michel123456

I am not discussing if an event in the past happened or not. Of course it happened. You wrote That is what we call motion. The object was here, now he is there: he moved. And for time, paraphrasing: "the time coordinate can become "empty" as the object that used to be there moves away". My question resumes to verify if this statement is correct or wrong for time. How can we verify that?

That is my understanding, yes.

Very impressive! I don't know. We simply can make the statement that the Moon is not in 1969 any more, so I guess the coordinate is empty. But it is simply a guess. To be sure, I'd like to have a look there to see if the Moon is in 1969, but I cannot. A fellow scientist in present time 42 Light Years away from us can have a look there. The problem is that I cannot have any communication with that fellow scientist (even if he existed). If I go and travel 42 LY away, I will still be upon the surface of Earth's light cone, so I will never be able to see again the Moon in 1969. I am a prisoner of SOL. How can I get away and be sure that nothing else occupies Moon's ancient coordinates?

No that was not the meaning of my question. My question is: since the Moon changed coordinates in spacetime, if there were an hypothetical other physical body at the old coordinate, a co-moving body in time, could we see it? Or else, by what other means can we dismiss this possibility? What are our instruments to observe outside the surface of our light-cone?

Bad wording of me. I'll try otherwise. The Moon landing belongs to the past. The past (our past) is also this sphere that expands around us. Looking around us we don't see the Moon landing. We see the Moon and Neil is not there. We don't see the Moon landing because the factor D/T is too small: the time that separates us from the Neil on the Moon is huge compared to the distance to the Moon. IOW the Moon landing is inside our light-cone. That's why it is invisible to us. The same goes for events outside the light cone. We can see the event only when the factor D/T is equal to the Speed Of light. Which means that the huge majority of events is invisible to us. At astronomical scale, we are not able to see them, we cannot measure them. But even with the full comprehension of the total physical impossibilty to see them, we have the conviction that we know something about them: they are events linked to the same physical bodies than the one we see, at another coordinate in time. My question is: where does this conviction come from? Do we have a way to get any indication about what is not upon the surface of our light-cone?

To be correct, without friction the ball will not roll, it will slide. I could have put a square in place of the ball.

It is a little bit like asking your neighbour or the lady at the supermarket. It can be many things from very benign to more complicated (I was thinking of thyroid disorder) but anyway you cannot expect much from any forum over the net. You should go and get a proper medical advice.

The principle of least action. Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis, "Principe de la moindre quantité d'action pour la mécanique" 1744

Orbital motion. Or orbit. Yes.

The opposite of love is evol.

Did I kill this thread?

Yes. The power of mathematical logic against belief.

What religion is this?

Wait a moment. If you walk on the street on a straight line, and I come to push you from the side, will you change direction or not?

Ah. Now I see your objection. You don't accept vector decomposition of V because a is perpendicular, is that it?

I don't understand your argument. If there were a rope, what force would extend the rope? The answer is v (most precisely a decomposed part of the v vector). If you cut the rope the object would fly away in a direction tangential to the circle at the moment when you cut it. The rope is something that attracts the 2 bodies, in the case of astral bodies it is gravity. So there are 2 "forces" in action: the one that wants the rotating body to fly away, and the other that wants the rotating body not to fly away. I don't see anything missing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(mathematics)#Alternating_harmonic_series

O.K. i said thast because i smell a trick. what is the result of [math](-1)^{n+1} [/math] and what is the result of [math]\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}+...[/math] oops, I am wrong. The trick is elsewhere. I found it (partly), you'll find it (completely). There are identities.

I suspect an error in notation. Are you definitely sure that is the accurate question? Or is this a transcript from an oral statement? I mean maybe it is this [math] \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n} (1-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{3}-...+\frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}) [/math]

from here. Initial velocity.

@Victorneuro I saw some video you uploaded on youtube. No doubt you are a very intelligent person. YOU KNOW you have telepathic abilities. But for some strange reason no-one believes you. Police do nothing. And you are suffering. Now you have to rassemble all your intelligence and think under the power of logic. There are only 2 possibilities. 1. You are right (yes, you know that) 2. You are wrong (the rest of the world know that) Rest for a while and use the immense power of logic you have in your head. Think. Think. Probability says that your mind is tricking you.

O la la, oui. ....... Michel pour les intimes.

I thought it was slang, not culture. Ah. A kind of intestine.

So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the result of a division into two equal halves, is that what you say?

emphasis mine. Is this slang? Who are the frogs? what means "conduit" ?