michel123456

I have heard there are a lot of U.S. interests in Kazakstan also.

Is that a formal "we don't know" answer?

Having nothing better to do, I was rambling over the Net* and found this page. Where I wondered about this statement under the first article Inflation on the back of an enveloppe, exponential expansion, 3rd paragraph Where it is stated that "The universe is different — it can expand without diluting its mass density". Question: does that mean that the mass density of the universe is not time dependent, IOW that today's mass density of the universe is the same than the mass density before expansion began? *following Swansont's footsteps.

That was back in 2007! I have a totally different POV on what time "is". Somewhere along your posts I found this: IMHO it is completeley wrong. The premise is wrong. "If the universe consisted of one object and that object alone" is a statement that supposes that something can "exist" just like that. Frozen in time, without space. Without interactions. Without any of the 4 fundamental interactions. This cannot be.

Where is David? Hello-o

Fatigue is an example. In this article, time is not directly mentioned but indirectly through the words "repeatedly", "progressive". The wiki article in French has a direct mention of time.

And i think that distance IS a phenomenon. Distance has a dramatic influence on a lot of things.

I don'\t disagree. But again, if your car is the subject of such movements, it will not fall apart. That was my point.

I don't know much about P and S waves but i know about construction and destruction caused by earthquakes. One should know that a building is not an self-supporting thing. if you take your car, or an airplane, upside-down, it will not fall apart, it will hold together. that is not true for a building. If you hang a building upside-down, it will fall apart. If you hang it at 90 degrees angle, it will crumble. A building is made to resist gravity, a vertical force oriented from up to down. What happens with earthquakes is that all of a sudden, the building is shaked and must resist forces that are not oriented from up to down, but from down to up (as if it was hung upside-down) or from the side (as if it was at 90 degrees).

rollmops?

I don't like when I don't understand something. You posted about relativity and hyperbolic rotation, my question is about hyperbolic rotation and relativity. What I understand step by step (0,0) are coordinates of Space and Time, (x,t) where t coordinates are on the vertical. OK that looks like a Minkowski spacetime diagram Let's say O.K. it is about a change of coordinates system where the grid has been squeezed in one direction and stretched on the other by the same amount. Irrelevant That's the part I wonder about. If I understand correctly. It means the values on the x axis have been multiplied by a number N and the values on the T axis have been divided by the same N number, where the N number is the "hyperbolic metric" IOW the values xt= constant Which I see as not evident in litterature. In litterature I see x/t= constant for Speed Of Light.

Maybe. I am lost. Can someone explain this paragraph? And the relation it has with hyperbolic rotation?

I am sorry if I didn't follow exactly your route. I was interested in your link about hyperbolic rotation. (bottom line of your post #6.) Hyperbolic rotation redirects to squeeze mapping in Wikipedia. I didn't understand the relation between hyperbolic rotation and Lorentz transform. hence my question in post @20. It is technical, not intended to argue against your points. Only a matter of enlightment.

The Moon is fascinating. I have the Mount Everest floating above my head. It blows my mind.

My favorite is Galileo by far. I feel bad for all the others though. It is such a wonderful achievement to offer something to humanity's knowledge. All small contributions are important. Especially thinking that the overall majority does not contribute an inch to knowledge. Not to speak about all those who destroy.

Fine Because I had a question in post #20 that was by-passed.

The bold part Gravity is an effect generated as an equal & opposite reaction Is something that crossed my mind too. I am not sure if it is related to the expansion of the Universe. One should go step by step before jumping from a speculation to another speculation. Stating that gravity is a reaction to something is enough, IMHO.

Coincidentally i stumbled upon Benford's law, today maybe of some interest for your book.

Question: I don't understand the article. In your link about Hyperbolic rotation it is explained that The part is not clear where to find in the paragraph about Relativistic Spacetime, less in the link about Lorentz boost. About Lorentz boost it is stated that If I understand clearly, putting everything together (hyperbolic rotation & Lorentz boost) I'd expect to find somewhere the following x't';=constantWhich is not evident.

i am glad to hear that. Unfortunately, when governments decide that a conflict has arrived, people fight, not governments.

I don't quite understand why the people in the U.S. should be opposed to people in Russia. Once upon a time it was a question of economopolitics, the ones were barabarian capitalists and the others were barbarian bolcheviks. But that is not the case now. Or is that an after smell of the cold war because nobody won? Something like a lost opportunity to destroy the unknown other? To me, Russians and Americans look alike. Only British look different (because they like that). --------------------- Edit. I remember my father saying that WWIII would not be East-West but North-South. I hope he was wrong and WWIII will never happen.

The Fermi paradox counts for everybody. I mean you can reverse it: For an observer on planet Kepler there is no Fermi paradox. If there isn't for him, there isn't for us.

Yes that's what I understand.

My comment is not genuine. I read it in some book, cannot recall where.

I like you honesty. + for that. Be sure no-one deeply understands. ------------------- as much as I know, energy is relative. Kinetic energy for example. Wiki statement here below Which means it is relative.