michel123456

I don't believe it. IMHO oceans were always salty, and rivers never were.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_water : "Out of all the water on Earth, only 2.75 percent is freshwater, including 2.05 percent frozen in glaciers, 0.68 percent as groundwater and 0.0101 percent of it as surface water in lakes and rivers.[4] Freshwater lakes, most notably Lake Baikal in Russia and the Great Lakes in North America, contain seven-eighths of this fresh surface water." Emphasis mine. Is it to believe that from such a small amount we got the salinity of the oceans as it is today ? Especially considering that "Ocean salinity has been stable for billions of years" ? (from your link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater)

But rivers carry unsalted water, isn't it?

No. It's about physics, not about mind & predictions. Future cannot be observed because its distance from us is negative, that's all. You can draw that in a spacetime diagram without any difficulty. The interesting part is that the whole scene looks like a continuous expansion, or implosion, depending the way you look at it. There is a continuous flow from inside to outside, or the reverse. Everything is focused on the observator. Each observator looks around himself and sees the world vanishing in the past. If the arrow of time is oriented from the past to the future, then it is much like an implosion. I guess so.

Right. (applause). I agree on everything. Especially "If some location is relatively in your future, then you are a negative distance from it". You wrote "No matter the observer, everything else is observed in the past" and "time is equivalent to distance". Here is the way I see things: Here I am, the observer, and I look at the world around me. Everything I see around me is in the past. If an object is far away from me, it is long ago. If it is close to me, it is "now". But even objects near to me are in the past. Some nanoseconds ago, but still in the past. If I want to look at an object in the present, I have to collate my eye on it: I have to reduce the distance to zero. In fact, the present is where I am. The past is all around. Where is the future? Inside me.

I am a clever guy: I am printing 100.000 of tickets with no value, cost of printing & distribution about 1 cent/ticket=1000$. I put a price 1$/ticket, so I get an income of 100000$. I KNOW, because I decided that way, that only 1000 tickets are winning an average of 20$, making a total expense of 20000$. The result is a gain of 100000$ minus 20000 minus 1000= 79000$. I am the winner. Each week (maybe each day) I make an income of 79000$, drinking martini at the pool side in Miami. The gamblers are suckers. And stupid. Really stupid.

Its not that simple. In a spacetime diagram, look at this: Time elapses from down to up. At time T=0 you are at point Ao. You look at Galaxy Bo, in the past, and at Galaxy Co. After some time, you are at point A1, looking at Galaxy B1, and Galaxy C1. You are observing that the distance between you & the Galaxies has increased: D1 is greater than Do. Then you join the points B1 & Bo with a line, which is the trajectory of Galaxy B. You do the same for Galaxy C, and you find that the continuation of those lines in the past show a concentration. Reversely, going to the future, it shows an expansion. That's the Theory. The key point is that we are not in the situation where we can make such observations. The time between To and T1 is equal to million or even billions of years.

Right. SOL is not only finite. SOL is constant (in void). At the question "can you see an object 1 lightyear away as it was 2 years ago?" the answer is "no". In other words, all observable objects coincide with the yellow line on the graph. Hypothetical objects that are not upon the yellow diagonal are simply not directly observable. Now you can proceed on step 2 and draw on the graph the speeds of observable objects in function of their distance from us.

The fact that all celestial bodies are revolving & spinning suggests that it is not the result of a random event like "a star passing nearby".

Are you sure? How do you justify such a statement?

Hm. I must be wrong then. I forgot that time dilation & length contraction are observations from another FOR, not the FOR of the photon. When you say that "Time dilates asymptotically to infinity, and length contracts asymptotically to zero, as v approaches c", the photon doesn't observe that. We are observing that.

I suppose your comment is correct under the BBT. But the question is not about the angular momentum of the universe as a whole, but the angular momentum of the Earth. I have no knowledge of any other cause for the angular momentum of any celestial body.

Oh yes you know, that is not a very difficult question.

Hi. i experience a strange behaviour with my notifications. When I get 2 or more notifications, and when I go to have a look a one of these, automatically the counter goes back to zero (the little number next to my profile's name up right in the SFN banner). Why that?

But if one want to understand what a photon reference frame would look like, beginning from the spacetime continuum, for the photon it is 0% Time and 100% Space. It is something we think we know about: something like a ruler, indicating distance, with no mention of time. It is a concept we believe we know: it is 3d space only. Can you imagine that?

Blunt it is. But why not really correct? As you said "If there is locally any net angular momentum, this must still be present(...)", and indeed, it is still present today.

As far as I know, from existing theory, the Big Bang is the cause.

Have a better look around you.

i like your posts Butters. For me, it's simple, the Many Worlds Interpretation is wrong. As for the numbers of future, there is only one. But you can chose that one from an infinity. In a large part, you can decide what your future will be. The Sun cannot do that.

Please proceed.

I am also wondering if it is valid. point by point: Yes, I suppose it is correct. Yes, I suppose it is correct too. I am not sure. SOL has a specific value, roughly 300.000 km/sec. The inverse of this value (sec/km) is not zero. if SOL were infinite, the inverse would be zero, but that is not the case.What we know (or what we think we know) is that a photon knows nothing about Time. Time does not exist for a photon. So I tend to conclude that only space exist. And not to conclude that space = 0. I am not sure if we can apply such a word (instantaneously) to something that knows nothing about time. It could be 'infinitely" as well since we don't know whether t=o or t=infinite for a photon. I guess it's all wrong.

I disagree. We should spend more time on understanding Time. It is a missing key. And the real understanding of Time is not metaphysical. It is Physics 100%.

Step by step. G, you must be ready to deal with a basic space-time diagram. If you put yourself at the intersection, all objects you can observe are upon the yellow line. For example (how I like this question), can you see an object 1 lightyear away as it was 2 years ago?

Theoria (Greek θεωρία) is Greek for contemplation.

Go on between3and26characterslon(g). I'll call you "g" in the future, if you don't mind. Happy to see thinking people around here.