michel123456

So you agree there is only one reality, correct?

Yes. Something like a fractal, with the difference that we haven't observed any repetitive pattern.

I am supporting Owl. To me Reality (with capital R) is one. This one and only Reality is observed differently, by definition, from any FOR: that is Relativity. And as far as I can understand, the FOR which coincides with the object under examination is the closest to this Reality. Obviously, for Swansont, there is a multiple reality, there is no Reality with capital "R", and what is observed from any FOR is equally correct than any other. I have strong difficulties to accept this interpretation.

And how do you stop motion? There are no brakes.

I suppose so. But I would like to know on which principle we came from the one to the other. The old design puts surfaces far from the center, which seems logical. The new design: what is its principle?

I am ready to go back and believe you. But I see the same chamfering in modern cars.

That blows my mind. I cannot conceive that an elementary particle could have a shape, a color, or anything like that (a charge). To me it cannot absorb anything or emit anything, what kind of elementary is this? An elementary particle cannot transform, because transformation supposes a different arrangement of things. When there is only one thing, what kind of arrangement can you make? An elementary particle cannot have a structure, made of what, even more elementary particles? IOW I cannot conceive what an elementary particle would be. I cannot conceive what we are looking for.

it is the shape chosen by Greek, Dutch, Spanish windmills that last for centuries. That is the reason why the structure will rotate. i thought the main goal is to harvest the most power available. It is not an airplane where the motor must produce thrust, it is the opposite procedure. The triangular shape of my last picture is nothing but half a regular blade, like below: Ships design (hydrodynamics) has also been through the same principles. Ancient hull design was based on the belief that a regular and complete gentle curve would make the boat glide over the water in the best way. Contemporary design produce chamfered shapes because it has been understood that the second half of the shape is not necessary. see below

I guess one could use the balloon analogy inversed (in contraction) in order to solve the problem.

That is not so easy to avoid a centre. If you want to scale an object, you can use for example its center of mass. Or you can use any other random point anywhere. The result of the scaling will be the same, but the position in space of the scaled object (its coordinates) will be different. I am not aware of the possibility of scaling an object without a reference point, at least not in Euclidian geometry. Say object A is scaled 1/2, and object B is scaled 1/2 too. Now, if you want objects A & B to remain in proportion, as you expected, both objects A & B must share a same scaling center. If center of scaling for A is in its center of mass, and B in its center of mass too, after scaling, objects A & B will not be under the same proportions anymore: they will feel like getting away from each other. Inversely, if scaling is expanding, objects A & B scaled with respective centers of mass will eventually collide. ---------------- Note; I am playing devil's advocate since I share your point of vue. you can answer to my objection saying that "scaling happens everywhere, there is no centre" the same way cosmologists explain that "expansion happens everywhere, there is no centre". But i would prefer a geometrical answer.

But there must be a geometrical centre for this "shrinking in proportion". Where do you put it?

I agree. It comes under the moto: "a wrong interpretation is better than no interpretation at all", because no interpretation is an open door to complete nonsense.

Right. But i still don't understand why they are shaped this way. I think they could be cut as an oar. Why getting thinnner like a knife? Why not like this:

Well I was wondering watching a wind turbine park newly installed on a mountain here close. The shape of the blades look like that of an airplane, about like in the following picture. There is an obvious difference with the shape given by ancients who had only empirical knowledge, like in this windmill here below Empirical evidence says that you get the stronger force at the largest radius, and the Greek has constructed the windmill with the largest surface of the 'blades" far from the centre. Why are the blades in a modern wind turbine with the shape getting smaller to the edge? It is not the same principle as in an airplane where the motor gives the impulse, here we want to get the impulse from the wind. So why?

How can anything have intrinsic properties? lets take the example of the electron. The electron is thought to be an elementary particle. "It has no known components or substructure" Quote from wiki (bolded mine) It has mass, spin, charge, it has a twin brother with opposite characteristics but no inner components, they can anhilate and produce photons, they participate in 3 of the 4 interactions, and "when an electron is accelerated, it can absorb or radiate energy in the form of photons." How is it possible something that has no components or substructure to have so many (intrinsic?) characteristics?

So you are proposing that gravitationally bound systems are collapsing. Indeed our local cluster is characterized by the blueshift of its galaxies. From this link And it has been estimated that in a few billion years the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxy will engage tango. However I don't know if this blueshift alone can explain the observed redshift of other clusters.

Pan, I hope you were rambling on the web searching support for your arguments and not presenting links that you support. Specifically Barry Setterfield is a creationist proponent of the Genesis Science Research ( Does science really disagree with the Bible?) not recognized by mainstream scientists. The "who is talking" is important.

What is that?

That does not mean it is correct, but that answers your question "where does that come from?". It comes from an idea that says that complex things can be made from simpler things, and that at the end these things get to the point to become indivisible. It is one of the greatest human quest, to be continued.

Tetrahedron, not pyramid. Note: in paint there are straight lines and regular text.

Circa 2460 years ago?

post deleted. Killed by a doubt.

Aguirre has some answers he will provide us. I would suggest him to change his style if he wants to be considered seriously. It would be nice since his unconventional ideas are worth discussing IMHO. I don't know what it means to him. Still googling. (edit: maybe 496 ? and its relation to E8??) Confucius, after googling it means roughly "in silence sits the strength" His signature.

That is also my understanding. I agree 100% "speed of time" is not a clear concept, as you exposed thoroughly, because you obtain a speed of 1 sec/sec, which means nothing. If you want to get something meaningful, you must invent the reverse of speed (call it "deeps") where "deeps" of time is expressed in seconds/meters. Then you obtain a meaningful concept where: for any spend second you must have traveled a certain amount of space. That is obliged motion, as observed. ----------------------------------- and if you consider that this motion must take place in the remaing 3 dimensions alltogether, you obtain scaling, either in expansion or contraction. That is my pet theory.

We can agree on that. excerpts from wiki, emphasis mine. "The speed of light (meaning speed of light in vacuum), usually denoted by c, is a physical constant important in many areas of physics. (...) Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial frame of reference of the observer. (...)" That is about constancy: no matter the inertial FOR, c is always the same. Which means that SOL is a constant relative to the observer, not that SOL is absolute. I like to compare SOL to the horizon. As you walk along the beach, you have around you a circle at about 11 km of distance, called the horizon. If you start running, or embark a speed boat, your horizon will still be at 11 km of distance. You are carrying with you this distance, willing or not, but 11 km is a symptomatic relation between earth's radius and your height, not an absolute of the universe. In some way, the Speed Of Light is something comparable: all observators in inertial FOR "carry" the number c with them, that is why we can call that a constant. And because they carry this constant, it is relative, not absolute. I hope that was clear.