ajb

Sorry for the late reply... You are confusing the physical world with the mathematical world. There is no problem with the notion of the diameter or a circle.

So no then ...

I don't see that what you have posted makes any points or asks any questions. What is it you want to discuss?

Hunt down the book I suggest... otherwise you are just arguing from ignorance. (Not that I am sure what you are heading towards here)

Not my field at all ... but various people have worked on the mechanics of animal motion. You should see what the literature says on the subject - for sure a change in gravity is ruled out. See if you can find Robert McNeill Alexander, Dynamics of Dinosaurs and other Extinct Giants, Columbia University Press, 1989.

Not at all... it just means I have no plan to keep beating my head against a wall. It was fun, but I don't see that I nor you can gain anything from us continuing. Good luck with the 'physics'.

This is all off topic... please say something about wind and atmospheric physics next. We maybe able to help, maybe not, but please ask.

I think I'm done... over to Mordred.

Thank you John.

What are you talking about and what has that got to do with your opening post? What is it you want to ask or discuss about geological sources of energy?

You are not making yourself very clear ... you seem to not be using scientific language in the right way. Anyway, instead of being sh*tty about it, why not try to explain your points and questions better?

Well, if you want an over view of atmospheric physics then I cannot really help you much. Nor is this media great for very detailed answers of very general questions. But I have given you something to start with... now see what you can find for yourself.

The reason for wind is pressure differentials in the atmosphere which arise due to heating and cooling. The whole atmosphere - land - Sun syetem is complex, but heating and cooling is the basic reason for wind.

Well, the problem is that you are not exactly making yourself clear... For example " if the earth at a certain coordinate is suppressed of all energy" does not seem meaningful. Anyway, the amount of energy (per unit time) we take from geological sources is tiny as compared the the energy of the source - there is no real effect on the Earth as a whole.

To answer - in part- your title, the word wind in English seems to have come from early German and Norse http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wind As for your other question - what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJfIhLv3aQk "Heavy metal or no metal at all wimps and posers leave the hall Heavy metal or no metal at all wimps and posers go on get out Leave the hall"

Do you really want to discuss this and the book in general?

Spaced based solar energy has been looked into since the 1970s and using microwaves to 'beam' energy to Earth had been proposed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

So you are comparing proper time of more than one observer ... good. I do not understand this... when we move with respect to what? There is no meaningful notion of gravitational length contraction... sorry. You need to compare rulers to have length contraction. You need to describe a set-up for which one can do that in a meaningful way. I don't understand this statement. We model space-time as being curved irrespective of test bodies in motion. (But then you do have soem test bodies - your observers) It does not mean much - it is related to the number of posts and sienor member, I if recall correctly is a 'left over' from when one needed to make enough posts to post in some sections here. However, the general notion of inflation is supported by observations of the CMBR. It is true however, that we are not at the stage of throwing particular models out. This thread is not in the trash - though it may get locked at some point. This thread is in speculations - which seems okay as you are working outside of standard cosmology, have shown little understanding of general relativity and the work is not exactly 'mainstream'.

It looks like some simple aspects of quantum mechanics - wikipedia maybe all you need.

I am not sure there is a great answer here - I an not sure what you are really looking for. However, [math] \left( \begin{array}{ll} a & b \\ c & d\end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array}{l}1 \\0 \end{array} \right) = \left(\begin{array}{l}a \\b \end{array} \right)[/math] and so on... not sure that is any help though.

That coordinate time or proper time?

I am not really sure what that means... A frame is no more that a choice of coordinates on some neighborhood of a point in space-time; you can always do this such that we have a local inertial frame. You then want to compare clocks at different points on space-time or just space? Like I said, this is not really meaningful - it only makes any kind of sense for certian set-ups like observers hovering above a massive spherically symmetric object. In general, you can compare the proper time of different paths. I guess for this to have any real meaning the start points and the end points of both paths must be the same - viz the usual 'twin paradox' (poor name as there is no paradox). There is no general notion of time dilation.

You are thinking of a 'gravity well' so the Schwartzchild metric? You can make sense of what you said by looking at the standard formula for time dilation for this metric. I will just warn you that this kind of thinking works only for metrics that have time translation symmetry. That is you can think of observers 'hovering' at a fixed radius from the gravitational body. In doing so you can set things up so that the only coordinate that is changing is coordinate time. You can then think of two observers at different radii and look at what happens to light signals passed between them. From the Doppler shift you get time dilation - you have constructed a meaningful way to compare the proper time of the observers. But like I said, this does not work so easily in more general space-times. ..