michel123456

what about your loudspeakers ? maybe these are the ones to isolate from the building structure.

Ha. my experience is different. as to the point: tachyons are related to negative energy, no? and to reverse time.

I think. (bolded) In ancient times I don't remember that question. in new times IIRC the first time was over the length of cables for a large pen plotters, that was around 1992. Also you can increase the weigth over the needle. and put the turntable on an independent table top. also IIRC there some turntables had a screw beneath to unlock the suspension.

Like this: Or is this completely wrong?

If you mean by "toward everywhere" the same as "the centre is everywhere", yes, it is the way it goes.

Don't bother about that. Welcome to the club. Is this an answer to ittiandro's question? The question is clear like fresh water.

It is what the original idea proposes, but it is very difficult to make a representation of it. If you try under euclidian geometry(as I did) you will see things crashing into each other. It works only under "expanding geometry". ___________- (edit) "expanded geometry" I suppose must exist already. It is the geometry of the raisin cake analogy, an expanding geometry without a centre.

(bolded mine) Thank you md65536 for participating. What is very interesting in your remarks is about distance: indeed gravitational force is a function of distance*. But what distance? (remember that the metric is expanding) The goal would be to prove that as observed by the expanded observer, the gravitational force is a function of distance squared. *and not only.

(bolded mine) The first effect is gravity. It links the equivalence principle to the fact that scaling is a form of acceleration. It also explains why gravity corresponds to a vector oriented from the outside to the inside. The second effect is irreversibility. How could you go back in time when your own metric has changed ? Third, the scaling factor is not something new, it is part of conventional knowledge. The only thing I want to humbly introduce is the concept of scaling happening inside material objects and not very far away between galaxy clusters. And yes, waving hands is painful.

That doesn't sound rigorous. Adding a speed that is subjected to velocity composition (never faster than C) and another "speed" that is not subjected to velocity composition (expanding space) can only give wrong results IMHO. If you make the attempt to add bananas & umbrellas, the result will certainly not be bananas, nor umbrellas: the result will be "something else" (objects?). Units don't match.

----------------- Anyway That was not the intention of the OP. You can erase the vitruvian man and keep the dot alone if you want, that would show roughly what an expanding metric means. The intention was to show that no matter the scaling factor, no matter the rate at which the scaling factor happens, the dot travels the same metric in the same time. See post #1

Right. And since these are not the same kind of "speeds", can we add them ? Can we add bananas and umbrellas?

First I cannot answer your question. Second yes pictures & drawings would be great, I find that very interesting. Third, as much as I know, prehistoric and even more recent technology worked without the use of sealant, so I suppose that the technique was to put something in the hole (a hollow bone for example) in order to blow. If my supposition is correct, the available diameter was smaller than the one you mentioned, and the 23mm dimension must correspond to the material used (the bone?). Maybe you can find some indication on the surface of the cast findings. ---------- (edit) Maybe the conic shape was made to seal the tuyere when pushing from the outside. That means the smaller end was inside as you supposed.

From this http://tap.iop.org/astronomy/astrophysics/702/file_47550.doc page 8 here below:(red rectangle mine) In the rectangle something that made me rise my eyebrows: the waves have covered a distance of v+c ??? Explained after that (Speed = distance/time and time = 1 second) so v+c happened in one sec, thus O.K. in one second v+c represents a distance and not a speed. O.K. but still... The waves have covered a distance of v+c in 1 sec ??? Although we are apparently observing the photons coming at us a velocity c, doesn't that mean that the waves have travelled at speed faster than c?

It is somehow evident that any cosmological model must end up with the reality that we are observing around us right now. So, if we begin to tell the history of the Universe backwards, we can safely begin with our today's observations. Observation (and Theory) tells us that the Universe is expanding. But not everywhere: expansion takes place between galaxy clusters because galaxy clusters themselves are gravitationally bound. There is no expansion between galaxies, nor between stars in galaxies. Only between galaxy clusters. So, going backward in time, there must have been a moment when galaxy clusters were closer than what they are today. Maybe a moment of the Universe's history when all galaxy clusters were all gravitationally bound alltogether. And going further backward, what's the next step? I mean, did expansion penetrate into the galaxy clusters?

Amen

That they are one and only one entity. In the macrocosm, to be one and only one entity, it should be at the same place at the same time. As it seems, for quantum particles, it is not necessarily the case: a single entity can be at 2 different places (we knew that) at the same time (that is bizarre*). So in the end it could be that it has more to do with our understanding of time than with our understanding of particles. * I guess that point has been controlled experimentally.

Welcome. That's a good presentation! Not "Hi I am new here"...

Yes.

I don't know about void, but most if not all methods use air. Air is a good insulator under the condition to avoid convection current. For avoiding convection current, you need to enclose the air in small partitions, in practice less than half an inch (that is approx. the distance between 2 glasses in a double glass window) Some materials you can find commonly are wool, fur, cotton. Then you go to expanded polystyrene, mineral wool, glass wool. All materials are based on the same principle. ---------- edit You must also insulate against radiation. that's why most insulations have multiple layers.

Well, the main point on which IMHO the existing theory is deficient lies on the fact that the existing model supposes that something that we don't know anything about its structure (space), something that has been proved is not existing (aether), something that is not under the limitations of Relativity (expanding space), that this "something" is the source of our observations (redshift). To me it is a huge deficiency. It looks to me much more logical to presume that something else happening into tangible things is the source of our observations. _about redshift, have a look at this attempt to show the equivalence of redshift with scaling in my other thread. as it seems, it is established science not even speculation, please tell me if I am wrong. _yes expansion (or contraction) is needed. The difference is that the process happens inside material objects, and not between them. -------------- (edit) _The scaling factor could also explain why we get this blurry image of things when we look into the extremally small. _It is also an answer to the question that worries J. Barbour, about Relativity of size. See here under "Shape Dynamics" So, if I follow correctly, the BB shouldn't fit. I deeply apologize for that. --------------- (edit#2) But _it could be an explanation for the irreversibilty of time. -it could be an explanation to the equivalence of gravity with acceleration if one notices that scaling has an inherent link to acceleration. See this wonderful post #16 from dear friend IGGY in this thread and my comment post #20.

Found this http://tap.iop.org/astronomy/astrophysics/702/file_47550.doc page 2. -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- Where it seems that I am correct. Why do you say that? For me a "shift" is a translation, not a scaling.

For a specific thickness of a specific material, R expresses the resistance of transmission of heat. When R is high, the material provides good thermal insulation. If you don't grasp easily it's units (K·m²/W), it is maybe easier to grasp its reciprocal (W/m².K): the quantity of heat (in Watts) that passes through a square meter of material for one degree Kelvin.

No error in measurement, no way! But sometimes I also wonder what is the difference between what scientists have in mind and what they explain. For example in the following graph stolen from Schmidt Lecture page 23: I would have drawn the red line exactly the other way. That is: elongated in the past and compacting to the left.

Here below a picture from the Wikipedia article about redshift: So I made a screenshot of this picture and imported into a Cad program. Then I joinded graphically the end of the absorption lines, as accurately as possible, and ended with the following graph: So I thought the Wiki picture is not good. I found this other one from Brian P. Schmidt Nobel lecture page 5 ( http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/schmidt-lecture_slides.pdf ) . And I did the same thing, importing in Cad, joigning the lines, and obtaining this below: Then I did something else: i scaled the image down and put it above the original one: With a spectacular result: the B line above the A is an exact match. Just as if the redshift was not a shift, but a scale.