michel123456

True. The reverse side of the coin is technological progress. What I don't like in the abundance of new software is new versions of the same program. I prefer when new software involves new concepts (like the transmission of ideas & texts without paper, it has been done, and without text*, soon available or maybe not). *I mean making a search on Google not with text, but with image or sound. IIRC the software for sound research already exists.

When one does, you don't answer.

After a quick search http://www.asnj.org/

Maybe the word "dropped" is misleading.

In all spacetime diagrams speed is an angle.

I disagree on these. If you replace "we" by "I", I agree.

That happens to me too, my wife don't understand. Astrology?

here the speed of light is an angle. The expected result was C=1. It does not come out.

Each program has a purpose. The purpose of MSWORd is to write text. Text could be written with the old version of MSWORD, the only difference now is that almost each user must spend a non negligeable amount of time for training, in order to do exactly the same job. If you put a price to each hour of learning (lets say 10$) of each user in difficulty (several millions of them), that makes several millions of dollars simply wasted. You only can substract from this amount the profit made by Microsoft selling the new version. as posted by Swansont. The other company I will not expose here (its name begins with auto and ends with desk) is using the same technique. I can show you architectural plans made in 1992 that look incredibly the same as plans made today, after having used versions n. 8,10,12,14,2000,2004,2007,2008 (bypassing the intermediate versions). In the meanwhile, improvements were made on about 4 or 5 commands, making our work a little bit easier. I have the strong feeling that there are people in Microsoft & others that make a living into changing things, exactly as you may see a contractor making a new road were the old one was perfect.

Mr Skeptic is right. Don't remove anything and call immediately the archeological authority. If you were in Greece, you could go to jail for removing archeological objects. And findings from unknown accurate location have almost no value.

Exactly. equation (4) stands only for a time slice in present so that δΤ=0 In this case, for both timeless and timed observators equation (6) must be correct.

You must agree that the diagram represents something. The equation (2) is simply a pythagorean triangle. There is nothing wrong in it.

I have a bad experience with some other professional program, very expensive (about 4000$ from scratch), which provide a new version each year, with a new interface each 3 or 4 years. It is like those gentlemen don't count at all the time & effort for adaptation, which is real hard money in real life, without any sustantial difference in the result.

Yes, I am mixing distance & time. that doesn't make the equation wrong, that makes it unsolvable. Yes. That is the case in this rod experiment. The rod do not move. X on the diagram is a lightlike displacement. Neither am I. that is the reason I put a "if" before the equation. And it is also the main reason of my question "Does that seems correct?" The bizarre here is that we have in the diagram a lightlike interval which is represented as an obvious quantity X, on one part, and on the other part we have to follow the statement that it must be null. The only way I can imagine to solve ambiguity is to say that the 2 point of vues are as viewed from different Frames Of Reference. The diagram (fig.1) is from a timeless FOR, contrarily to the standard equation (S^2=0) which is from a timed FOR. In this last case, it means that we, as observators, have moved in time the interval T. Which IMHO makes some sense.

By two. Obviously, I was not clear. Let's say you measure is 1,20 meter. At scale 1/100, you draw on paper a line 1,2 cm long. At scale 1/50 you draw a line of 2,4 cm long.

You need convection to take place. 5mm is (as much as I know) an empirical minimum. (edited) Impressive. Are you the real one? Anyway, welcome.

At least it is thought provocative. IMHO there is a way of thinking at least which is not entirely wrong. I mean as I understand Evolution (I may be wrong here) we use to look at plants & animals as a sum of individuals, trying to explain that a change that occurs randomly into an individual will be transmitted to the specie. Maybe instead we have to look at Evolution as something wider that happens to the whole community, and stop considering plants & animals as individuals.

a condom?

from the same link (my post in blue fonts for clear differenciation) (green and red notations mine) There is something I don't understand: when both parts are null, how do you conclude σ=1? In equation (8a) which is mentionned, both parts are also null, isn't it? ([math] x^2-c^2t^2=0 [/math]) and ([math] x'^2-c^2t'^2=0 [/math]) from the link:

You are going the religious way: repeating three times the same thing. It is indeed the official position: mass curves spacetime. But: we don't know what mass is, we don't know what spacetime is, and we don't know what gravity is. That is so exciting!

Continuously. Here is the last one to date. Pi is simultaneously a very interesting subject and a waste of time. IMHO.

Could you please make a try into this? I figure that would set a new understanding of negative squares and maybe could use as a replacement of what we call imaginary numbers. I have a strong feeling physics could be better explained with mirrored mathematics.

"number salad" is more detectable than "word salad".

So you already made a scale of 1/100. At this scale you can draw a whole house on a simple sheet of paper. this is probably too small for your job. You can double all your results, and get a scale of 1/50.

Thanks. [math] r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}=ct [/math] That is understandable.