michel123456

That's all about "Time". As long as we haven't clearly understood what time is, the whole discussion is a waste of ...time.

dear URAIN I looked at the thread. You are not the only one with bad experiences. A few days after my arrival here one of my threads was sent to the waste basket. You agree that "Nothing has never existed", it is part of your theory. So what? We may be 3 or 4 clowns here to agree on that, that doesn't help much. We need some arguments. The law of conservation of energy is a good one. But it is an empirical observation of the universe, it is not emergent from anything. So you cannot use it as a premise.

A rate of change by second. That is time twice, thus s^2. But we refuse 2 dimensions of time. We say there is only one time. But then, if there is only one time, what are s^2? As an analogy, it is like having m^4 in an equation.

Thanks for the info. Wilczek's ideas are supported by particle physicist Victor John Stenger. Following link to a pdf article of Stenger entitled "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=victor%20j.%20stenger%20nothing%20unstable&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.colorado.edu%2Fphilosophy%2Fvstenger%2FBriefs%2FSomething.pdf&ei=TOn9TraALoWWswaNlr3lDw&usg=AFQjCNFZbh0zIF2KVFJEmN14qh6XudhyYA

imatfaal has the most healthy approach IMHO. I wonder why he stopped where he stopped.

derek you lost me. We are in speculations but the OP was not intended to discuss about multiple universes. It was simply a question about units in basic physics.

That's why if we could rule out this "nothing" as something impossible, then we could make a positive statement that "something" must be. That would be the first step. The second step would be then to state that "anything" can be (choice A). In this case, many other universes with different structures may have been, or will be, and we are here contemplating this one thanks to the anthropic principle. But then again it is a disguised manner for making the human being so special. It also gives no importance to a bunch of physical constants that could be otherwise, and to anything that could be otherwise. Or the second step would be to state that this universe is the single one way to be (choice B), no other way is possible. That would mean that we are condamned to search how the hell is that possible, this universe. Because choice A is boring and choice B is much more difficult and exciting, I vote B.

???

You made a point.

I call that an area. what is this? hmm. Shouldn't it? Do we encounter square mass, for example?

[math]\frac{1}{2} \omega^2 mr^2 [/math] And the approximate factor is...

Funny: "sopa" in modern greek (σώπα) means "don't speak", kindly "shut up".

What are meters squared then ? It can't be a distance. Similarly, what are seconds squared?

Oh not the twin paradox again... In the twin paradox, there is a difference: since they were born from the same mother, they must begin their little story from the same time & same place. In order to get to speed close to C, one of the twin, at least, must have accelerated. If only one of the twins has accelerated, the situation is not symmetric, and there is no paradox. If both twins have moved away from each other under acceleration (they are in different spaceships accelerating away from each other), the situation is symmetric but again there is no paradox. Each one will see the other aging differently, no problem. If after some billion years (for us who remained at rest) the twins come back to Earth to meet again, they'll have to travel under negative acceleration (deceleration) otherwise they will crash. IMHO the paradox arises only when you forget acceleration and when you compare simultaneously (it's forbidden by Relativity) 2 twins separated by a huge distance, bringing them together "magically" after executing some loop. IMHO of course.

Yes.

As far as I know, the principle of Schroedinger was not to answer the question "why" but only the question "how". And if the answer of the 'how' question corresponds to measurements, that's enough. His answer to the 'how" question was (partly) his equation, no further explanation. IOW nobody so far can answer your question. Or if someone can, I am all ears.

1.When we measure meters, we measure distance. When we measure square meters, we measure area. There is a difference between distance and area: these are different concepts representing 2 different aspects of the physical world. 2.When we measure seconds, we measure time. When we measure square seconds, we measure...what? Are there 2 times orthogonal to each other, like the meters oriented in orthogonal directions? And if yes (or if no), what are square seconds representing?

It is a health issue. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474709/ http://ezinearticles.com/?Are-Indoor-Humidity-Levels-Affecting-Your-Health?&id=297092 Air humidifiers are needed in over-insulated places. The actual trend is to save energy by insulating buildings like a vacuum flask. But it is not that simple, you have to live in that vacuum flask. In older houses, one of the main issue was ventilation. I remember houses designed with ventilation pipes in each closet, and even different pipes for the wardrobe and for the shoes, pipes for in and pipes for out, making some inner walls looks like an organ. Ventilation of the basement, ventilation beneath the roof, ventilation beneath or behind the fire place, high ceilings for circulating the air, etc. The new advices (and regulations) forget everything we have learned about the healthy way to live inside. That's why some people prefer live in old houses, even if they don't understand the exact reason for a better "feeling".

Nothing weird would be noticeable. You would not become infinitely massive. An outside observer B "not moving" would observe you traveling at SOL and observe you becoming infinitely massive. But because you would not feel traveling, you are the one at rest and B is the one traveling. B is the one you would see becoming infinitely massive. It's all relative. Similarly, you would not become flattened infinitely in the direction of travel, B would (as seen from your point of vue). You would continue living and going at job as usual with your car and the light from your head lights would behave naturally, traveling at C. The only 'weird' result is that B would observe light coming out from your head lights traveling at C as well.

No e-book available for Introduction to Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Frederick J. Bueche http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Introduction_to_Physics_for_Scientists_and_Engineers/0070088330/

Interesting question. That's a change from the question why plants are green. I found this pdf where the abstract gives no hope: I have no idea why plants have not chosen to be black bodies. I posted this mainly to show you someone read your question...

It is not true and the process is still running.

Maybe you haven't read Anilkumar's long posts. Here what he wrote: (bolded mine) He has no other Theory, he is talking (asking) about the interpretation of GR.

You shouln't accept such a bad analogy. Why? Basically, Anilkumar is right. Have you understood his question? ------------- Einstein was the one who condamned aether theories to death. In the meanwhile wordings like "the fabric of spacetime" reintroduce the concept of spacetime made of some material. But we know it is not made up of something, or at least SR and GR do not need spacetime to be made up of something. Every time someone talks about "the bending of spacetime", it is wrong. Nothing bends because there is nothing to bend in the first place. It should be better to say that our mathematical concepts are resumed by "we can explain some phenomenas as if our system of reference based on orthogonal axis is bending in order to keep the graphic as a straight line", since a straight line is more commonly accepted as a natural path.

I have to admit I never quite understood what a string could be if related to an everyday pattern. To me a string could be a point extended in time: take a point, wait for a Planck time, and you get a string. The question of its thickness is nothing weirder than the zero dimension of a point.