michel123456

the refugees have found the borders locked. What would be the picture if Heathrow was locked for, lets say 2 days? Wouldn't that provoke a terrible mess?

No Trump.

I am in Greece after the end of katharevousa, but my wife who suffered it when she was young told me it was taf all along, and also probably these last 3000 years. Yes I call you "Fee" since I came here. And for me Π is pronounced "pee" but not with a long "ee", it is a short "pe". Same for Phi, which is said as a short "Phe". There are other interesting peculiarities, for example for us the letter B is pronounced V (it is the Greek Beta which is pronounced "veeta". One could write a book over these ( or that has been done already). I remember a conference from an archaeologist about marble quarries in the Egyptian mountains in Roman times. He found hundreds of clay tablets with writings in Greek language (yes under Roman domination in Egypt) and he explained how the orthographic mistakes of the workers on the tablets could gave an indication of the pronunciation at the time. The result was laughable to us as Greek but maybe it was correct, who knows. Interesting stuff anyway.

maquillage

How do you pronounce Tau? In modern Greek it is pronounced Taf And Pi? I have seen over the Web that it is said to be pronounced like a pie (hence the cut of a pie on Pi day) , is that accurate?

It is History IOW it is a sum of errors.

It is not important who is right and who is wrong. The important thing is to solve this Babel myth and decide once for all to use the same system.

??? Your location is the U.S. or am I missing something? -------------- As side notes _we are celebrating Albert's birthday but unfortunately Albert is passed away. Which means that wishing to a dead is like talking to his spirit. Which is a reminder of the cult of the dead. _the Pi day at this date reminds me numerology. _which means that all the above is not very scientific if one has to look at is seriously.

That counts for Americans only. For me it is 14.03.16 and I suppose for the Germans too.

Translation please? IIRC there was an old couple in the late seventies which relocated on a remote island on the most secure spot in the former British Empire. The Falklands.

I have the impression that after 100 years of Spacetime mathematicians should examine the possibility that time is indispensable before even thinking about a manifold.

This "close to each other" notion, isn't it related with time?

What is Rippofornia?

Sun.

The universe is 4D because we have 3D of space and 1D of time. And we are ate the edge of this 4D universe in the sense that we can only observe the past of the universe. We cannot observe its present, we cannot observe its future. It is much like standing on the surface of a expanding sphere and being able to see the internal part of it. And even worse, we cannot observe all its interior. We can only observe the surface of a peculiar scheme that looks like a flame. From Ned Wright's tutorial, imagine the red curve revolving around its vertical axis. From a little area of the down part of this surface we get an image like that of the Extreme Deep Field. ---------- And we call that the Observable Universe

That would mean that observed space expansion should happen not only between galaxy clusters but also inside galaxies, even inside the solar system. Or do I understand badly? ----------- Also, why do you assume that the speculated phenomenon happens so smoothly? If the observer cannot understand his own shrinking, the contraction could happen a vertiginous rate. For example: each second a shrinking of 300000 km. In a way, you could simply insert your speculation in mathematical terms and put a value of zero (or 1) for a non-scaling universe. Afterwards, change the value of the scale factor and see where it meets observation. Or is that what you already did? But: still the main issue with the scale factor is that if contraction has multiple centers (for example one in each particle), the macroscopic objects would be feeling like teared apart. Maybe that is the reason why you must assume it happens smoothly. But in fact the problem is not the smooth, the problem is the center.

Sure. But the OP may realize that outside the cosmological model his interpretation may be able the explain entropy, the arrow of time (maybe Time itself) , and gravity. All that from a mysterious mechanism causing the scale factor and that would be great. [Diversion closed]

Correct. That is the reason why I never could resolve this fundamental observation in relation to a scale factor. There is a geometrical obstination to any scale factor to begin from a center. It can be ignored mathematically but not geometrically. Or if it can be resolved I am not aware of it.

[ In this case there is no "compressed" matter, it is a scale factor not a compression.

Yes. You are talking about a generalized scale factor, aren't you? Are you aware about the relation between a scale factor and acceleration? If you use this, and if you can derive the equation of gravity, that would be great. ----------- Any scale factor has a center, a geometric starting point. If object A is scaled f from its own center of mass (for example), and object B is scaled the same way, the result will be a change in distance between A and B. If A expands & B expands they will eventually crash together. If this effect is not corresponding to the "generalized" scale factor, then the result should be a change of position of A and B. That would keep the (scaled) distance to appear remaining the same for A and B scaled observers. And this change of position is accelerated.

Except me. From his other threads David looks to me has a fair understanding. I wonder this: If the expansion of the Universe is an expansion of the metric and only of the metric, then the Universe never properly changed size, where "size" is the thing you measure using your metric. The metric changed, not the "size". Considering this, the energy/mass density never changed.

You are correct. Which makes me think I don't understand how gravity works.

OK let's say it is the Sun and Jupiter. For an external observer gravity comes from the center of mass which is not in the center of the Sun. Isn't that correct? Why? I don't understand that. See above.

I stand corrected. Sorry.

Interesting, but it was not an exact quote. The correct one is: