michel123456

Interesting question. Here below your splendid diagram stolen by me, with a slight addition: You must remember that the effect is based on 2 things: 1. acceleration 2. delay In our case, the delay is NOT caused by a difference of the starting time, it is supposed that we all started at the same instant, call it the Big Bang or the Big Crunch. The delay is caused by Speed Of Light. In the diagram above, when objects B and D are where they are, an observer on the Earth observes them as they were in the past, at points B' and D'. Points B' and D' represent objects that had a smaller velocity than Earth, and thus are receding. All the objects that are seen from the Earth are seen as they were in the past, IOW they are all delayed (they are all "behind"), thus they all have a different velocity with the Earth. We cannot observe objects that are in the future, so we cannot observe objects that "departed before us" as in the accelerating cars analogy.

Well, they have to accelerate to go out of Earth in the first place. This detail is not part of the calculations.

It explains why VELOCITY increases as the distance increases. Acceleration should be the same everywhere. ---------------------------- And also (in order to support the speculation) if the "great body" is realy HUGE (that is many times larger than the observable universe) then one could consider that all galaxies roughly travel in a parallel course to each other. The same way we consider that all the rays of light coming from the sun are parallel to each other when reaching the Earth. But, again (in order to destroy the speculation) the model does not explain recessing velocities faster than light.

Quoting myself The effect is caused by acceleration and delay. And Land Mammal is correct for his analogy because: 1. gravity corresponds to an acceleration 2. delay is caused by the finite rate of C. On the other hand the effect cannot explain recessing velocities over C.

If all the fragments are in (the same) acceleration, then Land Mammal is correct. ----------------- (edit) ONLY the fragments that are parallel to you at the same time would look ....parallel. All the others would look like going away.

I don't get it. Why A and C have a so radical difference? Since there is no acceleration involved, B could be at rest and A could be traveling. The situation ought to be symmetric. Or C could be at rest. The results should show the same either way. As seen from B, all the objects between B and A are looking aging faster than B. And all of a sudden, objects on the other side of A are looking aging slower. That makes no sense. C is a traveling object just like A. The only difference is their relative speed to B. The configuration is exactly the same as if C was the origin and A & B were traveling.

Wait a moment, just an idea: if space expanded faster than C, does that mean that it expands backward in time?

B does (should) look at C aging more than A the line of sight is B---A---C B observes A aging more than himself B should observe C aging more than A

Agreed. And yes, before C turns around, it ages less than A as measured by B, because it is moving away at a greater relative velocity. But when C turns around, there is a change in relative simultaneity. As always, calculations using length contraction and time dilation and relative simultaneity work out the same as relativistic Doppler calculations, which work out as expected that symmetrical observers will see symmetrical things. That makes no sense. When B turns around what does he see? 1.B is half the trip so he sees himself aged 1 year (he is 21y.o.) 2.B sees observer A aged less than 7 years, because he traveled together with the light signal coming from A. Say he sees A has aged 4 years (as seen from B) 3.B sees observer C aged less than 1 year, for the same reason. Say he sees C has aged 0.5 year. On the return trip, what does B observe? 4. B observes A aging 14-4=10 years while seeing himself aging 1 year. 5. B observes C aging 2-0.5=1.5 years while seeing himself aging 1 year. But C should aged faster than A. The result should be C aging say 20 years, not 1,5 year. There is something wrong.

B, A and C are always in visual contact throughout the travel. No matter the delays caused by the distance light has to travel we have this: B has observed A eating 14 times 365 breakfasts. B has observed C eating only 2 times 365 breakfasts Although the relative travel between B & C is much larger than between B & A.

Now take 3 observers A, B, C A is on Earth "at rest" B travels to the left C travels to the right (in the opposite direction of B) Lets say all observers are all 20 years old (for the sake of simplicity) at departure time. B<----------A---------->C A observes B reaching the planet X after 7 years. A observes C reaching the opposite planet Y after 7 years Theory says that when B and C come back to Earth, only 2 years of their time has passed (they are 22 y. old) although for observer A 14 years have passed (he is 34 y.o.) But what does B observe concerning C? If he observes A aging faster than him, he must observe that C is aging much more than A. 1._when B reaches planet X, observer A on Earth has aged 7 years (A is 27) and C has aged twice as much as A (C is 34 as observed from B), or what??? 2._symmetrically when C reaches planet Y, observer A on Earth has aged 7 years (A is 27) and B has aged twice as much as A (B is 34 as observed from C), or what??? 3. _ or point 1 & 2 above are wrong and in this case, what is B observing concerning C and reversely?

Google translation from the Tierpark Bochum site. Note: I have no idea about underwater landscaping, especially for animals. All i know is about terrestrial landscaping for humans

I have to admit that the Hafele-Keating experiment baffles my mind. ----------------------------- There are 2 ways to think about it: 1. the traveler comes back and has aged 2 years instead of 14 for the observer at rest. 2. the observer at rest enters a spaceship and follows exactly the same trip. When he arrives and meet with his predecessor, there is no gap, no difference in age. The difference between 1 & 2 is introducing a dissymmetry I cannot swallow.

??? the bold part. You seem to argue that the Earth is correct while the traveler is wrong when you say "and agree that he spent 7 years (...)" And also you said: traveling at 0,99 c he observes the Earth 1 LY away traveling at 0 c he observes the Earth at 7 LY away So if he makes a u-turn and travels at minus 0,99 c, what will be his observation?

I would expect more than one/day. -------------------- I just noticed there is no external info about SFN, not even a wiki article.

What is the percentage of quacks on this forum ? How many threads from quacks?

If you want the cursor some app has a checkbox for that. example gadwin printscreen (free).

From this site you took examples before: scroll down till "fake giants". http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/giants.htm#giantsinarchaeology I lke this site because it presents things as they are, mysteries included.

That should ring a bell. Meaning that time & space are basically 2 different measurements of the same thing.

i agree with you that ramps are not the right solution.

Maternal, Fetal, & Neonatal Physiology: A Clinical Perspective 1st attempt done. The formatting does not show after posting. ---------- Note: DH is correct. If the bold format disturbs you, use the toggle button twice and its gone.

I have seen that too. IIRC the bold or large formatting appears only in the edit box. When you post it disappears. 1st attempt now:

Here is the dilemma: _on one side you have Star Trek, E.T. and Stargate -on the other side a boring professor in the classroom. What do you choose? The professor because he is in the Matrix.. . . .

maybe because you wear heavy shoes with rubber sole

maybe because wearing clothes made of wool?