michel123456

I suppose in such a configuration acceleration caused by rotation changes when people goes left & right instead of jogging al around, because the distance to the center of rotation changes when you go walk up & down the surface of the cone. To avoid this effect to be perceptible, you'll need a very large diameter and a narrow surface.

That does not help much. Philosophers come with those ideas because there is no other answer available. Even Einstein came to the thought that time may not exist. But then, what is that "t" factor involved in almost all equations of physics? Just a measurement? Let's say yes. In this case, the other elements involved in the equations, what are they? measurements too? Mass, distance, charge, etc. Yes of course they are measurements. But not simply measurement: they are a way to understand and explain some part of what we call Reality. And Time is a part of Reality. The only problem is that its measurement does not give any clue about his nature. To say "it's only a measurement" does not answer any question. --------------- Hum, that was a little bit negative. Trying to be more constructive: you could ask: why is that measurement always positive? or if time is a medium, how come that we cannot go in every directions in this medium? PS I don't believe that time is something that pushes. I think we have a bunch of totally wrong conceptions about time.

I suppose he is thinking about a cone due to vector composition. Actual gravity from Mars is acting verticaly, the wheel is acting horizontaly, the result is at oblique angle. Making the floor perpendicular to the resultant vector results in a conic surface: a floor that is not plane, but curved.

Sisyphus, you're a genius! You just explained how to transform space in time, and reversely. As for the rest, I should be extremely cautious about the word "dimension", because it is not a very easy concept by itself, not easier that the concept of space or time. It is useless to try to explain something with concepts that rely upon the same bases. It is a bit circular reasoning. Spyman is right, we are "moving" through time. IMHO of course.

Good idea. But who will agree on the project of transforming the human body? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Good observation. That makes me wonder about LHC.

You are progressing too many steps.

Interesting. What are your sources?

_From your entire post, I think you have a problem with the "moving through it" interpretation because it requires to move at some "speed in time", which is a peculiar instance. But since everything is peculiar with the notion of time, that should not be an obstacle. After all, even if that suppose the existence of a 5th dimension, which IMHO is completely wrong, you could jump out of joy shouting "I just found a 5th dimension". That shouldn't stop you.* _on the other hand , if you gently bypass this crucial question, I don't see anything "contrary to reality" in this diagram. Except the grey zone, which is a reminiscence of personal feelings and previous static representations. *besides, I can figure an explanation, and you surely can figure an explanation too, if you simply try to answer the question instead of refusing it right from the start.

Ok I got it now (better late than never). In order to get conversation back on track, or how to make artificial gravitation on Mars, I can only remark that our techniques are archaics. The only way we have to imitate gravitation is through acceleration. We have no electronic "gravitor" that can produce a gravitational field, or an anti-gravitational field.

I am glad to hear that. I have no idea too. A quick googling suggests parapsychlogist stuff.

Pure orgasm. I was right...in waiting patiently your answer.

So it must be. I re-read your post. You english is too elaborated for me.

I guess scientific return is only one of the elements. Sending man in space was intented to have military return, economic and politic. The economic one has been canceled when the Moon happened to be made of material similar with the Earth. The military happened to become restricted to a zone near the Earth, no star wars for the moment. The politic somehow vanished with the 2 precedents. The scientific alone is not enough to procede. Columbus didn't discover America in a scientific purpose.

Sort of. For those interested I found this http://www.anstendig.org/Acoustics.html. Acoustic is a very specific work in the attributes of specialized consultants. As an architect I know only the basic principles, as those for acoustic insulation, which are paradoxally not the same as those applied in a concert hall, although based on the same physical characteristics of sound.

I like this one Hi Vladimir And this one Hi Trip (the name has absolutely no importance) And for those who don't like to show their face, I liked this refreshing one Hi Severian.

Conversation goes in circle. The "tilt" is an angle, representing speed (or velocity). Angle 45 degrees is C (by convention). Angle zero is infinite speed (trigonometrically speaking), and angle 90 degrees is zero speed (object at rest). We are not disagreeing about this. Where you see a line, you see an object, and I see a trajectory, that is the difference. I believe the word "event" comes from the static representation of the diagram as printed in a book, in order to differenciate the instant from the duration. I don't say diagrams in books are wrong, I simply say they are static representations of a dynamic phenomena. When you represent the same thing with a dynamic graph, duration is evident and the word "event" loses its meaning, because you see in front of your eyes the sliding object.

Time is such a weird thing that I prefer not follow the road of what we usualy believe is true about time and simply look at the diagrams. I observed carefully Iggy's last diagram, and I have no problem with it. Nor do I have any problem with Spyman's. All diagram are showing a single Earth traveling in time, & a single Moon.. I still disagree with Iggy's comments "(...) that the dots (the moving things) are events". I open my eyes, look at the diagram, and see an object sliding. How is it possible that Iggy and I look at the same thing and see different things? When the Earth leaves a point of coordinates in spacetime, it leaves the point: it is exactly the same as motion in space, and I really don't know why it is a problem to anyone. Time is not so different from space, we know that from the basic concepts of Relativity. And the diagram is 100% relativist. Also, I do not see any monstruous error, no object flowing backwards in time, no object moving faster than C, nothing incorrect. Although it leaves an unusual & maybe unpleasant notion of "yesterday". Please notice that signals always travel upon the horizontal line between Earth & Moon. Due to the translation in Time, they appear coming from the past. That leaves plenty of space (sorry, plenty of time) for other Earths & Moons before & after us.

Actually, they don't want to reflect sound at all, they want to absorb it in order to avoid perturbations of the original sound coming from the source. They use hollowed panels so that sound penetrates the holes and reflect inside a small cavity inside without coming out. The panels are placed in asymetric positions in order to disperse the remaining reflected sound waves. It seems there is more interest about speed of light than about speed of sound, but SOS is interesting too. Sound waves travel much better in solid objects rather than fluids. This particularity has been used in a wide range of interests, such as the invention of stethoscope and seismology. Thats why you must collate your ear to a door if you want to hear a conversation on the other side, or collate it to the ground to hear the coming buffalos (if you are an american native). And a lot of other interesting phenomenas.

You surely know Flatland. If you look at this representation through the thin edge of the screen, you will see an object moving in real-time. What's the problem? IMO there is nothing wrong in it. If you freeze it, it is a regular spacetime diagram.

Spyman's gifs are perfectly correct.IMHO. There is no twice time. It is time unfolded. Instead of having all time frames superposed, the one vanishing after the other, they are placed the one above the other so that we can figure exactly what happens. It has been a long thread, I understand Sisyphus don't want to go & read everything from the beginning. I can assure him that Spyman has fully understood the question. I guess Iggy too. (Iggy still disagrees, but not about the question, he disagrees about the answer: at the question, is the grey zone full or empty, Iggy says full, Spyman says empty, and I say, lets fill it) (edited) What is wrong with Spyman's diagrams?

Upon the Earth, about 40.000 km a day, or something more than 1600km/h, twice the speed of a Jumbo jet.

Thank You. The diagrams look O.K. to me. As you can see, both gifs are terrebly empty. Lets have a look at your second diagram. What happens if you insert inside the grey zone a 2nd "Earth", traveling behind us. As I can see it, its image will miss the Moon.

Fair. --------------- O.K. some people here do feel necessary to use an avatar that is not themselves, but something else. I understand those people do have something to hide, and I can only respect that. O.K. some people believe that's a good way to improve rational judgment about discussions & ideas. But I still believe that the majority of users do use an avatar only because they are used to do so playing some games on their Nitendo. There is nothing serious in it, its just fun. And when you ask them to reveal their face, its not fun anymore, its annoying. Too serious, not cool. Who is that guy who wants to go to carnaval without a mask?

I already exposed my prejudice based (wrongly) on your avatar. i scrolled around another thread here http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9208 Quite educating. the most interesting being post #14 from YT2095 (Chemistry Expert) February 22nd, 2005, 3:16 PM #14 And shows no avatar at all.... ---------- editing. Prejudice or prejudgment?