michel123456

in modern Greek it is ρινόκεροι with the ending οι as english ee. Reenokeree, with accent on the o. ReenO-keree.

I am afraid this is too profound for this forum.

Interestingly it indicated South. See also this device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South-pointing_chariot

The ITER is an experimental project, it is not designed to produce electricity for use. It is almost ready. China is also involved in this project together with the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan, India, South Korea & others. The goal is to provide the know-how for everybody on planet Earth. It is the largest peaceful collaboration between nations after the International Space Station. As far as I know the chinese project will retrieve all information from ITER in order to build a real productive unit. Other such projects exist in other nations at other scales. Begin with the ITER wikipedia. The ITER site is a bit complicated to dig but there is plenty information. Yes I agree. There should be more of these. I find it especially encouraging & progressive. Sor far I know the ISS, CERN, & ITER. And of course Olympic games & football (soccer) that cost much more.

Have a look at the ITER site. https://www.iter.org/

Today I learned aubout the ITER project. Hopefully tomorrow's energy. see https://www.iter.org/

Are you suggesting that Time is tridimensional? (3D)

Today I learned what is the MWP-1a. An abrupt increase of sea level ( between 16 meters (52 ft) and 25 meters (82 ft) in about 400–500 years) that happened between 13,500 and 14,700 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

But they have eyes. In an environment without light.

To be the best possible at sex there is a detail missing from your picture.

That looks like Google translate.

Right.

From the title I expected you to talk about hurricanes naming, not about Newton's laws.

That is probably the main difference between your approach and mine. What I read is that EVIDENCE, aka what we are observing, what we are measuring, what is in the catalog, is LESS galaxies. What I read is that because this evidence does not fit with the THEORY, then we proceed in explanations (the galaxies are fainter) Summing the 2 above, what I read is that EVIDENCE does not fit with THEORY. What you read is that THEORY is stronger than EVIDENCE.

The objects that we are looking in the past are far away from us. In all directions. The further away, the more in the past. The more in the past, the more far away. In all directions. We are never observing a situation where the objects come closer together as we look in the past. Your reference? I have other source that say this: "But the question specifically related to what we observe in galaxy catalogs. Can you tell that the density of the universe was greater in the past than it is now by looking at the distribution of objects on the sky? No.(...)"

Let me try to explain why I do not get the BBT. As stated in your links: "At 13.8 billion years ago, our entire observable universe was the size of a peach and had a temperature of over a trillion degrees." "Because light takes time to travel from one place to another, we don't see stars and galaxies as they are now, but as they were thousands, millions or billions of years ago. That means that looking deeper into the universe is also looking deeper into the past." My point is when we look into our telescope Eastward, looking very far away in the beginning of time, we are observing galaxies (E). At the same time, if we look Westward, looking into the depth of the universe, we see again galaxies (W). And we see that E galaxies are further remote from W galaxies as much we look back in time. The farther we look in the Universe, the more large it is: our observable universe is a sphere around us, getting bigger & bigger as we look in the past. And then we have this BB Theory that explains us exactly the contrary. When did it happen that W & E galaxies came close to each other in order to merge and get the size of a peach ? Against all observations. I hope I was clear.

No.* *this answer is referenced by the same material as yours. That is a good reference.

I have another answer. However not in the frame of accepted physics. My point of view is fully, fundamentally relativistic. It consists of meaning that if we are observing a phenomena like the BB about 14 BY ago, and if the Theory that gives us this result is Relativistic (with a big R), then any observer, anywhere in the Universe (and at any time), will observe the same thing as we do: a BB 14 BY ago. It means that the BB is not an absolute event, but a relative one. Which means that the BB is not the begin of the universe, nor the begin of Space & Time. It is the horizon that forbids us to see farther in the past.

Evidence shows that Neanderthal had a larger brain than we do. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size I like to do the next step and speculate that Neanderthals were more intelligent that we are. They lived intelligently in perfect harmony with their environment, they didn't practice war, they had no need to develop technology in order to live and be happy. They gathered their food and discuss philosophy & mathematics without the need to write it down, so intelligent they were. Eventually, some degenerated naked & stupid underneanderthals appeared and , wrong move, intelligent Neanderthal learned them how to make fire to survive. Neanderthal also learned them how to make clothes instead of killing Neanderthals to get their fur. Eventually they learned them how to cultivate the earth and get food without wandering the whole planet killing Neanderthals everywhere. Something like that.

The Universe spreads over Space AND over Time. It was, it is, it will be. When you ask the question about what IS the universe, you will only get as an answer a slice of what the universe (will) look(ed). And when you look at the sky, some stuff you see is in the past, the distance determining how long in the past. Some closer stuff is roughly in the present. None is in the future.

Actually it is called a "paradox" because it appears at first sight mutual. The paradox appears when both observers are mutually older than the other one. Once it has been explained by Janus that it is not mutual, the paradoxal effect disappear and becomes "normal". The "normal" thing is that one observer is older than the other one.

I agree with Swansont. Describe what you expect to happen in your FTL story. To me there are 4 possibilities 1. Create your scenario, don't bother with physics. 2. Change the value of C. Make it a variable (there are such theories), then switch the variables, so is to say that C for me is different than C for your hero. 3.Describe new physics, where FTL is allowed, but I am afraid you will have to dig quite a bit before ending with something consistent. 4. [insert your idea here]