michel123456

I must open a thread some day on the geometric effects of scaling.

Isn't that a bit problematic that "the fabric of space" which is an "immaterial thing" is able to "move galaxies"?

It will also suppress the horrible industrial procedure of growing and killing animals.

What are you expecting me to say: yes or no? Amusingly, there are 2 ways to read your sentence. ----------------------------------------------------- I hope someone will in the future, before I die. What? I said I hope that someone will explain why the speed of light is constant as measured by any inertial observer before I die. In the meanwhile I have made my own idea on this. I prefer being wrong than to have no answer at all.

Is this a new chance for SCC Theory? A Theory that so far seems consistant with data and A Theory that incorporates the CMB without the Big Bang. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-creation_cosmology

----------------- A good resume of time travel urban legends on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel_urban_legends

It is also a dangerous place. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2394520/Dunfermline-teenager-Daniel-Perry-17-kills-blackmailers-trick-Skype.html

The Internet is a very strange place where some people post a photoshop as a joke, then the joke becomes (mis)information. Along with photoshopped time travelers one can find giants and ufo's and other Bad Science (keep the initials and throw out the rest). Never, NEVER trust images from the Internet.

you don't need acceleration during the entire trip. A can accelrate for an hour or two and continue to travel towards B at constant velocity. if A keeps accelerating during the entire trip then the relative velocity will be huge when they meet. just think of an acceleration of 1m/sec^2 for (at least) 10 years...

you are wrong. moontan is right. Your reputation will increase soon.

I agree completely with you, JonG. The "fabric of spacetime" is the worst analogy ever. And there is no doubt in my mind that the explanations including the "curvature of spacetime" are hiding circumventing a more profound reality.

--A similar way to see the situation is the following: One could ask what is the geometric relation between the 3 space dimensions. in fact there is no difference between the 3 spatial dimensions, one can rotate arbitrarily the system of axis without changing anything: it means that the geometric relation between the 3 axis is equal to one (the unity, 1). it means that space is isotropic. Now, if one asks about the geometric relation between the spatial dimension and the temporal dimension, the scientist replies that geometric relation is C. Even a very simple minded person would ask, how is that, why is it not one (the unity, 1)? And then scientists will reply that indeed, the relation is 1, simply the value C is the result of more common units.

Yes, they were quite unlucky because I gave the phone to my wife who knows to shout better than I do.

Except Space. That is a major exception. ------------------ In order to be constructive: C(in vacuum) is a constant. C is also a ratio, expressed in units Meters/sec. So, if you put on the X axis roughly 300000 km and on the Y axis 1 second, the tiny-tiny angle represents C. The OP question can be resumed as "why is the value of the angle this exactly value" and the answer as AJB said is "no one knows". It seems that the Universe is governed by that ratio. It is geometric feature of the Universe. That's all.

I hope someone will in the future, before I die.

Have you never been called on the phone by "someone-from-a-society-in-Scotland" telling you that inspecting your IP he found that your computer has been attacked by a virus and that he (the one-from-a-society-in-Scotland) wants to connect directly to your computer in order to remove the virus?

Oh. You are lucky to know the topics of your future exams. The tactic to follow is to find the answer into the stuff your professor told you, or to find out what he (or she) is waiting for, not evidently what members here tell you.

Isn't that confusing? Is it correct to insert an operator as it was an intrinsic property of a number? For example, if I am not abused, in the binary system there exist only "zero" and "one", like an on/off switch, in which case there is no positive or negative meaning. In this case the number 1 is stricly neutral. I don't know if there are other examples where numbers are neutral. ------------- Anyway, you agree that the + and - sign are part of the number. In this case the notation I proposed shouldn't bother you. The change with the traditional notation consists in that the nature of the opposite is not related to the operator, it can be anything. Simply, 2 opposite numbers have the same value but in opposite way, wathever it means. As AJB noted, it could be a same distance in opposite direction. That would be a question of units.

IIRC Brian Greene's Elegant Universe, the concept states that from the 11 dimensions, only one is temporal, 3 are the existing spatial ones and the rest are also spatial dimensions curved upon themselves in such a tiny matter that they are not perceptible. I never understood on which rational basis scientists have ruled out the many times dimensions. It would have been simpler to hide since the only single apparent time dimension of our observable universe is let's say "invisible".

You can have a look at the corresponding Wiki article here. To me it is an instrument and as many instruments are, it can be a weapon. ---------- (edit) after reading myself: i hope it was not too pedantic.

What I mean by opposite? Right, I am happy that you asked the question. Here we are talking about (real) numbers. on the number line, you have the positive part and the negative part. 1, 2, 3 are positive. You can make an operation like addition say 1+2=3 From a semantic point of vue, one should make a distinction between what is the mathematical operation (here addition) and what is the number (the operand here 1,2,3) If (i say if) the operator, the + sign, is different from the number, then one has to conclude that numbers (1,2,3) are neutral. Numbers have intrisically no sign, they are neither positive neither negative, they are neutral. If the above is correct, then when inspecting the negative part of the number line there is a kind of issue, in the sense that one cannot separate the minus sign from the number. The actual concept is that in the negative part, the minus sign is intrisically part of the number in order to make it different from the conventionnal positive number. Thus, in the negative part, the numbers are -1,-2,-3 wich are different by nature of numbers 1,2,3 that should be written +1,+2,+3 As if the + and - sign was part of the nature of the number and not only an operator. So, coming back to the question "what do I mean by opposite", the answer is that, to me, opposites are objects of intrisically opposite values relatively to an axis of symmetry. And in order to get this "intrisic" property of opposite, the object itself (the number) must be written down in such a manner that it shows its oppositeness (if such a word exists) without the use of any operator. Otherwise there will exist a confusion between the operation and the operand.

Yes, once a year on the average with a slightly different story.

This forum is not Facebook. From post#7 and further there is no "forgotten news of the year 2013", there is a conversation between you and me that seemingly interests nobody else.

Because the conversation has become silly. And totally out of tracks.

I don't know.