michel123456

Half of these explanations can be resumed as : life

I think if you model all of this after a few years you should obtain a regular smooth weather. There is a difference between weather on Jupiter and weather on Earth. http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/jupiterweather.gif

Yes. -------------------- Weather works like a chaotic system. If the solar system is not chaotic, including planet Earth, why is the weather chaotic?

Why are you accepting such explanations so quickly? Since the rotational rate of the Earth is stable, why is weather so capricious? Wouldn't weather have become standard all around the globe, based only on variations caused by physical phenomena like the Coriolis force?

Is that about Ijsselmeer? (as I understand from the video you linked) Do they plan to go back to the times of zuiderzee? That would look like nature's revenge.

After some more thought, and going back to the right definition of Hubble's law, I made these 2 following graphs: 1. Hubble's law, time on the vertical axis, distance on the horizontal, v is velocity, and we see on the graph that velocity is proportional to distance (G2 has velocity v, G3 has velocity 2v, G4 has velocity 3v) Then the same graph using Zapatos notation: If the above is right, all we need to do is to fill the diagram. -------------------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, it is wrong. Bad of me. Now i'll try to post the correct ones. Hubble's law says (from wiki) Resuming So, when distance increases, velocity increases Correcting my previous diagram, it goes like this: Time is on the vertical axis, distance on the horizontal. Velocity is not the diagonal (that was the previous error) but velocity, which is the ratio distance/time, is represented by the angle (more accurately by the tangent of the angle). When the angle is zero, speed is null (the distance in any amount of time is zero), when the angle is orthogonal, speed is infinite (infinite distance in zero amount of time). in the diagram, velocity increases with distance: the angle gets wider. I hope it is O.K. now. So, in Zapatos notation it becomes Where d is the distance travelled by light.

I know that the main river in Belgium (Scheldt -Schelde- Escaut)that ends in Holland is so low that it is flowing backward for more than 40 km inside of the land at high tide . I have seen this at Dendermonde. So if you do that in this river, you may cause problems to a serious part of Belgium. I mean the water may not flow out at sea, but inside at land.

That is salt water. I was speaking about fresh water.

To me, the answer is Time. I like to repeat myself twice: as long as we don't understand what Time really is, the whole discussion is a waste of ...time.

Spyman (my guardian angel), that was a complicated answer of yours. I read it twice. On the assumption that the Standard Model is correct, and on the basis of Zapatos example: What are we observing today from Earth ?

Yes. I wonder why not build some north-south aqueduct.

I was thinking about some absolutely dumb solutions like: 1.digging a hole to put the water in. 2.heating the water to vaporize it 3.pumping the water into a tanker floating in the river 4.drinking water instead of beer 5. use the water to make beer and increase heineken's exportations. 6.freezing the water into icebergs floating on the canals Then I thought if the iceberg was not floating, it could be some solution. If the average temperature is already low, that wouldn't be too difficult to freeze clear rainy water and built circular dams with ice. They will melt of course but slowly. Maybe if real cold comes, it may not melt at all and save you.

Come to Greece.

I agree on the basis. But it is difficult to grasp. "always existed" is about eternity, and eternity is the infinite in time, meaning infinite both ways: no beginning, no end. Although infinite is a notion that we can deal with mathematically and logically, it remains difficult to swallow.

Yes. we are still just talking about what we can see now that is from T2. Speaking more accurately, from T2 at G1 we cannot even see T2/G2 (because we cannot observe the present, only the past is observable) what we are observing now today from T2/G1 is T1/G2 What you are discussing is what other planets in other galaxy clusters very far away from us are supposed to be observing , today. What I discuss is what we are actualy observing from Earth today.

I just remembered this old thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/55999-mathemagic-arthur-benjamin/

I understand your point. Try to understand mine: Say we are at T2, G1 and we are looking in all directions around us. All galaxy clusters around us are in the past, O.K? Lets' look at G2 that is close to us. We see T2, G1 ss G2 Now lets have a look at G3 that is a bit far away. If it is far away, it is also more in the past, say at T1 We see the bolded from your example as below T1 - G1 s G2 s G3 s G4 s G5 s G6 s G7 s G8 s G9 s G10 s G11 s G12 to T2 - G1 ss G2 ss G3 ss G4 ss G5 ss G6 ss G7 ss G8 ss G9 ss G10 ss G11 ss G12 We cannot see G3 where it is today, we cannot see the sequence T2 - G1 ss G2 ss G3

Good. These are Autocad drawings copyrighted. You'll have to check if you can use them, for homework I suppose you can, always mentionning your source. After downloading you need only to look at Dome3.dwg: Dome of the Rock If you don't have Autocad, you may find a free viewer on the Net (Google "free Autocad viewer), then extract with a printscreen (also free on the web). The most difficult will be to do that at scale.

A good material is foam board. Other material more expensive is balsa wood Don't use hard paper, the result will not be good. Alternatively you can use cardboard. (containerbord) If you can get drawings of the elevations of the temple (facades), you can print the elevations at some reasonable scale and glue them on the cardboard, then cut carefully around with a cutter (olfa cutter type), then collate all together. If it is your first model, you'll need help. You may find some valuable information about the building plans at this address.

To be compared to Spyman's second example Where I put in red rectangle what we are (supposed to be) observing If we are today at T4.

That's all O.K. Where are we supposed to be today? At G1 & T4 I suppose. Anyway I would prefer to focus on what we are observing, not on any theorization or prediction. Here below I included the time stamp to make it clearer What we are observing is: T0.-T1.--T3.---T6.----T10.-----T15.------T21.-------T28.--------T36.---------T45 G1 s G2 ss G3 sss G4 ssss G5 sssss G6 ssssss G7 sssssss G8 ssssssss G9 sssssssss G10 Where T is directly linked to the amount of "s": time of observation in the past is a direct function of the distance through the constancy of Speed Of Light. Disclaimer: we need an expert urgently. -------------- The editor is not WYSIWYG, it is difficult to make T & G correspond vertically, I hope the result appears the same on everyone's screen.

You are confusing me more: you cannot add a distance to a velocity. The formula is Velocity = Hubbleconstant times Distance. Bolded mineHa. No. Because G8 cannot observe G1: he cannot observe anything in its future. The sequence G1 to G12 is also a time sequence, no one can observe to the left, everybody observe to the right, in the past. So G8 is observing G8 ssssssss G9 sssssssss G10 ssssssssss G11 sssssssssss G12 or G8 s G9 ss G10 sss G11 ssss G12 With another value for s. Sure I am. Since velocity is space (distance) divided by time and time is a direct function of distance, if velocity increases so does space.

Is this correct? At the risk of being stupid I thought (accelerating) expansion was G1 s G2 ss G3 sss G4 ssss G5 sssss G6 ssssss G7 sssssss G8 ssssssss G9 sssssssss G10 ssssssssss G11 sssssssssss G12 With G12 a galaxy cluster in the very long past.

Strange question. Does that mean that you agree that the universe was never created ? Or are you meaning that nobody knows?

Entertaining blog. Well done.