michel123456

but they have different units. It is like saying banana is a form of umbrella.

When the ground opens, there is no way to make a building resist. What science can do for example is to make maps that show where there are great risks and push authorities to forbid building there. Usually, the push from science is mighty as a fly hitting a rhinoceros. Science can also improve the quality of construction, usually making it more expensive. Not of much use for poor people. Science can also improve the quality of material for finding and healing people under the rubble. And many other things I guess What science cannot do is predict accurately a seism. But science can predict not accurately from this article So from what I can see, science can predict that fatalities are worse in poor countries. That's a good job done.

No more war. (the tip comes from all my relatives that have passed away now)

In winter, before you go out in the snow, put into your pockets a pair of hot boiled egg. It will warm your hands for a quite a while.

Kalimera. i am a senior from Greece, my daughter is studying medecine ...abroad. You have to look at all parameters. 1. the actual educational system in Greece sucks. You may not go to study what you want, but what you are allowed to do on the basis of your score at final exams (panellinies), if panellinies still exist in 2 years from now. 2. That means that if you really want to go for medecine (in Athens i presume) you must be damn damn good, you need to become one of the best -not of your class, not of your school - but of entire Greece. unless your dad has other ways to push you towards Athens. 3. otherwise you can do medecine in some other town (if you get the score for medecine), which means in most cases that you will have to go abroad afterwards in order to get a better diploma. 4. anyway, even if you get to Athens, you may need to go abroad to get a better recognised diploma. 5. You can also go abroad anyways, when you won't get the score from panellinies. That means at 17 or 18, going living, somtimes alone, in a foreign country, and struggling to adapt to much better educational systems. That is an enriching but hard experience. 6. The score for physics is lower than medecine, but still high. You may have the same issues than with medecine, with the difference of no support from your family. 7. From my knowledge & experience, parents that are in the medical field always push heavily their children to follow the same field. I can make the safe prediction that it will be difficult for you to escape. You'll have to gather VERY strong arguments, the "I love physics" argument will not be accepted. Not alone. 8. At the end of all this, I mean 9 or more yeras of VERY DIFFICULT studies for medecine, or 5 or 6 years for physics (+ doctorate abroad most probably), you will get ready to ask for a job. If it is in Greece, you will begin with about 700E to 1000E at best, if the situation doesn;t get worse. of course, you'll never know what will happen in 10 years from now. Abroad, things are better. 9. IOW , the situation being what it is in Greece, there are about 90% of chance that if you want to enter high studies, you will end abroad. It is a matter of consequences and a major problem for Greece, now aand for the years to come. 10. Don't listen to anything, do what you want to do.

Nobody seemed to react to this statement of yours. Maybe because 1. it is diluted in a long text 2. maybe it seems correct And yes I agree that according to Relativity, "everything is moving in both space and time". Which looks as an inoffensive statement. But if you take the example of an object standing at rest (relative to you), it follows directly hat this object is moving only in time. Moving. Not extending, not stretching. Changing coordinates in time. Moving.

if the simulation is symmetric and finite, it is the superposition of 2 curves, resembling a spiral.

Please explain again. I understand nothing.

Dear Doctordick. Your mind is under too much pressure, you have a lot of things to say, please don't try to put everything under the same post. I was disgusted by your wall of text. Too much, too much. I returned reading your first post after noticing a +1 reputation number. I thought, how bizarre, someone else read all this? I read it. I added another +1. But your second post ruined everything. Please be concise. The history of your life interests nobody. Yet. Make your points. On one subject at a time. And people will read you.

interpretation of graphs are difficult. They give you an image that may not coincide with what really happened. I don't know for example if it would be reasonable to make a graph of the casualties of a mass extinction. I guess we don't have the data for that, but in everybody's mind a mass extinction means a lot of dead animals, I think. And i don't know if an extinction is something like that: a catastrophic event that kills, or a smooth change (over thousands of years)where a specie has fewer and fewer descendants, or some other mechanism.

The information is that not everything got extincted. The coloured part is evidently more important than the black fringes, and there is no interruption. It looks like an ancient fabric, a papyrus, or a flag after many years. and because the time scale on the horizontal is really huge, it should look like this below Now it ressembles a North-South section through India and the Himalayans. It is much like extinctions happen all the time. ---------------------------- IOW on the diagram, there is never 100% of genera.

Call me wathever you want but I don't like this graph. It is cut at 60% and gives a wrong impression. It should be like the one below updated roughly by me. The 100% is shown. Life is in colour, death in black as usual.

How do you know when you remain consistent and when not? here we have very simple things: speed, acceleration, time, distance. When do we know what is the correct way? And why some other way is "inconsistent". What is the law that we have to follow? Imagine the same things for processes that remain purely theoretical? Now i am really confused Your s^2/m is different from the s/m^2 from Janus

Exactly. I don't believe in coincidences as explanations. I prefer the cause to effect process, it works better.

Peloponnese I know its a bit difficult: from Pelops (the King named Pelops) and nese (Nissos - νήσος) meaning island. The island of Pelops, Pelopon-nisos, Peloponnese. As for the substance of all of your posts in this thread, they are very poetic. i don't want to make you change your ideas. I hope you will allow me to disagree from the beginning till the end, on everything.

Typo after rapidness. You ment r=t/d _-------------------------- And i suspect you wrote all the above because youn knew what would be consistent answer. But truly, what is the logic behind? Why t/d^2 and not (t/d)/t? (edit) Why And not the rate at which the time it takes to travel one meter changes per second traveled. ??

Landing on ground is a better concept IMHO. I get the impression that the thruster is destabilizing the floating platform and that may be a reason for the failure. And i hope the deisgners have in mind to keep the center of mass of the (empty) rocket as low as possible, near its basis. it is so fundamental that i believe they did. The other way round would be to land into a big hole, or a large cylindrical structure. ------------------ The 1km test went right https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EuP6Uk-0S4c The 325m test is even more impressive.

I believe we are very (very) far from understanding our Universe. We are like Columbus beginning to investigate our close neighbourhood, like him with rudimentary ships, not knowing the depth of the ocean, not knowing for the sea currents, not knowing anything about electricity or atomic reactions. We are not even able to administrate our own planet properly and we are ready for the conquest of the Universe. Or to emigrate because we made a mess out of it. This is pathetic.I see no coincidences at all. If i am wrong and there are such coincidences, even then the conclusion should not be a "hurray", but "what a sickness". Do you really want this to infest the whole universe? IMHO it should be better to look at how much barbaric we are, fix it, and try to understand more.

I don't understand the coincidence thing. What are you talking about?

And what would happen with acceleration? If V can be written as t/d {reversed to the common way) and Acceleration as a rate of V/t, then from A=V/t you would obtain an acceleration rate described by (seconds/meters)/seconds The sec. cancelling each other you get units of 1/meters for acceleration. Or once V is described as t/d (reversed) then you MUST describe acceleration as a rate of A=t/V (also reversed) and why would that be an obligation?

From my place, the thread title brings the 5th result in Google.

Somehow interestingly, flat earth proponents explain gravity by the Earth being in accelerated motion through space in a direction normal to the surface of the disk. Not gravity caused by the disk itself.

Standed corrected You can call me Michel Below Australia, UK and Canada https://www.google.com.au/#q=plan https://www.google.co.uk/#q=plan https://www.google.ca/#q=plan And I noticed my first first link to google US returned me to Google Greece I made an attempt following help from http://www.walkernews.net/2010/10/04/how-to-access-google-usa-from-other-countries/ But I cannot post the link with the search page, it always returns greek to me.

Yes, exactly Why? It gets you less time to go somewhere. Well yes that is puzzling. If speed and "inverse speed" are 2 different representations of the same thing, there may be more than that. ----------------- Second question If I can express speed in m/s and in s/m, would it be allowed to mix the 2 systems in a same equation. For example when multiplying speed by speed, instead of obtaining speed squared, to obtain a unitless number.

/i was traveling today and having nothing better to do I was thinking about speed. Speed is represented by distance divided by time, meters divided by seconds: the amount of meters traveled in one second. The reverse (inverse, opposite) would be the amount of seconds traveled in one meter. It is the amount of seconds needed to travel one meter. Which is still a speed. Just as if the inverse of speed was speed. Or am I completely wrong?