michel123456

You have a lot of solutions for a retractable roof _glass (expensive & heavy structure. _fabric, low cost but not very much reliable. _polycarbonate sheets. _PVC membrane on aluminium structure. _up-to-date ETFE inflated membrane. http://www.vector-foiltec.com/en/projects/application/roof-moveable.html If there is a pool in your atrium it will be difficult to manage acceptable conditions under the same roof with other functions like restaurant for example or even sitting area. Temperature & humidity will not be compatible. So, if you want no roof at all, I would suggest radiation heating. And metallic furniture is not a good idea IMHO. Generally speaking it would be preferable for the guests to touch material with low thermal conductivity.

Can't you cover your patio in winter time?

It also means that d is not 730 km. The neutrinos travel less.

In the arxiv file, it is mentioned that the measurement concerns particles traveling through Earth's crust, so it is well understood that it is a chord. Quoting arxiv http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf My comment was not about altitude but about latitude. I suppose OPERA's receiver is South-East of CERN. If OPERA is south of CERN, then its distance from Earth's axis is greater than CERN , IOW its radial velocity caused by Earth's rotation is greater than CERN's. If one had to estimate the velocity of a marble sphere expulsed from CERN to a location South-East, he should take into account that initial velocity at CERN is not the same than initial velocity at the receiver. --------------- edit OPERA's receiver at LNGS Gran Sasso is south-east of CERN.

That's it.

Thank you for your clarification. But, if the expanding sphere represents a system of reference (is this the case?), the clocks in your graphs should expand at the same rate with the sphere, and not remain the same width as you are showing. As much as I can understand, your graphs show a clock reducing in size as time passes by.

In their arxiv file, they talk about 20 cm precision, not 20 meters. Shouldn't they take into account the rotation of the Earth? ---------------- edit There is a change in latitude between CERN & OPERA. The rotational speed at CERN is thus different from OPERA's. And since neutrinos have mass, they must be treated like massive objects, I guess.

I don't understand the graph. 1. It looks like a cube seen in perspective. 2. The center (the origin) coincides with a corner, It is a bit confusing. 3. If there is expansion, how does it come that the clocks are represented as these blue stripes? I would expect to see the blue part like a triangle (a stripe getting wider & wider) radially. Or I understand nothing.

I don't understand where is acceleration in your graphs. I only see uniform expansion, so I guess I am missing something.

Neo317537 discovered paragraphs. There is a substantial improvement since the begin of this thread. And very quick. Now the content must improve. What is really bothering you in e=mc^2 ?

Correct. You may also encounter technical drawings where scale along X is different from scale along Y.

Yes. You are correct. How much shorter? You must use math. When 31 mm represent 0,01 mm, how much represents 24 mm? The result is a fraction of 0,01mm. You know what a fraction is, I suppose. You have 2 numbers to use in order to make this fraction, 31mm and 24 mm. One way will give you MORE than unity, the other way will give you LESS than 1. (that's the good one) Multiply the result of the fraction by 0,01mm, and bingo! I cannot help further without giving the numerical answer. ---------- whoops, Hal answered first. _____________- @Hal. scales are always linear by convention. I am not aware of any other way to express scaling.

I agree. It is not a prediction, much more a question.

That means 31 mm on your image represents 0,01mm in reality. So 24mm on your image represents .... in reality.

the O.P. was not intended to enter an argument with Hal or anybody else, but once the question arises: it is quite possible that HAL will never enter positive rep. just because his negative rep. will increase continuously due to new members reading old threads. If I am not abused, even when a thread is closed the reputation point system is still available. I'll check this just now. Personally, I never vote negative. I vote positive for a lot of reasons, entirely spontaneously when I like the comment, especially when it makes me smile. Even in locked topics it works.

Michel has 2053 posts divided by rep 149= 13,778523489932885906040268456376 Hal has 516 posts divided by reputation -34 = 15,176470588235294117647058823529 Hal is in about the same situation with me (reversed). As if members voted (negative) in function of numbers of posts, IOW time.

I noticed that my own reputation increased considerably after passing 100 without any analogy to the quantity of my posts nor a significant increase in quality (IMHO). I am wondering maybe the reputation system is influenced by time: an ancient member getting reputation points only by the fact old posts are being voted positive by newer members who are influenced by previous positive voting. So as time passes by, I am getting more and more positive votes without doing nothing. Do administrators have statistical elements about this?

There are a lot of concepts in physics that are like energy: do they "exist" or not? For example: distance. Do "meters" or "kilometers" exist when you measure a distance? Or what is existing is only 2 objects and some measurement of "space" between them? Then, do "space" truly "exist" by meaning there is "something" between the 2 objects (an aether?) Another example: time. Do "seconds" or "hours" exist? Are they tangible, or are they only a measurement? IOW, do measurements like distance & time, (or energy) truly "exist"?

What is R.A.W. ? Your proposal consists in punishing the population of a nation for an error made by its leaders. I would suggest to punish the leaders of both countries (the one attacking and the one being attacked) and leave innocent population out of this. But i agree on the basic principle: make war illegal.

This? (from grandpa's link)

Isn't the question "why orbit and not spiral falling into the Sun?"

Brilliant. I support this hypothesis. So, if I understand correctly, you are examining a concept in which all dimensions are expanding, that is our ruler of space is expanding and our ruler of time is expanding too. I call that a scaling theory and I support the concept.

It would be interesting to have an estimate of the required quantity of thermite you need for only one floor. I guess several tons.

the citation was not intended to focus on physics or even science, it has a wider meaning. IMHO it holds true.

Ce que l'on conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément. (Nicolas Boileau 1636-1711) Translation: “That which is well conceived expresses itself clearly and the words to say it come easily”