michel123456

The Moon? From here

Yes. in fact Time is the thing that definites uniqueness. If it was possible for object O to travel at infinite velocity from point A to B, one would observe object O at 2 different places at the same time. If the observer is human, he will describe that there are 2 objects O1 and O2, because the observer have decided as an axiom that it is impossible for object O to be in 2 different places at the same time. If one erases the concept of time, it should be possible to have the same object O at different spaces coordinates. Like this O O O O O O Which looks crazy, because all Forum members will say "no, it is wrong, you have wrtitten down different O's next to each other"

I disagree. Time is evrywhere in physics. Almost all equations include somewhere this little "t". to me, time is a very real phenomenon. The problem is that we are embedded in time (and space), so we have to analyze from the inside, which is extremely difficult. If you take a step back and think very deeply not about time anymore, but about space, you may find out that space is equally mysterious with time, although more easily 'touchable". IMHO we (I mean the human beings) haven't grasp what it's all about, yet.

That's not the way it goes. It was much easier for the Universe to randomly produce a living planet with intelligent primats and one of them creating the works of Shakespeare. It did happen and took only 13 billion years. What is asked in the monkeys example is something different. It consists to reproduce randomly twice a very specific result by driving another route.

I don't understand the argument. First it is stated that: Then it is tated that: In my understanding, if intelligent life is found on Kepler-186f, it means there is no Fermi paradox and as a matter of consequence there is no Great Filter.

To me the first step to understanding time is the following: When you see an object displacing, you see it moving through space i.e. the object changes position in Space. It changes coordinates in Space. In fact, the object also made a displacement in Time. It changes coordinate in Time. In exactly the same manner, all objects, including ourselves, are displacing in Time. Even when standing still. This simple first step in understanding time is so complicated and disputed that I have to stop here. There are indeed a lot of people who disagree with this simple statement: that we are changing coordinates in Time.

That makes little sense, If you input your answer , you get hex 3, 6+6=12, 8+5+1+2=16, 16-12=4 which means nothing.

I am sorry if anyone felt insulted by my last post. Derailing a bit I think that yes, the most intelligent and educated you get the more chance you have to become a "coward" as commonly understood. I.E. you will take decisions on the basis of knowledge and wisdom, not on the basis of your nerves and instincts, and certainly not on the basis of what some people less educated tell you to do.

I'd dare to say that the methodology is to blame. When observations are away from the predictions to 95%, you should go back to the black board, as Newton did. Of course, that's the hard way. The easy way is to rely on the existing theory. I believe the real profound issue is that scientists feel the duty to provide an explanation because there are afraid to leave the door open to all sorts of bogus "explanations". On the other hand this tactic has created a kind of dogma that holds back any tentative to provide a better explanation even from inside the scientific community.

IMHO one should not trust a model that explains through 95,1% dark evidence. I am waiting for a better model to come, since I am not in a position to provide anything better. It is pathetic.

"Hazmat", I learned something today. Sorry not to be a fluent american-english speaker. Not even bothered to google the word, I thought it was a toponym. IOW I was wrong expressing myself to be right.

I believe the image shows a fire, not a meteorological phenomenon. The policeman (or fireman) & the photographer are on the good side, with the wind back. The other ones at the horizon are in trouble.

Looks like a fund raising approach for a scientific research more than anything else. from your link http://www.universetoday.com/111278/astronauts-to-reveal-sobering-data-on-asteroid-impacts/ And I don't know about a "nuclear weapons test warning network" other than the CTBT* one. See http://www.ctbto.org/verification-regime/ *Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)

I am not a lawyer, but I guess that the fact that on one side there are some rules to follow and agree and on the other side there is access granted to a discussion platform, it is in fact a kind of private agreement between the Forum owner and the member, even if no money is involved. If this is so, then there are laws applying, which must be the laws of the U.K.

To me, mathematics are emergent from geometry. I don't know where geometry comes from. It should also be an emergent feature. Not from numbers anyway. Numbers can be arranged geometrically (in a line for example), not the other way round.

Correct. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82809-free-speech-and-community-forums-etc/ Good point. Why semi-serious? It reminds me people considering that the Internet is not "real life". And AFAIK there are laws that control what can be stated in private rules and what cannot. Such as private arrangements, work conventions or even things one can and cannot do at his own home. In some countries, the State rules what you can and cannot do under the sheets of your bed. It would be surprising if there were no laws about what one can do and not do over the Internet.

AFAIK all the mediterranean is under attack. When the symptoms show it is too late. If the palm trees are yours, you should care and take measures.

It is the real world. It is not a game.

Sure. But the mathematics would be equivalent. i mean with other values but according to a similar equation. I guess. Or to say it differently: I suspect there should be a generalizing equation that is valid for both optics and for material objects. With a M value for mass, when M=0 then you get Snell's law. Or something like that.

muscle system pro for MAC only. (info not from me)

This below is better? If one replaces the water surface with unbreakable steel, the bullet would rebound (if not melted by the impact) along a direction with same angle Θ incident. Since it is water and not steel, the bullet goes through the surface but there must be some tiny repelling force at angle Θ as indicated on the diagram. The decomposition of vectors must in this case show that the path of the bullet slightly changes. This is totally independent of the shape of the bullet, or whether the head of the bullet hits first while the rest of the bullet hits afterwards.

Can someone from the staff please correct the typo in the title that make my eyes blooding?

At the question "what is the missing number?" I would have answered "it is a question mark" because that is what I see in the place of the missing number.

I mean this below diagram holds also for a stone you throw at a pond of water (like stone skipping). It is not so specific to waves.

I don't understand. A bullet in air has velocity V1 Getting in water, it has velocity V2<V1 i understand that V1 is not an intrinsic characteristic of the bullet, nor a characteristic of the air. The same for V2. However, there exist a ratio V1,V2 which is characteristic of this particular bullet. And if there is such a ratio, why does the bullet continue on a sraight path, or not? Also I understand that Snell's law applies relatively to the angle to the surface. IOW the question is: does the surface of the liquid produce some force, oriented as a vector that it is, in some direction that is not the same as the incident path of the bullet. Because if there is such a force, then the path of the bullet is modified. If this force, which I think does exist, is a function of V1 and V2, then we are not far from Snell's law.