michel123456

If the entire cube is meaningfull, and if 2 sides of the cube have a meaning (namely Distance & Momentum) then the third side must mean something too. IMO.

"I think that would be gravity" ...Thanks. The multiplication of bananas & umbrellas http://www.gyroscopes.org/papers/The%20multiplication%20of%20bananas%20by%20umbrellas.pdf

So you are supposing that black holes grow faster than the expansion of space.

BTW I was wrong when saying that Snell's law applies (only) in case of specular reflection. Snell's law applies always, but it gets more complicated. Is this the only one experiment showing the complementarity wave-particle?

Snell's law applies in case of specular reflection. If the surface of the screen is not perfect (and if the angle of incidence is not perfectly orthogonal), my sketch applies. Too bad.

I don't know. I have never been involded in such a question, but if you want my opinon (who am I?), the link gently given by vordhosbn is not sufficient to me. I would like a complete technical description of the experiment, including the distance between the light source and the pinholes, the distance between the pinholes to the screen, width of the obstacle containing the pinholes and its material (the reflection coefficient on both sides, a.s.o.),the accuracy of the pinholes, the material of the screen,..., everything. Also the conditions of the experiments, I suppose it was conducted under void conditions and near zero temperature of course). At first sight, I wonder how they manage to avoid interference due to reflection. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSomething like this:

Yes. Lack of reliable source.

Velocity is moving through time. Agree. But standing still is moving through time too. I personnaly call that "toving"*, to differentiate from "moving". *my own little vocabulary, not registered.

So they should conclude that the photon do not pass through both slits at the same time. And consequently, do not interfere with itself. Something different is occuring.

Yes, lack of reliable source. I have been influenced without checking, really sorry. I just found the following on another forum, no source cited: "As an example, some tidal lock times : Moon tidally locked to Earth...............< 7 million years Callisto tidally locked to Jupiter...........66,000 years Iapetus tidally locked to Saturn............556 million years Oberon tidally locked to Uranus............400,000 years Dysnomia tidally locked to Eris.............66 million years" And from http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:http://zebu.uoregon.edu/ph121/l10.html "The age dating of the lunar rocks have allowed us to identify four distinct periods in its geological history: The moon solidified and cooled 4.4 billion years ago Between 4.4 and 4.2 billion years and intense period of bombardment occured from the material that was left over from the acretion process. Most of this material was chunks of rock less than 10 km in size. By now the moon is tidally locked to the earth. At 3.9 billion years there was another period of bombardment which involved a few large (> 100 km) pieces of debris. The earth acted as a gravitational focussing mechanism which caused most of these impacts to occur on the side of the moon always facing the earth (there are no lunar maria on the far side of the moon). These large impacts produced the lunar maria. This was a severe shock to the crust of the moon and over time, molten basalt would flow out of the deep fissures and cracks in the crust that were caused by the initial impact. This took 200 million years to occur and is the last geological process which occurred on the moon." I suppose data & calculations can be found into P.Goldreich's "History of the lunar orbit." not available to me. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=990408&id=5&as=true∨=false&qs=Ns%3DHarvestDate%257c1%26N%3D4294944087 Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFound this: "The moon has oriented itself so that its heavy side with much more extensive maria, which we know as the near side, is oriented towards the Earth. This is misleading. The moon would have tidally locked to the Earth fairly quickly (probably less than a thousand years). However, the maria would likely have formed over a longer period. In other words, by the time the maria formed, the moon would already have been tidally locked. To imply that the maria formed before the moon tidally locked is misleading at best and factually inaccurate at worst." from Timescale for tidal locking in http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Tidal_locking

From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#cite_note-6 "It is a widespread misunderstanding that, when two slits are open but a detector is added to the experiment to determine which slit a photon has passed through, then the interference pattern no longer forms and the experimental apparatus yields two simple patterns, one from each slit, superposed without interference." & "However, an experiment performed in 1987[7] produced results that demonstrated that which-path information could be obtained without destroying the possibility of interference." from the same article, ^ P. Mittelstaedt, A. Prieur and R. Schieder, Unsharp particle-wave duality in a photon split-beam experiment, Foundations of Physics 17, 891-903 (1987). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedQuestion: when they shoot the first single photon through the dubble slit, do they obtain one or 2 spots?

http://www.youtube.com/scienceforums#p/c/328F3DF13C3BDF90/11/DfPeprQ7oGc ( I could not reach your link, there was a : missing) let me dare to say something: i think scientists do not understand anything of what is going on, meaning that there is no satisfactory explanation that completes with intuition and everyday experience. But they can actually calculate anything of it, and very accurately. You won't find any "explanation" of Quantum Mechanics anywhere. Either you accept it and work with it, an it's all fine, either you refuse it and dive into a well of darkness. Unless........speculations.

Actually, I was not confident at all that I "invented" anything. I was almost sure that MT existed and that Mr Skeptic's response would be a fulgurant offense to my ignorance. Usually I have an inclination in discovering centuries old "inventions". So I was really surprised that no one knew anything about it. Because it has been suggested that MT makes no sense, I have to say this: The first idea came from the problematic of increasing relativistic mass at near to SOL speed. So I played for a while with 2D diagrams with Speed on the abscissa & Mass on the ordinate, making curves of increasing mass. The yellow plane of the cube. At some other time of my chaotic investigations, I had a thought about the unit of distance (1 meter), which is not defined by itself, but defined through C, which is a Speed. So I went on making 2D diagrams with Speed on one axis, and Time on the other, obtaining a strange surface which represents...Distance. The grey surface of the cube. Really peculiar, how is it possible to represent a 1D instance through a 2D surface? Is it a simple geometrical trick, or something else? And one day it came to my mind to put both diagrams together, making a 3D cube. I was really happy when I saw Momentum appear. In fact I had to see Momentum appearing from my first diagrams, but I didn't remark anything of it because I was thinking something completely different. The entire cube has familiar units (MTV no kidding, or MD= kg m) although I have not figured what it really means. The strange part was MT. I went googling, and found nothing. At this point, I made a thought that MT should be something similar to Momentum. Momentum can be defined as "the power residing in an object moving through space" MT could be defined as "the power residing in an object moving through time". And indeed, all massive objects "move" through Time. So I made the thought that MT could mean something. Is this speculation?

The context is the following. All masses are "traveling" through time (or time "flows" upon masses). The rest of the context is deap in Michel's brain.

So it does not mean anything to you.

That is not exactly what I expected as an answer to my question, but I learned something today. Thank you.

The Moon seems to have been tidaly locked extremely quickly. Why is not the Earth tidaly locked to the Moon? " It was challenged by the physicist Harold Jeffreys who calculated that the magnitude of tidal friction required would have quickly brought the Earth's rotation to a halt long ago." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#External_forces

Here is a little representation including basic instances : Mass, Velocity and Time. Mass is the vertical axis. Time is horizontal (front) Velocity is horizontal (back) Distance is the product of Time with Velocity, i.e. the grey surface. The yellow surface is Momentum. The entire cube has units of mass times distance (kg m), something like torque (or work). What is the last surface standing for (the one with the red diagonals)? its value is Mass times Time. What is MT? ??Something like a "momentum in time"??(the power residing in an object moving through time?)

I am far from an expert in this field, but it seems to me a circular definition: [math] \epsilon_0 = \frac{1}{{\mu_0}{c_0^2}} [/math] where [math] c_0 [/math] is speed of light in vacuum, as measured by experiment.

Why? I thought that laws of physics were independent of any specific value given for C.

Right. (I mean I was wrong.) It would be impossible to see anything from the past. And what about Theory? E=mc^2 ?

And we would see the galaxies as they are today. Would we see the Big bang? since there would be no delay due to distance?

http://ask-leo.com/ Very helpful & reliable.

The cornerstone of Relativity is that Speed Of Light is finite. What would be the description of a universe in which S.O.L. is infinite? In which way would be our observations transformed ?