michel123456

A quiz is a barrier. Excluding members to participation is a barrier. Putting posts in the right place is filtering. You are doing a wonderful job, don't get me misunderstood. My comment came from some suggestions in this thread.

Sorry. Misunderstanding. It was not meant to insult anybody, certainly not you. I am not challenging anyone, and I don't want to be challenged. My only interest is to better understand. I really don't care if I am wrong 100 times, I just want to understand even if I have to wait for try Nr.101. I don't think it is possible to go in the past make an inspection to control which concept is valid. I simply can not consider that both concepts are valid. Either there are moving dots, either there are lines. Which is right? I believe that your statement "since we are not able to theoretically observe or physically measure any difference" is not accurate. There must be some way.

You cannot answer positively. Neither do I. Anyone else?

What you need is filtering.

You have in your hands the most powerful instrument humanity has ever had for spreading global knowledge, for information transmission, for constructive discussion, and the only thing you are thinking of is how to create artificial barriers in it.

Vety constructive post Spyman. Generally, and after 2 days of thinking, I agree with you. I made some wrong statements. I was over-enthusiast after realizing that there are plenty of events that are not observable. You are right, we are talking about non observable events of observable objects. You wrote that you are in agreement with Iggy, but I see a great difference between your point of vues. Iggy talks about objects as lines in a continuum, you are talking about moving dots. I think the 2 options are not compatible. One must be right, the other must be wrong. The physics cannot be the same for the 2 concepts. _In the Moving Dot concept, mass is compacted in present time. There is no existence outside, neither in the future or in the past. _In the line concept, mass is multiplied by time (what is MT?). _In the Moving Dot concept, if you go back in time at the old Earth's coordinates, you will find nothing, because the Earth will not be there anymore.(wrong?) _In the Line concept, if you go back in time, you will find the Earth existing in the past. So, which is wrong, which is right?

Nonsense doesn't matter. Let it be nonsense. The nonsense method is very usefull in my job. Very often, the right soution comes from a bunch of hard worked nonsenses. But someone should be tented to post under speculations right from start without having the feeling of entering a rebutal zone. I see many posters using the technique of putting a simple question in science, and introducing his own theory after 2 or 3 posts. At the 4th post, the poster is usually ejected. I would prefer being frank, and introduce the idea at once. But not so close the garbage. After all, if science wants to go forward, it presumes some scientist must speculate. ___________________ I won't insist any more. It was very kind of you for asking feedback. Appreciating.

Juicy, you seem interested in a wide range of phenomenas. About the sun, what do you see here?: We know that the sun is a star thousands of times bigger than the Earth. That's the reason why the sun rays that reach the Earth are considered parallels. But if they are parallels, why do we see the sun rays radiating & converging to the sun?

Right. Very clean explanation. The description counts for the observator A who measures himself, his own time & dimension. R-Edward' s time dilation counts for another observer B. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Geometry....

You could also upgrade the Trash Can entity. By this way, you will avoid the proximity of Speculation with garbage. I think this nauseabond neighbouring is the main reason why being throwned in Speculation is badly considered by posters. ---------- Wow Captain. I didn't read your post. I was occupying writing a lot of nonsenses of low interest, then reading it & discarding my own garbage. Wasted time.

As I suggested before, put Speculations under the Science entity. If you whish, you could divise Speculations into different entities, going from "Speculations with recognized scientific background" to "Speculations without any backround" (i.e. gribble-grabble), with intermediate "Speculations based on new physics". Pseudoscience being something totally different.

"Human is the one who believes in God". I found this definition at the first page of my daughter's 1st religion schoolbook. When everything goes well , there is no apparent problem with this. But when things go wrong, this definition becomes one of Humanity's worst nightmare. It becomes "Human is the one who believe in (OUR) God". Other gods do not count anymore. By extension, the one who believe in another God is not human. It is an animal. And you can kill him as you kill a fly. No one is protected against this kind of reasonning. Christians killed thousands of muslims through history, invoquing this excuse. And thousands of muslims are convinced they can kill impunishly all those who do not believe in Islam. Nazi used the same argument presenting Jews as underhumans (untermensch), opening by this way the road to one of the most horrifying massacre ever. Ending with the judgment of the nazi criminals who could not understand what was that all about, because in their sick mind they were simply helping humanity getting rid of some animals. Colonians killed and martyrize thousands of black people because they were not humans. And so on, and so on. When will this end? When we will all accept the evidence: we are all of us, animals. We have a place upon the genealogic tree of life on Earth. We are one with nature. Respect what gives you life, respect everything around you, the trees, the ants, the dogs, the apes and any other living being, water & air.

This is a VERY DANGEROUS argument. Not invented by Pioneer, but when misused it can kill.

Spyman, what is your opinion?

Try with acceleration. The apparent constancy of speed of light introduces an observational delay, and this delay in relation with acceleration will give you H. Without acceleration the universe would appear static, as you said. The change of all physical constants simply means they are all linked together. When one change, the other change too. And the observator inside the system notices nothing. The only way to notice that something is going on may come from the change in the rate of change. Change of a change = change^2= something like acceleration. IMHO.

I don't understand why the speculation entity is placed so far from science, under "other topics". To be honest, IMO speculation should be the most important part of any science forum. Explaining the standard model is good, but should not be the main purpose. The main purpose should be to create a tool for inventive minds. At this moment, inventive minds are systematically rebuted next to the trash can. Why such a phobia?

Spyman. I am not trying to propose my interpretation. I am trying to understand yours. I got that. I hope in respond that you agree that we cannot observe the majority of the EVENTS around us. On the other hand: If an object IS a LINE in the diagram, I understand that the object must be a continuum through time. The object exists in the past as in the present. It is different from a moving dot. I didn't say they are separate objects. I said the life-lines that connect the events depend on some theory. And I said all those events that are not upon our light-cone are not observable by us. It is difficult to avoid putting events in the future. If I didn't, I had obtained a diagram ending at the present line. And I am not comfortable anymore to construct a diagram with an absolute universal present. I would be very interested to see a diagram representing your point of vue.

I was thinking about something else. I'll put a new thread about it. Sometime. BTW you value of H is about half the value mentionned on Wiki. "about 2.5×10−18 s−1 with an uncertainty of ± 15%.[6] NASA summarizes existing data to indicate a constant of 70.8 ± 1.6 (km/s)/Mpc if space is assumed to be flat, or 70.8 ± 4.0 (km/s)/Mpc otherwise.[7]" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

If that is your point of vue, you must be confident with this (the lines being the objects & the events being the dots) Which is not basically different with the next one (the lines are simply missing, you can draw the objects-lines at will following the one or other theory) In both cases, the Spacetimed Universe is full of matter (objects) from which we can see only a tiny part: the dots at the intersection of the light-cone in the first diagram.

Hm. i don't get it. On a space-time diagram, how do you represent an object? (by differenciation with an event)

Please call me Michel. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI guess from your model you may deduce the value of H instead of inserting it.

I embrace those ideas. Go on John, I believe you are on the right path. I am sure you'll find on the way a natural explanation for gravity. The square you inserted in (2) comes from acceleration IMHO. A world living in a scale factor of constant rate is impossible to detect IMO, by exact analogy to the impossibility to detect absolute motion. Only if the rate is not constant you may be able to detect the scale factor. And I think it is exactly what is happening. And that gravity is the consequence of this increasing rate. I suppose from you post that you have noticed that a slight acceleration can give a simple explanation to the apparent expanding universe. Michel.

There is no need to look far. You can find infinity between zero and 1, if you wish.

????

Spyman wrote: You look in agreement with my pencil universe. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47326 It has been pushed away in Speculations. Bizarre, because after all it looks like the standard point of vue.