michel123456

Would there be objects beyond the observable universe in this case?

During the coup, at least 290 people were killed and more than a thousand were injured. source wiki That is more than 3 Nice Trucks in this new unit. And i have the slight feeling that the 290 figure does not take count of victims in the rebels.

To me, the lesson to keep is that the lists were ready. IOW the work of the secret service is not only to spy over other countries, it is also to spy over its own people. It is also quite remarkable that a part of the secret service has been purged, which means that the secret service is spying itself. The second lesson is that these kind of lists exist everywhere, not only in Turkey. So, people of the Internet, beware.

And have lower gravity been ruled out? Lower gravity can be achieved by several means: 1. less mass. That is not likely 2. greater rotational speed 3. larger radius (keeping same mass = lower density)

Why? Why would the observable universe defined as c*age of the universe? Is that because "nothing can travel faster than c"? Or because of the belief that things that travel faster than c are outside the observable universe?

Thank you for your comment Here is what I don't understand, from your link page pdf 4 In a world where there is no expansion (Vrec=0), why wouldn't be able to observe an object going away at 2times SOL? I mean, light coming from an object getting closer at 0,1 C is observed coming at C Light coming from an object getting away at 0,00000001 Cis observed coming at C Light coming from any object, coming closer or getting away, is always observed at C. That is what a constant means: it is constant. Then, why do we have to invoke Vrec in order to explain the observation of objects getting away at 5 times SOL. In my understanding, if C is constant, then it is constant. Point.

Maybe this should be posted in cosmology. We know about the constancy of Speed Of Light. Whatever the relative velocity of 2 objects, light coming from one object and reaching the other will always be observed traveling at C. In cosmology, when objects are receding at velocity greater than C because of the expansion of space, we are observing light coming still arriving at velocity of C, but redshifted. And we say that the velocity grater than C is not a regular velocity (it is caused by expansion of space) because velocity greater than C is not physically possible. One of the reason is that (correct me if I am wrong) IF an object ever could go faster than SOL, light would never reach us. As if light would have traveled backwards. And I wonder why? I wonder because we accepted the statement that C is a constant. It does not depend from the velocity of the source. IOW even for hypothetical faster-than-light objects, this statement should hold. It means that even faster than light objects would be visible without having to invoke expansion of space. That is what constant means.

But then, other radiation that is not visible now will become visible, I suppose. It will not become an era of darkness. Or do I miss something?

The image of a smaller Earth with bigger animals living on it reminds me the lamplighter of The Little Prince. It is not coherent. One would expect small animals living on a small planet, and large animals living on a large planet. I even wonder if there exist some formula giving the scale of animals dimensions to the planet radius, or to the planet mass? Here on Earth it varies from viruses (if they count as animals) to the blue whale. Could we theoretically encounter E.T. organism larger than the Everest mountain living on a gigantic planet? Or is our dimension totally unrelated to the planet we are living on?

One could make the following remark: as much technology evolves as small become the construction material. It begins in ancient times with megalithic structures and ends up today with small bricks or even plastic bottles. Concerning the megalithic structures, my conclusion is that it must have been much more difficult for ancient people to carve a stone than to move it. I mean: moving a large block is a matter of strength, but carving is a matter of technology. When you have no technology, the hard work is to cut a stone in pieces. At the same time if you want to build a large construction what we do today would have been considered pure madness for ancient people: we cut stones in small pieces and then we assemble together again. Their approach was much simpler: you take the largest rock possible and put it directly in place. And that's it. No calculations, no theory of construction, simple empiricism.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you.

At my knowledge there is also theory that says the atmosphere was different at the time, and also another study that says the largest dinosaurs where always in water (like today's hippopotamus). But I don't know what is gibberish in those and what is not. -------------- To speak frankly what I find disturbing is not the gigantism of dinosaurs. It is the gigantism of everything: plants, insects, etc. But again some other info over the web say it is wrong because small animals existed also. at the end I say I don't know. Material for others.

Ok, you are Strange, I am bizarre.

I wonder if the difference between our understandings is about the meaning of "without time" and "timeless". From what I understand from AJB posts is that he believes that some mathematical truth is timeless, meaning by that it it was true yesterday, today, tomorrow, whenever it will always be true. I agree with that except that this statement uses time, so it is not "timeless", it is "timefull". Or one could say that it is time-independent. IOW in a world where time exists, the statement is true and does not depend on time. OTOH what I try to make clear is that without time such a statement cannot stand, because you need time to make this statement, either writing it down, either reading it, either explaining it, either proving it, either conceptualizing it. The fact that 2 things are compared means time. Any mathematical operation need time as a prerequisite. It is change, transformation. You have something before and something else after. An equation is to be read from left to right, or right to left. It just not stands there, it is a process. And it is a good thing, I wonder why anyone would find it bizarre or difficult to accept.

Mathematics is a language.

So you accept that we live in the universe and that we are subject to time but for mathematics no. You have a fraction, which is a mathematical operation. You are transforming something into something else. It is a change. Something before, other thing after. Time. Time is even in the way you read the equation. Like music. If we were talking about language or music would you be so reluctant to admit there is time in it?

I disagree. Mathematics cannot exist without time. How would you make an operation? How can you get a result? How do you proceed in calculations? How do you make a reasoning? How do you make a proof? How do you state a theorem? 1+1 represents a change. You used the word "always". That is not timeless, it is full of time.

Taking the ratio of something is a mathematical operation. The fact that in this specific case the ratio is constant is remarkable. But the operation of taking the ratio is time related.

When order does not matter it corresponds to a very special property. The basic says that order matters. Some things must be calculated before, some others after. Before & after are notions of time. Ordering is a time-related notion. 1+1=2 contains time in it.

????? How do you obtain ax^2? Do you first make ax then square or first x^2 and then multiply by a?

You don't understand. Do you agree that the operations in the example are ordered? That some operation must be done before some other? Does the word "before" mean something to you?

[math]ax^2 + bx + c =0[/math] Each operation here contains time. 1 a multiplied by x 2 square of ax 3 addition 4 addition again 5 equal sign You have used time in 5 consecutive steps.

Just because you can write down something on a piece of paper that doesn't mean it has no time in it. Mathematics are a language. Or like music if you prefer. you write mathematics, you read mathematics. It is a tool. How else to say?

Oh you think mathematics are static?