michel123456

This diagram? I don't understand (again) Take the left part. Can the source (the yellow dot) observe the light beam that goes to the white dot? the answer is: NO. For the source to observe the reflect of its own light (putting a mirror on the white dot), one has to take the right diagram and put it upside-down on the left one. Does that make sense?

Nonsense. You evidently posted an image of the sun taken at night and the chinese cannot see the sun when its dark.

The old fashioned way is to make a hole. When the ball reaches the bottom of the hole the score marks. Bingo, I have invented golf.

The birth of the monster http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XMF22_MEMJU#!

Ed is very correct but I have the feeling this is not the exercise. In a river with meanders the erosion of the ground takes place on the outer side and deposit takes place on the inner side. Is this a homework?

1 day movie of outgoing object, and that is not what we observe. I don't understand clearly your sentence but yes, appearance is not time-symmetric. The reversed movie would show 1 day outgoing object going 1000LY away and that is not what we observe. ----------------- It is obvious on the last diagram. The left side is totally different from the right side. I find that mind blowing.

Most of what you said is correct but you are a victim (as I was) of the occidental teaching of history. The decline of the Roman Empire is part of occidental history and then teachers embark on middle-ages and then Renaissance. Most do not mention with enough insistance that the eastern part of the roman empire (the Byzantine Empire) that was ruled by the Greeks kept all the ancient knowledge, that this knowledge was partly destroyed, partly stolen during the 1204 siege of Constantinople (when ignorant christians crusaders savagely killed other christians), then finally migrated in occident after 1453, when the muslims took the place, opening the eyes of the Venetians and other Italians, spreading the Renaissance all over occident. It is true that in the meanwhile a lot of time has been lost. When you look at the (known) achievements of a man like Hero of Alexandria, surely it could have been that the industrial revolution happened a thousand years earlier, at least.

What you find perfectly logic and consistent I find amazing. For example, it means that if you take a movie of an object coming and leaving, and then reverse the movie, you will not observe the same thing. The image of the phenomena is not time reversible! Speaking of motion, I find that amazing.

--------------------------------------------------- That is a ratio 1/730001 between the image coming and the image leaving! With the "real" object in between the 2 "apparent velocities", coinciding with its own image at the observer, at the "correct" mathematical velocity

great idea but you didn't mention your percentage

Also a remark from a constructive POV. One must know that buildings are not self-sustaining structures. A building is not a car or an airplane that you can put upside-down. If you put a building upside-down, it collapses. That's what happen with a tornado. The tornado "sucks" the building, introducing a pressure from down to up (maybe from in to out, I am not sure). With an earthquake something similar happens. The earth shakes the building up (that's not so bad because its the same direction with gravity) and down (that's very bad) or horizontally left and right (that is as if you rotated the building 90 degrees with the ground vertical - that is very-very bad). Generally the concern here is to avoid a full building collapse and save lives. It seems in Oklahoma there is some concern saving lives with protected basements but not to avoid full building collapse. There must be some reason I guess.

You'll need a good camera to catch a ball bumping.

My first thought was to make the ball special, incorporating a magnet for example. My second thought is that the ball is already special: it is round. You need a system that recognize a round object. I think of a light beam (or infrared) on the target and photoelectric receivers in round shape that understand the round shadow of the ball. In such a way that the ball only will turn the scorer on. If a player puts the ball gently with his hands it should not score. Something like that. --------------------- (edit) Note: I'll take only 2% of the selling.

My sympathy. How devastating! I am wondering, why do you build your houses with wood and not with concrete? On the photos all over the net it can be noticed that all wooden structures have disappeared, even the metal structures seem unable to sustain. Here in Greece we have no tornadoes or hurricanes but we have earthquakes. Building regulations about seismic protection are very strict and have a huge impact on building costs. Don't you have building regulations in Oklahoma?

Right. 730001 days.

How much time will take the light signal from the arrival to come to Earth? At least 1000 years (365000 days)

All that is O.K. But the "blueshift rate" is not the same as the "redshift rate". The one is not the reverse of the other. I mean, if one made a graph of the "apparent velocity", this graph has an abrupt change at the observer. In our E.T. example, the "apparent velocity" (of the image) is 1000LY/1 day when coming and 1000LY/365001 days when leaving (if i understand clearly). That is 365001 times slower.

Measurement has an influence on the result of the experiment. So what? That happens in all sort of destructive experiments.

Proportionality comes from geometry. Or the inverse. Some conversion factors are dimensionless, some are not.

This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Thank you for the link. I understand the delay. What I don't understand is wonderfully showed in this diagram from the link above. Diagram 3. The grey ellipse is a moving relativistic sphere, its oblate shape due to Lorentz contraction. The colored ellipse is the visual image of the sphere. Background curves are an xy-coordinates grid which is rigidly linked to the sphere; it is shown only at one moment in time. (text in italic from Wiki) I don't understand the abrupt change of "apparent velocity" (The motion of the colored ellipse) when the object reaches the observer. I don't understand that because the object is supposed to have the same velocity when coming and leaving and here everything shows as if there was an abrupt deceleration acting. -------- Or stating my question otherwise. In this diagram, the grid is "linked to the sphere" But the Earth is "at rest", so I suppose that there must be another regular orthogonal grid linked to the Earth not shown on the diagram (in this grid takes place the motion of the grey sphere) I don't understand the abrupt change of apparent motion on one side and on the other side of the observer in relation with the not shown regular orthogonal grid.

A segment.

Following this graph The astronomer at time 3 observes Tom making the turn. At Time 4 the astronomer observes Tom landing. The difference T4-T3 is a substraction that you seemed to agree cannot be done. The astronomer should observe what the math says, in this graph it is the difference T4 minus T2.

But if it is correct that the ET (or Tom) takes such time, then the diagram is wrong.

I am confused. Is the inner core supposed to be solid or liquid?