michel123456

Kalos orises Ioannis. So this a _aether _electric _varying Speed Of Light theory You must expect strong resistance from this Forum, your theory will not be accepted just like that. Be prepared, don't get upset and good luck. --------- (note) what I do. Right-clik one of your posted equation, go to properties, and copy-paste your link in the browser: its easy to find you. For example: You have a paper published in a "peer reviewed" journal. the "journal of nuclear physics" is a blog. I googled the name of the first scientist, Prof.Sergio Focardi(INFN – University of Bologna – Italy) is this physicist involved in the E-cat together with Aldo Rossi. That smells bad. It is definitely NOT a good support to your claims, not to say it gives a contrary effect. No serious scientist will go to read the first sentence of your theory.

There is no law. WE deduce laws from observation, we invent laws in order to make the whole thing comprehensible and eventually prepare for future events. An apple falling down from a tree does not follow the law of gravitation, an apple knows nothing about gravity, Newton found some deep mathematical relationship we call a law. Etymologically, it is the love (as friendship) of wisdom.

bolded mine. 1. if time is relative, space must be relative too, since spacetime is a continuum. 2. "slower"? Does time have a speed?

Bolded mine Does that mean that when space expands, time expands too? so that the ratio space/time remains equal?

I think it is about 4D spacetime, and not 3D space. For example when you say (Bolded part) No, you will never see the back of your head, because what you see far away is also far away "in the past". it takes time for light from far away to reach your eyes. At best what you would see is an image of the point we are today as it was billion years ago. Certainly not the back of your head.

bolded mine. I saw this argument also in post #21 And in wiki also (looking for the quote, I lost it maybe in the french wiki) It is clear that each toss has a 50/50 chance to happen, and since each toss is indenpendent from the precedent one, the chance for any result to happen shouldn't depend from the precedent ones. Shouldn't. But if you make the experiment, does that happen? If you make T,T,T, (after about 30 tosses, I got it), I can bet a lot that the next toss will be H. (in my small experiment I won my bet) Or in the unlikely event you get T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T, I can bet Greece's debt that the next toss will be H (assuming this is still just a random case). I suppose that the explanation resides in that we expect the result to happen in a particular way about a phenomena that is random by nature. Inside randomness, the T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,T, configuration exists somewhere, but WE give it a spectacular value. So is the T,H,T,H,T,H,T,H,T,H,T,H,T,H,T,H configuration but nobody cares about it. When WE expect a serie to happen (T,T,T), this serie may get a long time to come, and the next serie (T,T,T,T) may get longer. I suspect that the probability to get the whole serie is the same that to get the final toss, IOW the probability to get a particular final toss must be the same as the probability to get the whole serie.

The O-live tree ?

It is exactly like coin tossing. Head and tails are boys & girls. Mathematics aside, you can make the experiment (I did) How many tossing do you need to get Head? One, two, three? In my small experiment, over 10 tossings, I got Head at the first toss 5 times, Head at the 2nd toss 4 times Head at the 3rd toss 1 time. I wonder how many tosses do I have to endure before getting Head at the 4th toss, how many ours to get Head at the 5th toss, how many days before getting Head at the 6th toss. Not speaking about getting Head after the 20th toss (or after infinite tosses).

I remember a boy in my classroom who was the stereotype of a genius: A.G. was a small bold boy with thick glasses, he used to correct the teachers in all kind of subjects. One very strong feature: communication problems. He was too clever for us, for the teachers, for everybody, and as such he was rejected by the whole school community. I guess a true genius would encounter the same communication problems on places like SFN. For good communication, you need an average level, too low is not good, and too high is not good too.

From your link Bolded mine. The question is reversed, boys for girls and girls for boys. As I said before, it is very very unlikely that a couple need to fornicate infinitely before getting the expected result (girl in the OP, boy in the link). After 5 or 6 attempts the probability of succeding is already very close to 1. And anyway the population is not infinite, so it is not an infinite serie, but a finite one.

from up to down it goes like this for each couple. At the first attempt, the odds for boy & girl are equals for each couple. Here below a couple who gets a girl at the fifth attempt. But each branch shows what happen for all the island couples. Say they are 100 couples. At the first attempt, they get 50 boys, 50 girls. the 50 girls-awarded couple stop, the other 50 continue. At the second attempt, 25 couples get a girl, 25 get a boy. At the third attempt, 12,5 couples get a girl (how is that possible?) and 12,5 get a boy. At the fourth attempt, 6,25 couple get a boy, 6,25 get a girl. And so on. So this approach tells there is a 50/50 probability, but the amount of tentatives is a factor of the population (for a population of a million there are more branches than for a hundred), which must be wrong. IMHO it is higly improbable not to get a girl after the 5th or 6th tentative. Girls should win.

i stupidly thought they wanted a queen on the island...

I found the point of life: ................Here

That's the point. without the "at which point they'll stop" it would be a regular population. ----------- hum, I suddenly realized I misunderstood the question. "every couple"...

Take ten couples. 1. They all conceive at the same time The first couple makes a girl, bingo! But the other 9 pregnant cannot stop, they make children. So that makes an equal average of boys & girls. 1.2. If no-one makes a girl, which is higly improbable, its a boy win for all other rounds. 2. they do not conceive at the same time, but a 9 months interval so that they can see the result of each try. 2.1. the first couple makes a girl: bingo! Girls win. 2.2. the first couple makes a boy: the 2nd couple go to work (note that it doesn't matter how many couples) 2.2.1. the 2nd couple makes a girl, bingo but its fifty-fifty with the boy of point 2.2. 2.2.2. the 2nd couple makes a boy. its a boy win and for all the successive tries. So globally I think the odds are for the boys.

Bolded mine. the bolded part must be wrong. Simple mecanisms can provoke irreversibility even if irreversibility is not a fundamental feature of space and geometry. The statement "it should not be possible to deduce an object absent of the properties of the objects from which it is deduced" is like stating that there cannot exist properties C made of the sum of other properties A and B, although IMHO to world we are observing is exactly that: a construction of complex properties made of simple ones.

From your link: You must have ment "Eq. (9) is identical to Eq. (3),

bohmian, not bohemian

in last part of post #182 of this thread there is joke about that.

Technically you cannot use the word "speed" for time. Speed has units meters/seconds, that is distance divided by time. So the "speed of time" would be (distance divided by time)/time. In this case you have time twice, and it is said that you can't do that because we are measuring only one time. But on the other hand physicist have no problem to square a distance in situation where there is only one distance measured. And the same physicists are also comfortable to square a speed in situations where only one speed is measured. IOW what physicists accept to do with distance & speed they refuse to do with time.

" He only wants confirmation of his own convictions." is my conviction. But fair enough, at the question "Agree? Disagree?", I disagree. Iknow cancelled the "Discuss" part, so I don't discuss it.

I didn't call you a fascist, I said that the phrasal lowering of people with whom you disagree and the denial of discussion is a fascist behaviour.

Oh, I thought it was: (emphasis mine) obviously iNow (read Iknow) don't want to discuss anymore. He only wants confirmation of his own convictions. For him all the people who agree with him are mentally healthy, all the others are broken. Well in this case I prefer being considered broken than agreeing with that fascist behaviour.

I don't know if you have strong references for that or if it comes from your personnal observation, but it seems correct to me. i'd add some other points on why seniors are more sceptics: #4 - they have more experience, they don't believe a word coming from someone fallen from the last rain(1) #5 - they evidently know it is a huge political issue first and a tiny scientific one afterwards. #6 - GW has been described as the apocalypse as soon as the fifties, seniors haven't seen the apocalypse coming yet. #7 - Those of the seniors who have read some history know that in antiquity the sea level was higher than today (2), at a time when no industrialization existed. #8 - those same seniors might know about the little ice age that happened around year 1600 which was evidently not a result of human activities. So they know that climate can change for (so far) unknown reasons. #9 - the seniors may have visited some museum and admired displays with remains of elephants and other tropical features in today's temperate regions, showing by evidence that climate has completely changed in the past for (so far) unknown reasons. #10 - seniors may be aware that humans are very (very) small compared to Mother Nature. There is an arrogant dream of Mankind to compete the forces of nature, but we are very far from it. Seniors may think that anthropogenic GW is only another arrogant dream where humans have to protect the Earth while at the contrary it is the Earth that plays the game and may get rid of these annoying creatures at any time she whishes. In fact we don't have to protect nature, we have to protect ourselves against nature. (1) free translation of the French "né de la dernière pluie" (2)Archaeological indicators of relative sea-level changes in the Attico-Cycladic massif: preliminary resultsBAIKA, K. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece vol. XLII/II-2008

Bolded mine I have another interpretation of what happens when time elapses (warning: this has been discussed thoroughly on this Forum, it seems I am agreeing with myself alone) It goes like this: We are not here and there. We are not alltogether here in the present AND in the past. I argue that we are changing coordinates in time. IOW there is only one existence: if you are here today that is because you have moved from the past. The coordinates you were once in the past are void because you are here today. There is no other "you" in the past. And of course there is no other "you" in the future. When you were born, some years ago, there was no other "you" today posting on SFN. And today, there is no other "you" crying in mums arms. There is only one "you" traveling in time, changing coordinates in time. This single one you is conscious.