Introduction in English

(Du livre "Le Principe Moteur de l'Univers et l'Espace-Temps")


Translated by Easy Translate




Over twenty years ago, I wrote a book on this subject entitled “Finding the theory of the universe”.[1] I did not take the trouble to have the book published as I had put a lot of work into writing this study, and I wanted to focus my efforts on something else, which was perhaps a mistake. Moreover, at the time, I didn't know exactly what my position was vis-à-vis the time of relativity. And as far as the purely philosophical aspect was concerned, there were still a certain number of questions that needed to be addressed. I knew I had little chance of reaching philosophers and scientists. Indeed, how could I know if my approach was pertinent? It was more than likely that they would find my ideas quite original, but lacking in depth and insufficiently argued. My first book is divided into three parts: first, a presentation of my philosophical method, then a second part on what can be said about the physical world respecting the formalism of philosophy, and finally a third part on developing a thought system that would allow us to approach certain initial concepts of physics on the basis of a conceptual postulate (I shall come back to this). A few years later, I nonetheless published an extract from this book, “the thought system,” in a book entitled Conceptual Fundaments and Theory;2 I also changed the introduction. These two books, which, I have to admit, include a certain number of imperfections, address questions relating to physics using a philosophical approach. They are insufficient to adequately show my position, and they need completing to show that the same conclusions can be reached differently, and perhaps in a much simpler and more relevant manner. There are also some very important points that need stressing with regard to relativity: a part of the theory of relativity gives rise to a number of “contradictions”, and we can attempt to suggest an alternative. Advocates of relativity will certainly consider this theory to be perfectly coherent. Moreover, many others have tried to take issue with it, but without any real success. Scientists all around the world would surely have noticed a long time ago if the theory were somehow incoherent in its logic. It is therefore more of a conceptual question that I would like to raise here, but one that has practical implications. I even think that the notion of four dimensional space-time, as posited by relativity theory, is in certain aspects wrong, and I shall attempt to show why. That does mean, however, that it does not have an operational value and is not useful in a certain number of instances. Obviously, if it has an operational value, we can consider relativity theory to offer a valid view of the world. I am not claiming that there is no temporal dimension where time does not progress at the same rate for everyone,3 but I do question the principle of relativity of simultaneity. I can accept the contraction of distances as explained in relativity theory. A little further on in this study, I shall provide all the necessary explanations to enable you to understand my position. Obviously, this raises a very fundamental problem with regard to the speed of light, the representation of space-time, and the analysis of motion. I shall deal with each of these points separately. If one correctly understands the issues involved, one does not actually need to be a physicist to address this question, which is certainly true in my case. I shall provide all the different points that allowed me to arrive at this conclusion. This said, I have also consulted with people who are considerably well-informed on the matter.


In my first book,1 in which I followed the formalism of philosophy and looked at the phenomena of fire and atomic reaction, I demonstrated, or at least attempted to demonstrate, that there was need for a moving principle for the physical world, going on to suggest what its mode of action might be. On the basis of this analysis, I was able to formulate a conceptual postulate with regard to the physical world. As there are various ways in which we can arrive at this postulate, I shall, in this study, show another way that is undoubtedly more relevant. We can also arrive at the same conclusions through scientific analysis. There are scientific methods used today—I shall come back to them later— that are very similar.


When I wrote my first book, I had only read a small part of the physics of Aristotle, and I did not know his position, (which was also later adopted by Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church,) vis-à-vis the first motionless mover, or the First Being, which are more or less similar depending on the approaches taken by the different religious traditions. But my position differs greatly from that of Aristotle. For him, the prime mover acts by virtue of a first body that it directly causes to move, which he calls the “first mobile”, whereas I show that, if a moving principle is needed, it can act only in an immanent way and by interrelationship. Only the action of the moving principle is immanent, it is not immanent in itself. I believe, it must be spiritual because it is difficult to see how a mere energy principle could be both the cause of actuation and also be in action. We therefore need to see, in light of the advancements of contemporary science, whether we can still demonstrate that there is need for a moving principle, and if this is the case, what its nature and its mode of action could be. Even today, philosophers seeking to demonstrate the existence of a prime mover still use the demonstration of Aristotle in all these aspects, and they naturally arrive at the existence of a first mobile, which, as we shall see, corresponds to a mechanical view of the world. But this does not allow us to understand all motion. I will endeavour to explain why this position, in my opinion, is not tenable.


For ten years now, I have been able to exchange correspondence with various speakers on various forums, by e-mail and by post, which has enabled me to clarify my ideas and also to formulate others. Over time, I became, as I said, gradually mindful that my view of the world could not be reconciled from any point of view with that of relativity theory. This led me to try to find objections, and then to formulate some of my own vis-à-vis the principle of relativity of simultaneity. I shall therefore present them again here to illustrate my study. These objections are relatively simple, they will undoubtedly not convince many scientists, but I still believe that they deserve their attention. It is not so easy to formulate such objections and, if they do not raise any issues for relativity, then they nevertheless indicate that there is a significant problem in terms of interpretation. By exploring this problem of interpretation, we shall perhaps realize that we need to rethink things, even though it is not so easy to suggest an alternative. I would like to highlight a problem of logic: for relativity theory to work, we need for time to be already written, which, we shall see, is highly questionable for various reasons. Scientists today attempt to define space, motion, and time in a relational way, which has already perhaps led them, or will one day lead them to the questions that I shall endeavour to address here (see my letter addressed to Mr Carlo Rovelli, chapter 7). Scientists have not yet managed to reconcile relativity with quantum theory in every aspect, which are two framework theories of contemporary physics, hence the importance of my questions. Certain initial concepts may have to be developed more thoroughly or even reformulated differently. Readers with a scientific background will be able to focus on chapter 1, particularly looking at objection 2 and the resulting analysis. This questioning of the principle of relativity of simultaneity has many implications relating to the speed of light. We can safely say that part of the notion of space-time of relativity is built around this principle. In his train thought experiment, Einstein did not choose the only possible interpretation (see chapter 1). There is perhaps another way of examining the outcome of the experiment. If my objections prove to be relevant, it would even mean adopting different procedures, which might lead to many fundamental changes.


As this article is also addressed to the scientific world, I have decided to start with the chapter on relativity. I shall then endeavour to propose another worldview by addressing the question of how we can demonstrate the existence of a moving principle, explaining what its mode of action could be, which will lead us to a relational understanding of space, motion and time. Today, many researchers are working on these concepts. This article, albeit somewhat original, can be regarded as a contribution to this research. I am completely aware that my method gives rise to a very astonishing understanding of the physical world; it is therefore important to present the reasoning behind it. The purpose of this study is for it to be used and supplemented by others, in philosophy, theology or even in physics.



[1](de Bellescize, 1990)


2 (de Bellescize, 2004)


3For the purpose of this study, time from a physical perspective is a relationship between two movements. Two identical clocks can very well simultaneously operate at different speeds depending on their respective operating conditions.