michel123456

Wonderful. Now that you have accepted that you are moving along a ruler, the work is almost done. The next step to make is the most difficult: if you are moving along time, it means that when you leave a time coordinate A and move into another time coordinate B, the A coordinate gets empty. Right? And now the definitive step: put something else in coordinate A. A new Universe is born.

Isn'it possible to insert manually a thread into My content?

All right. What is of great interest to me is the part inside the light cone. It is well understood that the internal part contains the events that are causaly connected to the observator. But, from the entire set of these events, only a few are directly observable. These are the ones that we can observe through EM radiation (placed upon the surface of the light cone, these are the tremendous majority), these who deflect slightly from Speed Of Light as Iggy pointed out (it is as if the surface of the light cone had a width). But, since signals from the past traveling at speed lower than SOL (IOW the material ones, with mass) have already reach us in the past (for example an asteroid hitting the Earth), in fact the main "volume" of our past line cone is directly unobservable. IMHO. Of course one can observe the remains of past events causaly connected to the observator, like the crater of the asteroid, but one cannot observe today an asteroid hitting the Earth millions of years ago. Similarly, we cannot observe directly our own past because our own past lies inside our past light cone.

What a relief! I am not so crazy after all. Or at least I am not alone. Iggy you made my day (my night actually). -------------------- So, to resume my point: 1. we can only see what is on the surface of out past light cone. 2. what is outside our past light cone we cannot see 3. what is inside our past light cone we cannot see It is so simple but I can not find that in the existing litterature.

Dancing robots And from NASA for civil use to Big Dog for military use http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OX-VXfFAuY&feature=related Sorry, problem uploading too many media files...

That's why i like this Forum so much... Why are they a so large number of particles? Does our model work with less particles?

Again: I posted in an old thread (different responses to fermi paradox) but it does not appear under My Content. I guess the My Content list contains only fresh ones. Can this be solved in some manner? thanks

No. It may be very common, but also infinitely rare to encounter. Imagine a crowd of hundred thousand people throwing in the air ping pong balls, how many of these balls will touch each other? Now imagine they do not throw the ping pong balls at the same time, but at an interval of a year or so, how many will smash together? Most probably none. Time is a very strong element.

Who has claimed this? Nobody actually, but they are mentioned in Inow post#109, from this article where the author states: Which I don't understand either. What is the connection between earthquakes and climate change that allows to put earthquakes as a benchmark? It is like saying "something is happening in the Earth that provoques earthquakes and that same thing has a relation with climate change". I am not aware of anything like that. Or maybe I am misinterpretating the whole thing.

I am fascinated by robotic technology, so I thought maybe one or another would post here some examples like the 2 below, Petman and a bird.

resurrected old thread, why not? IMHO the question is flawed. They are not there: maybe they were there, because this is an image of the past. We forget that we are not dealing with a simple infinity of space, we are also dealing with time. For us to find aliens, or for aliens to find us, we need both to coincide in space & in time. Some alien that was somewhere in the above image could'nt probably see the Earth because our planet was not even formed. And if aliens are there today in present time, it is physically impossible to enter in contact or even know about their existence.

Yes. The present is not observable. I was sent once to the trash can for the following so I will reiterate my statement (using Iggy's) with a slight difference: as much as I understand the set of events extending into the past which we currently see is upon the surface of our past light cone.

_Flood is not a decisive factor on which one can make a comment about weather or climate. Flood is most often the result of bad human use of soil. Unregulated urbanization, closing of natural ways with buildings or roads, deforestation, even simple paving may provoque floods without any increase of precipitations. _Earthquakes are related in what way with Climate Change? _Cyclones: yes. This may be related with Climate change. But not really the amount of cyclones (because as John pointed out, statistics are getting worse as much we look in the past). The place where cyclones occur is a much more decisive factor IMHO.

Yes. You are right on this. And more than ever I worry about information source. I can never be sure than any provided paper is reliable. My own analysis concludes that no source at all is reliable. No one goes into investigation on this subject without an agenda: all researches are funded by the one or the other in order to prove something preestablished. We readers are the victims.

Very very interesting. I have to admit that my impression was about the same with iNow's. It shows the importance of information sources. For example, contrasting with CRU founders, which are a mix governmental organizations, private consortiums, WWF and others, the presentation of CSCCC page states (your link): emphasis mine. and further It is more important than the result of the query. Science is not free from external influences.

That is wonderful, I like it very much. I hope you understand that your very logical description doesn't make sense. I hope the others understand that too. There must be something wrong in it, don't you see? Note: I don't know exactly where things go wrong, but it must be somewhere at the right beginning.

yes. Why? if you expect zero momentum, then the reverse explosion would never occur. What would be the cause of the separation of the 3 particles? Certainly not a zero state.

Me too. Applause for the Americans.

I guess you mean: without gravity. Because with gravity the 3 particles would stick together unavoidably.

IMHO if you want to study time symmetry, you have to involve all physical processes including the ones that made up the particle itself. Maybe under time reversal a particle is not a (same)particle anymore. IOW if you take the movie of a particle and turn it backward, it is not a correct time reversal (IMHO). Time symmetry should use a reversed particle (elcitrap) moving in negative time through negative distance under maybe negative energy & negative gravity. Turning only time upside-down gives only laughable results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

I haven't read Pickover. I cannot follow further in this.

At most we are Kronu's brain cells.

From the introduction of your book: (pdf summary downloaded from here) Why is the Chevron Corporation involved in this research?

The image on the right is most probably from the Millenium Simulation, which is a computer simulation of the large structure of the Universe according to existing knowledge & theories following standard cosmology with dark matter hypothesis. It is a computer simulation, it is not something directly observed. What we are observing is something like this: From which the Millenium Run extrapolates this: ----------------------- Images from this site with wonderful animations. __________________ IMHO it is not exactly coincidence: it is input from existing knowledge, though it should be comparaison of observations (which is not).