michel123456

I don't believe there was a beginning. We humans are the ones who seek this quest. It goes against all evidence. All that we observe is about transformation.

Think more.

This would be for another thread: one should admire how the beautiful mind recognizes his error without much and strikes it. All my respect for AJB, and all my disrespect to all those who don't follow that simple gesture.

Here we can apply logic. Our premise is that we have only one Universe (one particle in BBT and in Pan theory) and that at some instant in the past, this first element of the Universe came into existence. It is like looking at the sea and supposing an instant in the past when there was only one wave that gave birth to all the waves we see today at the surface of all the oceans. Was there a time when all the new born oceans were perfectly flat? I suppose mathematically the probability exist. Logic says it is completely impossible. The waves of all the oceans oscillate constantly around a state of equilibrium they never reach all at the same time. So, even in the case of the sum of energy of the universe being zero, why do we have to suppose that in distant past the Universe was in a zero state? It is something we have put ourselves in our minds, it is not something that we would logically expect.

What if the telescope was totally in Earth's umbra?

It is not evident that one would observe a redshift. In a contraction state, you will observe objects that travel in the same direction with you differently than objects coming from perpendicular or opposite directions. The objects moving in roughly the same direction will look like getting away from each other only if contraction happens under accelerated motion: that would be the redshift. The objects coming from the other side of the contraction point will look like coming closer: that would be a blueshift. In order to observe only redshift, one must consider that all observed objects are moving in the same direction (IOW the contracting point is infinitely far away) and that the contraction is accelerating (that's the easy point).

So do I So do I Well said. spontaneous is such an unscientific word I put in the same drawer with "intrinsic". I agree. whoops, here I don't follow. For me we are missing completely a proper understanding of time, that's the point.

For fans acting upon humans, the fact that the air moves is more important than the temperature of the air. If you put a fan in a closed room, without air intake or exhaust, it will still make you feel colder. Even if the temperature hasn't changed at all.

Could you also explain why it is so important to keep freezing the telescope, I used to think it was pretty cold there anyway. Tragic error. If you are using only very intelligent people you will lose any element of common sense.

That is because you believe that "SOL is absolute" is not an opinion but a truth. However if you replace the word "absolute" with the word "constant", you may realize that whole GR and SR still stand. Changing the wording don't change the Theory, it changes only its interpretation, slightly, but only if you understand the difference. IMHO of course.

Really? I thought the difference was that expansion of space was an explanation for FTL recession. That leaves no room for the first view where galaxies are changing position. If you take arbitrarily r inside the Earth, you will conclude that our planet is collapsing.

Rolando, I like your questions very much. Where were you all this time? I suppose so. I am not sure. Since the Speed of Light is constant, over large distance a linear delay is produced that may authorize to observe it, especially if expansion is not linear.

Words words words hitting the same stone again: IMHO the Speed Of Light is constant, not absolute, if anyone here understands the difference. Showing maybe the importance of putting the right words after a commonly accepted mathematical concept.

You have suggested twice that this road has been abandonned. Do you have some link of research with negative results in this field?

Thank you. But I am also quite ignorant. I wondered why a sun shield was required since the Lagrangian 2 is opposite to the sun. Google (and Wikipedia) saved me by explaining that the Lagrangian 2 was out of Earth's umbra.. There must be some kind of traffic jam at L2...

Fascinating. It looked to me a mix between an archaic egyptian sculpture and some Edison's lost invention. The way the Herschel Space Telescope is designed makes me think it cannot be turned to look at any target at any time, since its protection from the sun is fixed & perpendicular to the mirror. Is that correct?

Welcome. Your avatar is intriguing, what is it?

It is thought that we are actually in a random place inside the universe. Nothing special about us. As a consequence, it is supposed that the laws of physics that we observe around us are the same anywhere else. The law of conservation of energy for example has never been transgressed so far, so we assume the law of conservation of energy is applicable everywhere in the universe and as an extrapolation is also applicable at the universe as a whole.

Hi Pan. Congratulations. I agree to me scaling is the answer. To me the electron is not spinning, the electron is trapped into a vortex. I am even convinced scaling is not happening slowly, scaling is happening at a wonderful speed. I am always astonished when scientists discard some of their results because "otherwise we would be collapsing and that is obviously not the case". IMHO we can be in a state of eternal collapse, why not? There are very simple elements of logic that makes me think this way, symptomatically in agreement with the basis of your theory: 1.Time: look around you, what do you see: only the past. Only put in bold because the future you cannot observe, nor the present. If you look farther, you look more in the past. So you are surrounded by the past, your past, "your" in bold character because it is not anyone else's past. Past is relative to you and only you, and extends all around you, getting away from you at the Speed Of Light. So you have around you a kind of "aura", that we call time, made of anything else but you. This "aura" is also the field of activity of your own gravity. Which cannot be a simple coincidence. 2. Each mass, each particle of the entire Universe has such an "aura" around it, we call "gravitational field". I have come to the (naive) conclusion that this field is the past of the particle. Which is point 1 rephrased. IOW a particle is not only what we observe, a particle is (was) also its field. Time has that bizarre effect that allows us to observe only a part of any particle's existence. 3. since we know that symetry can be mathematically applied almost everywhere, the model of the expanding universe must be translatable in a reverse model where we are shrinking, without any change in existing physics.The standard model is a situation where we humans, composed of atoms and quarks, are stable, and the surroundings are expanding. Why not the contrary? When we talk about speed, we all know that everything is relative. The same must go for expansion versus diminution. 4.Thought experiment: making the Universe. You take stuff blahblah and blihblih, and suddenly puff, here is the first particle of the Universe. Being unique, this particle IS the Universe: there is nothing else, only a single particle. Happy, you consider your creation, then you want to make it a little bit more complicated, and create a second particle. Here the logical problem arises, since the first particle IS the Universe, the only place you can work and make your second particle is INSIDE the Universe. And the only building block you have at disposal must be taken from the Universe. In biology we call that cellular division. The only problem in this thought experiment is where the hell came this first particle from? But if you forget this existential question, the mechanism of division is extremely simple. It is even compatible with the principle of conservation of energy. But there must be something else we all miss. The answer to the existential question of point 4 must be that at some point, the infinitely small must connect to the infinitely large. At the image of the ouroboros, the snake who eats its tail, so must be the Universe. Brian Green touches this point when discussing the characteristics of a Black Hole by comparaison to the characteristics of an elementary particle (quoting from Memory B. Greene's Elegant Universe).

A proton has no dipole moment?

To put the thread on tracks. "the least number of characteristics possible to explain observed reality" That has to do with the way humans analyze reality. You can have a single object, say a wooden ball like one of these Galileo used in his experiment on falling bodies. It is a single reality, but the physicist will see a weight, a speed, an acceleration. The geometer will see a radius, a circumference, a volume. The biologist will see an amount of cells. The chemist an amount of molecules. The carpenter will see an wooden specie, an essence. A child will see a toy and a humorist will see Galileo's balls. So I guess indeed a single one entity can have more than 1 characteristic, although at first sight, logic tells me the real 1 elementary particle, if exists, should have only 1 characteristic. I am really balanced.

Nonsense.

Because as I stated before everything is moving. I am afraid this interesting thread will derail. I think we both made our points clear, lets continue disagreeing , is that so important anyway?

Hi Newts. I finally found some time to scroll this thread, too quickly maybe, passing through all negative comments of respectable fellow members. Because it is evident no word will you make change your mind, this is my advice: As presented in the video, your speculation is all about geometry. Attraction between protons is a geometrical function of distance between charges inside the proton compared to distance between protons. I suppose that is workable. It would be great to come back with some mathematical (geometrical) support and present it to the audience instead of hurting Quark Theory face to face. There is no need to do so and opposing to the Standard Model as an entry is a bad idea. You have no Theory yet, only an idea.

I agree 100% At least someone who links "intrisically" with "time". Because IMHO nothing is "intrinsic". When the word "intrinsic" is used, it means there is a terrible lack of explanation. What is the problem with "invariant"? It means what it means, point. Nothing is really "at rest", everything is in state of motion. The "at rest" concept is a medieval idea linked to the geocentric model. This concept is still used today to describe a coincidence of Frame Of Reference but is IMHO a very bad use of scientific language. A photon is never at rest and stating that the rest mass of a photon is null can only induce questions.