michel123456

http://www.catalogodiseno.com/2014/11/11/centro-de-innovacion-uc-elemental/ Scroll down and just after the sketches click on the "VER LA PLANIMETRIA DEL CENTRO DE INNOVACION UC" and you will see all plans sections elevations of the building.

It was not in my intention to kill this thread...

After thinking a little more about it I get more and more the impression that all senses are mixed. While I look ahead, I also hear the sounds reflecting from everywhere, I feel the cold from the window behind and I "know" where I am (I use my memory & all experiences before). I am not like suddenly awake and tied on a chair, not being able to know where I am, wearing blinkers with the head fixed straight somehow, completely deaf. That would be a creepy situation.

To me: Without effort, both eyes open and looking straight ahead I see nothing from my face. When I close one eye, the nose appears in a blur. When I look at it, it appears like in the sketch you posted. Both eyes open and looking straight ahead I cannot tell with precision where my vision ends left & right. I get the impression that my memory plays a role because I "feel" what is behind me although I cannot see it.

3 kilometer radius and a height of 50 meters - That does not look to be represented correctly in your 3D model. It means a diameter of 6000 meters against 50 m height or a diametre 120 times larger than the height.

It is not a joke

The spectral lines are redshifted. The entire radiation spectrum is there, traveling at C. That would make the receding object still visible.

Ernst Mach did not suffer from strabism as far as I know. The self portarait is a picture of himself with his right eye closed. The picture on your post is a mirrored image created by you I suppose. A search in Google about Ernst Mach Self returned your picture in 4th place and I am afraid may bring misunderstanding to the Internet community. Not to say the peculiar result of superposing the curve of his nose.

That is an interesting question. I believe at extra SOL light would still be visible (because C is a constant*) but the redshift would increase. There would be no invisibility. But I may be wrong on this. I am thinking that extra SOL is being called physically impossible, so the question is moot. ---------------------- (edit) *I mean C is the constant of Speed Of Light (in void), which means it cannot go faster, it cannot go slower, it cannot change of direction just like that: it is C. Point.

_As acceleration is involved, I am not an expert. From what I know the effects would be the same with the exception that if the one who travels accelerates, he should know that he is traveling by feeling a force acting on him. _Your second question is philosophic IMHO. As science progresses, it looks more and more that we are indeed inside a "chaotic" universe but at the same time that some kind of patterns appear to emerge from this almost mythological chaos. As if laws and logic could come out of anarchy (which is not exactly a "logical" causal sequence). However I like the idea that the Universe must follow some kind of logic.

This is wrong. Observer A who is "at rest" observes the other one (observer B) traveling at almost SOL, and for the one who is "at rest" it looks like the time of the traveling one is slowing down. For the one who travels (B) nothing changes, his own time does not slow down. And in the unphysical event where B is traveling faster than light the traveler would not observe his own time going backwards nor he would observe reverse entropy. Backwards time would be observed by the other one (A) who is "at rest". And symmetrically, the one traveling (B) may believe he is the one "at rest" and that the other one (A) is in fact traveling. "Logic" is peculiar sometimes. For example, "logic" would say that heavy objects sink in water and that a light objects float. That is not the case. So I believe that "logic" is a kind of extract of the physical world. It is a way to explain, it is not the reason why things happen.

If the box is your head, you can.

When something is "indistinguishable" from something else, doesn't that mean that they are the same thing?

In memory http://www.lemonde.fr/attaques-a-paris/visuel/2015/11/25/enmemoire_4817200_4809495.html

Yes. Some time ago I made this experiment in a casserole not exactly with buoyant particles, but with boiled small leaves of salad that have almost the same density with water (they are floating freely everywhere in the liquid). The interesting phenomenon begins when you let the buoyant particles go round and round without the blender. They decelerate and they gather to the center. The tea leaf paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_leaf_paradox

Because it is a star (not a planet) very very far away and happen to coincide approximately with the direction of the geographic north. It is a combined effect: _the fact that it does not look like rotating in the sky means that it is not influenced by the rotation of the Earth on its axis and thus must be aligned with the Earth's axis. _It remains aligned with the Earth's axis by the same effect that makes the Moon look like traveling with you when you look at it from a moving car on the highway. The north star is soooo far away that it is not influenced by the effects of the rotation of the Earth around the Sun.

Ok that is a clear explanation. So we have an apparent acceleration and an apparent velocity that do not involve momentum, caused by a scaling factor that is not provoked by any force. And on the top of that, we have an increase of the apparent acceleration that is supposed to be the result of a force and thus must involve momentum. Is that it?

In this view you must also change the definition of velocity and finally the definition of distance.

What I said is that the formula [latex]v_{recessive}=H_{o}d[/latex] describes a change in velocity AKA an acceleration in my simplistic vocabulary. It is already a second derivative. If the universe expands more than that, it means one has to introduce the acceleration of an acceleration, a 3rd derivative.

You should maybe edit your comment in post #33 And in post #31

So, how do you call a change of velocity when no force is involved?

We have bumped onto definitions. To me a change of velocity is always an acceleration, be positive or negative. The fact that a force is involved or not has no importance for the definition of acceleration. .

You are correct. I am confused.

But the Hubble's law is a kind of acceleration. When velocity increases with distance (and thus with time) it corresponds to an acceleration. And accordingly, if you need more than that, you are talking about an increasing of acceleration.

The perimeter and the area have different units, and you cannot compare things that have different units. So I believe the statement is completely incorrect.