michel123456

"epitomise" woaw. But what has poise to do here?

A cow-boy builds a shelter to spend the winter alone in the wild. He goes on cutting a good amount of wood so that he will not fear the terrible cold. But how to be sure if he has enough wood? There is the great wise indian above in near the mountain, he must know. So he goes all above the mountain and ask the wise man. The chief looks at the horizon and declares that the winter will be cold this year. So the cow-boy goes back to the valley and cuts more wood. He has enough now, but lets ask the man again. He goes up the mountain, the chief looks around, and say that the winter will be extremely cold. The cow-boy goes back cutting a huge amount of wood. Now he is sure. But lets ask the indian for the last time. So he goes to the mountain again. There the wise man looks, and tells that this winter will be colder than ever. Surprised, the cow-boy asks, how can you be sure the winter will be so cold? And the wise indian answers: when the white man in the valley cuts a lot of wood, then the winter will be cold.

I think the short answer is that if the air was a good conductor of electricity, there would be no lightning at all.

O.K. sorry. Well understood. i have to be more carefull with my wording. I ment "observable part of CMBR" instead of "CMBR". So, galaxies X,Y,Z are seen today from the Earth exactly the same way they were observed from Distant Galaxy then, the only difference is that they are much far away from Earth. But they other properties, such as measured distances between them, are exactly the same. Here I hope you understand my wording. If Distant Galaxy was observing those xyz galaxies "10 times closer", we should observe the same thing today. Now I'll post another diag. Wait. Here. Galaxies 1p,2p,3p, that were observable from Distant Galaxy, are observed from Earth today in places 1,2,3. All these Galaxies will be observed closer to Earth than Distant Galaxy. In other words, all galaxies that are farther than Distant Galaxy (such as galaxies XYZ) must obey to the precedent principle, i.e. that what we are observing today is the same that was observed from Distant Galaxy in the past. The green part of the Distant Galaxy Observable Universe is to be seen from Earth today in the opposite direction that when observing Distant galaxy. Is that O.K.?

Believe me I don't play games. I just choose a step-by-step procedure in order to avoid misinterpretation. You have already shown that CMBR is not invariant. CMBR was smaller in the past. That's why I spoke about a "small CMBR" and a "large CMBR" in the other thread, that was not understood by some other members of this Forum. I think it is clear to anyone looking at the diagram. Are Galaxies X, Y, Z, observable from Earth, today?

Are you sure?

Thank you Spyman. I have stolen your graph to add what I hope is correct.

I would like a diagram where I see the Earth, the distant Galaxy, the CMBR as seen from the Earth, and the CMBR as seen from the Galaxy.

Thank you, but I don't understand. Where is the Earth today? where is CMBR as seen from Earth? where is CMBR as seen from distant Galaxy A? In any case, I suppose galaxy A cannot be positionned upon the life line of Earth.

That is not the point, but reading your post #3 again I read "The matter emitting the CMBR would appear to be 1 billion lightyears distant but (...)". I say it again that is not the point. Now that is the point. Could you please make a diagram of this?

Lets continue on the example of a Galaxy 1 billionyear after the BB, so that the cosmos calculator can be used. If I understand correctly, following standard cosmology, an observator in this Galaxy has had a CMBR of 1 billion LY radius, the CMBR has had a temperature 10 times hotter, and the surrounding galaxies observable inside the CMBR radius are were roughly 10 times closer. (edited post) point: The past of an object is also the past of his future. Syllogism The Observable Universe of this galaxy (call A) lies totally in her past. Her past is also observable from our place today. This galaxy's past is the part of space from 12 BY and up. For example, a galaxy B, observed from our galaxy A, at a distance of 0,5 BY, should be observable from Earth at a distance of 12,5 BY. The past cone of the distant galaxy is inside our past cone. Correct?

Reading your link. Small question in the meanwhile: those galaxies are the same that we can observe from Earth today, I suppose.

From Here, how some explanations produce confusion. "A continuing theme within this intricately detailed biography of the Universe is the underlying conflict between the attractive force of gravity and the tendency for physical systems to evolve toward more disorganized conditions. Entropy provides a measure of disorder within a physical system-whenever entropy is generated, the amount of disorder increases. In the broadest sense, gravity pulls things together and thereby organizes physical structures. Entropy production opposes this order and acts to make physical systems more disorganized and spread out. The interplay between these two competing tendencies provides much of the drama in astrophysics and ultimately drives the evolution of the entire Universe, including the life cycles of its constituent stars and galaxies." And further in the text: "As time unfolds, a series of natural astronomical disasters punctuates this cosmic newsreel and shapes the subsequent development of the Universe. And throughout this evolutionary history, both past and future, the force of gravity continually engages in a cosmic battle with entropy."/ And all along the text.

From wiki article "Retail noise-cancelling headphones typically use ANC to cancel the lower-frequency portions of the noise; they depend on more traditional methods such as soundproofing to prevent higher-frequency noise from reaching the ear. This approach is preferred because it reduces the demand for complicated electronic circuitry and at higher frequencies, where active cancellation is less effective. To truly cancel high frequency components (coming at the ear from all directions), the sensor and emitter for the cancelling waveform would have to be adjacent to the user's eardrum, which is not technically feasible." In other words, companies are making money upon people's ignorance or uninterest in physics. (I couldn't fin a sweetest way to write it down without hurting anybody). _If you want to improve soundproofing of your residence, they are several ways, some are expensive, some are not. . the simplest is to look carefully at your windows and close any small orifice. Sound is a wave, and goes through even the smallest holes, then expand again on the other side of the obstacle (the window). Sush holes exist usually in the corners of the windows, where rubber joins at right angle, and at the window hand. There may be other holes in the wall, like air ducts or kitchen exhausts. By closing these holes you will reduce the amount of noise transmitted directly by air. . you can improve generally the perimetrical rubber band (I hope there is any) putting a rubber from hard material so that the window closes firmly. The sound coming from the outside makes your window tremble, and this trembling transmits the sound in the air of your room. The meaning of this intervention is to reduce as much as possible the trembling of the window. .you can put a second glass. Either outside, either inside (much easier).The meaning is to put a new heavy obstacle to the sound. The more heavy (the higher density), the best. You can also put a heavy curtain, that won't make much effect, but it has the same meaning. By the way, this intervention could be paid by your owner because it is a general improvement of the residence. You can also put external shutters. .you can change completely your windows, find a reliable provider with sound-proofing specifications, under the agreement and at the expense of the owner. .you can ask the ministry of transport & communication to put sound-proofing walls along the main street. It is the cheapest for you & the most expensive for the community. .because sound makes everything tremble (not only your window), it is probable that some low sounds (coming from a Harley with a hole in its exhaust) transmit to the whole building and to your bed too. Avoid generally your bed to touch directly to a wall or column. It may be that you are not waken by the sound, but by the feeling of the wave through your body. Physiologically, we are made to be sensible to sounds at any time, even when we sleep. Our auditory system is a kind of alarm system that works 24h/24. We don't have eyelids to our ears.

I know only some basics about sound. The intensity of sound is measured in Decibels, which is a logarithmic scale. Why logarithmic? because sounds don't add. A sound of 10 Db plus a second sound of 10 Db do not produce 20 Db, but slightly more than the originals 10 Db. In your case, if you add some soft music, or a "white noise", like the noise of the sea, or that of a soft breeze through palm trees, you may solve partly your problem. Another solution is simply earplugs. I am afraid "counter waves" are not feasable.

It looks like twins connected with a zone of soft material. Why is the peanut shape common? as mentionned in the comments.

Please continue. I am also interested about the neighborhood of galaxies. Were they closer?

The most funny part is that someone quoted him negatively. I bet he is the only negative reputation member on this forum. He doesn't deserve that. (although I will not make any move to make a change, I find it really amusing)

That's the kind of question I like: back to the basics. I have to admit that the more I learn about Space, the less confident I am in what I understand of it. I think a good way to proceed is to reduce the question to its simplest form. What is the simplest form of space? To me, it is distance. If you ask someone, or look in any encyclopedia, about "distance", you will automatically get tautology. See wiki article "Distance is a numerical description of how far apart objects are. In physics or everyday discussion, distance may refer to a physical length, or an estimation based on other criteria (e.g. "two counties over"). In mathematics, a distance function or metric is a generalization of the concept of physical distance. A metric is a function that behaves according to a specific set of rules, and provides a concrete way of describing what it means for elements of some space to be "close to" or "far away from" each other. In most cases, "distance from A to B" is interchangeable with "distance between B and A". _What I have learned about distance, is that in our physical world, you cannot have distance without Time. At the moment you accept that nothing can travel faster than C, any distance corresponds to at least a certain value of time. _the second thing I have learned about distance, is that it is a kind of obstacle. Newton was asking, how is action at a distance conceivable? Even today, action at a distance is a mystery. _the third thing I have learned, it that distance is always positive. _the fourth thing I know, is that geometry rules the way one distance may be related to another. And in geometry, the absolute measurement of distance don't matter much, what matters is the relation that exist between measurements. I don't remember knowing anything else, and it may happen that I am wrong in what I think I know.

Brittle, right. Lost in translation again.

I am sure he is surprised that no one said "how wondeful!" His intentions are on the right side (IMO), he didn't expected to be beaten. The web has plenty of blogs that defend the opposite point of vue, I think after all his blog is a small drop in the balance.

I feel like blowing in a cello.

yes. And no, that's not just you. Welcome.

Cast iron is a very hard material but very fragile, it breaks easily in pieces and you cannot carve in it, as much as I know. Maybe another member can explain it better than I do.

The thread has gone out of track. Atheistic Intelligent Design is not a discussion about whether Evolution is right or wrong. Intelligent Design does not concern the living beings only, but the entire physical reality. And IMHO Intelligent Design is not an answer to anything. Who made the Designer? Another designer (Wilfried) who made the Designer (Max). But who designed Wilfried? It is a never-ending process. Nearly 200 years from now, some scientist had already send the Designer hypothesis to the waste basket, and I really see no reason why do we have to go into the dirt and ressurect that senile concept. If some declared atheists want to do so, it means there are no real atheists, they must be agnostics at least, or real believers.