michel123456

interesting article. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidcore.htm

Correct from top to bottom. Most people ignore that for example all egyptian pyramids don't have the same structure. The Djeser pyramid has a base made of horizontal masonry that don't look like the beginning of a pyramid. The above part is made of stones on inclined slabs perpendicular to the faces of the pyramid. Later pyramids are constructed completely with horizontal slabs. All those ancient pyramids have an internal structure like an onion. Walls of stones filled with irregular blocks and argile mortar, again and again. During the middle empire, new systems are invented : walls are constructed alang the diagonals of the pyramd and filled with raugh material. These newer pyramids are not so well preserved (they lasted "only" a thousand of years). There is evidently research, no application of an external knowledge but application of the try-and-correct-the-mistake procedure.

It is the Speed Of Light. The principle is almost the same as Pancho's My principle is that when you have in your left hand something called "matter" and in the right hand an unexisting thing called "nothing", the most evident explanation must reside in the left hand, not in the right hand. Instead of looking into this "nothing" and trying to give some properties to it, like an aether for example, it is more logic to "give" some property at what is existing. This "property" could be scaling. Why scaling? or as you wrote "for what reason does this reduction take place?' The answer would be an hypothesis on top of an hypothesis. I support largely Masreliez work which is well based. Masreliez concept is about expansion, not contraction. I have to admit that I change my mind every week about that. I have sometimes a feeling that in the end, it doesn't matter: the observational result might be the same. IOW, I don't know. -------------------- I notice there is no wiki page in English for Masreliez Here is the link in French

My concept is different: each second, matter is reducing 300000 km in radius. Kilometers are measured relatively to the observer. So when 1 second of time have passed, matter can, again reduce 3 10^6 km. It is a scaling operation, there is no end to it.

When you want to demolish a building by detonation, you put the explosives at the basis, near the ground. A conspiracy would have better thought of a train full of explosives in the subway for example, or a truck entering the ground floor, or something like that. The idea of crumbling down a tower with an airplane is somehow outrageous. Even during the event, I remember my amazement when the tower collapsed: it was totally unexpected. I am convinced even the terrorists didn't expect such a result. At first, the building litteraly swallowed the airplane without any problem. The fire damaged the stability, not the impact (what one would call the detonation in a conspiracy theory).

IMHO you are all wrong. Nothing is pushing or pulling. My pet theory is that matter is expanding/contracting and the attractive effect of gravity is caused by acceleration. Something like inertia.

90° is feasable too. Curiously, I was never interested in the question. Yesterday I made a simple thought: it is possible to make a circle, draw 3 smaller circles (of random radius) upon its circumference, and create an arc, divided in 3 equal parts, forming a random angle. I wondered why the reverse construction was impossible (beginning from the angle and dividing the arc). As if geometry had a direction that cannot always be reversed, like entropy and time...

It is half the construction of an hexagon. Bob trisected correctly an angle of 180°.

Where is trisection? I see bisection in your drawings.

Just wondering: there are no mountains in the background or anything, the foreground looks like desert, or dunes: maybe it is on a sea shore, with the horizon too low so that sea or ocean is not observable. Then maybe there is an aircraft carrier hidden, and the object is an aircraft missing the landing, then crashing. It is also presumed that the white color has been added technically on the movie. If you look cautiously, there are a some black remains. That doesn't explain the absence of smoke.

trying to understand your preoccupation... you are at point b, you want to reach a, but you have first to escape the circle as soon as possible, is that correct? ??? Why? If I understand correctly, the line a-d must be tangent to the circle. O.K. I have a serious doubt.

nail

A scaling theory. I like it. It reminds me Masreliez's EST.

This seems an interesting article. I will not subscribe though... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126882.800-did-gravity-point-time-in-the-right-direction.html

Yes I do. Come to Greece.

I am making an obsession. today i went to the Keramikos archeological site in Athens Greece and incidentally found a beautiful example of polygonal masonry. here are the pictures front above and corner, the stairs on the left give an idea of the dimensions. Again the perfect joining is only at the external surface. The interior is filled with a kind of mortar and small stones.

You are right. Wiki will make me forget what I have learned.

Why did the Aztecs build the walls the way they did? First of all at Sacsayhuaman it was the Incas, not the Aztecs. I went looking on my shelves, and found a book about ancient Egypt where I remembered mentioning that the stones join perfectly only at the surface of the wall. (Egypte, J.L. de Cenival, H.Stierlin, Edition D.Vincent L'equerre, Paris © Office du livre, Fribourg 1964,) page 140 about the Djeser complex. The mention is about a different type of masonry, since the blocks are rectangular and not polygonal like the Inca's. About ancient Greece where one can find cyclopean walls that match the incas, I found nothing on my shelves, nor on the Internet. So I went to the Aigosthena site yesterday where there is a polygonal-style wall on the north side of the citadel. Here are the pictures from the wall in front, above, and behind. The joining is only at the exterior surface of the wall. The blocks have their natural shape on the other sides. The same goes for the other orthogonal walls of the citadel (photos upon request). The technological basic principle in all ancient cultures is the same for Incas, Mayas, Egypt, Greece, China,etc.: you build 2 parallel walls of organized well-done masonry, and you fill the gap with wathever material you can get, stones, mud, earth, etc. This is the way the pyramids were build, antique & medieval fortresses, the great wall of China. The concept is economy of material and economy of specialized workers. These are not different preoccupations, ancient people did think the way we do. The Incas and other ancient civilisation build that way because it was more economic to them to transport unequal gigantic stones than to quarry everything into rectangular shape. They followed the natural cracks of the stones and worked the material as less as possible.

I was looking for some example. The Sun. It radiates and produces a lot of entropy. But the reverse mechanism, an object eating radiation, is the same logical: I don't see any aberration or maybe I miss something.

Yes, but entropy is a law we have learned from observation, not something that arises from some maths. The same goes for the arrow of time. My thoughts continued: In a river, the salmons swim counter the flow. The river represents the flow of time, the salmons are the living organisms. Life fights against the arrow of time. Life goes in one direction, time flows in the other. The past of the salmon is the future of the river, and the future of the salmon is the past of the river. If you use this analogy, one can imagine that what we call the future could be the past of the universe. The immediate problem in this concept is that reversing the arrow of time for the universe reverses also the law of entropy. So I wondered if a universe with reversed entropy would be logical (and without living components for the sake of simplification). And in order to do that, I was asking myself some example of entropy of a physical system not engaged by any means with living components, no milk, no glass, no hand, no laboratory, only dead physical phenomenon, and then look at the same phenomenon reversed to see if it makes sense or not.

Is this about heat or about temperature? (IIRC we've run through this before)

Straw man.

There is a very common example in litterature about entropy and the arrow of time. You keep a glass in your hand, you let it fall down, the glass breaks. You never observe the reverse situation where the broken pieces jump together in your hand: the example shows the one-way direction of the arrow of time. (except in a movie played backward) On the other hand, living organisms use overall physical entropy to organize, sometimes compared as a spark of negative entropy in the general frame of the second law of thermodynamics. So I was wondering if the example with the glass is applicable, because glass is a product we humans have made, a product of a living organism. One can not extract safe conclusions about physical systems on the basis of observation of living organisms. The same goes about the example of milk getting dissipated in your coffe, because milk is a product of a living organism and coffee too (from the coffee bean, since plants are living). If one takes another example, like the clear water of the river mixing into the ocean, one will not observe the salted water from the ocean climbing up the river and becoming clear fresh water, but one will eventually observe the water from the oceans evaporate, then fall as rain on a continent and form a river of fresh water. In this sense, one would observe the salted water getting into the river again. Just some thoughts.

Is this an airplane or a projectile? With a shape sooo close to this one

But that will make the telescope oscillate around a point. Without friction, how does it come to halt?