michel123456

Here on page 16. The source of the picture (Von Daniken) is not a good element of research. I found nothing about the left picture (the egyptian).

http://archiseek.com/2010/1886-great-indian-peninsular-railway-terminus-administrative-offices-bombay-india/#.UVxkWUrvuF8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhatrapati_Shivaji_Terminus_railway_station

I don't know. I can only point what I know, the Museum of Natural Sciences in Brussels Belgium has an astouding collection of full size specimens mainly from the Bernissart site (Iguanodons). Claimed as Europe’s largest Dinosaurs Gallery. Very (very) impressive. Worth a visit.

Hmmm So it was date sensitive.

wonky? You must mean "schief" yes, slightly turning to the left in the pop-up that opens when viewing a member's name in the forum content. --------------- oops, now everywhere!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem Something that I took 300 years to swallow (still in my throat), is that the actual Theory states that all galaxies in the universe were roughly created in the place where they are today.

(emphasis mine) You meant younger, relative to age zero at the Big Bang instant. What is observed in our past is ancient and thus is younger (the Greek antiquity is younger than we are, relative to the BB). What is old to us is young in the universe history. What we observe very far away are supposed to be baby galaxies. In these galaxies, it is supposed that old stars like HD140283 do not exist.

This is not what is presented in the wiki page: --------------- And certainly it is a question of surprise. I wouldn't expect such an ancient object so close to us. This star seems older than very far away galaxies.

HD 140283 is 190 LY away, that is inside our Milky Way galaxy which is approximately 100,000 ly (30 kpc) in diameter. The oldest known star in the Universe is in our galaxy?

"then the bug should observe some sort of pressure as a result." Exactly. You said it. A "pressure" coming from all directions. The next step is to show that this "pressure" is function of the square of the distance.

we are not talking about observers in different FOR. when they meet together they are in the same FOR. You know what the paradox is about, no? the paradox is NOT that the one has another age with the other. the paradox is that both should observe the other having aged less.

Even under Newtonian dynamics, when the speed is lower, you take more time to make the travel. The point is that when they meet, they should observe the same thing. After all, it is fundamental condition of relativity, all observers must agree on what they observe, even when they are together at the same time and the same place. i believe people are too much concerned with the twin paradox and find paradoxes everywhere. --------------- I mean, if the 2 observers are together at the beginning and at the end, it means that their average velocity is the same. Otherwise they don't meet.

That is insane. Take E and R again. make R go away as you did. Then after a year, make E go away. R and E are 1 year from each other. Then make R stop and wait for the arrival of E. When they meet, is there any difference in age? I think not. There is no paradox. The velocities, the accelerations do not matter: when they meet together they MUST observe the same thing, the same age. Any other result is wrong. I think the misunderstanding is caused by the direction of the velocity vector. When someone goes away the vector is positive, when he comes back the vector is negative. Even if speed remains the same. Isn't that the difference between velocity and speed?

It's a mess. But a good idea. I am sure the correct result must show that both E and R have aged the same time. There is no reason to search for a paradox. You said: Now modify the experiment so that R doesn't turn around. That's my point too. In the twin "paradox" all the maths I have seen so far say nothing about the u-turn. The result of the maths show what happen when the observer E on Earth is separated from R by a huge distance. In this case there is no paradox: each one will observe the other with a younger age. The "paradox" arises when someone ply the thought experiment in 2 like a sheet of paper, making E and R coincide in space. IMHO the plying of the sheet of paper (read the "u-turn") must have some mathematical implications.

"emphasis mine" Right. As seen from an observer at rest: _a point A somewhere left on the band will have a constant velocity V1 _a point B in the middle of the band will have constant velocity V2 _a point C somewhere on the right of the band will have constant velocity V3 Where v3>v2>v1 So point A will observe point B receding. And so will B observe that A is receding. In fact all points A B C will observe all other points receding. The receding rate will be increasing with distance, so this is a good analogy to Hubble's law. That is the situation when the bugs at points A B C are standing still on the rubber band. And bugs A B C will feel no force. (I wonder) Except that there must be some interaction between the rubber band and the feet of the bug. If the bug is made of other "stuff" and has no interaction with the band (as if there were oil between the band and the bug, or simply distance), then nothing of the above would happen. And IF there is an interaction between the band and the bugs feet, then the bugs would feel a force, wouldn't they?

Off topic, yes, and really weird. The bug would observe the observer at rest receding at an increasing velocity. And neither the observer at rest nor the bug would feel the acceleration. What kind of acceleration is that?

If the bug is accelerating, an intelligent bug should be aware of the situation. The bug should feel a force.

That is an open question. IMHO there are some virulent bad points about the (free) market as it is conceived and applied today. You are so naive. ----------------- when the tax officer comes to control you, the working basis is that you cheated. The same working basis counts for corporations. ----------------- For example at this time we are speaking the (free) market makes the prices of basic alimentation grow As a result somewhere people will starve to death. Other examples are connected with the prices of medicine, wich is not free but constrained by corporations that whish to control the (not free) market. I think there are very few things that are going well in our market as it is today. Most go wrong. Take energy as another example. As for taxes, the problem is called "tax evasion", not "legal transfer of wealth".

A moving volume is 4D. ------------------- You need 4 coordinates to fully describe a point on a moving volume. You may note that my previous post about acceleration is not so obvious. When you square meters, you obtain a surface because meters in one direction can be orthogonal to meters in some other direction. On the other hand, when you square time (like in acceleration) we use to consider that there exist only one "direction of time". So square seconds are usually considered as regular seconds squeezed (or extended) along the time line. There is no time perpendicular to some other time because we consider that there is only one time. That is common sense. --------------- As a consequence, on an accelerating volume you need only 4 coordinates to fully describe a point. Not 5 coordinates. Example; Take a box (a 3D volume) Make the box slide. You have a 3D volume sliding along a time axis, that is 4D Now, while the box is sliding, push from the side so that the box constantly changes direction. In this case you can draw an orthogonal axis of time. This second axis inserts seconds that multiply the seconds of the first axis, and you obtain square seconds : Acceleration. And indeed a change in direction corresponds to acceleration. The thing is that the seconds on the first axis are considered the same as the seconds on the 2nd axis because there is only one time.

Zero dimension is a point. (0D) A moving point is represented by a line: you have length (1D) A moving line is represented by a surface (2D) A moving surface is represented by a volume (3D) A moving volume is (difficult to represent) 4D ------------------------------------------------------ You can also go like this: begin with a point again (0D) move the point (1D) Accelerate the point; that is the multiplication of the point by square time= 2D (a surface) accelerate the surface (3D) accelerate the volume (4D) Accelerate the 4D = 5D and so on. There is no end to acceleration. Have a look here.

http://www.pttimeeting.org/archivemeetings/1971papers/Vol%2003_17.pdf If this is an accurate description of the experiment, as it seems to be, I see no FOR at the North pole looking down from a large distance, I see a comparison of traveling clocks with a set of 15 clocks at rest at the U.S. Naval Observatory. See page 8 of the pdf.

So the HK experiment is about acceleration. And IIRC in an accelerated FOR the speed of light differ from C. Thus, is it correct to invoke the HK experiment in examples where C is constant ? ------------------- Note: I learned something today. Thank you.

The clock that remained on the ground is not at rest?

In the pdf, the argument states otherwise I am not aware of such a discrepancy.