michel123456

48 hours I was wondering what would be the reaction. I think the best argument is observation. What I observe is a universe wider and wider as much I look far away, and wider & wider as much I look in the past. Something like sketch B. This observation , which some members here agree with, is exactly the contrary of what the BBT proposes, and i see no reason why I should refute observation. My last post was a bit provoquing, I was impatient. I 'll return to a more humble attitude.

cast iron. difficult or impossible to do in cast iron. it has been modelled in one piece.

looks like a hot stamping device.

Thanks. ill try here this is edit. this is reply you are right. Thanks a lot.

This was just to be sure you are still here. & so for you. I wrote

Hi all. When I edit and add some comment in a last post of mine, the date & time of the post does not change, because they merge. As a result, although I made some comment today at 12.40, in the list of threads, it is mentionned as "last post yesterday 8.30". I would suggest to correct that or to eliminate the merging of posts from the same individual.

Very careful answer. I think we all agree sketch B is correct. Not in the sense that the Universe is like that, but in the sense that it is what we are observing. As I see it, we are inside the Bang. The Bang is huge, it is all around us, and it belongs to the past. ----------------------------- And it is complete nonsense. That is the reason why I disagree with the Big Bang Theory.

Maybe the same math could explain why Earth's crust is fracurated.

--------------- Hi RMW. I suspect something. 1. you observed interference with a single slit. 2. your slit is close to the laser. 3. move the slit closer to the screen wall till interference disappear. 4. at this distance, make a second slit 5. observe interference Right?

Which sketch is right, and which is wrong? The arrow represents where we are looking to. A B

Martin, do you agree with Sisyphus?

sst. I hope RMW is working on it.

Yes. In your link also under "If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, why isn't the most distant object we can see 7 billion light years away?" We can read : "This question makes some hidden assumptions about space and time which are not consistent with all definitions of distance and time. One assumes that all the galaxies left from a single point at the Big Bang, and the most distant one traveled away from us for half the age of the Universe at almost the speed of light, and then emitted light which came back to us at the speed of light." emphasis mine. This is something similar, where it seems to me that people believe that we are at the center of the Universe, or that we were once upon a time. Or i understand very badly. In the OP, I think it is understandable that the Big Bang, if it were visible (we know it is not) should be BEHIND the UDFy-38135539 galaxy, and not in front of it.

Heron is correct. Ήρων pronounced "eeron" in the Greek language, as far as I know, nothing to do with the word "hero", (ηρωας in ancient & modern Greek)

Especially part 2 (Fallacy) to 4 (accuracy of distance). Don't worry, I don't like especially part 9 (comments from a sceptic), I don't agree with his points. Maybe I don't understand his points very well. What does he mean when he writes "If the Big Bang happened 600 million years before this light was emitted, then it means that, in 600 million years, particles travelled 13 billion light-years to get into position when they emitted that light which we now received."?? It has no logic to me, and the answer don't help. Both seem to say that we are today in the centre of the universe, or I understand nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDFy-38135539 The discussion (in the wiki article) is interesting. ?

It must be β in the next picture. (from the book of Christos D.Lazos "Engineering and technology in ancient Greece" - Μηχανική Και Τεχνολογία Στην Αρχαία Ελλάδα", p.94. , in the article about Heron of Alexandria. Ktesibios was his teacher, but almost all his work has been lost. Here it is presented as "the horse who drinks water", an entertaining object. α is "the waitress who serves water on her own" γ is " automatic pouring water mechanism" δ is "pump with buckets"

The pump of Ktesibios? (from here-- go to "exhibits"--"pumping mechanisms") " The suction and force-pump is one of the most important inventions of Ktesibios, engineer of Alexandria, who was called the Father of Pneumatiki (Air-navigation). Inside two cylinder vessels, two pistons with different functions are moving, one of them crushes (squeezes) and the other absorbs. The movement of the pistons creates a void followed by a suction of water, which is transported through a pipe outside the area, where the pump is located. The instrument has been one of the most popular instruments and was used by many people. It is used even today in various forms. SCALE 1:2. SOURCES: A. G. Drachmann, Ktesibios, Philon and Heron, A Study in Ancient Pneumatics, Copenhagen 1948. J. P. Oleson, Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices: The History of Technology, Toronto 1984. B. Gille, Les Mecaniciens Grecs, La renaissance de la Technologie, Paris 1980. Construction: Dionysis Kriaris"

These were the words of Silenus, who belongs amongst the many divinities (a drunken god)of ancient Greece, speaking about men. These are not words expressing some kind of human philosophy.

Try put the knife edges at some angle in a disposition /\ or \ / and look if the result changes. And again, with a single slit, you shouldn't theoretically observe no interference at all.

Maybe due to the surface of the target. Of course, if you use a better surface, like a metallic one, you will get a sharper result, but more reflection (my objection upon the experiment, how do you avoid reflection?). _also the back side of the Vernier is higly reflective*. _And as you said, the thickness of the Vernier is also problem. IIRC in other experiments they use a smoked glass with a ray traced with a pin. Higly reflective on the back side, as the Vernier is. *when you take a photograph of the target in the experiment, you are taking an image due to reflection. And, after all, you made a single slit experiment, with interference, isn't it?

I suppose you shooted perpendicularly to the target. The disposition showed in the picture don't show it that way.

Like a crust.

There is a smell of "déja vu". And if instead of a ring you made a sphere?

So you have free time. How lucky you are! I propose one thing: Cook.