre-
tations of space is crowded! Physics’ interpretations of space
are far from elegant, the quintessence of which is simplicity
and coherence.
In this book, space, exclusively made of resident activity
quanta, can afford to be coherent.
215
The concept of distance is not honored in gravimotion

Einstein identifies distances with marks drawn on “hard
bodies” or measures distances with “rods.”
Yet the material rod used to perform the measure is not
the space it occupies. The two can be distinguished simply as
not being made of the same entity (space and matter). Very
likely, the measuring tape or the rod behaves differently than
the space it measures. In addition, the former has the ability
to travel within the latter and the opposite is difficult to imag-
ine.
Lorentz suggested that matter shrinks longitudinally along
the direction of travel, at speeds close to speed of light. Yet it
is not because the measuring rod shrinks at speeds close to
light that space shrinks as well, and Lorentz did not venture
that far.
Unlike Lorentz, yet along with Einstein, Brian Greene
identifies the length of a car to space itself. He measures the
car a little tiny bit less long at 120 mph than when at rest. He
concludes that if we think that space is fixed in volume we are
mistaken! According to his thought experiment, space is as
variable as a rubber band.
The identification of matter, when used to delineate space
with space itself, is definitely an acquired principle in physics.
Taken for granted, though, it might have no factual reality.
Distances are also measured with light beams. Now the
measure is reduced to a measure of time, identifying distances
and times. The closest star to our solar system is “four light
years away”; light “years” become distances.
In this book, distances are not honored because they are
not needed, and motion is interpreted without distances. In
this book, only motion-volumes or stretches of space-activity
exist physically.
216
Space and the string theory, also called superstring the-

ory
The theory asserts that space is empty and is inhabited by
particles of force and matter. On a totally different scale,
these particles are made of one-dimensional strings, having a
length but no cross-section.
By comparison, in this book, emptiness (that is, nothing)
prevails only outside the universe. In this book, space (the
universe itself) is made of pure activity (motion) and every-
thing else—whether electrical or material, whether in motion
or at rest—is a specific configuration of that pure activity or
space.
The most convincing argument in favor of pure activity

is the speed of light in space
Why do photons traveling in empty space, speed precisely
at 300,000 km/s? What entity prevents them from propagat-
ing at any other speed or at an infinite speed for that matter?
Maxwell, who first calculated the speed of light, thought
that space was filled with an ether and in his mind light trav-
eled as other waves do.
Something physical, pure activity, must be behind the “fi-
nite” speed of light and that entity, in this book, does not ex-
clude speeds faster than light.
Ether’s physical consistency

Physicists calculated that due to its high speed, should light
be transferred through an ether, that ether would be solid!
Gravimotion’s solidity coincidental to the packaging of a
number of motion-volumes differs from physics’ solidity co-
incidental to matter. In gravimotion, both temperature and
space are made of unpackaged and/or unorganized motion-
217
volumes and have no characteristics of solidity no matter

their density.
218
Thoughts about Energy
The concept of energy is far from clear in physics
There is “kinetic energy” (½mv2 coincidental to linear mo-

tion), “work” (or energy coincidental to a force over a dis-
tance W=FL), and then “potential” energies—gravitational
and electric, elastic and compression energies, radiant energy
of light, chemical and nuclear energies, and mass energy.
“For those who want a proof that physicists are human,
the proof is in the idiocy of all the different units which they
use for measuring energy.” 53
On another front is the scalar definition of energy—
mathematically chosen to be like ‘‘thermal energy” or nondi-
rectional, rather than like “kinetic energy,” which is direc-
tional. Such an arbitrary choice renders the concept even
more dislocated.
In modern physics, energy is simply ignored! The theory
of relativity and its curved space-time provides a force in-
stead. And that philosophy is pushed to the extreme in the

string theory, in which only particles of force and matter ex-
ist. Even in classical physics, energy does not belong to the
list of basic quantities! In physics, energy is only a mathemati-
cal by-product of other basic quantities. In physics, energy
has no physical collateral.
In this book, activity, a nonscalar materialization of energy
in action and modeled with motion-volumes, is the only real-
ity; it “occurs” in lieu of space-time and implements anything
existing as part of the universe.
The two energetic interpretations of Einstein’s equation

In physics, Einstein’s equation is used to identify mass,
rather than motion, with energy; 54 that identifies inertia,
rather than speed, with energy—and in doing so, physicists
seemingly deprive energy of any of its potential activity. That
philosophy has been in effect since Newton’s inertia law, in
which motion is due to inertia.
In this book, c2 is not reduced to an inert constant, but
equivalent to temperature or thermal energy. 55 In this book,
the mass m instead is reduced to a unitless number. E repre-
sents a number (m) of θc. E is now motion-energy (kinetic
energy) rather than mass energy. 56 Light rays and sunburns
corroborate that interpretation; the energy found in an elec-
tromagnetic wave is also pure motion, θc, that is, motion
without mass attached to it.
And in this book, motion—whether it be of matter or of
light—is in both cases a dynamic configuration of space-
quanta.
220
Energy interactions versus relativity of distant speeds

As human beings, our primordial concern is about the in-
teractions of things. This is why relativity has such an impor-
tant role in physics.
In physics, the frequency of the wave is relative, just as
speeds of material objects are; both relativities of frequency
and speed (of matter) are necessarily considered over dis-
tances. On the other hand, and because it is constant, the
speed of light cannot be linked to the wave’s energy as is the
case for matter through kinetic energy. This physical contin-
gency represents a dilemma. In physics, the energetic aspect
of the wave, which is real, has to be extracted out of the
wave’s speed and stuffed into the photon. The photon can
now act relatively through its relative frequency, as relative
speeds do for matter.
In physics, two different “mechanisms” (Doppler effect
and photon) are in use for one phenomenon (the effect of
frequency). Yet that complication is simply not needed and is
only consequential to the obsession we have when we con-
sider “distant relativity” rather than energy interactions
through direct overlap in space.
In this book, the energetic interaction of waves with other
waves produces interferences through direct overlaps in
space; the waves interact with any other pure activity organ-
ized configuration, such as gravimotion 57 and electric auras
(of electrons, for instance), through direct overlap as well.
Motion-volume activity and interaction versus energy

Energy manipulates matter. We see and feel it through the
effects of heat and motion. So energy must be physical—yet
in physics, it has been given no physical body; by comparison,
matter, which is easier to see and feel, has been given one.
221
An important difference existing between physics’ energy

and this book’s activity is that activity has a body, the motion-
volume. Even electromagnetic waves are motion-volumes 58
in activity.
Another major distinction is that a motion-volume is not a
quantity definable at a specific time and space as energy is.
Per definition, the motion-volume, never at rest, overlaps
stretches of time and space. That specific characteristic is
primordial, as it is coincidental to direct interactions through
overlap, which in turn maintains the integrity of objects in
motion.
“Activity” integrates heat and motion 59 through that con-
cept of kinetic energy, subjacent to both in physics. Consider-
ing uniform motion, both physics’ kinetic energy and this
book’s motion-volume reflect the intensity of motion.
Instead of unifying as activity does, though, energy diversi-
fies; energy, arbitrarily defined as thermal energy (tempera-
ture) in physics, is an abstract scalar with no direction; yet
motion energy—the fundamental physical entity behind both
heat and thermal energy—is oriented in space!
The most important characteristic of the motion-volume is
that it occurs as an evolving volume, whose geometrical
transformation is time, merging both time and space into one
(energetic) entity that is motion. Even the gravimotion of an
object allegedly at rest evolves in both space and time. By
comparison, not identified physically, energy remains a
mathematical concept, necessarily remote from reality.
Energy and motion in physics

In particle physics, the energy of a particle is identified
with its speed. Particle accelerators illustrate this fundamental
222
identification of motion and energy. The faster an electron is,

the more energetic it is.
The mechanism of gravimotion integrates electric charges
and fields, mass and gravity, motion and energy and their
subentities, time and space, all into a single geometrical and
neat package, the motion-volume or motion-quantum.
223
Thoughts about Electromagnetic Waves
and Light
In the gravimotion theory, electromagnetic waves are per-

turbations of space’s resident quanta, which, when displaced,
overlap and displace the next in space, just as rows of domi-
noes ripple down. By contrast, its progenitor, the electron’s
electric charge in motion, involves both nonresident and resi-
dent quanta.
That explains the absolute propagation of light, in the
sense that it cannot be varied. The propagation of light de-
pends neither on the frequency nor on the motion of its
source. The propagation of light is consequential to the fabric
of space only, or to interactions of resident quanta.
On the other hand, the electric charges at the heart of mat-
ter, made of nonresident quanta, are free from such con-
straints. Not an integral part of space’s pure activity, nonresi-
dent quanta might well speed faster than light—just as air
trapped within the cockpit of a plane can move faster than
sound, even though sound, the plane, and the air within
propagate through air.
Electromagnetic waves, matter interactions in physics

Many known, fairly straightforward experiments are used
to illustrate the interactions existing between matter and elec-
tromagnetic waves. You can experiment with one of them
yourself: expose your body to the sun and you feel the heat!
In many of those experiments, the electromagnetic wave
interacts with electrons.
In physics, the materialistic aspect of the electron particle
or its energy in the sense of mass-energy (E=mc2) is con-
fronted with the “particle-like” photon. Evidently, that choice
is made at the expense of the electron’s electrical aspect. A
notorious example is the interpretation of the photoelectric
effect by Einstein; 60 another is the electrons’ interference
phenomenon, described later in this book.
The philosophy behind physics’ interpretation of those

interactions
In physics, light is interpreted as particle photons interact-
ing accordingly, or interacting as mass does rather than as
electric or electromagnetic fields do.
It seems that this is the rule—not to say, the philosophy—
behind physics’ interpretation, because in a similar fashion, in
physics, gravitation of a bigger body acts on the mass of a
smaller body, rather than on that smaller body’s very own
gravitation.
226
Doppler effect and speed

The Doppler effect is traditionally associated with and il-
lustrated by the emergency vehicle speed and siren. Should
the vehicle get closer to you, its pitch (its frequency) in-
creases; should it move away from you, it decreases. Yet the
“speed” of the sound in air is “absolutely” independent of the
speed of the vehicle.
The electromagnetic waves, which include light, behave in
the same manner. Our eyes perceive the pitch of the light
beams (their frequency) as distinct colors and all colors have
the same speed.
Unfortunately, in physics, the Doppler effect is used to
compare and evaluate speeds of material objects. The effect
of frequency in its energetic aspect is ignored in physics’
Doppler effect; energy is shifted to the photon in physics.
The Doppler effect states that a specific shift of frequency
(constant in time) is coincidental to a uniform motion be-
tween source and observer. And a variation in time of the
frequency reflects a variation of this motion—that is, an ac-
celeration or deceleration.
An undeclared facet of light in relativity

In the two statements (a) and (b), which describe the rela-
tivity of motion, 61 the role of light is carefully avoided. Yet
motion cannot be thought as being relative without light’s
“relating” role. The relativity of motion would not be relative
without the various interconnections that light necessarily
performs.
Certainly, light rays “relate” to us any motion observed,
and in physics there are no other materialistic relations (no
other relativities) involved. 62
227
Relativity in the theory of gravimotion

This is the third reason encountered that justifies the lack
of significance the theory of gravimotion gives to the relativ-
ity of motion.
The first concerned the material remoteness and discon-
nection between the two actors of relativity (objects in mo-
tion and coordinate system) as interpreted by Einstein in
Newton’s first law.
The second is gravimotion’s absolute motion, replacing
physics’ relativity of speeds.
The third is the relating role of light as described in the
above section, which goes along with gravimotion theory’s
interpretation of light as being only a messenger. 63
Waves’ and particles’ respective constitutions

In this book, since everything is made of quanta, waves as
well as particles are made of quanta.
The essential difference between an electromagnetic wave
and a subatomic particle is that the wave coincides with vibra-
tions of resident quanta (space itself) with no displacement
over noticeable stretches of space; the motion of a particle, by
contrast, involves the translation of nonresident quanta (or
the lack of it) over sizeable stretches of pure activity.
The photon’s strange characteristics

The photon’s aspect of the electromagnetic wave is, at the
least, magical because a photon is neither electrically positive
nor negative; all in all, a photon has no electric charge, it is
not biased, and has no mass! Yet the photon carries energy
through its “frequency” (E=hυ). We must conclude that there
is an internal vibration that involves neither an electric charge
228
nor a mass. This wave aspect of the photon, its very entity, is
magical. Having no physical support, it transcends all known
physical waves and laws.
Adding to the elusiveness of the concept, an electromag-
netic wave, unlike an electric field, is not created by an electric
charge (an electric field is) but by the motion of that electric
charge. In physics, that differentiates the two. Yet Maxwell’s
electromagnetic waves, which are varying electric fields, do
propagate just as the photons do. And whereas material parti-
cles leave the trace of their trajectories in accelerators, pho-
tons do not. Photons are invisible. Even in physics, as in real-
ity, only the waves of the electromagnetic waves are visible,
and not the photons!
The energy of the electromagnetic wave considered as a
photon is unimaginable physically because its frequency,
compacted into a particle, acts as matter does rather than as
an electrical entity. Shifting the frequency energy to kinetic
energy is justified in the sense that both act accordingly, but
not in the sense that it deprives the wave of its electromag-
netic entity and of the specific interactions of the latter.
The photon–electromagnetic wave duality incongruity
Incompatibility of volumes. Even though it can be very small, a

particle is defined with a finite constant volume; a wave,
which expands in space, constantly expands in volume. A
photon, deprived of an expanding volume, cannot take the
place of the wave. The photon and the wave volumetric in-
compatibilities alone prevent their merging into a single
physical entity.
229
Incompatible behaviors. Whereas the very constitution of a

wave is made of “dynamism,” such that it doesn’t exist other
than in expanding, a particle’s constitution is inertia or rest,
even in the gravimotion sense.
Incompatibility of energy format. Whereas a wave dwindles or

loses its energy along its expansion as it is diluted in an ever-
increasing volume of space, a particle does not; a particle
keeps its integrity. Evidently, the photon can be designed
mathematically to comply!
Incompatibility of cause. Whereas the source of a wave, while

oscillating is remaining in space behind the wave, in gravimo-
tion the source of motion for a particle is traveling along with
the particle and it doesn’t have to oscillate. These specific dif-
ferences, forbid the integration of wave and particle.
The position problem. Whereas in physics a material particle

can have a position, a wave cannot be assigned a position.
Special (mysterious) features have to be given to light. In physics

waves and particles make one. Particles are also waves and
electromagnetic waves are photons. This is a nice integration;
physics made two pieces of its own puzzle match.
Unfortunately, that contraption creates a rift within the
family of waves. Mechanical waves, which are water waves
and sound in air, are translated through a material medium;
electromagnetic waves or photons do not need such support.
In physics, unlike any other waves, electromagnetic waves
translate as matter does without any support.
230
Incoherent photon. The photon (a packet of energy) is emitted

when an electron jumps from one level to another within an
excited atom. But how is a photon emitted when the elec-
trons travel “gently” in an antenna? In an antenna, the elec-
trons are free to move continuously and there are no levels to
jump!
Are there two different mechanisms for the production of
photons—one out of the atom, which produces light, and
another out of the antenna, which produces radio waves?
The absence of bias. Whereas electric as well as magnetic

fields are biased (either positively or negatively) and the elec-
tromagnetic wave is a field, the photon is given neither a
positive nor a negative entity, nor is it an alternative electrical
entity. The only meaningful characteristic of the photon is its
frequency, assimilated to electrically neutral energy.
Waves are not particles and particles are not waves

Could the mess described above be avoided? It seems that
physics’ own procedures lead to such a mess.
Why wouldn’t we decide instead to rewrite Maxwell’s
equations as to match the energy format of the wave and as
described in the section “Electromagnetic waves’ energetic
characteristics” in chapter 10, page 91?
There is no basis—let alone a reason—that mandates we
(the human specie) must invent two incompatible representa-
tions (a photon and a wave) of a single phenomenon, simply
because our predecessors discovered the two phenomenon
(electromagnetic waves and photoelectric effect) fifty or so
years apart.
231
In the theory of gravimotion, the existence of the photon

is considered to be fictitious; a wave remains a wave and a
particle remains a particle.
As described below, in physics, particles are also waves.
Yet it is not because the electron behaves like a wave that it is
a wave; and it is not because a wave acts like matter or parti-
cles (when reflected by a mirror, for instance) that waves are
particles.
The photoelectric effect interpretation revisited

The electromagnetic wave/electric current relationship is
tight; 64 it explains the photoelectric 65 effect “simply.”
Higher amplitude of the wave produces more electrons;
higher frequencies produce electrons with higher energies.
And only higher energies’ electrons overcome the surface
barrier of the photoelectric material. Who needs the concept
of the photon? Nature certainly doesn’t.
Electromagnetic waves and particles behaviors

An electromagnetic wave is never accelerated or slowed, as
a material object is; the wave is produced by the source. By
contrast, particles preexist the source of energy and are only
accelerated by it. As such, the translations of waves and of
material objects are not of the same type; their very nature
and respective speeds cannot be compared, let alone identi-
fied, with each other as done in the wave/photon duality.
The energy transmitted by a wave (through its frequency)
is affected by the relative motion of the source and receiver,
just as is the case for material objects and particles. Gravimo-
tion’s theory concerns frequencies—or, more accurately, the
slope of the wave, implemented as motion-volumes densities
variations and their interactions in time—rather than speeds.
232
Ignoring the concept of speed, considering energy only as

done in this book, leads to crystal-clear and uncompromising
interpretations.
The Compton experiment

This experiment involves a beam of x-rays hitting a graph-
ite scatterer made of collimating slits. The scattered wave-
lengths are measured for various angles of the incoming x-
rays.
Compton measured a secondary wave of smaller frequency
that depends on the angle of the incoming beam. The scat-
tered wave cannot be explained if the incident wave is con-
sidered to be a wave as defined by Maxwell, as both should
then be of same frequency.
In physics, this experiment is interpreted as absolute proof
that electromagnetic waves are made of photons. Only “par-
ticle-like photons” can be reflected with a loss of energy, just
as particle matter does.
For his work, Compton was rewarded with a Nobel Prize.
In physics, the prize definitely ratifies the discovery as being a
physical truth; Nobel-ed ideas have never been overturned!
Compton’s interpretation is nevertheless considered to be
controversial in this book.
Unconventional interpretation of the Compton experi-

ment
In this book, the frequency of the physical wave is, in fact
(in reality), electrically (rather than mathematically and me-
chanically) energetic.
By experience, everyone knows that the heat energy of the
sun’s rays, absorbed by our skin, is strongly linked to the an-
gle of the sun’s rays with respect to our body. Lie down on
233
the beach perpendicular to noonday summer sun and you get

sunburned fast; stand up, and you do not.
Light’s (and electromagnetic waves’) very energetic heat
effect occurs as a wave—or that is Maxwell’s interpretation.
Why would one involve the photon in the Compton experi-
ment and the wave on the beach? What differentiates the
two?
In this book, the energy carried by the electromagnetic
wave is a function of its very slope and any interaction is then
influenced by the angle of contact when surfaces are con-
cerned, as it indirectly modifies the apparent slope of the
wave. Electromagnetic wave to electron energy interactions
and their by-products depend on the angle at which waves
and electrons in motion meet. Once the angle of collision is
recognized to define the energy transmitted, the lower fre-
quency of the scattered wave becomes physically natural. The
electrons, which are hit by the x-rays, receive more or less
energy as a function of the scattering angle. These electrons
re-emit the so-called scattered waves accordingly.
Why would we invoke the photon, an imaginary particle
whose characteristic is “frequency,” when Nature uses the
utmost simplicity, an interaction depending on the respective
angles of the various ingredients involved in the experiment?
Light waves behave as other waves do

The speed of light is absolute in that the speed of its
source as well as the speed of its recipient never add to or
subtract from it. No matter the speed of a star with respect to
us, we measure the speed of its light at 300,000 km/s.
Yet the same phenomenon occurs for sound. The speed of
sound doesn’t depend on the motion of the source either; it
depends instead on the air temperature and density. Whether
234
the source moves with respect to the listener, the speed of

sound remains intrinsically constant, and approximately 300
m/s.
On the other hand, frequency varies along with the relative
motion of source and receiver, just as happens with light (the
Doppler effect).
Why would one attribute to the constitution and the speed
of light “special” roles and specifications (drastically) depart-
ing from that of other waves? Where is the logic when the
“electromagnetic waves” actually do blend in with all other
waves?
Speed faster than light in gravimotion

In the theory of gravimotion, speeds faster than light are a
possibility; finite energies are sufficient to reach the speed of
light. And space-quanta on their own have the ability to move
faster than light.
As such, these space-quanta in their natural and jiggling
“social” organization (pure activity or space) must themselves
limit and legislate the speed of light. If motion-quanta can
move individually faster than light, then their crowd (space-
quanta making space) is what limits their motion in the
propagation of light.
On the other hand, when agglomerated, as nonresident
motion-quanta are in electric charges, motion-quanta could
very well exceed the speed of light…or beat the inertia of
space.
And that doesn’t mandate that motion-quanta move at
infinite speeds; their internal out-of-equilibrium constitution
dictates their own motion. The only requirement for anything
to exceed speed of light is that motion-quanta exceed speed
of light. Their maximum speed still remains finite, a situation
235
effectively controlled by their internal space-to-time loss of

equilibrium or energy level.
Prediction: We will discover speeds faster than light

Speeds faster than light will be discovered one day or an-
other for two reasons.
First, physics’ experiments involving antiparticles prove
that speeds faster than light may occur. Or one can argue that
Nature complies through physics experiments if one only
modifies physics interpretation. In experimental physics, anti-
particles experiments are well established.
Then we must have on hand a sensible explanation—
physical in nature, rather than mathematical—of speeds faster
than light. And the theory of gravimotion, with its pure activ-
ity and electric charge respective configurations, provides
such a possibility.
A possible recipe for unheard-of speeds, faster than light

Motion faster than light does not imply matter disintegra-
tion in gravimotion. However, in relativity—in which matter
turns into a black hole—it does. Solid plasmas, electrical in
nature, control matter’s integrity in the gravimotion theory.
At high speeds, both the motion and very entity of the sub-
atomic particles forming matter could be temporarily over-
taken without annihilation. The configuration of matter
would remain in gravimotion’s memory. See “Gravimotion’s
memory” in chapter 4, page 29.
The atom’s own electromagnetic activity might be used
one day to move itself at speeds unheard of so far. The so-
called antiparticle phenomenon could mathematically provide
some help.
236
Thoughts about Physics’
Subatomic World
The electron interference phenomenon

Richard Feynman describes in great length the electron
interference phenomenon 66 in The Character of Physical Law.
In order to introduce the interference phenomenon,
Feynman starts by describing an event involving no interfer-
ence. Once through, he shows how an electron, which is not
supposed to create interferences, actually does.
The no-interference case. The first experiment (no interference)

involves bullets shot into an armor plate in which two holes
have been drilled.
Feynman draws the distribution of the bullets that have
gone through the two holes. The bullets end up in two
mounds, respectively aligned with the slot and the source of
the bullets.
The following graph illustrates the experiment.
In this first experiment, Feynman asks us to take note of

two important facts.
The first is that even though he measures the number of

bullets that arrive somewhere, the plots he draws ends up
with numbers that are not whole numbers. For instance, a
point on the curve could be of 2.5 bullets per hour, even
though bullets come in whole. In physics, this is given the
name of “probability of arrival” and by extension the “meas-
ure of the probability of arrival.”
From the point of view of this book, this value of 2.5 bul-
lets is nevertheless not a reality! In reality as shown in the
graph above, the distribution is not smooth. Actual bullets
pile up forming an uneven surface. The “measure of the
probability of arrival” is not a measure, but an aberration of
reality or at best a mathematical extension of reality.
Second, if you were to close the second hole and shoot
bullets through the first only, you would count N1 bullets.
238
Similarly, if you were to close the first hole and count the
number of bullets through the second, you would count N2
bullets. These two operations considered individually, provide
the same distribution as when both holes are opened simulta-
neously and that is the meaning of no interference.
N12 = N1 + N2. The distribution N12 is equivalent to the
sum of the two individual distributions N1 and N2 alone. If
there had been interference, the resulting distribution would
not coincide with the two individual distributions.
The interference case
239
In the second experiment, “now we have done for bullets

we begin again, this time with water waves.” 67 The armor
plate is replaced by a levee, with two openings. And rather
than using big ocean waves, Feynman wiggles his finger up
and down in the water. On the other side of the levee is a de-
tector that detects how much the water is jiggling. For in-
stance, a cork plays the role of the detector in the place he
wants to measure the energy carried by the wave.
Note that Feynman talks now about energy rather than
matter—in effect, admitting openly that waves and matter
behave differently.
And he asks us to take note of the following two facts:
Unlike bullets, the waves do not come in lumps; the meas-
urements “can have any size at all.” 68 The measurements are
of the intensity I of the wave, or its energy.
Then “The important thing is that I12 is not the same as I1
plus I2.” 69 The combination of the two distributions, I1 and I2,
is not the sum of the two distributions when measured indi-
vidually. Yet the individual curves of I1 and I2, obtained when
the second and then the first gap are alternatively closed, co-
incides with the curves N1 and N2 of the bullet experiment.
This is why there is interference; when the two gaps are open,
the waves coming out of one gap interfere with the wave
coming from the other and form the interference pattern.
Feynman mentions, “The mathematics of the curve ‘I12’ is
rather interesting,” 70 explaining that the intensity of the curve
is not proportional to the phenomenon of the interference
but proportional to the square of the height of the waves. A
maximum coincides with the combination of two peaks of
the waves and a minimum with the combination of two
troughs, and the combination of a wave trough with a wave
240
peak leaves the water undisturbed. The sum of the previous

case is replaced by a multiplication of the individual effects.
The case of the electron. Then Feynman turns his attention

toward electrons and photons. He assumes that the reader is
convinced that light is made of individual packets of energy
called photons—inferring beforehand that both electrons and
photons should act as bullets do. For your information, if the
reader doesn’t think that light is made of photons, the reader
can nevertheless continue because the experiment is, after all,
described using electrons rather than photons.
The electron source is made of a hot filament, the now
familiar shield with two holes is made of a tungsten plate, and
the detector is made of “any electrical system which is suffi-
ciently sensitive to pick up the charge of an electron arriving
with whatever energy the source has.” 71
First, he mentions that what we receive in the electrical
detector “are clicks, lumps, absolute lumps.... If you turn the
source weaker the clicks come further apart but it is the same
sized clicks.” 72 He insists that if you put another detector in a
different place and listen to both of them, you will never get
two clicks at the same time, proving “that the thing which is
coming comes in lumps—it has a definite size, and it only
come in one place at a time.” 73 He further adds, “Right, so
electrons, or photons, come in lumps.” 74 Needless to men-
tion, one who does not believe in the existence of photons is
thrown out of balance by this statement and the mere pres-
ence of the word “photon” there. Nevertheless, let’s con-
tinue.
The amazing conclusion is that while expecting the distri-
bution N12 for the electrons, we get a distribution of type I12.
241
And one is supposed to think that that makes sense, be-

cause one obtains interferences with light rays even when in-
terpreted as photons! On the other hand, it doesn’t make
sense if you consider that electrons are like bullets!
Rather than trying to find out why the electrons have a
reason to behave as waves do, Feynman explains how we can
“invent” simple mathematics that essentially assigns the char-
acteristics of a wave to the electrons particles! Since waves
and particles are incompatible, he uses new concepts such as
the “probability amplitude,” which had been introduced
through the bullets experiment. Note that, as mentioned
above, such probability (2.5 bullets) is not considered to be a
physical reality in this book.
The electron’s interference interpreted anew

In the case of the water wave, Feynman describes how he
generates his wave: “The jiggling is made very regular and
perfect so that the waves are all the same space from one an-
other.” 75 In other words, the source emits “synchronized”
waves; when light is involved, it is called monochromatic.
Without such a source, interference cannot occur.
An important fact on which Feynman clearly insists is that
two electrons never pass simultaneously through the gates. I
think that Feynman wanted to make us understand the fol-
lowing: first, interference can only exist with a synchronized
source that is subsequently split into two synchronized
beams; second, electrons are not synchronized among them-
selves; and third, electrons provide interferences.
Yet one can also infer that each electron must individually
send a signal through both slots, which—since it is sent by
itself—is now automatically synchronized. And effectively
electrons, on one hand, do emit electromagnetic waves when
242
traveling, and on the other, their electric charge and fields are
influenced by electromagnetic waves.
On the following graph, the waves emitted by an electron
in motion are represented with concentric circles and the two
slots act as synchronized sources of waves, as in any interfer-
ence experiment.
Considering only one electron, before entering either slot,

it emits an electromagnetic wave that will travel through both
slots. Because the electron is slower than light, the light has
ample time to make a detour, to travel ahead and form a
fringe pattern on the other side of the plate—an effect totally
ignored by Feynman. The fringe pattern is now coincidental
to the path of the electron and the latter is deviated in time
and space as a function of that bias in space.
243
Should the electron speed be 20,000 times slower than that

of light and the two holes in the shield separated by one cen-
timeter, the self-interference as shown in the above graph
would occur within 1 micron (one millionth of a meter) on
each side of the plate.
Furthermore, for electrons not to fall on the shield plate,
the latter plate must be biased negatively—a bias that has two
consequences also neglected by Feynman. First, the bias devi-
ates the electron’s trajectory and then it modifies its speed—
two effects that are nonexistent in the bullet case.
Note that in order for the electrons to be able to depart
from the source, the latter must be negatively biased itself,
while it remains positive with respect to the shield! Evidently
the receiver must be biased too, probably positively.
All those relative voltages can in any manner be neglected;
there is nothing comparable to the bullets case! Certainly the
electron doesn’t act as an electrically neutral bullet does!
As a layman, I think these factors, electrical in nature,
should be taken in account, even if some of them turn out to
be inconsequential
It is furthermore destabilizing when Feynman suddenly
identifies electrons and photons: “Right, so electrons, or pho-
tons, come in lumps,” 76 whereas photons, above all waves,
are per definition “synchronized.” There is nothing strange
about the fact that photons, which are waves, produce
fringes! The only strange thing is physics’ invention of the
“photon,” a particle mimicking a wave.
The fundamental characteristic of the electron treated

with derision
Let’s face it; as already mentioned in the section “The elec-
tron’s fundamental characteristic” in chapter 9, page 83, there
244
is nothing in common between “material” bullets and “elec-

trical” electrons.
An argument often read in physics literature is expressed
by Feynman as follows: “The question is how it can come
about that when the electrons go through hole No. 1 they will
be distributed one way, when they go through hole No. 2
they will be distributed another way, and yet when both holes
are open you do not get the sum of the two.” 77 That argu-
ment is defeated with this book’s interpretation that involves
the electron’s electrical nature and its emissions of electro-
magnetic waves, because when both holes are open, even if
only one electron is considered, it doesn’t behave as if one
hole only were to be open.
It looks like the only “existing” discrepancy is artificially
introduced when electrons, which are electrical entities, are
considered to be bullets, intentionally neglecting their “elec-
trical nature,” their ability to emit electromagnetic waves, and
their sensitivity to electromagnetic waves and electrical fields.
Note that Feynman, while ignoring the electrical aspect of
the electrons as far as the description and outcome of the ex-
periment are concerned, nevertheless uses “electrical systems
sufficiently sensitive” 78 to count them.
From the point of view of this book, it is no more justifi-
able to identify an electron to an electrically neutral bullet
than it is to identify an electromagnetic wave to a particle
(photon) that is declared to be neutral electrically. In this
book, physics’ mathematical interferences of foreign (to each
other) entities are reinterpreted instead as physical interac-
tions of entities of the same type and occurring within shared
time and space.
245
Nucleus’ mass cross-section measurement in physics

As already mentioned in chapter 5 of this book, the nu-
cleus of an atom is just about 40,000 times smaller than the
diameter of its host atom. The nuclei are so small that the
measurement of their size requires a special technique. The
cross-section of the nucleus of an atom is measured with a
beam of high-energy particles directed at and going through a
½-inch-thick slice of carbon. These high-velocity particles
travel right through the population of the tiny electrons and
are stopped or rebound only if they hit the concentrated mass
or weight of the atom, all within the nucleus.
Even though this thick a slice of carbon is made of 100
billion layers of atoms, the nuclei are so small that there is
little chance that any nucleus will be shaded by another.
The beam’s particles are very small with respect to the nu-
cleus size, and the ratio of the ones not making it through to
the ones who do is proportional to the area covered by the
nuclei divided by the total area.
The figure below represents the magnified view one would
see of the nuclei, looking along the particle beam.
The nuclei of a thick layer of matter
246
The nucleus is found to be 5×10−15 meter, a size consistent

with the 40,000 nucleus-to-atom ratio mentioned earlier in
this book.
The nucleus cross-section measurement technique

questioned
The treatises of physics assert that through this method we
are measuring the size of a material entity, defined as the con-
centrated weight of a nucleus—literally, the atomic mass. In
these conditions, the above experiment is likened to a bowl-
ing ball missing or hitting the pins in a bowling alley. Any in-
vestigative mind then wonders why high-energy particles are
needed. In fact, these energetic particles might knock off
some nuclei and go through, now spoiling the results.
Any small (in size and in mass) electrically neutral particle
should do the job. It should be stopped by the weight or the
mass of the nuclei and find its way in between. For instance,
the photon, which has no mass and is electrically neutral, is
an ideal candidate! Yet a layer half an inch thick of carbon is
opaque to light!
The assertion that high-energy particles will travel right
through the population of electrons provides a hint at what is
really happening. The electrons offer in reality a mighty resis-
tance, electrical in nature and not a material (made of mass)
resistance. As such the high-energy particles are confronted
with and must fight their way through a maze of electromag-
netic fields and not merely make their way through empty
space thinly populated with electrically neutral masses of nu-
clei!
We are no longer dealing with mass and weight but with
electric charges and strong electric fields. This experiment of
physics simply doesn’t make sense.
247
About the constitution of the nucleus of an atom

Should the atoms’ nuclei be made of mass, neutrinos—
which are extremely small (no mass) and neutral electrically—
would then be even better than photons to perform the
measurement. Yet neutrinos go right through incredible
stacks of matter’s solid plasma and nuclei alike, hinting that
these nuclei are not made of hard atomic mass, as our body
and sense of touch conceive hardness of matter, and that the
matter of an atom’s nucleus is of an electrical rather than a
mass type.
A different argument is provided by the tensile property of
matter; matter’s resistance to tension, which is another aspect
of hardness, is in physics wholly electrical! Why would there
be two different explanations for solidity in physics? Why is
there first the nuclei hardness coincidental to mass and then
matter’s resistance to tension coincidental to electrical links?
Or if the two are electrical in nature, what is the use—let
alone the meaning—of the concentrated weight of a nucleus?
There is yet another thing to consider: the alternate so-
called “resonance” constitution of the atom, as described
later in this book. In this book’s interpretation, unlike physics’
interpretation, the nuclei do jiggle around themselves. In
physics’ experiment, the nuclei are assumed to be at rest. In
this book’s interpretation, the nuclei might vibrate over space
as much as the electrons do themselves. If the nuclei of the
atoms are not at rest, physics’ measurement method loses its
validity.
In gravimotion theory, the core of matter that surrounds
us or that makes our own body is made of electrical energy—
and is violently active.
248
Hardness and hardness

In this book, hardness is a synonym of solid that is not
hollow, rather than equivalent to mass (weight and inertia).
A neutron and a hydrogen atom are both made of an elec-
tron and a proton. Neutrons are much more compact than
are hydrogen atoms or any other atom, though, since neu-
trons are to be found within the nuclei of these atoms. As
such, the neutron is harder than the hydrogen atom.
Neutrons also make neutron stars, which are incredibly
dense. If our sun were reduced to a neutron star, all of its
mass would be compacted in a sphere 10 km (6 miles) in di-
ameter! Precise angular measurements provide us the diame-
ter of the sun; and that is 1.4 millions km (870,000 miles)—a
number difficult to appreciate, yet far larger than 10 km!
The hardness of matter, as we conceive and experience it,
is but a fraction of what it can be. Stronger hardness yet
seems to exist! Whereas the neutron is incredibly harder than
the hydrogen atom, the neutrino, which is neutral and has no
mass as compared to a neutron, plows right through all!
The hydrogen atom and electromagnetic resonance

The following ideas are only stipulations, yet they have the
merit of making sense.
A hydrogen atom is made of an electron revolving around
a proton. In spite of the fact that the electron and the proton
are strongly attracted to each other, the electron doesn’t fall
onto the proton.
The explanation adopted in this book is that while travel-
ing and spinning on themselves within the atom, both pro-
tons and electrons create complementary electric and mag-
netic fields that are like the opposite currents in an LC circuit
249
(coil capacitor circuit). In some specific conditions, such a

system enters in resonance.
Two ingredients make the “resonance”: a physical ingredi-
ent, which is the size of the atom or the trajectories of the
particles constituting it (the sizes of the coil and capacitor in
the LC circuit), and a dynamic entity, which is the motions of
the subatomic particles and their ensuing electromagnetic
waves in the atom (the frequency of the electric current in the
LC circuit). When the two match, the whole is in resonance.
Now assuming the electron’s motion and ensuing electro-
magnetic effects are in tune with that of the proton, should
either deviate from their respective motion and trajectory in
any direction, the whole would get out of tune and modify its
energy balance. This can only happen with a contribution of
energy from (or to) the outside; as such, the atom remains
stable if not tickled.
The resonance, which coincides precisely with the orbital
of both electron and proton, justifies the atom’s existence and
stability.
By contrast, physics’ explanation involves the uncertainty
principle. In physics, the electron cannot fall onto the nucleus
because it then would be in one place, or occupy a known
position next to the nucleus, which is forbidden by that prin-
ciple. Besides the fact that this interpretation introduces a
new cause (other than the conservation of energy principle)—
and by doing so diversifies human interpretation of Nature—
this logic defeats itself. If a position cannot be known, why
would the nucleus itself have a position? If a position were
actually replaced by jerky motion, why would the proton, it-
self mainly electrical, not have frantic motion along with the
electron? Physics’ interpretation of the hydrogen atom is dif-
ficult to imagine when observing that both the proton’s and
250
the electron’s prevailing characteristic is electrical in nature

and that they match each other in strength.
While 1800 times heavier than an electron, even a proton’s
mass is negligible as compared to the electromagnetic ener-
gies involved. But for their opposite electrical bias, there is no
other distinction to consider between an electron and a pro-
ton. Even in physics their mass has no role to play, yet both
electrons and protons masses play important roles in physics!
Then what are neutron stars made of, if not of collapsed
hydrogen atoms (neutrons)? Do neutron stars defy the uncer-
tainty principle? There is no doubt an answer to that question
in physics. The resonance interpretation, though, is much
more realistic, as it doesn’t forbid an electron-proton em-
brace, which both long for and which does occur!
The resonance interpretation also accommodates more
complex atoms with various resonance modes; at the same
time, it fits the beauty 79 of the quantum interpretation of the
elements.
In the resonance interpretation, the electric charges are in
charge—not the masses or gravitation! As such, the proton
very likely vibrates in space as much as the electron does.
And the volume of the atom is no longer coincidental to the
motion of the electron alone.
This interpretation has another merit. When an electron
jumps from one orbital to another less-energetic one, physics’
quantum theory asserts that it emits a photon of a given fre-
quency; this book’s interpretation amounts to a jump from
one resonance frequency to another, forcefully “unballasting”
frequency or emitting a matching ingredient (frequency).
In physics, a photon—whose energy is frequency—is
emitted in spite of the fact that the physical jump of an elec-
tron has no affiliation to a vibration-type phenomenon! This
251
is pretty difficult to make sense of. A jump from one orbital

to another, interpreted as the passage from one tuned state of
the atom to another, is much more elegant in concept. And
the difference in frequency existing between the two tuned
orbitals is not necessarily the frequency emitted; the fre-
quency emitted depends on the energies exchanged, a phe-
nomenon now in tune with the Compton effect.
The neutron
Both the atom of hydrogen and the neutron, each made of
one proton and one electron, are neutral, and (even in phys-
ics) do not require a strong force to exist.
The difference between the neutron and the hydrogen
atom must therefore be a difference of energy of “agglomera-
tion,” or energy of collision, when formatted. For instance,
stronger collisions lead to neutrons, whereas weaker collisions
lead to a resonance mode and hydrogen atoms.
The neutrino
When a neutron decays into a proton and an electron, it
also emits a neutrino. One must conclude that the neutrino is
equivalent to the “assembly energy” of the neutron. A neu-
trino is what keeps a neutron’s integrity. The neutrino might
be made of motion, just as light and the strong force are in
this book.
Introduction of muons
Fast-moving particles, traveling in space, constantly bom-
bard Earth’s upper atmosphere. The collisions create particle
reactions out of which muons emerge. Muons are “decaying”
particles. According to quantum physics, negative muons
252
have an average “lifetime” of 1.5 microseconds at rest; they

decay into an electron and two neutrinos each.
Since the atmosphere is about 30 km thick, muons created
at close to speed of light should not penetrate more than the
upper kilometer before they decay—and yet we see them at
the surface of Earth. This phenomenon is used as a confirma-
tion of the theory of relativity’s time dilation: at close to
speed of light, muons “live” longer and travel farther than
expected before decaying.
Gravimotion’s interpretation of the decay of the muons

From the description of the muons just made, it is evident
muons are complex objects since they decay into smaller par-
ticles. So within the muon is a cohesive mechanism involving
motion-volumes either oriented (gravitation-like) or graded
(electrical-like). The more energy muons have (the higher
their speed), the more the internal cohesion mechanism is
taken over, and the greater the chance to break it apart. The
lower their speed, the lower the chance muons have to disin-
tegrate.
The overall motion of the muon then controls the disloca-
tion (decaying) mechanism. The less-energetic muons slowed
by the atmosphere have less energy, and take longer to decay.
Compatible motions
The above muon decay interpretation implies that the
more energetic the motion of a muon, the more detrimental
to its entity. Or that the packaging energy of a muon is com-
patible for destruction with the energy of its own motion.
This situation is opposite to that of time dilation, in which
a clock mechanism is slowed down along with an increase of
253
its own motion. In the time dilation case, a motion takes over
another incompatible motion.
With the muon decay mechanism, the clock’s internal mo-
tion would be compatible with the clock’s own overall mo-
tion. Yet the two would be inverse so as to annihilate each
other, having no chance to be reinstated. In other words, the
motion of the clock would unwind the spring of the clock.
About the standard model

The standard model includes neither gravity nor mass.
The Higgs particle has been mathematically designed to pro-
vide matter and (very likely) inertia to the subatomic particles,
which are lacking mass in present theories.
Particle physics (standard model) doesn’t unify electrons
and protons, though! Particle physics considers quarks.
See for yourself:
A proton is two up and one down quarks.
A neutron is two down and one up quarks.
An electron is…an electron!
Shouldn’t an electron also be made of quarks, such as one
down less one up (a neutron minus a proton)—so as to be
related to the proton, whose electric charge it matches? These
electric charges mandate that the electron and the proton are
related one way or another!
In all logic, the electron has not been created independ-
ently of the “ingredients” constituting the proton.
254
Thoughts about Relativity
Concept and definition of position in physics

The concept of position, clearly enunciated by Einstein, is
primordial in physics.
The position of an object is precisely defined with three
distances relative to a coordinate system, external to the ob-
ject, and which are called the coordinates of the object.
A position is relative because its coordinates, incidental to
a reference system and “defining” that position, differ from
the coordinates incidental to another reference system, defin-
ing the same position.
Thoughts about the concept of position

Here are a few of the strange consequences of the concept
of position.
Should the second reference system above be moving in
reality—that is, with respect to the first reference system—
the so-called position defined with respect to the second is
now moving in reality! As such, a position in a given refer-
ence system might not satisfy the conditions of a position in

reality. And the description of motion in physics, which uses
the concept of position, loses its meaning.
Furthermore, in the theory of relativity, distances (coordi-
nates) and times (coordinates in space-time) become variable
with speeds, adding to the confusion.
Another detail that adds to the confusion is that the posi-
tion is considered to be a fundamental characteristic of an
object in physics, yet its definition makes it clearly part of a
reference system and not of the object. A moving object con-
stantly changes position, constantly leaving behind “its” posi-
tion.
Then consider a spinning top or gyroscope. Here is an ob-
ject “moving in function” of time yet its position does not.
How does the purpose of mechanics, which is to describe
how objects change position, applies to the gyroscope?
Whereas physics’ concept of motion, through applied
physics, is of the utmost importance in our day-to-day lives, if
one tries to understand Nature through physics’ teachings,
one is nevertheless lost! In this book, the concept of position
is abrogated as being incompatible with the reality (the physi-
cal occurrence) of motion.
In spite of the fact that physics’ concept of position
clashes with reality, the concept remains primordial in phys-
ics, even in the most advanced theories. In the string theory,
which is a main tenet of contemporary physics, the concept
of position remains strong. The simplest vibration that is uni-
form refers to the motion of a string while it slides in space
from one “position” to the next.
256
Infinitesimal distances
The concept of infinitesimal distances is incongruous. In-
finitesimal means immeasurably minute or small according to
the dictionary. And things that cannot be measured in physics
do not exist, or are not supposed to be taken in account.
Then the word “infinitesimal” clashes with distance, which
is a measurable entity in physics.
In all cases, a distance is finite and not infinitesimal, and a
so-called infinitesimal distance with a noncalculable value
cannot be a distance.
Unfortunately, this evidence is pushed back in some shad-
owy part of our brain by the beauty, the elegance, and the
imaginative power of differential calculus.
An infinitesimal distance is nothing more than a position,
and positions are disregarded in this book.
Reference system, coordinate system

A reference system is a physical entity, such as an observer
or a solid body, against which an object position can be de-
fined.
A coordinate system is an idealization and theoretical form
of the material reference system. A coordinate system is imag-
ined and represented with three axes all at right angles to each
other. The coordinates of a position are then three distances
to the three axes. Coordinates are the intellectual interpreta-
tion of a “real” position in a real reference system.
The concept of rest and position in physics

In physics, “at rest” means that an object is not moving in
space while time goes by (the law of inertia). From that point
of view, rest and position are identified with each other in
physics. Yet in physics, rest is in conflict with itself just as
257
uniform motion is. Both uniform motion and rest occur by

themselves (the law of inertia in its literal meaning) whereas
both are considered to be relative.
Physics’ stance is that rest and uniform motion cannot be
distinguished. By contrast in gravimotion, rest and uniform
motion have different configurations and both are as absolute
as the law of inertia (literal) interpretation suggests.
Gravimotion is an alternative to the theory of relativity

Although Einstein chose to render space and time variable
to fit the principle of relativity with the absolute speed of
light, there is at least one alternative to explain that apparent
incompatibility.
The gravimotion mechanism reconciles motion of matter
and propagation of light physically, as both are based on a
single entity called motion-volume.
It turns out that the gravimotion mechanism renders mo-
tion of mass absolute, just as propagation of light is. That in-
terpretation replaces distant relativity of speeds with local in-
teraction of activity (energies). Activity is interactive, through
direct overlap in time as much as in space.
From the point of view of this book, the apparent incom-
patibility between the “principle of relativity” and the speed
of light is academic, simply due to the inconsistency of the
concept of speed.
In physics, the absolute speed of light occurs outside of
any law; it basically remains unexplained. In this book, mo-
tion, whether it be of light or of matter, even though absolute
in all cases, obeys strict laws.
258
Thoughts about Entropy
Heat and motion are equivalent in this book; they are uni-
fied at the microscopic scale. The concept of entropy in
which the transfer of heat degrades energy no longer makes
sense.
Besides, at the time of the big bang (at the very beginning),
there was only a “hot magma” that degraded (to use the same
word but in reverse) into matter and motion. Where are order
and disorder?
And what about heat created by both atomic fission and
fusion. Is fission heat a degraded form of fusion heat?
The goal in the theory of gravimotion is coherence of in-
terpretation, and the concept of entropy is replaced by the
much more comprehensive equalization phenomenon.
In this book, heat is not a degraded form of motion. Heat
and motion are, at a larger scale, two different configurations
of a number of motion-volumes, an entity existing at a lower
scale.
Tentative presentation of entropy

We owe the concept of entropy to the nineteenth-century
physicist Rudolf Clausius. The concept of entropy has no
physical collateral though; it is not a physical entity, for ex-
ample, as motion or matter are.
In physics, friction creates entropy. Friction is considered
to waste energy and that creates entropy. Similarly, heat flows
from a hot body to a cooler body and doing so generates en-
tropy. A heat engine that converts only part of the heat into
work also wastes energy and creates entropy.
Even though the logic is not easy to follow, this probably
means that it is easier to transform work into heat (through
friction) than the opposite or heat into work (through an en-
gine). But that doesn’t mandate that heat is a degraded form
of energy, or that motion is a “noble” form of energy! In this
book, heat and motion—defined as confined and coordinated
activities, respectively—are on equal footings.
Nevertheless, in physics, entropy is also related to the con-
cepts of randomness and disorder. Boltzmann proved that
the molecules’ motion and distribution of a volume of gas
become systematically more random until that distribution
settles down into a stable state labeled thermal equilibrium,
and that randomness has the same property as entropy: both
increase along with each other.
Asserting that the molecules’ kinetic energies are as ran-
domly distributed as they can be is a concept difficult to
imagine. Why and how would some molecules have very high
kinetic energies while others would almost be at rest? Because
molecules are as randomly distributed in velocity as possible,
this implies that none have the same speed. Yet the molecules
constantly bang on each other and their various speeds must
eventually even out, reaching some kind of consensus. And
260
such a consensus matches much better the so-called state of

even temperature equilibrium.
The examples of entropy provided are not convincing

As an example of entropy, 80 a bottle of perfume is opened.
The perfume escapes the bottle and mixes evenly in the air of
the room. Eventually, the concentration ratio of air to per-
fume ends up being the same in both the bottle and in the
room.
In physics, the escape of the perfume is assimilated as go-
ing toward a less-arranged state or a state of less order, and it
reflects the concept that the universe is considered as evolv-
ing toward chaos—yet the logic is hard to follow. The per-
fume expanding in the room obeys simple (or, let’s say, more
evident) diffusion laws—laws that are one directional toward
equilibrium (the equalization phenomenon). Yet physics likes
to interpret the phenomenon by suggesting there is a possibil-
ity (whatever its remoteness) that the perfume might get back
into the bottle in order to restore “order.” Such a hypothesis
is devoid of any reality; the perfume has no chance in view of
the equilibrium laws to move back into the bottle, unless it is
forced to do so by human help, which happened in the first
place! Why would we not consider instead that we created
disorder when we forced the perfume into the bottle, and that
Nature reorders itself according to its own likening, which is
equilibrium, when we finally allow it to do so?
And no matter what example is provided, the same can be
said. For instance, take Brian Greene’s example, which is his
desk. 81 When the books and magazines are opened and when
letters and bills are all mixed at random, he considers that as
being disorder—as if everything had to be in neat piles of
documents of the same kinds to implement order. As far as
261
Nature is concerned, it doesn’t make any difference. There

lies a bunch of atoms and molecules accumulated on the ta-
ble, arranged in sheets bound together; most have printed
text (made of ink atoms). These atoms’ very existence, their
intricate combinations into molecules, is the order of Nature
and has much more significance than the respective positions
of the books and papers. The order invoked by us human
beings has no significance; as a matter of fact, looking at my
desk, I have a bunch of open books and reviews, which
would be in disorder according to Brian Greene, but which all
happen to point to the subject of entropy. From that point of
view, it is instead in extreme order. Besides, one person’s or-
der looks messy to another!
Randomness and order in physics and in this book

While “legislating” the phenomenon of heat, physics ig-
nores its apparently chaotic nature. The ensuing thermody-
namic laws and concept of entropy, being extraordinarily suc-
cessful, are then considered to be laws of physics in the sense
of reflecting reality, instead of being what they are, which is
human observations. The uncertainty principle, indirectly a
by-product of the entropy concept, comes then at the right
time in physics, and rescues the frantic reality of the micro-
scopic world. The principle seemingly justifies the realities of
both micro and macro worlds.
To summarize the above, we (the human race) enunciate
laws that fit our scale, deliberately ignoring the minute nature
of Nature. Then, when we apply these laws to Nature’s mi-
croscopic nature, we declare Nature is unpredictable. Finally,
we discover a new principle (that of uncertainty) that justifies
precisely what we knew in the first place (the chaotic aspect
of temperature)!
262
For instance, it seems that the toss of a perfectly balanced

coin can only be random. In physics, such randomness is not
consequential to our inability to depict reality accurately; ran-
domness belongs to reality. And randomness mandates that
the fundamental laws of nature must be of discrete rather
than continuous nature. Evidently, if you toss the coin an in-
finite number of times, you’ll end up with as many heads as
tails, and the statistical laws along with the logic of these laws
are as solid as rock!
The conditions of the toss are too varied and complex for
us to analyze; yet in reality they end up causing the coin to
settle in one way or the other. Cause and effect along with
coherence are the opposite of randomness. And coherence is
intrinsic to happening.
In a nutshell, randomness doesn’t exist—things do not
occur haphazardly simply because our minds are limited and
unable to explain complex situations; what happens within,
around, and beyond us is coherent and transcends our inabil-
ity to describe it mathematically.
The arrow of time and the expansion of the universe

Entropy is also physics’ proof that time is running in a
forward direction. Because the equations of mechanics work
both ways—that is, along or against time—physics is com-
pelled to enunciate a law that mandates things to move along
with the arrow of time. The entropy law plays that role.
In the theory of gravimotion, motion, which has a direc-
tion, “includes” physics’ arrow of time. In gravimotion, the
expansion of the universe (and that is motion) is sufficient to
mandate that things occur according to physics’ concept of an
arrow of time.
263
Freedom and human evaluation of its own value

In quantum theory, statistics are used to show that things
are “irrational.” In my opinion, this stance is intuitively taken
to justify one’s own freedom of choice.
Scientifically proving that things are irrational apparently
enhances the reality of our own freedom. It kills, once and
for all, all doctrines of determinism, which seemingly pre-
vents any human freedom.
Too often, though, our choice (that of the human race)
has been influenced by what we wanted things to be.
One can be equally positive choosing the opposite direc-
tion. How could our own choices, by-products of our own
physical being (and that is determinism at best), be degrading?
Isn’t it our very individual entity to each one of us that
counts? How could our very own entity diminish its own
value while acting according to itself and its own bodily mate-
rialistic constitution of atoms? As far as I am concerned,
“my” freedom of choice is not at all degraded because my
body has been given an existence or “given to me” as is! And
these thoughts lead me straight into denying irrationality.
Identifying my thinking to my being, itself structured of
atoms and cells, exclusive of anything else, renders my think-
ing more extraordinary to my own eyes than identifying it
with some (unknown) supernatural entity, let alone an irra-
tional entity.
264
Thoughts about Statistics
Statistics are an invaluable probing tool in physics, yet they

have their own physical limitations.
The outstanding power of statistics

Here is an example of the outstanding power of statistics.
As a microcircuit manufacturing engineer, I was involved in
testing the circuits I was responsible for manufacturing. A
batch, which had been 100% tested, was returned by the cus-
tomer, whose own incoming test showed that 1% of the cir-
cuits were defective. We focused on the defects and started to
probe them to discover the cause of the failure in order to
remedy it through a design or manufacturing change.
In the meantime, I thought I could save the batch by re-
testing it. I figured out that since the customer found 1% de-
fect rate, our own testing process at most mistakenly tested
1% of the circuits (because they were shipped as good). Now
that those defects were removed, retesting again should yield
only 1% of 1% or a 1 per 10,000 rejection rate. Retesting
would save the batch of circuits, as it would end up perfect as

far as the customer was concerned. In order to save that
batch, I ordered another test. To my surprise, instead of get-
ting no rejects (or 1 per 10,000), I got again a 1% failure rate.
Even though evident, it took me a little while to figure out
that the failure rate was not inherent to the design or to the
manufacturing of the circuits but was consequential to the
testing equipment itself. I informed my boss, who took the
problem seriously; remembering that we had recently changed
our testing method, we discovered the reason. The new
equipment was designed to get rid of the manual operator,
who had been feeding the circuits into the testing computer
one by one. Now we were loading the circuits in a plastic
tube in which they were slipping in and out as fast as the ma-
chine could test them. He discovered that the jerky motion
within the plastic strips created static charges that would zap
precisely 1% of the microcircuits!
If it had not been for statistics methods (multiplication of
1% by 1% equals 1 per 10,000), we would have shipped many
more bad batches of circuits before discovering the real flaw.
The limitation of statistics

The above example dramatizes the power of statistics. Sta-
tistics sometimes lead to unsuspected discoveries!
Yet statistics have their limits. They are similar to a photo-
graphic negative; we have to infer reality out of the informa-
tion that is external to the phenomenon and, as such, always
beside the point.
In physics, the decay of a muon, declared absolutely un-
predictable, is the stereotypic example. The quantum theory
provides only a probability rather than a well-defined time as
266
to when any unstable atomic nucleus will decay. And physi-

cists assert that no theory will ever provide an exact solution.
In this book, this uncertainty is considered to be inherent
to the very statistical description in use rather than to reality.
Undiscovered yet specific physical conditions compel any de-
cay to occur according to a precise mechanism.
This statistical aspect of the quantum theory did not please
Einstein either, and his reaction, “God doesn’t play with
dice!” is by now famous. At least in the case of the “particle
lifetime,” Einstein was right. This book’s interpretation of the
decay of the muons (see “Thoughts about Physics’ Subatomic
World” above) opens the door to a plausible explanation.
Statistics and reality

In this book, the stance is taken that the very consistency
of the decay of the muon, so elegant in its mathematical, sta-
tistical format, physically mandates the existence of a hidden
factor or phenomenon leading to it. In short, there must be a
cause. Alternatively, just because the statistical expression
does not provide an exact time of the decay that does not
prove there is no cause for it.
Another aspect of such a view is that statistics are essen-
tially averages that have necessarily been gathered from out-
side the phenomenon under scrutiny. As such, statistics can
in any manner creep inside the phenomenon and prove there
is no cause, let alone take the place of the cause.
Clearly, statistics have no intrinsic characteristic allowing
them to replace coherence by chaos.
To add to the confusion, the existence of a cause doesn’t
mandate that we will be able to predict the exact time of the
muons’ decay. In this book, exact times or positions are dis-
regarded—so the assertion that no theory will ever provide an
267
exact time is absolutely right! Note that taking the (intellec-

tual) position that there are no (physical) positions is totally
different from replacing the latter by frantic motion, as done
in string theory.
Statistics is the science of averages, essentially bypassing
the details of physical reality. Somehow, their mathematical
rigorousness overcomes the discomfort our mind is plunged
into when we deliberately forget about these details. Statistics
are detours that allow us to bypass reality! Remember the 2.5
bullets that hit the target referred to in the chapter “Thoughts
about Physics’ Subatomic World”? In reality, there is no half
bullet! The chaos existing in hot objects or in the decay of
muons is a reality that is not describable mathematically, but
is nevertheless described in terms of statistical mathematics!
A statistical interpretation of the world can only be elusive.
With statistics, one can only fly over reality, not penetrate the
details. And that assertion degrades neither the method nor
its results, as statistics might remain the most accurate tool at
our disposition to interpret Nature.
Statistics and differential calculus

Differential calculus, which deals with infinitely small
quantities and continuity, is incompatible with statistical
mathematics, which deals with finite quantities and disconti-
nuity.
As such, both relativity and quantum theories—which use
respectively these mathematics—are incompatible with each
other. The two cannot be merged mathematically, unless
some inspired theorist comes up with some super-
mathematics that somehow could merge the two!
In this book, this incompatibility is only another incom-
prehensible duality of physics.
268
Thoughts about Mathematics
Time squared cannot be physical

In physics, the quantity t2 (time squared or seconds times
seconds) appears in the kinetic energy formula 1/2mv2. As in
that formula, v2 can be rewritten d2/t2, a distance squared
over a time squared.
Consider the squared quantity d2, a distance squared repre-
sents a “square” of side d. One can imagine a square because
space is three-dimensional. And one can physically draw a
square on a board. The term d2 readily coincides with a physi-
cal entity.
But time per definition is one dimensional. How can one
imagine a time squared when time is of one dimension? Ob-
viously, the term t2, not identifiable to any physical entity, has
to be virtual.
Nature’s coherence and mathematics’ rigorousness

In view of the above section a question arises: Are we al-
lowed to use virtual quantities, which have no collateral real-
ity, to represent reality?
In my opinion, the following apparently satisfying answer
is not (satisfying): Yes, one can use virtual symbols to repre-
sent reality; that is, we can enter a fictitious world and follow
a fictitious path that temporarily departs from reality, on con-
dition one specifically advises the reader upon both departure
from reality and merging back to reality.
Such an answer, which seems to make sense, is not accept-
able, because then there would be no physical link between
departure and arrival. And that is precisely what we are look-
ing for. Without being physical, that link might not be valid!
It looks as if the interpretation in mathematical terms of
the universe appeals to us, and we trust it, because mathemat-
ics uses rigid rules. We identify this rigidness, by definition
part of mathematics, to the universe’s coherence and har-
mony.
Yet in spite of its rigid rules, mathematics allows us to
wander in “fictitious worlds” just as English and computer
machine languages (through games, for instance) do; yet
computer languages are much more rigorous than mathemat-
ics!
There are other reasons to question the use of mathemat-
ics in physics. One of them is exposed in the next section.
A specific example of mathematics’ incompetence

A man goes to the market with $100 in his wallet. He de-
cides to buy exactly 100 items while spending all of his
money. There are cows at $10 apiece, hogs at $3 a piece, and
270
chickens 50 cents apiece. The question is, how many of each

will he have to buy?
You can try to solve the problem by trial and error, but
that might take you a while…so here is the mathematical so-
lution. One can write:
Number of chickens + number of hogs + number of cows
=100 (no units, just numbers)
Knowing the cost of each, one could also write:
Number of chickens × .5 + number of hogs × 3 + num-
ber of cows × 10 = 100 × 1 (unit dollar)
In algebra, one needs as many equations as there are un-
knowns—so we need one more equation! Yet one cannot
think of any other to write.
There is another “relation” though, allowing for a physical
solution. And that is, all three quantities of chickens, hogs,
and cows must be integers; they cannot be fractions. Yet that
relation has no mathematical expression! In other words,
there are no mathematical (using perfectly accurate equations)
solutions!
The solution can only be found by trial and error. Evi-
dently, with a short computer program, the problem is solved
“quasi-instantaneously” with the statement “If the answer is
not an integer, start over.”
How does physics expect us, as laypersons, to believe it
can solve the problems of the universe with mathematical
equations, when such an easy problem cannot be solved
mathematically?
No matter the intrinsic beauty of mathematics, no matter
how its elegance resonates in our minds, both beauty and ele-
gance remain useless if they do not match the comprehensive
characteristics of reality.
271
By the way, the solution to the problem is 94 chickens, 1

hog, and 5 cows. And if mathematics were to be taken seri-
ously in physics, differential calculus would have to be
dropped, as wholes or quanta obviously have to be taken in
account. Then a new simple proposition, coinciding with the
concept of a physical whole (or quantum), would have to be
added to mathematics’ basic axioms.
The concepts of infinity and void

The concept of infinity is mathematical in essence; cer-
tainly, it has never been experimented with. Yet in physics, it
exists as a physical entity since gravitation extends to infinity.
The concept of void is as mind-boggling, though. In this
book, the universe has edges. Space is made of energy and
where this energy stops, space also stops. Beyond, there is
nothing or void. Apparently, the concept of nothing also ex-
ists throughout physics, all the way to the string theory.
While infinity can be avoided, because we cannot experi-
ment with it, void cannot be proven to exist because it does
not, by its own definition. On the other hand, my own think-
ing (unlike the atoms of my being) did not exist (before my
birth) and will disappear into nothing. Although my own
thinking has no connection at all with the concept of infinity,
I do have some timely connections with the concept of noth-
ing; void surrounds my very own thinking in time and in
space.
In any case, either the concept of infinity or nothingness—
or both—could be dropped with no adverse physical conse-
quences (in physics). The first cannot be proven to exist
physically and the second doesn’t exist by definition. Yet such
decisions have far-reaching philosophical consequences!
272
First, our condition of existence as human beings, neither

infinite nor void and not able to experiment about either,
mandates that our description of Nature be based on faith!
The universe’s very existence mandates we make a choice
about either infinity or void or both, while having no physical
proof.
Then mathematics becomes suspicious. In all logic,
mathematics—a product of our minds—should have been
elaborated, at least as far as physics is concerned, to fit Na-
ture rather than the opposite. First inventing the rules of
mathematics along with the concept of infinity and the “zero
number” and subsequently applying them to Nature is a
process definitely lacking physical evidence! A cardinal rule of
physics is that if a phenomenon can’t be proven physically, it
does not exist. Why are the concepts of infinity and nothing-
ness (zero) tolerated?
In the theory of gravimotion, the concept of infinity is ig-
nored; everything is temporary in time as much as it is finite
in space, whether it be on a grand (the universe) or on a min-
uscule (the quantum) scale. At least that fits the reality of our
very human condition. As a consequence, the universe—
while finite in volume—can only be floating in void. The lack
of infinity, as far as the physical world is concerned, in turn
mandates the notion of void.
273
Thoughts about the Cosmos
Inflation period and big bang

Immediately after the big bang and for a very brief time
period, the universe expanded at an incredible rate, a period
called inflation. The inflation period, in physics, is a phe-
nomenon mandated by theory. Evidently, this is true only if
one accepts the big bang theory.
This complication is solved in physics with the invention
of a new particle, “the inflaton,” which is implemented
through an inflation field.
From this book’s point of view (yet using physics’ terms),
the universe to start with—that is, at the onset of big bang—
was “at rest” and as a consequence went by in time at an in-
credible rate. Time and space were profoundly out of equilib-
rium.
Pure activity that is the universe at the cosmological

scale
On a small scale, the distribution of pure activity in empty
space is similar to heat energy in a physical object. If a mound
of activity (energy) were to exist somewhere (and the cause of
it suddenly or magically disappear), it would diffuse and flat-
ten itself out. In other words, if pure activity were to be out
of equilibrium, it would reestablish on its own its equilibrium
or evenness across its own occurrence. In this book, this is a
state of equilibrium. Even though called thermal equilibrium,
physics’ equivalent (temperature) is also considered to be the
ultimate chaos.
Because of the big bang (space’s origin), this activity varies
on a grand scale across the universe; it forms a bulge in its
center and decreases to nothing at its edge. This is not a static
situation; it doesn’t involve inert space but pure activity. For
that very reason, the universe also flattens (decreases every-
where) in time and in space. It flattens while it widens, as
both processes (in this book) coincide with the expansion of
the universe. Pure activity, right where we are, is decreasing in
intensity.
The “center” of the universe is energetic; it occurs neither
as a time nor as a position in space. The center of activity is a
bulge of motion-volumes, which can be expressed neither in
terms of time alone nor of space alone.
In the theory of gravimotion, first there is motion. Then
within motion are enclosed time and space. The motion-
volume is made of time and space. Motion only exists and
fills the volume called space in physics. In physics, things are
turned around: space-time is there in the first place, then
things move within space-time!
276
Since infinity is not honored in this book, at the edge

(logically of time as well as of space) of the universe’s pure
activity, there is a lack of equilibrium. Having “nothing” next
to its own, the “pure activity quanta” make the edges of the
universe expand on themselves and move away from the en-
ergetic center of the universe.
In the gravimotion theory, both gravitation and speed of
light depend on pure activity (the space we occupy) and, as
such, gravity decreases along with the expansion of the uni-
verse, while speed of light increases.
This interpretation goes against all modern theories, in
which the main ingredient of the universe is matter rather
than energy (pure activity) and in which speed of light is a
constant (independent of the vacuum it travels through). As
an illustration of physics’ interpretation, the total amount of
matter existing in the universe is what controls the ultimate
fate of our universe.
To be complete, one must mention that through the Dop-
pler effect we conclude that the universe is expanding. Yet
the opposite could very well be the truth! Frequency shift
doesn’t provide a direction. The edge of the universe could
be at rest and the galaxies along with our Milky Way could
very well be rushing toward a big crunch!
Reality and this book

The reality is that gravimotion’s interpretation of reality is
not sufficient to rationalize all of reality! Simply speaking, re-
ality (the very existence of the universe) is much bigger than
gravimotion!
If we can liken a quantum motion-volume at rest to noth-
ing, as done in the section “The motion-volume quantum
characteristic is its existence” (chapter 8, page 65), the oppo-
277
site—the universe creating itself out of nothing or emerging

out of a void—is difficult to imagine. If that were the case, it
would infer that nothing could become “less of nothing” and
eventually and energetically trigger a big bang.
278
About Integrity
Integrity, dictionary definition

A final touch about integrity is overdue, as the concept
needs also to be expressed in terms of words in this book. A
dictionary best fulfills that need. Integrity has three facets,
and all three express unity from different angles. Think of a
material object or even of a healthy animal body—such as a
cat, for instance—and read the following: 82
1. Rigid adherence to a code or standard of values.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being undivided; com-
pleteness.
The whole of a cat (or any animal, including the human
body) as well as whole objects, from the most minute ones
such as subatomic particles to the largest ones such as stars,
have their own integrity.
The facets of integrity above don’t exclude evolution.
Consider our own human body; the whole is in constant re-
newal. Our outer skin, for instance, is renewed over and over
in matter of days. Yet one of our personal characteristics is

fingerprint. This evolution obeys a rigid adherence to a code.
The Noether theorem

The Noether theorem asserts that there is a one-to-one
correspondence between the symmetries and the conserva-
tion laws of physical entities.
From a layperson’s point of view, the symmetries of an
object are the appearances of that object through any ma-
nipulation or motion. Essentially, the theorem says that an
object’s entity and integrity are dependent on the conserva-
tion laws.
Energy conservation is one of these laws. The Noether
theorem implies that energy is conserved if the physical laws
remain invariant in time. Momentum is conserved if the
physical laws remain invariant through translation in space.
And angular momentum is conserved if the physical laws re-
main invariant under rotation.
The goal of this chapter, and more specifically of this sec-
tion, is to show that no matter how deep you get into study-
ing things, fundamental realities remain as such.
The integrity of things—that is, continuity in space and in
time—is a fundamental reality. One doesn’t need to mathe-
matically explain reality to realize that it is reality (unless
maybe one is a physicist!).
Gravimotion’s equalization phenomenon and the

Noether theorem
The equalization phenomenon parallels physics’ wording
of “conservation laws,” and the “equalization phenomenon”
is a simple alternative to these laws that are inherent to No-
ether’s theorem.
280
Thoughts about Physics
Physics’ incoherent (and unnecessary) dualities

Incompatible dualities seem to be the rule in physics! The
following cases concern phenomena that belong to a specific
theory—yet after the theory was established, it was discov-
ered that these phenomena do not fit in.
Most surprisingly, the new concepts introduced to explain
the unexpected experimental results may contradict the exist-
ing theory; in all cases, the original theory has been main-
tained at the expense of coherence!
The two interpretations of linear motion

Einstein managed to keep Newton’s laws as a specific case
of his theory of relativity. The logic in this book is that one
cannot have it both ways. Motion is either absolute and de-
pends on the object’s own inertia, as in Newton’s first law, or
it is relative. In this book, motion is absolute. See “Iner-
tia/relativity conflict of interest,” in Part II, page 112.
The two inertias

In this case, there is no compromise. Physics just lives
with a huge incoherency. It is huge because it sits at the base
of all of physics laws. And it is incredible because everybody
ignores it! See “Inertia, the biggest blunder of physics” in part
III of this book, in the chapter “Thoughts about Spin and
Inertia.”
The concept of speed

Per definition, speed is relative—but in reality, speed of
light happens to be absolute. There is a conflict of interest
within the concept of “speed.” Yet both are merged in Ein-
stein’s theory of relativity.
Two faces of light

The photon/wave duality. See “Thoughts about Electro-
magnetic Waves and Light.”
Duality of rest and position

Duality of rest and, most extravagantly, energy. See “The
concept of position identified with its opposite” in part II of
this book.
Nothing versus something

Light waves travel in vacuum (no ether), yet space-time
exists physically, as it can be curved. How does nothing (the
denied ether) also be something (space-time) while modifying
the trajectory of Earth?
Quantum and relativity theories

Quantum and relativity incompatibility form another inco-
herent duality. See “Thoughts about Statistics” in this book.
282
As is the custom in physics—which seems to be not to

follow any rules—these various incongruities themselves are
not considered with a single standard.
Some are unknown or undiscovered yet and not even con-
sidered; this is the case of the two incompatible inertias.
Some are known and openly recognized as incongruous,
yet not needing to be fixed; the duality of light is a “fact” of
life in physics.
Finally, some are known, openly recognized as unaccept-
able, and have to be fixed; the quantum and relativity theories
will be one day merged in a grand or unified theory.
Just as any politician is not above the law, in this book, the
interpretation of Nature is not considered to be above the law
of Nature; coherence is of the essence.
Physics’ lack of coherence denounced by physicists

themselves
The conflict between or within theories was dramatized in
the special edition of Scientific American of May 31, 2003, “The
Edge of Physics.” 83
Steven Weinberg, in the introduction of his article, writes,
“A unified theory of all forces will probably require radically
new ideas.” 84
More recently, Lee Smolin, a renowned physicist, pub-
lished an entire book about the problem, unequivocally titled
“The Trouble with Physics.” 85
Positive signals outnumber negative ones, though

Going a few years back, Steven Weinberg, in a lecture held
at Cambridge University in Dirac’s memory, reported that his
colleague John Wheeler predicted that the final laws of phys-
283
ics will surprise all of us by their simplicity and by the fact

they were obvious from the beginning.
On the same subject but viewed from a different angle,
Heinz R. Pagels wrote, “Science shows us that the visible
world is neither matter nor spirit; the visible world is the in-
visible organization of energy.” 86 This statement fits perfectly
with gravimotion theory’s single concept of motion-quanta or
motion-volume and fits John Wheeler’s prediction as well.
Note that physics’ lack of coherence, which concerns
theoretical physics only, does not damage a bit experimental
physics’ outstanding performances, nor does it affect applied
physics, whose applications are most often awesome.
In any case, theoretical physics, as much if not more than
applied and experimental physics, reveals the ingeniousness
of human kind!
Physics’ puzzle and gravimotion

The least that can be said is that the above picture of phys-
ics doesn’t look coherent. Physics’ puzzle is reduced to a mo-
tion-volume in this book.
In a nutshell, the universe (space) is made of motion-
quanta (MQ) in expansion and is called pure activity. At an
early stage of that expansion, some MQs agglomerated to
form the protons’ very electric charges, while voids in space
sped away to form the electrons’ electric charges. Both per-
turbations in pure activity create around them a gravitation
aura, which is an orientation of the surrounding MQs. Elec-
trons and protons form neutrons, atoms, and molecules of
matter, all made of motion-volumes. Their combined gravita-
tion aura can be turned into gravimotion—that is, motion at
our scale. Physics’ concepts of electric and magnetic fields
and of electromagnetic waves are specific perturbations of
284
pure activity created by these electric charges and their mo-

tion.
Logic and human mind

Whether it be in politics, in religions, or in physics, it
seems that the human mind cannot make up its mind! Here
are illustrations.
In the United States, people in favor of abortion are usu-
ally against the death penalty and those who defend the death
penalty are usually against abortion. How could we possibly
be united as a group (U.S. citizens) while as individuals con-
flicts inhabit each one of us?
Religious conflicts, whether across different belief systems
(Muslims or Christians) or internal to creeds (Catholics and
Protestants, or Shiites or Sunnis) defy all logic, for those be-
lievers believe in the same God!
The trio demography-economy-environment, in full swing,
also leads to conflicts. While we all agree about humanitarian
aid, we cannot avoid military conflicts, which in turn create
more human misery!
Finally, this book provides a number of examples that
show that logic is not of primary concern in physics. Fortu-
nately, physicists, while of different opinions, make use of
only one weapon—that is, their “search” for reality!
We should all learn from physics’ philosophy and physi-
cists’ very attitude, which is their deep faith in the unity of
Nature!
285
Appendix 1
Basic Quantities in Physics
The International System of Units, abbreviated SI, defines

the following seven quantities and the specific methods to
build up a physical standard for each, called the unit, against
which any other quantity of the same type can be compared.
1. Length (meter)
2. Mass (kilogram)
3. Time (second)
4. Electric current (ampere)
5. Thermodynamic temperature (Kelvin)
6. Amount of substance (mole)
7. Luminous intensity (candela)
These quantities are considered to be the building blocks
of physics. They are used to express the laws of physics.
Other major systems of units exist, with conversion fac-
tors to SI units.
Many other quantities can be derived out of the combina-
tion of the basic quantities; for instance, speed is the ratio of
a length by a time; acceleration is the ratio of a speed by a

time; and force is the multiplication of acceleration by mass.
Even though it is not specifically mentioned, one must
conclude for oneself that in physics there are no other basic
quantities than the ones chosen in a specific unit system. This
is a necessary consequence of the fact that physics expresses
everything in the universe in terms of these basic quantities.
Yet each theory is free to change the standards! In relativ-
ity, time and distances are primordial; in quantum theory,
mass and forces (not appearing above) are!
288
Appendix 2
Time Expressed in Terms of Physical
Parameters
Time expressed in terms of physical parameters

Using conventional physics’ parameters and mathematical
operations, one can express time as a function of distance and
temperature.
The calorie, an old unit of energy, has been redefined as
being equivalent to 4.2 joules. 1 calorie (thermochemical) =
4.184 joule exactly.
4.184 joule = 1 calorie
The joule, also a unit of energy, itself equivalent to a force
multiplied by distance, is defined as 1 joule = 1 Newton × 1
meter.
4.184 × 1 Newton × 1 m = 1 calorie
The Newton, a unit of force, itself equivalent to the accel-
eration of matter, is defined as 1 Newton = 1 kilogram of
matter accelerated at the rate of 1 meter per second second.
4.184 × 1 Kg × (1 m/1 s s) × 1 m = 1 calorie
But the calorie, a unit of heat (heat being a specific form

of energy), is defined as being the heat added to one gram of
water to raise it from 14.5 to 15.5 degrees Celsius.
4.184 × 1 Kg × (1 m/1 s s) × 1 meter = 1° C × 1 g
or:
4.184 × 1000 g × (1 meter/1 s s) × 1 m = 1° C × 1 g
Dividing each side by 1 gram, and multiplying each side by
the factor second × second:
4.184 × 1 m × 1 m = 1° C × 1 s s
or:
4.184 (1 m)2 = 1° C (1 s)2
To express time in terms of physical parameters, let’s take
the square root of the whole expression:
1 s = 65 (1 m)/square root of 1° C
Time can be expressed in terms of two of the other basic

quantities used in physics and as listed in “Appendix 1.”
In other words, at least one of the seven fundamental
quantities (and we could choose time) chosen in physics is not
fundamental!
Kinetic energy expressed in terms of temperature

Time expressed in terms of distance and temperature leads
to another interesting aspect of energy.
The above relation can also be written:
4.184 (1 m)2/(1 s)2 = 1° C
Within a constant, exclusively depending on the unit sys-
tem chosen, a speed squared is equivalent to a temperature, v2
= θv (pronounce ‘v squared equals theta v’), with θv standing
for the equivalent temperature of the speed squared v2.
290
Appendix 2
The kinetic energy 1/2mv2 can be rewritten 1/2mθv within

a constant factor of 4.184 in the meter/second system of
units.
1/2mv2 = 1/2mθv
And the famous Einstein equation relating matter to en-
ergy becomes
mc2 = mθc
The speed of light, c, is 300,000 km/s. The temperature
coinciding with the speed of light (squared) is 3.76×1020 °C.
Time and speed simply disappear from all equations of
physics! Motion is equivalent to temperature.
Even though it would not be as convenient for our every-
day travel, instead of expressing motion in terms of speed
(that is, miles per hour), we could express it in terms of de-
grees Fahrenheit or degrees Celsius!
In this book, the merging of temperature and motion is of
primordial importance. The goal is not to replace time by
physical parameters, though; the goal is to unify the various
concepts we have of things in order to get at the bottom of
things.
Einstein equation rewritten in terms of temperature

Einstein’s equation E=mc2 is fascinating because it unifies
into a single concept of energy (E) two opposite entities. En-
ergy (E) unifies matter (m), which per definition is inert and
static, with its opposite in its most extravagant dynamism,
which is motion at the speed of light (c). In our minds, inertia
and motion have no common characteristics, yet they make
one in this concept of energy!
291
The equation shows the energy coinciding with the inert

matter m is twice the kinetic energy, 1/2mc2, the same matter
m would have while moving at the speed of light.
The formula expressed in terms of temperature, E=mθc, is
intended to make us (you, the reader, and I, the writer) feel
there is no time involved in motion and that Nature is much
more elegant in its simplicity than physics teaches us. This
new interpretation, which no longer uses the parameter time,
is closer to reality since inertia—the essence of matter—is
independent of time, just as heat is. Identifying matter with
heat energy rather than motion energy fits much better its
very entity.
292
Appendix 3
Various Interesting Speeds
Speed of light quantitative value

The speed of light is 300,000 km/s, or 300,000 times 3,600
km per hour. That is roughly 1,000,000,000 or 1 billion
km/hr, or roughly .675 billion miles per hour.
Speed of an object on the surface of the spinning Earth

The radius of Earth is approximately 6,000 km. Its circum-
ference (2πr) at the equator is then 36,000 km. And someone
there, no matter the time of the day, travels at 36,000/24 km
per hour, or at 1,500 km/hr (roughly 1,000 miles per hour)!
In more moderate climates, closer to the pole, we are still
traveling around 1,000 km/hr or 650 miles per hour.
Speed of Earth around the sun

Considering the light of the sun takes approximately eight
minutes to reach us on Earth, the sun is at 8 times 60 times
300,000 km from us, or 144,000,000 km.
In the following, we are looking for approximate numbers

only. Let us assimilate the trajectory of Earth around the sun
to a circle; the length of that trajectory is then 2πr in which r
= 144 millions km. That is 900 millions km, which we travel
in one year. Our speed around the sun is approximately
900,000,000/365 times 24 km per hour.
That is 100,000 km per hour or 65,000 miles per hour! It is
approximately 30 km/s. And considering the fact that the
trajectory of Earth is an ellipse and not a circle that speed
could even be greater.
Without knowing it, you and I are traveling at all times at
least 1,000 times faster than the speed limits posted on most
freeways of the world!
Let’s face it, when you and I are sitting back in our pre-
ferred chair and relaxing, you and I are far from being at rest!
Speed of Earth within our galaxy

The speed of the solar system and along with it our Earth,
within the Milky Way, is multiplied by another factor of just
about 10. The sun travels at nearly 200 km/s within our gal-
axy, the Milky Way.
Speed of Earth in the universe

Since motion is relative, when faraway galaxies recede at
speeds close to that of light, they could actually be not mov-
ing and we on Earth could be instead moving at close to
speed of light! The Doppler effect works both ways! The fact
of the matter is, we cannot assert for sure what is going on!
We, within our Milky Way, could be doomed toward a big
crunch!
294
Appendix 3
Speed on Earth that would cancel the force of gravity

The equivalent acceleration, due to the force of gravity on
Earth being just about 10 m/s2, the formula providing the
speed at the surface of Earth that would cancel the force of
gravity is v2 = (R) 10m/s2 where R is the radius of Earth or
6,300 km. That speed turns out to be 8,000 km/s or 18 mil-
lion km per hour (roughly 11 million miles per hour).
A car rolling at that speed would perform 500 revolutions
around Earth (at the equator) in one hour. Should we be pas-
sengers, we would not need any seats—we would just float in
the car, just as astronauts float in their satellite!
Motion of an electron within an atom

The size of an atom is 10−10 meter. Supposing an electron
revolves on the outer surface, the length of its circular trajec-
tory is 2πr with r = 10−10 /2, or the circular trajectory is ap-
proximately 3×10−10 meter long.
What should be its speed to make one revolution in 10−15
second? This time period coincides with the frequency of
visible light. The speed is the trajectory length over the time;
that speed is then 3×10−10/10−15, or 300,000 meter per sec-
ond. That is 300 km/s, much less than the speed of light of
300,000 km/s.
Note that the revolution of the electron around the nu-
cleus has nothing to do with light emitted. Light is emitted
when an electron jumps from one orbital to another, or when
changing frequency—that is, when it is losing or gaining en-
ergy.
295
Gravity on Earth and acceleration equivalence

If you pretend, as Einstein did, that acceleration and grav-
ity are equivalent, Earth’s gravitation equivalent acceleration
is 10 meters per second second; for every single second that
goes by, your speed is increased by 10 meters per second.
Since the speed of light is 300,000,000 m/s, dividing the
latter by 10 one finds it takes 30 million seconds to reach
speed of light through Earth’s gravity. Dividing the 30 mil-
lions seconds successively by 60, 60, 24, and 30.5, we succes-
sively find it takes us 500,000 minutes or 8,333 hours or 347
days or 11 months plus a few days to reach the speed of light
through Earth’s gravity. The number of 30.5 is approximately
the number of days in an average month.
With Einstein’s equivalence principle, after eleven months
of our lives on Earth, you and I should have reached the
speed of light, be infinitely heavy, and reduced to a micro
black hole! Fortunately for you and me, reality doesn’t honor
this prediction of the theory of relativity!
296
Index
Absolute motion and Atom's nucleus

relativity can coexist, constitution, 248
115 Aura, 37, 74, 76, 85
Acceleration and free fall Big bang, 275
in relativity, 163 Black hole and strong
Acceleration energetic force, 137
equivalence, 159 Coherence, x, 168, 283
Acceleration gravity Coherence of Nature and
equivalence, 296 rigorousness of
Acceleration in mathematics, 270
gravimotion, 45 Collision in gravimotion,
Activity characteristics, 23 46
Activity versus energy, 221 Compton experiment, 233
Activity, pure activity Compton experiment
introduction, 56 unconventional
Alpha particles, 54 interpretation, 233
Antiparticles, 180 Concept of energy, 219
Arrow of time and reality, Concept of mass, 177
192 Concept of motion in
Atom build up, 52 physics(at our scale),
Atomic mass dismissal, 73 113
Atomic nucleus cross Concept of position, 255
section measurement, Concept of position
246 identified to its
Atomic nucleus cross opposite, 143
section measurement Concept of quantum in
technic questioned, 247 physics, 145
Concept of rest, 257
Concept of space in Einstein equation two

physics, 214 possible interpretations,
Confined-activity 220
characteristics, 9 Einstein inspiring role in
Confined-activity gravimotion, 138
introduction, 6 Electric aura
Confined-activity characteristics, 77
justification, 203 Electric aura
Coordinate system, 257 implementation, 76
Coordinated activity, 9, 45, Electric aura model, 76
153 Electric charge, 78
Coordinated-activity Electric charge –
characteristics, 10 mechanism of motion,
Cosmos, 275 78
Deployed state, 42 Electric charge
Dilemma - the characteristics, 72
fundamental dilemma, Electric charge physical
105 implementation, 69
Distance, 216 Electric charges absolute
Distance, infinitesimal stability, 71
distance, 257 Electric charges are solid,
Distances are not honored 73
in gravimotion, 216 Electric charges
Doppler effect, 227 complementarity, 70
Dualities in physics, 281 Electric charges creation,
Einstein equation as 70
interpreted in physics, Electric current, 89, 94
177 Electric current and
Einstein equation electron spin, 99
rewritten in terms of Electric current energetic
temperature, 291 duality, 93
298
Index
Electrical entities versus Electromagnetic waves

mechanical entities, 77 energetic characteristics,
Electromagnetic aura 91
characteristics, 86 Electromagnetic waves
Electromagnetic aura gravitation interactions,
model, 86 91
Electromagnetic auras and Electromagnetic waves
electric currents intrinsic characteristics,
respective entities, 89 89
Electromagnetic auras Electromagnetic waves
variation, 87 photons duality
Electromagnetic incongruity, 229
phenomenon, 85 Electron fundamental
Electromagnetic wave and characteristic, 83, 244
acceleration similarity, Electron interference, 237
87 Electron interference
Electromagnetic wave and interpreted anew, 242
matter interaction, 123 Electron linear to spin
Electromagnetic wave and motions relationship, 99
motion of matter Electron radial activity, 80
interaction, 90, 226 Electron to proton mass
Electromagnetic waves, ratio, 82
89, 97 Energy and motion in
Electromagnetic waves physics, 222
and electric currents Energy and uniform linear
match, 94 motion, 111
Electromagnetic waves Energy in physics, 219
and light make one, 89 Energy interaction versus
Electromagnetic waves are relativity of distant
pure motion, 97 speeds, 221
Electromagnetic waves Energy versus activity, 221
emission, 98 Entropy, 115, 259
299
Entropy non convincing Force energetic

examples, 261 equivalence, 159
Entropy, tentative Force particle, 161
presentation of entropy, Freedom, 264
260 Frequency is independent
Equalization phenomenon of time, 95
at work, 21 Frequency modification,
Equalization phenomenon and apparent frequency,
generalization, 59 96
Equalization phenomenon Gravimotion, 138, 163,
intrinsic nature, 22 228, 258
Equalization phenomenon Gravimotion and life
introduction, 9 common denominator,
Equalization phenomenon 116
is dynamic, 88 Gravimotion and relativity,
Equalization phenomenon 31, 132
other aspects, 60 Gravimotion and the
Equivalence principle, 161, string theory, 104
296 Gravimotion assimilated
Ether and electromagnetic to a motion-volume, 26
phenomenon, 88 Gravimotion deployed
Ether downfall, 208 state, 42
Ether introduction, 120 Gravimotion folding
Ether's physical generalized to all types
consistency, 217 of accelerations., 25
Fizeau experiment, 133 Gravimotion interaction
Flashlight thought with matter, 19
experiment, 121 Gravimotion internal
Folding of gravimotion, reshuffling, 46
19, 25 Gravimotion introduction,
Force and gravimotion, 31 18
Gravimotion is stable, 28
300
Index
Gravimotion justification, Gravitation traditional

136 interpretation, 162
Gravimotion link to its Gravitation, repulsive as
own visible matter, 25, opposed to negative, 81
75 Gravitational mass – mass-
Gravimotion merges body less implementation, 44
and spirit, 83 Gravitational waves, 79
Gravimotion occurs free Gravitations mutual
of charge, 28 interactions, 25
Gravimotion relation to Gravity acceleration
reality, 101 equivalence, 296
Gravimotion restricted Hardness and Hardness,
state, 42 249
Gravimotion skew Heat, 5, 11, 201
introduction, 19 Heat and motion
Gravimotion unifies force equivalence, 198
and acceleration, 116 Heinsenberg uncertainty
Gravimotion’s hinge to principle, enunciation,
relativity, 132 139
Gravimotion’s memory, 29 Higgs particle will not be
Gravimotion’s offset to found, 74
replace the inertia law, Human freedom, 264
41 Hydrogen atom, 249
Gravitation, 13, 159 Imaginary times, 194
Gravitation Implementation of basic
electromagnetic waves motions, 5
interactions, 90 Implementation of
Gravitation physical gravimotion’s link to its
implementation, 61 own visible matter, 75
Gravitation structure and Implementation of
ingredients, 61 gravitation, 13, 61
301
Implementation of Interaction of gravimotion

gravitational-mass, 44 and matter, 19
Implementation of motion Interaction of gravitations,
through gravity, 18 25
Implementation of rest, 27 Interaction of motion-
Implementation of spin, volumes, 221
29 Interaction of wave and
Implementation of the matter, 123
strong nuclear force, 53 Interaction of wave and
Incoherent dualities of motion of matter, 226
physics, 281 Interaction resonance, 143
Inertia, 41, 165, 167 Interference of electrons,
Inertia discredits time, 111 237
Inertia law / constant spin International system of
divorce., 165 units, 287
Inertia relativity conflict of Introduction of confined-
interest, 112 activity, 6
Inertia, the biggest blunder Introduction of
of physics, 168 coordinated-activity, 9
Inertial mass – mass-less Introduction of
implementation, 42 equalization
Inertias - the linear and the phenomenon, 9
rotational, 167 Introduction of ether, 120
Infinity and void, 272 Introduction of
Inflation period, 275 gravimotion, 18
Integrity and motion, 79 Introduction of motion-
Integrity of matter, 66 volume, 7
Integrity of matter, 279 Introduction of muons,
Integrity of matter while 252
physical is not made of Introduction of non
mass, 34 resident motion-
Integrity, Zeno paradox, 1 quantum, 70
302
Index
Introduction of photon, Light interpreted as a

125 messenger, 122
Introduction of pure Light is pure motion, 97
activity, 56 Light speed in physics and
Introduction of quantum, in gravimotion, 130
63 Light waves photon
Introduction of radial- duality incongruity, 229
activity, 13 Light, one reality two
Introduction of resident opposite interpretations,
quantum or Space 129
quantum, 64 Linear motion, 62
Introduction of solid Link gravimotion to
plasmas, 35 matter, 25, 75
Introduction of the offset Logic and mind, 285
activity, 21 Lorentz transformation,
Justification of the theory 120
of gravimotion, 101 Magnetic aura model, 86
Kepler’s second law, 109 Margin of error, 139
Kinetic-energy expressed Mass, 33, 34, 73, 177
in terms of temperature, Mass atomic force clash,
290 179
Life and gravimotion Mass gravimotion
common denominator, relationship, 78
116 Mass mathematical
Light, 225 demise, 178
Light and electromagnetic Mass solid-plasma
waves make one, 89 similarities, 38
Light and matter Massless implementation
interaction, 123 of matter, 41
Light behavior and Massless implemetation of
limitation, 130 inertia, 41
Light finite speed, 121
303
Mass-less matter summary, Michelson Morley logical

Mathematics and Model of a falling coin
coherence, 270 within gravity, 18
Mathematics Model of active skew and
incompetence, 270 offset, 24
Matter integrity in motion, Model of confined-
79 activity, 6
Matter integrity while Model of coordinated-
physical is not made of activity, 10
mass, 34 Model of deployed
Matter is hollow in mass, gravimotion, 43
34 Model of electric aura, 76
Matter is not made of Model of electric charge,
mass, 33 70
Matter to mass volume Model of electromagnetic
ratio, 33 aura, 86
Matter’s motion and wave Model of gravity, 14
interaction, 90 Model of magnetic aura,
Maxwell’s equations, 119 86
Mechanical entities versus Model of pure activity, 57
electrical entities, 77 Model of radial activity, 14
Memory, 29 Model of rebound in
Michelson Morley error of gravimotion, 49
judgment, 210 Model of resident
Michelson Morley quantum, 67
experiment, 205 Model of restricted
Michelson Morley gravimotion, 43
experiment’s Model of space (or pure
interpretation revisited, activity), 57
208 Model of space-time, 67
Model of spin, 29
304
Index
Model of the electron, 80 Motion of the integrity of

Model of uniform linear matter, 79
motion, 42 Motion perception, 3, 133
Models of collision in Motion physics’ concept,
gravimotion, 47 113
Motion, 5 Motion quantum
Motion ambiguity in introduction, 64
physics, 144 Motion replaced by
Motion and energy in coordinated activity, 9
physics, 222 Motion-quantum, 64
Motion and heat Motion-quantum size, 65
equivalence, 198 Motions that are
Motion and the space- compatible, 253
quantum, 66 Motions that are
Motion as conceived in incompatible, 28
physics clashes with Motion-volume, 26, 153
matter’s integrity, 1 Motion-volume
Motion energetic aspect interaction, 221
and the principle of Motion-volume internal
relativity, 113 characteristic is its
Motion has an existence of existence, 27
its own, 11, 24 Motion-volume
Motion is a transient introduction, 7
configuration of space, Motion-volume is energy
61 in action, 8
Motion is gravitation out Motion-volume
of balance, 17 justification, 160
Motion is physical, 11 Motion-volume overlap,
Motion of an electron 25
within an atom, 295 Motion-volume quantum
Motion of electric charges, characteristic, 65
78 Motion-volume unit, 65
305
Motion-volume Particles, 228

wavelength similarity, Perception of motion, 3,
97 133
Muons decay, 253 Photoelectric effect, 124
Muons introduction, 252 Photoelectric effect
Neutrino, 252 interpretation in
Neutron, 252 physics, 125
Neutron weight, 82 Photoelectric effect
Newton’s first law, 110 interpretation revisited,
Newton’s laws paradoxes, 232
117 Photoelectric
Newton’s third law, 117 psychological effect,
Non resident motion- 126
quantum introduction, Photon electromagnetic
70 waves duality
Nothing, 105 incongruity, 229
Nucleus constitution, 248 Photon introduction, 125
Nucleus cross section Photon's strange
measurement, 246 characteristics, 228
Nucleus cross section Physics and coherence,
measurement technic 168
questioned, 247 Physics' puzzle, 11
Nucleus of atom is made Physics will always be
of solid electric charges, right, 131
73 Physics’ basic quantities,
Offset activity 287
introduction, 21 Physics’ customs and
Offset of gravimotion, 24 procedures, 104
Orbit, 169 Physics’ description of
Order in physics, 262 motion clashes with
Origin of the universe, 105 matter integrity, 1
Particle in two places, 156
306
Index
Physics’ incoherent Pure activity

dualities, 281 characteristics, 58
Physics’ lack of coherence Pure activity density, 57
denounced, 283 Pure activity introduction,
Physics’ puzzle, 16, 45, 62, 56
95, 284 Pure activity justifications,
Physics’ seven basic 212
quantities, 287 Pure activity resident
Planck’s formula, 100 quantum introduction,
Position and rest, 257 64
Position concept Puzzle of physics, vii, 11,
disregarded, 3 16, 45, 62, 95, 284
Position identified to its Quantum in physics, 145
opposite, 143 Quantum introduction, 63
Position, concept and Quantum resident
definition in physics, introduction, 64
255 Quantum vacuum, 144
Prediction about Quantum world and our
gravitational waves, 79 world make one, 66
Prediction about weight Radial activity
variation, 44 introduction, 13
Prediction, the Higgs Radial activity is limited
particle will not be around matter, 15
found, 74 Radial activity origin, 74
Prediction, the universe is Radial activity's structure
spinning, 98 and ingredients, 61
Prediction. Speed faster Radial-activity
than light., 236 characteristics, 16
Proton, 82 Radial-activity is an entity
Pure activity, 67, 217 of its own, 15
Pure activity at the Randomness and order in
cosmological scale, 276 physics, 262
307
Reality, viii, 277 Relativity, the triggering

Rebound of matter, 49 events behind the
Reciprocity of gravimotion theory, 127
link to its visible matter, Relativity’s hinge to
26 gravimotion, 132
Reference system, 257 Resident activity, 58
Reflection of light waves, Resident motion-volumes,
50 58
Relativity and absolute Resident quantum
motion can coexist, 115 introduction, 64
Relativity and energy, 113 Resonance, 143, 249
Relativity and entropy, 115 Rest, 27
Relativity and gravimotion, Rest in physics, 257
31 Restricted gravimotion, 42,
Relativity general theory, 43
135 Simultaneity, 186
Relativity inertia conflict Simultaneity is flawed, 188
of interest, 112 Simultaneity, Einstein
Relativity of relativity, 132, thought experiment,
190 187
Relativity of speed, 149 Skew activity introduction,
Relativity principle in its 19
restricted sense, 113 Skew of gravimotion, 24
Relativity special theory, Solid plasma introduction,
127 35
Relativity special theory Solid plasmas are visible
dilemma, 134 not mass, 36
Relativity theory Solid-plasma mass
alternative, 258 similarities, 38
Relativity theory in a nut Space, 55
shell, 127 Space and speed of light,
217
308
Index
Space and string theory, Speed of an object on the

217 surface of the spinning
Space and time are virtual, earth, 293
55 Speed of earth around the
Space in physics, 214 sun, 293
Space is continuous in Speed of light, 121, 123,
physics, 145 130, 154, 180
Space model, 57 Speed of light and beyond,
Space new interpretation, 155
56 Speed of light and
Space non continuous frequency, 100
interpretation, 64 Speed of light and space,
Space physical attribute, 56 217
Space quantum Speed of light and speed
introduction, 64 of matter, 120
Space-quantum and Speed of light as a speed
motion, 66 limit, 129, 137
Space-time conflict of Speed of light is absolute,
interest, 135 150
Space-time interpretation, Speed of light obeys the
56 speed laws of waves,
Speed, 149 234
Speed and Doppler effect, Speed of light quantitative
227 value, 293
Speed concept Speed on earth that would
inconsistency, 150 cancel the force of
Speed faster than light, gravity, 295
137, 156, 235 Speed relativity is
Speed faster than light complex, 149
possible recipe, 236 Speed versus temperature,
Speed mathematical 201
inconsistency, 151 Spin, 165
309
Spin and rotation common Thoughts about

feature, 172 acceleration, 159
Spin model in Thoughts about cosmos,
gravimotion, 29 275
Spin of the Universe, 98 Thoughts about
Spinning object and object electromagnetic waves,
in orbit, 169 225
Standard model, 254 Thoughts about energy,
Statistics and differential 219
calculus, 268 Thoughts about entropy,
Statistics and reality, 267 259
Statistics limitations, 266 Thoughts about force, 159
Statistics outstanding Thoughts about
power of analysis, 265 gravitation, 159
String theory and Thoughts about inertia,
gravimotion, 104 165
String theory and space, Thoughts about integrity,
217 279
Strong force, 53 Thoughts about light, 225
Strong force and black Thoughts about mass, 177
hole, 137 Thoughts about
Strong force questioned, mathematics, 269
51 Thoughts about physics,
Strong nuclear force new 281
interpretation, 52 Thoughts about relativity,
Superposition of 255
incompatible motions, Thoughts about space, 205
28 Thoughts about speed,
Temperature, 6, 201, 290 149
Temperature versus speed, Thoughts about spin, 165
201 Thoughts about statistics,
265
310
Index
Thoughts about subatomic Time is relative, 189

world, 237 Time is virtual, 55
Thoughts about Time physical attribute, 56
temperature, 201 Time physical demotion,
Thoughts about thermal 191
energy, 201 Time squared cannot be
Thoughts about time, 183 physical, 269
Time and gravity, 198 Time to motion
Time as a function of relationships, 184
(relative) speed, 193 Time, imaginary times, 194
Time definitions are Time, negative time
perplexing, 184 periods and
Time dependency on gravimotion, 194
motion, 195 Time, the arrow of time,
Time dilation, 195 263
Time dilation physical Turns, 31
interpretation, 196 Uncertainty of measure,
Time disappearance in 139
physics equations, 199 Uncertainty principle
Time doesn’t qualify as a physicist interpretation
basic quantity of rebuttal, 142
physics, 184 Uncertainty principle,
Time evolution, 191 enunciation, 139
Time expressed in terms Uncertainty principle,
of physical parameters, physicists'
Time in physics and in this Uniform motion and
essay, 190 energy, 111
Time instant concept Uniform motion breaks
disregarded, 185 the cause and effect
Time is a useless onlooker, rule, 110
112
311
Uniform motion involves Wave photon duality

a lot of activity, 62 incongruity, 229
Units, 287 Wavelength motion-
Universe in this book, 276 volume similarity, 97
Universe is spinning, 98 Waves, 234
Vacuo and space, 214 Weight replaced by
Vacuum, 144 restricted gravimotion,
Void and infinity, 272 43
Wave and particle Weight variation on Earth,
behavior, 232 44
Wave and particle
respective constitution,
228
312
Notes
1
Choosing motion at the expense of position goes against
another interpretation of reality, in which the universe is
made of an infinite number of “nows”; and in which nei-
ther motion nor time exists, possibly matching the string
theory in which only matter and forces exist. Julian
Barbour’s book The end of time: The next revolution in physics
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) describes that
choice best.
2
1039 is one thousand millions, millions, millions, millions,
millions, millions! It is so large our bodies’ physical senses
of touch and view are unable to appreciate it, nor can it be
understood by our minds.
3
Richard Feynman, The character of physical law (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 1967), p. 19.
4
In the “Loop quantum gravity” theory, space is also made of
quanta. Lee Smolin describes this in an extremely well-
written article of Scientific American (“Loop quantum grav-
ity,” [January 2004]: p. 66). Geometrical positions in space
(called nodes) and instants in time (called states) remain es-
sential, though, making that theory incompatible with gra-
vimotion. In addition, the “geometry” of space is identified
with the geometry of “material” objects, an identification
not honored in the theory of gravimotion.
5
As presented in Wayne Hu and Martin White’s “The cosmic
symphony,” Scientific American (February 2004), p. 47.
6
Brian Greene, The fabric of the cosmos (New York: Vintage
Books/Random House, 2004), p. 86.
7
MA: MIT Press 1967), pp. 36–37.
8
MA: MIT Press 1967), p. 38.
9
10
11
Newton published his Principia in 1687.
12
Maxwell published his Treatise in 1865, almost two hundred
years after Newton’s laws and just about fifty years before
the general theory of relativity appeared.
13
In the Lorentz equation, the denominator of the fraction
contains the expression 1–v2/c2 (actually the square root of
it), in which v and c are respectively the speeds of the ob-
ject and of light. The exact equation can be seen in Ein-
stein, Relativity, the special and the general theory (New York:
Three Rivers Press, 1961), pp. 37 and 38.
14
See this book’s section “Kinetic energy expressed in terms
of temperature” in appendix 2, p 290.
15
See this book’s section “Light: One reality, two drastically
opposite interpretations” in part II, p 129.
16
In this book and in accordance with “Motion and heat, two
pieces of physics’ puzzle reunited” (p. 11 in chapter 2), the
“Einstein equation is rewritten in terms of temperature,”
see appendix 2, p. 291.
17
As mentioned in chapter 6 in this book’s section “Physics’
puzzle and the harmony of nature,” p. 45.
314
Notes
18
As described in this book’s section “Introduction of skew
activity; Folding of gravimotion” in chapter 3, p. 19.
19
See this book’s section “Gravity on Earth and acceleration
equivalence” in appendix 3, p. 296.
20
This book’s section “The special theory of relativity di-
lemma” (p. 134 in part II) emphasizes the point.
21
Nigel Calder, Einstein’s universe: The layperson’s guide (New
York: Penguin Books, 1990), p. 43.
22
Brian Greene, The fabric of the cosmos (New York: Vintage
Books/Random House, 2004), p. 67.
23
The models on p. 24 in chapter 4 and p. 43 in chapter 6 of
this book show clearly the free-fall mechanism involved in
gravimotion
24
As described in this book’s section “Models of active offset
and active skew,” p. 24 in chapter 4.
25
See this book’s section “Speed on Earth that would cancel
the force of gravity,” p. 295 in appendix 3.
26
See this book’s section “Einstein’s equation rewritten in
terms of temperature” p. 291 in appendix 2.
27
See this book’s section “Time as a function of (relative)
speed” p 193 in “Thoughts about Speed” in part III.
28
See this book’s section “The flashlight experiment,” p. 121
in part II.
29
See this book’s section “Space, time, motion-volume and
energy in action,” p. 153 in “Thoughts about Speed” in part
III.
30
See this book’s section “Gravimotion’s relationship to
physics’ atomic mass,” p. 78 in chapter 9.
31
See this book’s section “The concept of position is disre-
garded in this theory,” p. 2 in chapter 1.
315
32
Theory exposed in Julian Barbour’s book The end of time: The
next revolution in physics (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000).
33
Even though the two signals arrived simultaneously (with
the same delay or at same time), the observer sees them
with no delay (instantaneously) in between the two.
34
See this book’s section “Speed of an object on the surface
of spinning Earth,” p. 293 in appendix 3.
35
See also this book’s section “Relativity of relativity,” p 132.
36
See this book’s section “The Lorentz transformation,” p.
120 in part II.
37
See this book’s section “Light interpreted as a messenger,”
p. 122 in part II.
38
in part II.
39
Brian Greene, The fabric of the cosmos (New York: Knopf,
2004), p. 50.
40
See this book’s section “Imaginary times,” p. 194 in
“Thoughts about Time” in part III.
41
As described in this book’s section “Gravimotion’s mem-
ory,” p. 29 in chapter 4.
42
See this book’s section “Time expressed in terms of physi-
cal parameters,” p. 289 in appendix 2.
43
of temperature,” p. 290 in appendix 2.
44
See this book’s section “Speed’s mathematical inconsis-
tency,” p. 151 in “Thoughts about Speed”, in part III.
45
Described on p. 88 in the section “It’s too hot in the
kitchen,” by Brian Greene, in his book The elegant universe:
316
Notes
Superstrings, hidden dimensions, and the quest for the ultimate theory
(New York: Vintage Books/Random House, 2000).
46
See this book’s section “Speed of Earth around the sun,” p.
293 in appendix 3.
47
Richard Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands,
The Feynman lectures on physics (Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley, 1965), Volume I, p. 15–3.
48 Richard Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands,
The Feynman lectures on physics (Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley, 1965), volume I, p. 15–4.
49 David Halliday and Robert Resnick, Physics, 3rd ed., Part II
(New York, Jon Wiley & Sons, 1978) p. 1014.

50
See this book’s section “Quantum vacuum,” p. 144 in part
II.
51
See this book’s section “The photoelectric psychological
effect,” p. 126 in part II.
52
As mentioned in this book’s section “The special theory of
relativity dilemma,” p. 134 in part II.
53
54
See this book’s section “Einstein’s equation as interpreted
in physics,” p. 177 in part III “Thoughts about Mass.”
55
of temperature,” p. 290 in appendix 2.
56
That also fits this book’s section “Creation of complex
elements: Build up of atoms,” p. 52 in chapter 6.
57
See this book’s section “Electromagnetic waves gravitation
interaction,” page 91, and “Light interpreted as a messenger
and its limitations,” part II, p. 122
317
58
See also this book’s section “Wavelength and motion-
volume similarity,” p. 97, in chapter 10.
59
See also this book’s section “Kinetic energy expressed in
terms of temperature,” p. 290 in appendix 2.
60
See this book’s section “Einstein’s interpretation of the
photoelectric effect,” p. 125 in part II.
61
The statements (a) and (b) can be found in this book’s sec-
tion “The concept of motion in physics,” p. 113 in part II.
62
As explained in this book’s section “Speed relativity is
complex,” p. 149 in “Thoughts about Speed” in part III.
63
in part II.
64
See this book’s section “Electromagnetic waves and electric
currents match,” p. 94 in chapter 10.
65
See this book’s section “The photoelectric effect,” p. 124 in
part II.
66
MA: MIT Press 1967), pp. 130–46.
67 Richard Feynman, The character of physical law (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press 1967), p. 133.

68
MA: MIT Press 1967), p. 134.
MA: MIT Press 1967), p. 135



318
Notes

MA: The MIT Press 1967), p. 137

75
MA: MIT Press 1967), p. 134.
76
MA: MIT Press 1967), p. 137.
77
MA: MIT Press 1967), p. 138.
78
MA: MIT Press 1967), p. 134.
79
The book The periodic kingdom: A journey into the land of the
chemical elements (New York: Basic Books, 1995) by P. W.
Atkins is written for everyone and in a magnificent way re-
flects the beauty of the quantum interpretation of the ele-
ments. The author, describing the harmony of reality, is
truly an artist!
80
A comprehensive description of the bottle of perfume ex-
periment can be found in the book of David Layzer, Cos-
mogenesis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 49.
81
Example found in the book of Brian Greene, The elegant
universe: Superstrings, hidden dimensions, and the quest for the ulti-
mate theory (New York: Vintage Books/Random House,
2000), p. 335.
82
William Morris, ed., The American Heritage dictionary, 2nd col-
lege ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982).
83
“The edge of physics,” Scientific American (May 31, 2003).
84
Steven Weinberg, Scientific American (May 31, 2003): p. 5, in
the introduction of his article “A Unified Physics by 2050?”
319
85 “The trouble with physics: The rise of string theory, the fall of a sci-
ence, and what comes next,” Lee Smolin (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 2006).
86
Heinz R. Pagels, Edge Foundation, at http://
www.edge.org/pagels_dedication.html (accessed August 3,
2006).
320
Acknowledgments
Above all, I must acknowledge the team at ABP who had

the courage to select this manuscript, simply because in this
book physics’ laws are questioned! Experimental physics,
physics’ very value, is extensively used—while physics’ theory
or face value is redefined.
I am deeply grateful to Nathan Fitzgearl, Jeffrey Town-
send, and editors Robyn Rosenbloom, Ann Beardsley, and
others at American Book Publishing who metamorphosed a
raw manuscript into a quality book.
I am also grateful for permission to reprint excerpts from
the following publications: The Character of Physical Law by
Richard Feynman (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1967); The
Fabric of the Cosmos, by Brian Greene (New York: Vintage
Books, a Division of Random House, 2004); and Einstein’s
Universe: The Layperson’s Guide, by Nigel Cader (New York:
Penguin Books, 1990), and Scientific American.
Finally, I am grateful to all the people who have communi-
cated their constructive comments to me in the past few
years.
About the Author
The author obtained his engineering degrees in Paris,

France. In the mid-60s he moved to California, in that area
now called Silicon Valley. Being among the firsts in this area,
he has been a pioneer in his specialty; he obtained a patent in
his field.
In the late 1970s he decided to break free and go in busi-
ness for himself. In the 80s he developed the software needed
to run his company and sold the program to a few of his
business peers.
Fascinated by reality that is by time, space, matter, and life,
the author, now retired, spent a number of years studying
physics. Not believing what he was reading, the author for his
own peace of mind came up with his own theory and called it
the gravimotion theory.
The gravimotion theory’s main features are coherence and
simplicity.
The theory dissents greatly from mainstream physics, and
the author specifies here that he is not a physicist.

Harmony of Reality May 2007 Bob

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Harmony of Reality May 2007 Bob

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Harmony of Reality,

Millennial Mind Publishing

Designed by Jana Rade, design@american-book.com

Publisher’s Note: American Book Publishing relies on the author's integrity of

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The beauty of a mountain lake that reflects the surround-

The puzzle of physics

either a reality or not. We human beings do not know and

The harmony of reality

Why is physics a puzzle?

incompatibility. Whereas infinity is one piece of physics’ puz-

Can physics’ procedure be overturned?

they nevertheless are much more than mere descriptions; they

Coherence is the essence of this book

PART II Physics and Gravimotion

PART III Thoughts about …

Appendix 1 Basic Quantities in Physics…………….… 287

Index …………………….…………….…………… 297

Whereas both motion and matter are commonplace, mo-

The paradox of Zeno

moving object, such as a marble, whose center of gravity rolls

Amazingly, physics’ description of motion compels the

The concept of position is disregarded in this theory

cient paradox. Nevertheless, and in spite of these hints, the

Our perception of motion is dynamic—it occurs in time

speed of an object on the surface of Earth, while moving

The point of this chapter

Temperature and motion of matter at the invisible so-

move as a whole. When your body rides in a car, all of its

Introduction of confined activity to replace temperature

Model of confined activity

up to no overall motion of the body, or confined activity. In

Simplest model of a hot body (confined activity or temperature)

A motion-volume is energy in action

The characteristics of confined activity

Introduction of the equalization phenomenon

Introduction of coordinated activity to replace motion of

Model of coordinated activity and motion-volume size

Model of coordinated activity or of an object’s motion

The characteristics of coordinated activity

2. These motion-volumes are harnessed to the object’s

Motion has an existence of its own; motion is physical

Motion and heat—two pieces of physics’ puzzle—united

In its simplest, most direct interpretation, free fall on

Introduction and model of radial activity to replace

Gravitation is radial in configuration and, as such, is la-

The simplest model of gravity Alternate model with simplified

Gravitation fading away from Earth is represented with

Just as the air temperature is made of invisible air mole-

Radial activity is an entity of its own, not dependent on

Radial activity is limited in space around matter

The characteristics of radial activity

Physics’ puzzle and the harmony of Nature

Motion is radial activity (gravitation) out of balance

Model of a falling coin within gravity

Implementation of motion through gravity

Gravimotion’s interaction with matter

Introduction of skew activity; folding of gravimotion

Earth’s Coin’s own Coin’s

Due to the respective sizes of the objects, within gravimo-

on a first approximation, made of identical motion-volumes

Introduction of skew. In the end, Earth’s radial activity (on the

Skew equivalent. The skew created by the combination of