michel123456

From one of the links http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature18291_F1.html There are traces of fire on the structure so your hypothesis is moot, you don't burn fire on a reservoir. OTOH yes it looks like an artificial structure. However one must take into count that it is not an easy task to plant vertical pieces of stone into the stone ground of a cave. As mentionned in the article, these are stalagmites (the ones that go from down to up) and not pieces of stalactites cut from the ceiling and planted in the floor. If I understand correctly. So to me it looks like existing vertical stalagmites artificially connected by horizontal pieces of stalagmites (or stalactites). Also found this from http://www.liberation.fr/futurs/1996/03/12/mais-qui-s-est-arrete-a-bruniquel_166068 Google translation

Enigma yes the project of German based Michael Cretu. Do you know IAMX? Another German based (English) artist Chris Corner And how do you know Tangerine Dream??? Born in the 60's?

Yes I say that the X is somehow contracted differently. And it will get worse if 1 and 2 are in a different state of motion. And I say it is a matter of appearance (a matter of measurement). It is indeed "physically true" because it is the result of a measurement (it is not what one would call a optical illusion), however what one measures is different from what another measures. V1 is the approach velocity as observed by observer 1 V2 is approach velocity as observed by 2 because the light we measure is the one coming from the source and hitting our eye. All other light going in all other directions are not directly observable. If there is a lateral velocity it is not directly observed by transmission of light and there is no observable length contraction on something that you cannot observe directly.

And in your diagrams what is interesting is the length contraction at the moment of impact. After some thinking, I wonder maybe at impact the 2 objects share the same FOR and thus there should be no length contraction at all. Maybe I am wrong on this...

Motion is relative. IOW we must always talk in terms of relative motion. In all cases, the length contraction happen in the direction of apparent motion, which means along the line of sight. The object is observed as "length contracted" along the direction it is observed as approaching. So I guess you understand me, yes.

First of all the effects must be related to the line of sight. In your diagram the line of sight is inclined. It is the red line here below If the objects are aligned there is no paradox (I think). See below Do you mean something like this? see below where the objects are skewed. The green lines indicate the parallelism of the sides.(this is wishful thinking in order to eliminate the paradox)

Conservation Of What?

And now something completely different:

Right. As a side note your post was not the original soundtrack of "I love you, Me neither". The lyrics take an immense part of French songs, surely the main reason why they cannot be appreciated by the foreign audience. A lot of satire and poesy painted in black in all songs from Gainsbourg. Also a reminder: this not good looking guy married this beautiful girl from his talent.

Oooh yes, Andrea Bocelli Serge Gainsbourg And for the (very) deep intelligentsia of Sfn French speaking members, the intranslatable life death and resurrection of a passion love Here below (as it seems only 2 Youtube clips allowed here) I I I V

Stanford's humanoid robot "that can feel", in Toulon France today, following the news.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/30/diving-robot-ocean-one-wreck-sunken-treasure-louis-xiv

But in cosmology the 3 spatial dimensions increase through time. No?

I cannot number how many tautologies they are in this statement.

Yes I agree. That is the reason why I believe that a change of coordinate in time is very similar to a change of coordinate in space. Another reason is mass. I don't believe that mass increase as time passes by. IOW I don't believe that when a second ticks the mass of the Universe multiplies. I believe that the mass of the Universe remains unchanged as time passes by (not regarding eventual Theories of cosmological mass creation). Time has not the property of multiplying the mass of an object which means that (to me) the mass of an object translates from one instant to another. When an object is at a time stamp T2, it cannot remain "somehow frozen" at time stamp T1. The object has "moved" from T1 to T2. It has not "extended" from one time stamp to the other. I hope the above is clear.

My view is different. I think that this research of the ever vanishing present time is wrong. To me, not the continuum nor the universe is sliding from the past to the future. My opinion (it is only an opinion) is that all "things" in the universe change coordinates. Spatial coordinates and time coordinates. When you stand still, your spatial coordinates don't change (as observed by yourself) but your time coordinates change. And to me, the "changing coordinate in time" is nothing different from the "changing coordinate in space". That is to say: there is nothing metaphysical in the passage of time, not any more metaphysical than for a change in coordinate in space. -------------------------- Note: there is an important consequence of my "opinion". Because we change coordinate in time it means that we don't continue to "exist" somewhere in the past. That is because we cannot be alltogether in the present and in the past. As you stated before, we are 3dimensional beings, we are not extruded in the past.

Yes I agree that we are 3dimensional. However some other members here believe that we are 4dimensional beings. My view of things is that we are 3dimensional beings "moving" through a continuum called spacetime. To me, the continuum is a kind of receptacle: it does nothing. But I have not found any agreement on this either. Other people like you will say that time is the thing that flows.

Time is scalar.

IIRC the concept of time perpendicular to space has been mentioned on several occasions on this same Forum. And in literature also.

I can't recall if I ever posted this but I can recall the whole track in my mind.

It is that kind of philosophy introduced by computers geek that make you forget what you have learned. You are making a change in the past and explain how logical it is. Take a look back at this thread now that you have changed again your avatar. For a new member reading it it is incomprehensible. ------------ That reminds me some time ago another guy explaining how logical it was that the number 11 was placed between number 1 and 2 !!!!

That is essentially one of my first questions when I joined this Forum. The question is, following the accepted model of physics: Is Spacetime expanding, or is Space only expanding? The answers I got from experts here pointed to the "Space only" expanding. Which means that if you want to introduce the concept of "expanding Spacetime" I am afraid you have to make a change in standard physics somewhere. Second/second has no unit, it is a kind of tautology, it is not a rate. As I stated above, that is not what I understand from known physics. And also, doesn't that impose the existence of a Universal Now?

As far as I know nothing illegal has been committed. A few years ago a Minister of my country had been caught in a similar kind of business and answered a remarkable "whatever is legal is ethical". The statement raised of course a lot negative comments.

Sorry for being away. I was busy.

What is this initial speed coming from?