michel123456

NIKON from right to left.

Not Albert, Anastasia. She is standing as observed by herself. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnastasia stands still on her chair waiting for time to pass. She needs no force to do that. She is sliding gently in Time without noticing anything. Exactly the same way, she could be sliding gently into space, without spending any energy, without noticing anything. Actually, for many another observers in other FOR, she is moving gently through space. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe word "gently" means "uniform linear motion". Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBecause if it was not uniform linear motion, but accelerated motion for example, she would observe something: a force. She would know that she is not standing still. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIn other words, if Albert felt a force upon him when sitting on his chair, he could assume that he is certainly moving. Either in space, either in time, either in both Space & Time. Correct?

Oops, slept away. talking about velocities. I would like to remain on standing still Anna.

Yes. There is a difference between the horizontal & vertical axis. You cannot choose to be "at rest" in Time.

A space elevator maybe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

I am not interested in velocities...yet. If I were I would have drawn the velocity of light as observed by Allan, in obtaining a kind of Minkowski diagram. Let's stay to the "standing still" situation. Observer A looks like he was translated in Time. But that may be a bit confusing. Andrea could be Really standing still, and in this case Time is "passing by". It is just a matter of Frame of Reference, not in Space, but in Time. The only thing we can be sure of is the following: either observer A "moves" through Time, either Time "passes through" him, no matter, there is no energy need. Exactly the same way no force is needed for motion, no force is needed for "displacement in time" (here we have a lack of vocabulary).

_Translation is tricky in physics. I am a victim most of the time."Moment" in French has another meaning from that of Momentum, mainly it is used for "moment of inertia". Momentum must be translated perigraphically as "quantity of movement" or "quantity of motion". Here the link in French Wiki (sorry, but you will recognize the equations, maths are an international language http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantit%C3%A9_de_mouvement). Out of physics, "moment" in french means ...moment. (just a moment, please) _thank you for your comments, and your patience. _I will use * from now on. For the story, some 42 LY away, a teacher told the young boy of the picture that multiplication was written like this :2x3=6 After a while, another professor told him multiplication had to be written like this: 2.3=6 The years passed and the young adult was told that the right way to write multiplication was like this: 2 3=6 Then came the electronics, and the old boy has to write multiplication like this: 2*3=6 O.K. change of the times.....I feel like a stupid dinosaur.

I post it as a basic from the basics, as I see it. This a representation of a point standing still: Of course "standing still" is something physically frame dependent, it means for an observator named A (Albert, Alfred, Antony, Anastasia, Anyone), no displacement: Alfred sits on his chair doing nothing. We can represent the situation like this (you must have noticed I like diagrams): Antony (or was that Andrea?) is standing still. Better say A observes himself standing still. But there is something wrong here. No displacement in space is only one side of the "standing still" phenomena. Time is elapsing, no matter Anastasia is moving or not. So we have to represent the "standing still" diagramma as follows: Is this correct?

Very touching, Toasty. Hit by the Christmas spirit.

Nuclear reactor need a huge amount of water for cooling purpose, otherwise they simply melt. That's the reason why all nuclear plants are positionned near rivers or upon ships/ submarines.

Please forgive for the bad word to word back-to-original translation from the Greek edition of Brian Greene’s “Elegant Universe”. From Chapter 13, p453. “With this, Wheeler meant that if we exclude a few specific identities, all the black holes look like the same. But what are those specific identities we are talking about? The one of course is mass. And the others? As it has been shown through several researches, they are the electrical and some other charges that are characteristics of black holes, and the rhythm at which they are executing revolutions, their spin. Nothing more. Two black holes with the same mass, the same charge and same spin are exactly the same. (…) That rings us the bell hardly. Remember that those exact characteristics- mass, charge and spin – are those who differentiate an elementary particle from another. The similarity with the characteristic identities has driven from time to time several physicists into the strange speculation that black holes may at last be gigantic elementary particles.” I put it because it seems to me that the idea of a Universe been swallowed by one of its element is a matter of small/big issue.

O.K. I got your point. Let me make the analysis from another point of vue, after taking account of all what has been said above. I have to analyse the kilogram-meter. It is the unit of torque, or thrust.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram-force'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram-force) kilogram is unit of mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram meter is unit os space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre meter can be analyzed in terms of speed & time. "fixing the length of the metre in terms of time and the speed of light:" from wiki So anyone can make a representation of thrust (or torque) by meanings of mass, speed and time. Then anyone makes this representation and gets a cube of sides mass, speed & time. One of its side has units of meters, it is called distance.(circular reasonning, we all agree, since distance was there at the first beginning) The second side has units of kg.m/s, it is called "momentum" in the english language, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum) in French for example it has no specific name, being called "Quantity of Movement". The third side has units of kg.s and has no name in any language, it has absolutely no utility because it comes from circular reasonning (see above)and there is no mystery about it because it is a construction made from well known basic units, the kilogram and the second. Can we agree on this?

Go on, Pywakit. But be careful. You won't get any help from anyone the way you are writing down your ideas. You are too enthusiast, as I am myself too many times. Try to cool down, this is my advice. Try a different way. I don't know which way, because I am searching too. But it is certainly not the good one the way you have chosen. You have a good model, and you know it. You need math. Nothing else. So you are searching for a physicist that do not believe in God or any Creation (namely the BB Theory), that has the knowledge and the certificats (PhD at least), the will & time to spend for free, willing to take the risk of being called a *...* for the rest of his career. You won't find him here (nowhere I am afraid). But, back to the point: there is a "philosophical" point of vue I don't like in your model: it is that the epoch we are living now is still (as in the BB model) a specific time, in between some gigantic explosion and some gigantic shrink (in your model). In my opinion (far from pure science), it must be wrong. It looks evident to me that the same way we are "lost in space", we must be "lost in time" too. In other words, the epoch we are living at present time must be as ANY epoch at any time. But that is my quest, not yours. Friendly. Michel Merry Christmas to all.

Again. Does the entire cube have a meaning?

I am not sure of anything. But now I know that MT is a "supposed unknown something" made of well-known instances. That is all I wanted to know. Ah, maybe you should take the time and read my link on previous post ,till the end. http://www.gyroscopes.org/papers/The%20multiplication%20of%20bananas%20by%20umbrellas.pdf Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, there is a desired outcome. This is not something one can hide.

Interferometry is treating waves , I supposed. I don't want to be pushing, but I have the feeling the 2 slits experiment is well-known because there is no other like it.

[http://biomimetic.pbworks.com/f/THE+...39;SDENNY.pdf]. Oops! This link appears to be broken. found it: http://biomimetic.pbworks.com/f/THE+PHYSICAL+PROPERTIES+OF+SPIDER'SDENNY.pdf Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedUse fig 13 b & c from page 502, increasing the weight and measuring deformation. For more accuracy & efficiency, you can use more than one silk, and divide the results afterwards.

O.K. I got my answers.

Interference is one thing. A single photon (or a single molecule) passing through 2 slits at the same time is another.

Sorry for the hurry. Blame the time zones. Thank you for the answer. In which way do these interferometers support QM?

Hum. So the question of MT can be resolved by examining the cube. A.If the cube is meaningful, MT means something. B.If the cube is meaningless, MT is meaningless (actually i don't know if the reasonning works in this case, but anyway.) I choose A.

Like a bullet.

Very interesting hypothesis. It is a mess between infinitely small and infinitely big. A singularity eating the entire Universe, then blowing it up. It is really a mess. Small & big usually do not come together. Expansion & contraction are messed up also. But I remember a comment from Greene's Elegant Universe driving into the same direction. I'll have to look back, cannot recall exactly for the words at this moment. ......... It had to do with the definition of a singularity.

Well understood, but is there no other kind of experiment, other configuration? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No answer. Does that mean the entire QM is hanging from this single kind of experiment?

Why?