michel123456

Look here , from an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden. Anyone should read this.

Sure this thread will not give the solution Mankind is waiting for. But at least it can enhance the need of being coherent. If one decides to accept the meaning of space as "total nothing", it must be obvious that space , under this assumption, cannot curve nor expand nor nothing. On the other hand, if one decides to accept that space can curve and expand, space must be "something", call it aether or wathever, but it cannot be "total nothingness". You must choose. It is important to note that you cannot jump from one definition to the other at will, and say that "space expands" together with "space don't exist", explaining that "distance increases" while "objects don't move". If distance increases, "something" increases, there is no doubt. All those who say the contrary don't have a clear notion of what they are arguing. IMHO.

I judge you guilty. Is that your idea? A rapprochement of Christianism & Islam ?

Great. That is the point I stopped reading. As I said before, I basically agree with your points. That means nothing, just another wickle-wackler agreeing... What I believe is that we are missing something. There is something that we have not grasped concerning Space, Time and Gravity. You must be right in the bolded part : "cosmos is not a static snapshot" I have the feeling (how much does that count?) that EVERYTHING is dynamic. What we call matter is dynamic, what we call space is dynamic, what we call time is dynamic. In the word "dynamic", there is not only "motion", which is displacement in space, but something wider. Mainstream physicists talk sometimes about a "scale factor" : something like that. In other words, all discussions about the ontology of Spacetime is useless IMHO, since we don't know what we are talking about.

Geometry.

Why does a man have to take care of a wife? Because a wife doesn't have a job, she does not produce any income. Only children. For thousands of years, the faith of millions of women has been to stay in the kitchen at day, to clean babies bottom, to feed an illiterate phalocratic or even perverse husband, and to endure his penis with her open legs at night under the threat of torture and mortal punishment. I cannot believe any sensitive person of any religion can possibly want this to continue. There is a mess of civilisations here. At times where women go out of the kitchen (heresy) and out of home (worst heresy), she can do what she wants. She is free to treat her own body as she wishes (who asked your brother's wife opinion?), she is not obliged to endure raping 3 times a week from a man her father choosed. Yes, I suppose in muslim countries marital rape does not exist. She can show her face (heresy), her hair (lynching), her body (is there anything worse than lynching, lapidation maybe). Not talking about adultery. She can choose the man she wants. She is not obliged to ask her dad first. She is not obliged to be sold for 6 camels and 20 sheeps. She can decide how many children she will raise. At last, the other half Humanity can look at life with some hope. Family is not a Holy Thing anymore. Individual respect is. And I hope will continue to be.

_In ancient society, the purpose of marriage is not to unite 2 people who fell in love, but to unite properties, pieces of land or flocs of sheeps in agricultural societies, entire countries and industries in aristocracy. This is not only a tradition, but a way to organize and survive. The moral values that have been associated to this way of living have been enhanced by religion. The natural sexual attraction must be hidden to avoid problems when the parents negotiate the marriage of their children. The important figure is how many sheeps, not if the bride is good-looking. It is much better that the future married never meet before wedding. Sexual contact must be prohibited, there is a contract to honor. _The age also is not important at all. The only important thing is that the husband must be older than his wife in order to maintain domination. _In those societies, the number of children is important. More children means more working hands for the fields or for the sheeps. Increased infant mortality makes the need even more important. It is the source of polygamy and instinctive repulsion of abortion. _Love, freedom, sex, happiness, fulfillment and all that kind of feelings are not taken under consideration in those societies. They are obstacles. _Prostitution is banned because the married man must fornicate only in order to produce a ribambelle of children to his wives, and because unmarried young fellows don't have to be informed of pleasures that will make them think twice before marrying. _And so on.

Are you sure? What if one car was made of concrete? Wouldn't the 2nd one gets destructed 50%?

The golden ratio has been used in all kind of matters, by people so different as Mathematicians, Biologists, Physicists, Catholics, Atheists, Masonists, Satanists, Creationists, Evolutionists, and many many others. It is not surprising that Muslims use that argument too. There is no copyright upon the Golden Ratio.

Lets speculate wildly. The sun consumes its material but like any other thing in the Universe, it is imperfect. A small amount of material is not well "burned" and remains inside the sun. It slowly agglomerates into an inform packet that rotates with the sun, inside the sun. Because it has another density of the surrounding plasma, this small mass of impurities rotates at another velocity and thus follows an internal orbit. Slowly, as the mass increases, the orbit gets larger, becoming a spiral. The process continues until impurities reach the sun surface, eventually getting out of the sun, still upon the path of the spiral. When impurities get out of the sun, their mass do not augment any more. As the inform mass morphs slowly into a circular body, and because there is no added mass any more, the path changes from a spiral and becomes a regular orbit. The planet is born.

You're mistaking History with How-To-Teach-History-Methodology. Almos all historians have their way to explain the past as a logical succession of totally explainable events, based on one or another methodology. Everything has an explanation. IMHO it is completely wrong. It is totally different from the definition of History by a man who made it:

I thought it was more a phenomena to be related to the archimedes principle. Continents and oceanic crust are floating on the mantle like icebergs on the ocean. When you put more material on the land (ice in the circumstances), logic says that the continent goes down and that the regions without ice go up, as you said. Because of the buoyancy, the downward displacement must be related to the average density of the whole continent compared to the density of the material the mantle is made of. Compared to rock, water (& ice) has the lowest possible density for a solid. So IMHO and if the above is correct, a huge amount of ice should contribute to a very few downward displacement. When the ice melts, the rebound of continents must be balanced (I suppose) by the downward of something else, the ocean floor, because there must be equilibrium. I don't know if the weight of water has anything to do with it, because it is just like incorporating to the ocean crust a material of very low density: in fact you are reducing the average density of the material. -------------------- While writing this, I have doubts. Don't shoot too hard.

Galileo is IMHO one of he greatest mind ever. He was a friend of the Pope and a well recognized scientist of his time. He had a lot of credibility , he was not a crackpot-like individual. His credibility was the reason to be driven into his adventure (in fact it seems he overestimated his influence). If he was considered as a crackpot, no one would have bothered.

I like this post very much. Maybe a smoke bomb?

An example I recall in History is the famous pirate Barbarossa, when Oruç Barbarossa died, his young brother Hızır Hayreddin became "Barbarossa" in name and place, just as if the conditions were waiting for him.

Yes. Generally we agree. I follow as a spectator your fight against other distinguished members here. You (we) are lost in conversations that go nowhere IMHO. They (the others) believe that we disagree with Relativity. They don't understand your concern about the ontology of spacetime. I am afraid the word "ontology" is considered part of philosophy, not science. Did you notice a grandiose absence in this philosophy forum? -------------------------- edit. To the point: To me, the "expanding space" is BS, to speak frankly. The "fabric of space" expression makes me vomit. I hope no one hear me. 1.Either space exists, call it "aether" or whatever, and give it properties, expanding shrinking an so on. 2. either space do not exist as an entity, aether do not exist (I thought it had been proved scientifically 100 years ago), and it cannot do anything, of course. If we observe the universe expanding, the explanation is somewhere else.

You mean History as an exact science ? The english wiki article does not include History as an exact science. The french Wiki does. transl. "A narrative science of the times of the past, history, has constituted itself from the oral recorded inheritances and of all sorts of archives." What you understand as History is not only a chronological narrative description of the recorded events, but the "scientific" explanation of the events. I know the one is too often incorporated to the other, but they are distinct features. The first part is definitely an exact science, the second, I don't think so. But it is still a science. IMHO.

I suppose that is the reason why you find only crackpots under speculation forum. People who know something are afraid to share their ideas because they want personal recognition, admiration, glory. they don't care a s... about the benefits of their idea for mankind. We have at our disposal the most wonderful tool for sharing ideas, and we don't use it. It is a shame. On the other hand, people who know something are afraid of failure. It is not well accepted that a brilliant mind can make a mistake. When it happens, it is marked in red in all encyclopedias. So, nothing helps in sharing ideas. Scientists don't use the tool at disposal, they remain on the last century slow process of peer reviewed publication. which is the reason why they are afraid to be stolen. The glory will go to the first published, not to the genius who had the first hintch.

No kidding, tell me that your second name is Norman. ----------------- Welcome.

I don't know about the fumes. But if you want to present something new, here is my idea of time travel: You don't need a machine, you need a drug. Once your actor has ingurgitated the drug, he goes back in time when he was young, taking with him all the memories of his "future" life. Of course, he cannot go further than when he was born, but at least some time paradoxes are avoided, since there are no twice the same person at any moment in time, nor can he kill his own father. The only remaining time paradox is that he can change his own future. Can he? There is no Copyright, I'll take only 25% of the income. Deal?

Nested square roots.

IIRC : a single answer. But I don't know what a "fucntion" is.

When you substitute r in the equation with zero, you are dividing by zero, which gives...[insert answer here] @ Forum admin Can you fix this?

Collaborators at work don't elaborate their thoughts at that speed, I am afraid. That's the reason of my headache! Thank you.

Life, or Wife? (joking) For Your Information I dislike long posts. I am glad that you found a good companion with Lemur, but I have not the patience to read your (interesting) ideas. Cheers. Michel.