michel123456

Fear.

You are correct, he should drive on the asphalt.

(emphasized by me) Working on it. Not me but a lot of people are working on it. I find that fascinating.

That is the anthropic principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

I told you , you'll get mad. Right. Better bypass, I agree. I don't know. it is a wild speculation of mine. Well, the empty glass needs an explanation too. The glass is man-made, it is a by-product of a living organism, so IMHO it is not a good metaphor. My speculation consists of saying that you have 2 things in the balance: On the left you have the Universe with galaxies, stars, planets, atoms, quarks, radiation, living organisms, everything that we know is possible because we actually observe it. You could even add to the left all that is theorized could happen and that we cannot observe. On the right of the balance you have...Nothing. In this view, it should not be a surprise if the balance leans on the left.

I understand fully your question(s) from the beginning of this thread. I would be very surprised if one of us could give a straight answer. At the question "WHY THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING, WHY NOT ABSOLUTE NOTHING?" you will get answers like "_"why"_ is not scientific question, science answers to the _"how" question" or even "_"why" is a philosophical question" and you'll get mad from such answers. The only thing I can give here is my own speculation and it won't help much I am afraid. My idea is that "nothing", call it "Nothing" with a big N, is impossible. As if Nothing was a situation soooo unstable that it cannot be. Like a pencil on its tip.

Option two. Conservation of energy is a concept easy to grasp. At the very end, conservation of energy is the result of something that "always exist". On the other hand, the concepts of "birth" and "death" are linked to the concept of "life". in physics one does not encounter neither birth of death but transformation. The same happens in chemistry. IMHO the problem here is the concept of time, it is the word "always" in the sentence that causes some trouble.

You can't be serious. You need to be instructed about what a default is. Some people will die. Proposal 11th. Secession of Texas. I don't know what you have in mind saying "voters need to wake up and push for change in 2014". But when the politicians get disgraced then the political system comes into question and it is very (very) dangerous for democracy. The only thing you (don't) need is the emergence of another kind of political "party" that will show up and say "clear all this mess". That's what I have in my country and I don't wish that happen to you.

Ah, at least a suggestion! So far in this thread the few ideas I could pick were: 1. elections 2. go at work without payment 3. each of us go living and hunting in the countryside (after drawing back our money from the bank) 4. send a U.N. mediator 5. replace the leaders of each house (without election) And some new suggestion of mine: 6. Obama takes a quick decision to draw back obamacare. The Republicans gloat and the crisis ends at Obama's cost. After a week, a federal judge tells Obama that he couldn't do that because he didn't follow the legal procedure, obamacare is resurrected and Obama wins. or 7. send a policeman arrest the member of the Congress that provoke the crisis, or simply a number of them, for a very good reason granted by the Constitution. (for betrayal, murder, or other high offense). What happens: when a congressman goes to jail, the Congress does not collapse, If I am not abused it is simply reduced in number of Congressmen (you must also provide the impossibility of a replacement fellow). Then the voters are less and the percentage can balance in favor of the Democrats. or 8. find a constitutional "trick' that will overpass the Congress. For example find that there were irregularities in the elections and that the actual Congress is not representative or that kind of dirty game. or 9. "buy" the Congress. What do they want? Next Presidency? ... Done*. or 10. More dirty, [censured] *After a while, Obama resigns in full glory because his job has been done and he wants to take more time with his family: the promise is forgotten. Democrats win.

Maybe I don't understand Relativity, you tell me. What I understand from Relativity is that Relativity describes what an observer measures concerning the state of motion of some other observer. In your example, the observer on the spaceship does not observe any change in mass, nor in length, nor in time upon his own spaceship. All these changes are observed by an observer on Earth. And it is THIS OBSERVER ON EARTH who observes the changes of mass, time & length of the spaceship. So IOW it does not take more fuel to accelerate the spaceship. The spaceship accelerates as usual. Only that the observer on Earth does not observe the spaceship accelerating as usual. And the observer on Earth observes the increasing fuel accelerating less an increasing mass. As observed from the spaceship, the mass of the astronaut does not increase on his seat. The observer on Earth observes an increase of mass of the astronaut. That is my understanding.

Thank you! never noticed that. Oops, I have to download every page...

If i understand clearly what is being discussed here: rbwinn states that if one uses a different time in a different FOR, there is no length contraction and no time dilation. Which is correct. Each FOR observes his own time as "regular" and observes no own length contraction and no own time dilation. The Lorentz transformation is not about that. As stated by Swansont, Lorentz transformation is used to describe what one FOR observes "happening" in another FOR.

I have asked for that before: can I download some threads to my PC ? i am losing track of many of them.

If it is impossible to make the distinction, why is it so difficult to make people accept that gravity is acceleration ?

IIRC the solar system is not stable. Have to dig to find back the info. --------------- That is not exactly what I searched but found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System

You don't seem to fully understand the measure of what you are saying. Yes of course you will withdaw your savings. You and another hundred million citizens. Do the banks have the money? the answer is NO. So what will happen is that the banks will close their doors. We have seen that before. If you are lucky enough to get your money back, beware the thiefs that will go from house to house knowing that everybody has a fortune under his blanket. And that's the good part of the picture... That is still analysis. You are blaming the one. I don't care. I need a solution, you need a solution, everybody need a solution. Maybe you need a mediator from the United Nations? They could send you a Belgian, they are very good at finding equitable solutions. -------------------- Note: closing the banks always happen on the weekend.

That is not a solution. I think time has come to stop analysis. Don't you have a "non assistance a personne en danger"* article in your U.S. legislation? *translation from French not needed I hope.

Has anyone a solution to provide for today's issue?

The "size tag" may be given by acceleration. By analogy, an observer in constant motion cannot know whether he moves or not. An observer in accelerated motion can understand his motion. The same should go with scaling. Scaling at an accelerated pace should be knowable. And I remember one other member on this same forum explaining very well that scaling, by its geometric nature, is linked to acceleration. I'll have to dig a bit.

And there is also the human dimension. Robert died not knowing he was right. Robert who? ------------------ There is more to it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10363648/Americans-miss-out-on-Nobel-Prize.html

Not so.

Well, a Nobel Prize has side effects. For example, Nobel Prizes are important for Universities. The total number of Nobel Prizes for a University makes it rise in the list of best institutions, enhancing the value of future papers from future academics, even enhancing the value of its studies and its students. The name of a brilliant scientist is not enough. I am sure there are other side effects. For example Englert's is the 11th for Belgium (all categories), making each single Belgian stupidly proud.

I find it very bad that the Nobel Prize is never attributed post mortem. The name of Robert Brout should have been mentioned. Unfortunately Brout died in 2011.

I should have known the Pythagorean cup. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LLlwzlbY_OU