Spyman

We also speak for them, mostly for telling the rest of the family what we interpret. In a happy family the pets sure are a source of continuous joy ! And as the understanding of them grows the fun increases too.

If You have tested Two mices on different computers and they both always work except on this computer and only when using XP Pro then it must be a software issue inside XP Pro. Either a driver problem or a conflict. I don't have any experience with XP but there should be something similar to "System Manager" inside 98 where You should be able to see problems like conflicts. So a look there when the mouse don't work may give result. If You are able to get there with only the keyboard, (without the mouse). In Win98 use keystrokes: Ctrl + Esc , arrow up to Settings , arrow right to Conrol Panel , Enter , arrow down to System Manager , Enter . I am using Win2000 now and I don't remember further but maybe TAB to switch between views.

I thought I just described such a test... The dog acts very differently if he can see that someone saw him making a misstake. That is not my imagination, everybody can see that. I admitt that my interpretation of my dogs bodylanguage must be at least a little affected by me being a human, but it's a fact that dogs uses different signs for different "feelings", both between each others and with human interaction. Several people have tried to interpreted these signals and described them in books, so I am not making them up either. So why would he act differently and use the same signs for ashame if he knows that I had been looking ?

From my experience with dogs, I say Yes. They even understand that other animals can realise their 'misconception' when they self have made a stupid misstake. Our oldest dog, (very proud), quickly looks around to see if anyone has realised that he has made a fool of himself, if nobody seems to have taken notice, (I look away), then he pretends to be doing something else. But if I or someone else, (even our cat), is looking at him he seems to be embarrassed. If we thinks his misstake was funny and start laughing at him it gets worse, normally when the family is laughing he comes to look at what we think is funny and seems to like to share the fun with us - He likes to laugh at others but gets embarrassed if he is the target for the fun. Our youngest dog on the other hand is a real clown and she does anything to get the kids attentation and make them laugh - She really enjoys to stand in the 'spotlight' and being the source of the fun.

Well, as I live across the ocean and thus can't fully interpret the 'motion' of Your countrys opinions, I may be terrible wrong. But reading through the test really gave me an 'cold chill'. It may very well be just a bad formulated survey, but most likely it's a highly sofisticated political survey with a negative purpose against science. If You do the survey You have to choose between the already given answers, if You don't, You won't contribute to the statistics. Both ways the 'bad guys' win. There has always been and will always be mighty forces at work against science and if let to grow in the dark they will end up powerful enough to throw us back to the 'dark ages'. The important thing here is not to strip the survey down in details but to find out WHO is doing it and WHY ? Edit: After reading through my post again I realise I sound lika a paranoid lunatic predicting the end of the world. So to bring down my thought's to the ground I give these links: http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_devore_evolution_050210.html http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_devore_theory_050303.html http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_censorship_050331.html http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050329_imax_letter.html http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050319_imax.html Ask Yourselves this: If the childrens are prevented from their rights to learn about evolution as a scientific theory, how powerful organisation is needed to accomplish that ? And if they succed, what will that lead to or what will be their next goal ?

How can one be certain that the particle is still there at point A ?

swansont, are You missing the point or avoiding it ? What I want is to acquire knowledge that is already known, not "convince someone" to do tests. (Otherwise I would not be posting questions in a Science Forum.) I guess You prefer the test with the spacecraft instead of "digging" down an atomic clock... (And the test with a spacecraft has probably not been done or is there GPS clocks at any Lagrange point ?) Was at least my calculations of the dilations in the two different variants correct ? (roughly) Edit: Well, it's been 3 days now and still no reply so "avoiding" certainly seems correct.

First some rough math to determine if the mining measurement is doable: The deepest mines in the world is approaching depths of 4 kilometres. So a reasonable depth for an atomic clock that can be loaded in an airplane I guess would be 1000 m. Then if we assume Earth to be spherical with constant density. The Time dilation 1000 m below would then have the same difference relative the surface as in an airplane at approximately 2000 m hight above. How long and high was the airplane in the air during the test and how long can a atomic clock stay below ? I know the suface of the Earth varies with much more than 1000 m and even more important the core has a much higher density than the crust but I still belive the test is doable if the measuring time is increased to say one Year. (Instead of a few hours.) But there is another way to measure this: Between Earth and Sun is a Lagrange point, L1, where the gravity force equals zero between Earth and Sun. What is the Time dilation there ? (Realtive us on Earth only including gravity from Earth and Sun.) We should have or had at least one spacecraft there for several reasons, what is/was the redshift/blueshift of the communication with it ? (The corrected rate of it's clock.) To clearify, does time pass 60 microseconds faster per day in the center of Earth relative the surface ? You say: time pass 60 microseconds faster per day because gravity goes to zero at the center.I say: why a difference, there is no direction for the gravity force, because all directions have the same gravitational potential. But the potential could still have the same value as on the surface. If You are correct will a clock in the spacecraft dilate with +792 microseconds per day relative us on Earth ? If the option I propose are correct will the clock dilate with +57.2 microseconds per day relative us on Earth ? (Spacecraft at Lagrange point L1.)

Time can be viewed as one dimension but how would You make it inrease it's rate to c ?It can be viewed as all objects pass through spacetime at c, but do they really ? We can only change our speed in the other 3 dimensions, and as I showed above if breaking to a stop with a spaceship as close to zero velocity in those 3D we can, it wont change the rate of Time very much. Even if removing a lot of gravity it's still not more than a tiny bit faster.

So first I use swansont's formula for removing the Time dilation of gravity. Remove the Earth -> 60.2 microseconds/day Remove the Moon -> 12.2 nanoseconds/day Remove the Sun -> 853 microseconds/day Remove the rest -> 1.71 nanoseconds/day (rest of solarsystem) Remove the Milky way -> 487 milliseconds/day This is interesting: the time-warp from Milky way is much bigger than the local of Earth. (Which means if removing the local group of galaxies will likely increase the value much.) Anyway the sum of Time increase for a spaceship leaving Milky way is something like 488 millisecons/day. Then I take 5614's formula for removing the Time dilation of speed. The Earth is travelling about 360 km/s towards "Leo" relative CMB. (The Cosmic Microwave Background is the largest observerable rest frame.) Which gives a total increase of Time rate together without gravity of 1.00000636 times. (Times faster on the spaceship when it is at rest with CMB relative Earth including gravity.) For 1 second on Earth goes 1.00000636 seconds in the spaceship. Not much of a speed record ! The value is for me somewhat of a disappointment, I was guessing in numbers like 10 times faster. (Since Time can go many times slower.) Thanks for the formulas !

I guess if we continue to pick particles apart to smaller and smaller pices we will eventually end up with small bits of energy.

I voted "Yes", if distance exists so does time.

If Time slows down for one observer it can be viewed as speed up for the other. If You leave the gravity field of Earth doesn't Time speed up relative Time on Earth ? In the Twin paradox isn't it the speed which causes the Time to slow down ? Let's say we leave a spaceship here, at this position from the center of Milky way with a syncronized clock. (at the same distance from the center but without revolving around it). Will the clock's still be syncronized when Earth returns after one lap around Milky way ?

What is the maximum theoretical rate, (speed), of time relative ours here on Earth ? If motion through space and gravity changes the rate of Time and both velocity and gravity has limits, thus should also Time rate have an upper limit.

Do You have a sound recorder ? Use one to record Your own voice together with a friends voice. Then listen to it, You will hear the difference in Your voice. (Your friend will hear the difference in his/her voice.) Both will hear the others voice as the same. (If the recorder is not to "junky".)

From Your own link: No Work without moving, only Force. I also get paid without moving...

That is correct, Force and Power is not the same thing ! Force, in this case, is how hard the water pushes on the ship, which is countered by the force of the anchor. Horsepower is how FAST a Force is able to accelerate a body, which for the anchor is Zero. (The anchor is not moving either the water or the ship.) The engine on the other ship is moving a lot of water very fast to counteract the flow of the river.

I have 30-40 years of experience with dogs and I belive all animals share the same feelings as us humans: happy, angry, fear, sad and so on... As the IQ of the animals increases, (between different races), they also start to have more memory, dreams, sense of humour and so on... Just because we, (humans), have the highest IQ it doesn't mean they, (animals), can't have senses or feelings at all, instead they just have a little less of it.

Then You would need a divingsuit... "1000 horsepower" is still "1000 horsepower" it makes no difference, the friction from the propeller is under water in both cases. Why don't You say they are two racing cars instead and move the power from the engine via friction from the propeller to the tires. (Both are being pushed back by elephants, one holds the position with engine power and friction from the tires and the other holds the position by the ancor.) Let's say You are attached to a rope behind the car, suddenly the elephants jumps away... Do You still think You are "superman" and can hold the car ? EDIT: Sorry reverse when reading through this thread again I realize I mixed You up with Newtonian. - I apologize ! The flow of the river could break the chain if it increased, without the need to go submerged. (Thats the reason for using a chain instead of rope on large ships.)

I would really like to look when You try this... I have actually done some small boat trips in fast floating rivers and I know from experience it's very tough just holding on to a small boat from the bank. In this case it would be exactly like holding on to a ship "at full throttle developing 1000 horsepower" on a lake, that is at standstill. Do You know how to waterski ?

Is it still hyper-spherical if it's flat ?

I thought "flat" meant no bending in any dimension which combined with infinite gives a spherical universe with infinite radius. The "sphere" and "saddle" shape Your talking about is a 2D-view of universe bent in a positive or negative curvature in another dimension not the third. A 3D universe could still be spherical even if bent in a "sphere" or "saddle" shape, it's just very hard to imagine or show in a picture.

island it seems to me that You joined this forum with the only reason because of this thread... So I thank You for Your effort trying to explain and convince me. :-) I did read Ned Wright's website. I don't have neither the time or interest to study the advanced math behind different theories. A false vacuum has not yet been proven. 'Distance' is what will unbalance Universe according this theory. Just because I don't belive in a "perpetual motion machine", I doesn't mean that I don't understand what it is. I already know the Hubble constant, Ho = 71 +/- 4 km/s/Mpc BTW: I am not a "kiddo" doing some homework. (Edit: I have changed this reply entirely after a second thought.)

Frozen water is still belived to exist on the Moon. Link to story: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050413_moon_perfect.html