michel123456

I don't think so. I don't think so. Think of the famous equation e=Mc^2 Considering units of the right hand side it goes like this: _take Mass(1) _multiply by 2d space(2) _divide by 2d time(3) _you get energy Space and time convert mass into energy (4): that is what I understand. Space & Time are not simple coordinates on a map IMHO. To me Space & Time (Spacetime) are dynamic components of reality. They are not an empty receptacle. Notes (1) that is the quantity of matter which is the source of gravity. (2) from c^2 which is m/s squared. I don't know why meters^2, it is much like the square of the distance in Newtonian mechanics. (3) from the same c^2. I don't know why seconds^2. (4) and not that "mass is energy" as IMHO misleadingly stated so often. Because c^2 has units, it is not a simple coefficient.

That does not answer the question. Is it possible to encounter a life form on Earth that is big as a mountain? Can we expect to encounter a life form big as a planet? What is that makes living animals (and plants) the size they are? Is it gravity?

I suppose you mean that remains of dinosaurs are huge, together with insects , plants & sea shells of the same period, compared to the environment we know today. You are making the supposition that size is related to gravity, which implies that gravity on Earth was less in the past. I have exactly the same views. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any research on the relation between gravity and life form size, except that of Galileo some time ago. It is supposed that dinosaurs were heavy animals, barely able to support their own weight, some of them not even able to raise their head above their shoulder. I like to see them living like todays creatures, running, jumping and dancing their love parade. I like to see some of them jumping so easily that they slowly changed in birds. I like to see some of them getting heavier and heavier, dying under their own weight in the mud. I like to see other animals, under the pressure of evolution, changing slowly in order to bear their weight into a lighter environment: water. But this is very speculative. There is no indication that gravity on Earth was different in the past than it is today. So I keep that in one of my many speculation drawers. If anyone here has some information on the subject it would be very interesting. ---------------------- edit: there are 2 ways to make gravity different on Earth in the past: 1. change the mass of the Earth 2. change the diameter of the Earth as I stated before, there are no indications neither for point 1 or 2. --------------------- second edit: first edit was jumping into conclusions. Sorry. Your title is the most correct first step: is size connected to gravity?

Nothing bad. The point raises when talking about time as an abstraction, as if it was something that is not part of reality. Some people argue that time does not properly exist, that time is simply a measurement or a human construct imprinted in our memory. I disagree with this point of vue. To me, time is part of reality, as distance is (meaning the fact that objects are far away or close to each other), or mass.

If you take it that way, everything is abstraction, speed, acceleration, charge, mass...

If I follow your idea correctly, we should observe minuscule life form on gigantic planets, and enormous animals on small planets. That sounds counter-intuitive, although we have no other example than our own planet so far.

Well, I disagree that time is an abstraction too, but i thought it was simpler to discuss distance first. It isn't. So for you distance & time are abstractions. from wiki: I suppose you are making your point on the "numerical description" while I speak about "how far apart objects are". I get the feeling it becomes argumentation without meaning.

Excellent point.

No I can't I will try to fill a bucket with photons instead, it won't take long. Wait... ----------------------- The lever principle shows that distance is not only an abstraction IMHO

IA is correct. An important factor is the surface ratio under contact with cold air. If you keep your hands closed, the ratio diminishes. While riding your bike, your hands are constantly open, not a good thing. Under this aspect, mittens are better because fingers touch, but maybe it is not a good idea for secure riding. An old mummy's trick for cold hands is to boil an egg just before leaving home and keep it hot in your pocket. ---------------- edit Under difficult circumstances, put your hands in the warmer parts of your body. Not your mouth, but your genitals.

Oh yes. Oh yes. Instead of compairing time & distance, try to find the difference. Oh yes, "time is the thing that trips people up" But: distance is an abstraction?

I suspect that you have been terrorized by the educational system to say that. On the basis of your declaration, and knowing that only the clever changes his mind, you cannot be stupid. -------------- edit Ah, welcome.

You must know the erotic comic strips "Click" (Il Giocco, Le Declic) from Milo Manara. The link is not suitable.

He made almost the same statement in post #28, although not so clearly. And you have no obligation to find that funny. I do. Mainly because when fighting the EET, some are giving arguments for the (unexisting) Shrinking Earth Theory.

I'd like to point out that 1900s people knew a lot of things. They knew electricity, telephones, engines, cars, airplanes, even spaceships (although not accurately). Jules Verne wrote about space travel in 1864. In his Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea Novel, the submarine was powered & lighted with electricity. They had steel and concrete buildings,elevators, railways. Charles Babbage died in 1871, missing technology for 100 years, but the idea of computers existed already. They didn't know about penicillin (1928) but they knew about Relativity. They didn't knew about some little details like the Internet, Miss Levinsky and World War I and II. These kinds of details we will miss too when guessing about the future. --------------------------------------------------- I remember one of our lecturer explaining what will remain of our civilisation in 2000 years: he said almost nothing: concrete will have become dust, steel will dissapear, paper burned. No museum will resist, nor any monument. The only remains will be the highways, because of the large scale landscape deformation, and some ceramics and stones.

Indeed. We are observing the contrary.

The subtitle is awkward. In 50 years, tomorrow will look like tomorrow.

Mimosa Pudica is very impressive: But the easiest and fastest is lentil.

You look confident. Can you honestly answer this question? IMHO the only honest answer is "working on it, there are theories but basically we don't know". If I am wrong, please inform me on how life appeared on Earth.

Owl must feel so alone. But somewhere he is right. IMHO. The Earth is not an analogy. The earth is curved, we are living on its curved surface, but we are 3D objects. We are not 2D individuals living in a 2D world. Exactly. Now you are starting to understand. This is insanity. Everybody here, except Owls, feels O.K. to discuss about "nothing" as it was 'something' with properties. But IF "nothing" has properties, then "nothing" is not nothing anymore, it becomes "something" mysterious. The ontologic problem that Owls tries to discuss is very well existing. This is pure imbecility IMHO. It is an evidence, better say an axiom: if something (some-thing) has properties, it is an entity. It is Not a false assumption.

A child is impatient, you must find something that grows quickly. Peas. No commercial but in some shops they sell amusing puppet heads made of natural fiber with growing vegetation in place of hair. Very funny and instructive. I'll try to find a link. ------------------------------- something similar to Mr Box Head here

So you made the experiment!

The funny part is that following Light Storm, cooling has the opposite effect. see below emphasis mine.

That is amusing. Thus, if the core cools down, which is almost certain, and under the absence of any other mechanism, the Earth must shrink.

To supervise the Earth. Like a low altitude satellite, or a flying saucer.