michel123456

So you say that the triangle 2 cannot produce another triangle of sides a^2 b^2 c^2 and area 140 cm^2? Your sketch is different than mine. That is the root of the problem.

If the above configurations are correct, it looks to me that the triangle can be either type 1, 2, 3. I don't know how you can rule out triangle 2. So IMO the answer is 5.

Fixed. Thank you.

I couldn't post images the other day.

Thank you. I missed a sketch.. And now that I put it on paper I realize your post #3 is correct. +1

If I follow your setup D is in the middle of AB, then the distance DE is

Unable to upload an image file using the More Reply Options---choose files---attach file

RIP Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou, 2nd generation of a Cypriot Greek migrant in U.K.

You are full of compliments, thank you. Wish you a Merry Christmas! And I like to see a spiral-universe in your hat, in your avatar.

Yes. That sounds corresponding to reality. The expansion concept looks nice at the beginning. Indeed, if every mass expands from its center of mass (for example) then all masses will bump together. IOW mass will agglomerate. It is good because it explains why mass appear to attract other mass. The bad thing is that this attraction is a function of the geometry only (distance) and not a function of mass & distance. I mean, following this model, if a lot of mass is concentrated somewhere, or if only a single mass particle is there, the attraction is the same. And that is the point where it does not correspond to reality. Or do I miss something?

I still don't follow you thought. The formula you are giving contains the x^2, either for acceleration, or gravity. And indeed, when distance reaches zero, gravity becomes infinite. But as time & distance are concerned, when distance reaches zero, time reaches zero also (and you are in present time). I don't understand what would become infinite (except as stated above)

The "changing size" factor is time dependent. It means that if you look in the past, you should observe everything being smaller. And curiously, that is exactly what the laws of optics say. Objects far way are objects in the past, and objects far away look small. The step consisting into replacing the word "look" with the word "are" is huge, though.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. You mean t0 the present. Why is everything infinite at t0? I don't follow.

If everything is relative, then maybe there would not be an absolute t0. Eventually there could exist a relative t0, that is to mean a time that corresponds to an apparent beginning, not necessarily an absolute beginning.

Slower, yes. But if you put a clock, or a metronome in the car, you will see that the tick on the far away car keeps ticking at the same rate. The shrinking effect of perspective does not act on time.

Dear Butch I understand where you want to go but you should read again Mordred's post # 130 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100828-einstein-was-right/?p=960586 and post #133 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100828-einstein-was-right/?p=960591 You have entered the same mistake again with your statement "Rate of expansion = 1/t^2." IMHO it would be easier to push your idea with the concept of scale factor. A scale factor is a number without unit. Call Absolute Space [latex] Sa [/latex] Say the scale factor of the Absolute Space is called [latex] Q [/latex]. You would have [latex] Q=\frac{\dot{Sa}}{Sa} [/latex] where the over dot denotes present time. Which is a re-interpretation of Mordred's [latex] a(t)=\frac{\dot{R}}{R} [/latex] The next step is to find the acceleration you are looking for. That should not be difficult because under Euclidian Geometry, the acceleration is inherent to the scale factor: If you have this: Where each number represents a point of Sa (absolute space) and the - represents the Da (absolute distance), after some time you get, with a scale factor of 2 1-2-3-4-5 1--2--3--4--5 1----2----3----4----5 1--------2--------3--------4--------5 1----------------2----------------3----------------4----------------5 Do you see the acceleration? Of course, since as you said, everything is relative, the number itself should also be scaled, and the result from its observation would remain unchanged. It would be The acceleration is also obvious. Coming from a simple number, in this case number 2, the scale factor.

Well understood. But I was suggesting that some stars may hide other stars behind them. Or am I completely wrong?

Heisenberg.

Nice. But i get the feeling that it may give a false impression. It shows a lower concentration of stars as you go out. Does that mean that the concentration is lower, or that the closest stars are hiding a whole bunch of stars behind them? When you drag the pointer from here to there and make it rotate, you can even feel as if there were a radial organization. There is no such a thing, simply the missing stars are radially organized because they match our line of sight. I think.

If Spacetime is a continuum, how can space be curved and time not?

I think that if time is accelerated at the same rate as space, then the photons would maintain c.

Yes You embed an n dimensional object in a space that has at least n+1 dimensions. In this case we do not have Space but Spacetime. Thus you embed a 3D object in a 4D Spacetime. ------------- In the case you would have 4D objects, they could not be embedded in a 4D spacetime, you would need a n+1 dimensional "spacetime+"

And here below from Romania, Manuel Riva feat. Eneli Siirman https://soundcloud.com/manuelriva/manuel-riva-eneli-mhm-mhm

You are correct. Conceptually, a 4 dimensional object cannot "exist" because to "exist" need time. 1D, 2D 3D objects can exist. Meaning by that that they can be embedded in the 4th dimension For a 4D object to "exist" would need the existence of a 5th dimension in which it could be embedded and "exist". IOW the objects must have a dimension less than the universe in which they exist.

As i have stated numerous times on this Forum, there are 2 ways for describing the flow of time. 1. It is like a river, as you said. Time flows over you. or 2. Time is a substrate like Space is. Time does nothing. Time does not flow, Time is a receptacle inside which you are flowing. I believe that concept 2 is more correct than concept 1.