michel123456

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wub What is the best definition (in this case)? Number 1 to 17, tell me.

All those kind of questions are answered by the inflation theory. Inflation theory explains how galaxies were placed "magically" so far away from each other in so little time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) Also you could ask yourself how is that possible that an entire galaxy could form in only 3 or 4 billions years. Mainstream scientists are struggling with this question, because we are observing what we believe be old galaxies in a very young position in the universe. Some of the many articles on the subject http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19826 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080401160020.htm Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Go to http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35925, begin reading post #10 (the last one), at least. I had once some argument with Martin...

I posed Let's suppose the rocket is rotating. How could it manage to get an acceleration corresponding to a force from the outside to the inside (centripetal)? Take in mind that the answer must correspond to the Earth's hypothetical movement, but also to any material body, since all material bodies are the source of some gravitational field.

We are in deep space. And we are accelerating at 1g= 9.81 m/s2. The problem is not that we are accelerating. The problem is the direction of the acceleration. Lets take the example of the container moving linearly. If we were born upon such a spaceship* feeling a force that pushes our bodies against the back of our seat, we could deduce from the laws of physics that the entire spaceship is displacing under acceleration. Everybody on the spaceship would measure the same acceleration, and the vector would point into the opposite direction of the displacement. In our common understanding, all directions, as measured by all the occupants astronauts, will be parallel. In our case, as occupants of the spaceship Earth, we are measuring such an acceleration. So we can conclude very positively that we are moving under acceleration. The weird thing is that the directions of all vectors as measured by all the occupants are not parallel. The directions are radial from the outside to the inside. *the Earth is a spaceship.

What is wub?

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Development_of_gravitation_theory The equivalence principle proper was introduced by Albert Einstein in 1907, when he observed that the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth at a rate of 1g (g = 9.81 m/s2 being a standard reference of gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface) is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving body that would be observed on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g. Einstein stated it thus: "we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system." (Einstein 1907). That is, being at rest on the surface of the Earth is equivalent to being inside a spaceship (far from any sources of gravity) that is being accelerated by its engines. My comment below. There is a difference: _when a spaceship is accelerated, it is accelerated in the direction of its path. When you are in upon the Earth, what is the direction of acceleration? .... In the rocket case, or in the case of any accelerated body, there is a well determined direction. From left to right, upward, downward, etc. Anyway, along the object's trajectory. In the Earth case, the direction of the acceleration (namely Gravity) is not along any Earth's path. The direction is not from left to right, nor upwards or downwards, the direction is from the outside to the inside. That is a clear difference. Now. We know that gravity exerts a (pseudo) force oriented from the outside to the inside. And we know that this force is exactly the same as a force exerted upon a massive body under acceleration. So, if I take a massive body, and I blow it in an accelerated way, I will recreate a kind of gravity. But, if I take a massive body, and do absolutely nothing, I will observe a kind of gravity, already there. Not "a kind of gravity", but "Gravity". As if the massive object was already blowned in an accelerated way, and me stupid not noticing anything.

Here is a hard comment on him: David Mabus --INSANITY --Deeply deranged, disturbed individual who believes James Randi has cheated him out of a million dollars, and who vents by spamming websites and email with his angry tirades. Certifiable. Needs immediate mental health care. His real name is Dennis Markuze, and he lives in Montreal, Canada. From an impressive list at PZ Myers http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php No bots, there are all humans. (thanks Ewmon for the info.)

It looks so awkward, real counter-commercial. All links are demonstrations of the contrary of the supposed beliefs. Totally satirical, and instructive I have to say. Looks like the work of an intelligent person. I wonder maybe it has something to do with The Onion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion)

Observing & testing are the same?

Gravity don't act as ropes. Think of the rope as a rubber band. When you tight 2 objects, and then try to separate them, the more you pull, the more the distance increases, the more the strength of the rubber will increase. At some point, the rubber band will crack. With gravity, the more you pull, the more the distance increases, and the strength of gravity will decrease.. Gravity never cracks. Also, Electromagnetic (EM) interaction is based upon the opposite charge principle: a positive charge attracts a negative one, and identical charges repel. With gravity, there is no indication of the same principle: every particle attracts the other, as if they were all of opposite charge (which makes no sense). If gravitons were to exist, they should be particles sent from a body in order to attract. In usual life, when you send something to another body,sending a bullet to your neighbour, you give impulse to the bullet, and your neighbour will be propulsed away from you. Not attracted.

It appears from time to time. A poster named Atheistwar + something you will find in Speculations. This individual posts his ideas, and never involves into any discussion. He gets responses from other forum members, and of course all of them are surprised from the low level of his argumentation. The fact is that all people involved in these threads disagree with him. They shouldn't. Because I got the feeling this person is making a catalog of atheists.

Surviving is self sufficient. There is no need for any deeper reason. Even plants & viruses struggle to survive. If you want to go deeper than that, you are going into the meaning of Life itself, considered as a whole and not as a sum of individuals. Very interesting question, but nothing to do with happiness.

I was wondering: Even if quantum teleportation is possible, lets say you want to teleport an object from the Earth to some other planet. I guess you'll need not only to teleport the object, but also to input some speed to the object, and correct direction, otherwise the teleported object will simply crash upon the other planet. And I suppose it is true even for teleportation between 2 points on Earth.

And this is from another forum; Answer

Yes.

For info i recall an old application: Making a map from an aerial photograph. A plane (today a satellite) takes a serie of photographs when flying. The overlapping of 2 photographs are used as 2 views of the same thing from 2 different places (because the plane was moving) exactly as it were 2 eyes seeing by binocular view. Afterwards, a technician takes the 2 overlapping pictures and look at it through a binocular device, reproducing the stereoscopic effect. By sliding slightly the 2 pictures horizontally, the image gets clear at some point, and blur at the other. By this way the experimented technician is able to determine the relative elevation of the observed object. The 'funny' thing is that any error in elevation in transformed into horizontal error. When a house is very close to a road of well known elevation, the technician usually assumes that the house ground floor is at road level, and puts the house on the map following this assumption. When the house is not at the right level, the position of the house on the map can be wrong for several meters, independently of the accuracy of the photograph. I hope better methods are used today for mapping.

Was that the question? Happiness? Severian is talking about the "golden age". All current civilizations that come from a far agricultural past, remind the oldest golden age before agriculture, when Humankind was happy. I disagree. Happy hunters had a life expectation of 30 years maybe. They had no cars, no televisions, no cell phones, and no shoes, no home, no toilet, no gastronomy, no bread, no salt, no pepper, no medecines, et caetera et caetera. Those happy people were killed, or enslaved, by other people less ignorant. Even after thousands years of sedentarism, you could die from a simple toothache, because of ignorance. In the more close to us Middle Ages, ignorant men and women died in the most horrible suffer when put on fire by ignorant people. There are innumerable examples. Ignorance kills. Remaining ignorant is like wanting to be killed. It is not a question of happiness, or ethics, it is a question of survival.

The brain is doing the job. The left brain is connected to the right eye, and the right brain connected the left eye. The image you see is not in your eye, but in your brain. And the brain can be tricked, look at SIRDS on the web, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram

Hi Ernie Speed is distance divided by time. (note that it is NOT Space divided by time, but distance divided by time). It is not "a fraction of time", it is a fraction of space. If you are searching for dividing time by anything, you can only but divide time by distance. Then you get sec/meters, or 1/v. That could be the "speed of time": exactly the opposite of what we call "speed". In this case, it would be better to put another name on it, because "speed" means something, and "inverse speed" means something else.

That was tricky, indeed. I completely forgot the negativeness of gravitational potential. It is counter-intuitive. Pity. I liked gib's idea. It should be improved. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFrom another old thread in a Forum forgotten by all gods: Originally Posted by Michel after being quoted , B. answers: Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOr "A gravitational field is the spatial consequence of the intrinsic motion of objects through time". because I consider the word "intrinsic" as abusive and because the word "object" is redundant we could say "A gravitational field is the spatial consequence of motion through time".

It is thought provocative.

And the higher gravitational potential, the more quick clocks run. That is not counter-intuitive, that is the same thing that gib65 proposed. A low gravitational potential is a photon: no time passes for a photon. A high gravitational potential is matter: time passes for matter. It reminds me an old idea that proposed that gravity & time are the one and same thing.

I'll made another try. Analogy: when you look at an object, the further the object is, the smallest it appears. Your friend Basil is next to you. You see him perfectly. When Basil goes 10 meters away, he looks smaller. At a distance of 10 km, Basil gets so small that he almost disappears. And it is reversible. Because Basil observes perfectly Antony (that's you), when they are close together. At a distance of 10m, it is Antony who is shrinking, as seen from Basil's point of vue. And at 10 km. Basil observes Antony almost disappearing. 1._Does that mean that "shrinking" is an observable phenomenon identical for all observators? (that's the Relative concept). The answer is Yes. 2._Does that mean that Basil (or Antony) are actually shrinking? (that's the Absolute concept). The answer is No.

I failed again. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Mathematicians (actually accountants I think) have invented negative numbers. Physicists are expecting that negativeness represents something. Be it negative mass, negative energy, negative anything. They are expecting that there are no "non-real solution", in the sense that all solutions must have a physical explanation, even if this explanation is out of reach of our real sensible world.

Interesting. The whole thing drives me to an old question in another thread, a question that some of the participants failed to understand due to my incapacity of explaining it properly. Is all this absolute, or relative? In other words, is Mass, Energy, and all that observable stuff that make our world, including SOL, is all this an absolute thing (1), or an observational thing relative to the observer ? (2) Or When we say that SOL is a constant, does that mean that SOL is an absolute, or that SOL is always constant relative to the observer? (that was the question I failed to explain)