michel123456

You didn't answer the question.

Now I understand the origin of that yellow beverage in english pubs.

My edit din't reach the audience.

Cap'n right. Michel wrong. Sorry. ------------------ But If you multiply r by a scale factor F, the left side must be multiplied by the same F factor.

Regular video shows 2D + motion, unless you get new technology 3D screen and look with special glasses. A regular picture of yourself shows you also 2D, projected from 3D reality unto a 2D sheet of paper or display screen. That difference makes some people look "photogenic" when the projection of their face looks great, while you may not recognize the person in real life when occasionaly you meet him (her). In a mirror, the image is 3D because you see it with both eyes: each eye sees something different and the superposition of the 2 images in the brain makes the whole thing a 3D picture. In a photo or regular video, your 2 eyes look at the same picture, the superposition in your brain makes nothing more, the result is a 2D picture.

The surface/volume ratio of a sphere is always the same no matter the r of the sphere. If the scaling of atoms is radial (along the radius), I don't see any reason why r should have an influence in your example.

Check your source.look here.

Was that all quotes from Neil Diamond or Neil Young?

Could you give an example?

I don't think so. The image in the mirror is 3D, the video or still-photo is 2D. And all cameras have distortions. To have an idea of the reversal effect, you can do that with a webcam. There is almost always an option of "mirrored" or "non-mirrored" image. Switch between the 2 options and see the difference.

I suppose what Tony ment is that our face is not perfectly symmetrical. Perfect symmetry produces a face that looks very weird, like a puppet or a robot. Another thing: when you stand in front of a mirror, you think you see yourself as you are. Now take a measuring tape, and measure you face. then put the tape upon the mirror and measure what you see. You will realize that your image is smaller than you. In this sense, accuracy is reduced. A full-size mirror, that is a mirror where you can see yourself completely in upright position, has no need to be as large as you are. Your image fits in about 3/4 of your size. Usually a 30cm wide and 1,50m high mirror is enough. --------------- Also, most if not all mirrors have the reflective surface on the back side of a glass. That means the image you get from yoursel has passed through glass 2 times, one going, one coming back. Which reduces accuracy too.

These are not mutually exclusive choices. You can do both. Bad advice. Never put sand in your bathtub. Marat, I have the feeling you need experience. Beaches are very different around the world. I go there for relaxing and thinking. Archimedes died on a beach.

Inter-rail, correct. Good memory. That was the way I went from Belgium to Greece for the first time. July 1981. I didn't go to the islands then (no money for the boat). Now I am an unconditional. ----------------------- Besides, Greece needs you.

Well said Captain. Know the world. At my time, you could by very cheap ticket to travel by train through Europe for one month. As a student, you must have advantages, even by airplane, maybe.

O.K. so the short answer is: No, it is not mainstream physics.

Something strange today. I posted a reply into an old thread. my reply appears in the Today's posts list, but not in "my content" list. Even not after refreshing. ---------- edit. This post appears correctly. ?????????

Interesting how the Democritus spirit still lives on. Interesting also that we are ready to consider an infinitely large Universe, but we are totally incapable to accept an infinitely small. We all search in the very small in order to find a presumed "elementary building block". Presumed because we get vertigo under the idea there could be no such a thing, and that infinite could extend in the small dimension as well.

This below is from a site where declared non mainstream physics is presented: Meaning that 2 options are open: 1. the Universe is expanding and atoms (all elementary particles) have a defined dimension :that is mainstream physics. 2. the atoms (all elementary particles) are getting smaller and the Universe has a defined dimension. My question is: is point 2 acceptable through mainstream physics, or do we have elements to debunk point 2?

Come to Greece.

I did. I had 3 thoughts. 1. A lunar eclipse is an eclipse for all inhabitants of the Earth that can observe the Moon at this particular instant. Not true for a solar eclipse. 2. A lunar eclipse happens always upon a full moon. 3. why can we observe a full moon without eclipse? I thought because the sun is huge compared to the size of Earth & Moon.

IIRC there are indications of a prefered direction (see Dark Flow) that do not seem to violate QT or Newton's Laws of Motion.

I am not sure if i understand the question. A river is not only the water you see between the banks. A river flows also underground beneath the banks, and extends very far away horizontaly, many times the apparent width of the river, and verticaly under the river. The underground water flows simply more slowly. The river is only the overflow: the upper part of the iceberg. Trees near the river have their roots in the river.

This flying machine comes from 1974. I first thought it was a hoax. It is not, it is abandonned technology. Why? My link

Well. Back to the balloon analogy: The 2D surface of the balloon represents 3D space. A dimension has been eliminated to make the analogy work. In the analogy, the surface of the balloon is embedded into 3D space. And because the balloon is expanding, there is a change in time so that the whole analogy is embedded in spacetime. It is thus a 4D concept. That is what makes the analogy comprehensible: it works because it is embedded in the same space-time reality we are living in. But if you want to transform this analogy into a model, you have to put back the dimension that was eliminated. Then you obtain a 4D model +1: a 5D model. So one could propose that the Universe is expanding into the 5th dimension. And not that "its not expanding into anything.".

I don't think so. Without inflation faster than light, our observation of the universe don't match with the Big Bang Theory, that's all.