michel123456

It is orthogonal, but is it independent? For C to remain constant, doesn't that mean that space & time are directly linked?

Why do you say that?

The multiverse interpretation is that all possibilities, all "ifes" do happen. I don't know where do those multiverses happen, in which "other spacetime'? Your question enhances the problem. Note: I don't share these ideas. To me all "ifes" collapse into only one reality when the event happens. It is the reality of our universe inside a single spacetime.

That would be wonderful if the physical constants could be derived from Pi. But most if not all physical constants have units, Pi has no unit. So at best it could be something like G=Pi X where X has the units...of G.

You mean big G I suppose.

Oh. in this case you are talking about a universe of 'if' based on the same physical laws: simply it could happen but didn't happen. Is that it?

I think he ment: to Juicy Tres - model a chronology theme the Dynamic has of the globe on a planet proved of changes from Earth the moment of occurrence of with the system Solar, It is much clearer this way.

No. You were talking about new laws of physics, then about "parallel universe". To me a "parallel universe" follows the same laws of physics. I am not sure a universe with other laws of physics would be compatible with ours.

There is an uncertainty about this but Santa is quantized. The name "Santa" is an erroneous translation of "Canta" ("S" & "C" where originally the same letter not), "canta" meaning "sing" and thus "wave" reported as Kanta or Qanta , today's Quanta. He can be at many places at the same moment. In ancient times, before the theory of quantas, it was called ubiquity, a word that contains the "qu" of quantas, another proof of the absolute uncertainty of this hypothesis.

I agree, but is it that simple? That looks to me as a philosophical argument, very weak to oppose to some physicist.

The full context is in this link as already posted in the OP.

What a pleasure to be in the philo section... I would conclude otherwise: It is physically impossible because physics doesn't apply to nothingness. So inside the physics ensemble, nothingness cannot stand.

That's because you consider nothingness as a static thing. It is like trying to putting a pin in equilibrium vertically on his point. And the whole universe upon this pin. I still believe there must be some way to prove that nothingness is physically impossible. A start for that is to say that nothingness is exclusive.

Turning time backwards. But we first have to understand time.

Your posts are too long.

I don't think that I don't think that's the case.

You can work without the problem of nothingness. Take a closed system full of things and measure its behaviour over time. So far, observation of a closed system tells us that there is energy conservation over time. No added energy can arise from a closed system, there is no free energy. For the free lunch to exist, one has to invent negative energy. Or one has to reconsidered what "over time" means. Because all precedent considerations are embedded in time and we don't know what time really is.

You are not stupid Dr. I whish you a merry christmas.

How would that explain the attractive feature of gravity between two bodies?

Like Newton's craddle?

Something like the Archimedes principle?

Ah. Born was wrong? Which one? So you must have become blind between your last 2 posts. I thought Born was wrong, now you say he was right. Is that it? I hope professor M.Fowler of the University of Virginia, author of my last link, does not follow this Forum. You said "Incorrect"? Are you an academic? That's the question.

Who's talking? You introduce yourself as a better source than Wiki & Max Born (1954 Nobel laureate). This is a larger part of Born's Nobel lecture p. 265, 266 (p10, 11 pdf) bolded mine But you refuted this source. What about this one? http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/uncertainty_principle.html Can we take it as common ground ?

See also The varying speed of light cosmology

He must be wrong on that.