michel123456

emphasis mine. Do you mean there is a well-known mechanism that could make the Earth shrink?

You don't understand. It is the A dam.

That is at sea level. What would happen if you build a vacuum sphere in outer space and sink it in the atmosphere? Would it float?* Constructing a vacuum sphere at sea level looks like constructing a boat in the abyss. * if it does I'll keep the Copyright.

You wrote: "Try to visualize than you and your meterstick are slowly shrinking inside a huge container" (emphasis mine)." I understand what you mean. IMHO it is the reverse of "the person is fixed to the floor by gravity and friction and it is the "fabric" of the floor that is expanding". Of course, either the observator is shrinking in a huge container, either he is at a fixed scale in an expanding container, the observation will be the same. I suppose that was your meaning. But IIRC it is assumed by the entire scientific community that we are not shrinking, and that the "container" is expanding. I barely understand your statement but I guess you must be right. If it was irrelevant please accept my apologies. Do you ask me to provide a link where it is stated that we have a fixed size? I found this one which says that we are not shrinking from Misconceptions about the Big Bang page 4 & 5 Scientific American

In Google Earth, search for Baroon Dam, Azarbayjan-e Gharbi, Iran or go to 39°10'22.17" 44°28'47.44"

Zoup with the 2 others.

No idea about the link. Found it in youtube with copy-paste. Not worthing much. @Lindale Baroon Dam is an artificial lake.

I can imagine a sphere of rubber. I cannot imagine an infinite sheet of rubber. From your comment I suppose you can.

That is not easy at all. 1. I cannot imagine an infinite sheet of rubber. 2 If you stretch a very large sheet of rubber, you can do that only locally, somewhere else the sheet will contract. 3 I cannot imagine an infinite sheet of paper with grid lines. 4 are you suggesting that our observation of the expanding space is comparable to an observational deformation and not to something that actually happens?

I totally agree but: that is NOT what the expanding space states. I whish it was. What the expanding space states is that WE ARE FIXED through gravitational bounds and that the "fabric of space" is expanding.

Weird Wiki article.

One single advice: NEVER LOOK BACK. Have you ever noticed the difference between you and those heroes at the movies or comic strips: they struggle, they fight, they hurt, they bleed. They never look back to their own adventures. What happens happens, and that's it. Never regret anything. Think that if you are a student, it means life has been very (very) kind with you. If you have your 2 eyes, your arms, your legs (and the in-betweens), you haven't got any difficulty yet. look at Nick:

And to Allan Guth's Chaotic inflation Theory, which still stands. There is no doubt the Perfect Cosmological Principle MUST be correct. Considering otherwise would throw yoursef in the bottom of my infinitely deep consideration well.

IMHO this reasoning shows that our concepts are wrong. IMHO again, the Copernican Principle must be enlarged: we are not only anywhere in the Universe, we are also at anytime. What we observe today must be the same as yesterday and the same as tomorrow. A full Mediocrity Principle in Space and in Time.

Thank you Youyou (sorry I me)* 1.I suppose you ment "massive particles" instead of "matter particles". 2. why "spontaneously"? Does the photon "feel better" as a doubled massive entity due to some principle? 3. Steevey's question about high energy photons generated by astral objects. Why do these photons remain photons and don't spontaneously transform? *I couldn't resist.

Thanks to IA found this one, no explanation. http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/170026.html But i have seen this before (maybe in the same Life edition?) and here called "fire vortex" http://www.ultimatechase.com/Press_Releases/December_2006.htm

This is getting bad. Back to the beginning. There is a chain linking matter mass & gravitation. All below from respective wikipedia entries: All 3 definitions could lead to the abusive conclusion that matter=mass=gravitation, but it is not the case(please correct me if I am wrong) Introducing antimatter: from wiki One has to go deeper to learn that antimatter has regular mass, and thus exert gravitation as regular matter does. Then one cannot say that "mass is a property of matter", but should state that "mass is a property of matter and antimatter" (correct me again). Proceeding further into what is NOT matter, one finds the most evident: the photon. from wiki Here again, one has to go deeper in order to learn that a photon is NOT matter because it has NO (rest) mass. BUT a photon exerts gravitation and is sensible to gravitation. So that as much as I can understand, nothing escapes from gravitation, no matter its nature (can I say that?). Negative gravitation has never been observed. (edited)

A robot replicating himself should first go mining and finding his own elements, then manufacturing its wires and other metal or other parts, then engineering a copy of itself that in the meanwhile should do something else than doing that all the time, like working for example. One could ask why Mother Nature choosed sexual reproduction instead of simple replication like you proposed. And after answering the question maybe choose the other way round and product male & female robots that will exchange with great pleasure small robots with the required information to grow up while gathering energy from the environnement.

Happy birthday.

That was funny. Why did you vote negative? When the pupil has the courage to say he doesn't understand, part of the blame goes to the professor IMHO. Most of the time you get angry when the pupil doesn't admit his ignorance. Now is the time to choose. Besides, as I stated before and as a matter of consequence, I am obliged to agree with poor Steevey.

To me, reincarnation has to do directly with the experience of seeing someone else dying quietly. The one moment, the old relative is there in his bed, talking. The next instant, he is dead. Life has abandonned his body. What has changed? Why is it impossible to input back "life" in a dead body, as dreamed by Dr Frankenstein? Where is life gone? Where is the energy gone, that made the elder think and speak a moment ago? It must be somewhere, it is impossible to be gone just like that... and there comes reincarnation. What to say against that. It is very bad feeling for the ones next the lifeless body. Total incomprehension. Most of the time, they are continuing to talk to the dead person for a while. Some continue talking after burrial. Some even talk to round tables and to playing cards. The thing IMHO is not to step from incomprehension into belief. It is one thing to not understand something, and another thing to accept any explanation just because you don't understand what is happening. If one comes to you and say that life is retained by soul, and that each soul goes to Valhalla, you wouldn't like it. If someone else tells you souls go and burn for infinity into Hell, you woudn't like it either. You would prefer the good solution of being reborned and live again. That will be your choice. That will not be an explanation. Very interesting question.

???????? The Bible, The historical theory of religions, sky god religions, earth god religions, Christians, Dionysis, Jupiter, gods of Mount Olympus, 'God the Father' , 'the Holy Spirit, Christ, religions, Moon Goddess Diana, Goddess Eostre, church, Christians , Jesus, church, atheist.

Religion thread.