geordief

Is there an "absolute" measure of the scaling and is there any theoretical limit to how "fast" the scaling process can proceed? I mean ,c is there because there has to be a maximum speed of some value (in my view) but,separately does there have to be a limit to the scaling effect? It is driven by some energetic process isn't it? I know that it causes an separation that is faster the further away one is from what it is one observes but there is an underlying mechanism to which one might attribute a "speed" or "rate" and this should presumably (verifiably?) be the same in all parts of the observable universe. We cross posted . I will have to look at your post. It looks complicated at first glance.

The inflation article seems exponentially more involved than the "simple " expansion one. I doubt I could learn much from it at this stage as it seems to requite a lot more basic understandings than I have for now. Thanks all the same.

Is there any speed related to this expansion? I understand it is unrelated **to c but is it ,at least in theory possible to describe the rate at which this expansion is ongoing? Is there a theoretical upper limit to this expansion and does it have to be a globalized effect? Is it ,at least in theory possible that their might be localized instances of expansion ? **or is "unrelated" too strong and is there actually a formula that connects the two rates?

The only person I spoke to who was ,or was thinking of becoming a member tole me quite cynically that it was just a club and that it would be good to have someone at your back. In its favour it does have a tradition but I have no idea what kind of a belief system it actually expounds(if any as it does have a whiff of the laughable) Is it "men only"?

I don''t see the crux(never mind ) but that is a point I had never come across before. I like it. But these fluctuations do have an effect on the "macro world" even if there is no "effective action"? They are not simply "self referential" ,surely? Or is my question "behind the curve" ?

Fair to say that ,if a global boundary was ever discovered it would be perhaps the most revolutionary discovery in science? The equivalent of the ability to look at ourselves "from the outside" -something which I would count as a self contradictory concept.

Why wouldn't you just arrive before he was killed?You could move him out of the way and save his life

Right ,but for an observer traveling at the same speed as the medium the wave will travel at the exact same speed regardless of whatever object (moving at whatever velocity) caused** the wave? ** "caused" ="emitted" ? I was told that the maximum speed of sound was c. I think it might be so in a black hole. I won't answer (as I am not qualified) but I guess that is widely accepted. thanks for clearing that up. Those are amazing figures by the way (the one related to Jupiter).

"What do you understand by "space is volume"? 3D space ? As I picture it 3D space is an idealization (and a mathematical model). So that phrase "space is volume" would have to be rewritten to "a volume in spacetime is the region enclosed by 2 events in the model"

What if a miniscule object was traveling at a relativistic speed (at least in excess of the speed of sound in the medium,anyway)?Would the resultant wave in the medium be constrained (immediately) to the normal speed of the wave in that medium? So none of the speed of the miniscule object would be imparted to the speed of the wave which would be uniquely determined by the speed of a (sound) wave in that medium? It is a separate point perhaps to the one explained by Swansont.

ls this factually correct? The speed and direction of any wave (eg a sound wave ) is also independent of the state of motion of the emitting body ? Light waves are not unusual in this behaviour? I am struggling a bit with this.Does that imply that a rocket with a very low exhaust velocity can in theory approach (not reach) the speed c given enough time? Is the final speed just determined by the amount of onboard fuel compared to the initial mass of the rocket?

Is "intelligent" better? Animals are routinely described as intelligent -to differing degrees. I don't think "sentient" is a remarkable attribute. What animals are not sentient.?Even vegetables could be described as "sentient" (awareness of their environment is all I think it implies)

If the car accelerates wrt a stationary observer what does the helium balloon wrt the same observer? Accelerate less in the same direction?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39642992 "Physicists have created a fluid with "negative mass", which accelerates backwards when pushed." Seems like it might be a big science story. Is it? Anyone care to comment?

Do we confuse measurement of time with the phenomenon of change? We say time moves at one second per second. Does this just mean the process does not require measurement for it to occur? Could we say that "one second per second " (the usual way to describe proper time, I think ) implies the disappearance of both numerator and denominator as they cancel out entirely?

Hopefully it is not the only game in town http://www.jta.org/2017/04/04/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/israeli-firm-to-provide-drinking-water-from-the-air-for-india-and-vietnam I am not sure how much of an impact this technology is having...

That is very helpful. I may do that . I have found it on ebay quite easily and hope I will be able to do it some justice if I go ahead and order it.

I feel I am starting to get this. Absolute time does not exist. It has been shown in theory (in a loosely termed way) and also experimentally. It now is starting to feel like a second nature to me but I would like to ask a question (one that may have been posed many times ,no doubt). What are the philosophical (or just plain down to earth) consequences of this new understanding (I assume it was not an understanding prior to Einstein's Relativity theorems) ? Clearly one consequence is simply that we have to get with the program and appreciate the world as it is rather than how we would like it to be but are there any broad "world view" understandings that arise or are we really just limited to practical understandings?

I didn't see that BBC report as counting any chickens. The rewards for a successful outcome are nevertheless extremely high. Can you give an example where the difficulties are being downplayed -in this report?

Is this idea that bodies in movement naturally choose the path of the least passage of time in spacetime equivalent to the idea that they will choose the path that requires the least energy? They have a "budget" of energy that only allows them one path ? " i always assumed that tme dilation is the result of gravity not its cause " Have we read too much of a cause/effect into this? Are the two phenomena interdependent without it being possible to separate chicken from egg (except mathematically as part of a model)?

I think we cross posted . That is what I was wondering about in my Edit ,I think (the Feynman lecture http://yima.csl.illi...Chapter2-19.pdf).

That quote is from the video,isn't it? It is Kip Thorne who says those words. I think Kip Thorne is attributing that assertion to Einstein(I have no idea where Einstein may have said it:perhaps others do) and the claim seems to be that that the need for an object to minimize its passage of time somehow causes the phenomenon we experience as gravity. (any connection with the principle of least action? ) http://yima.csl.illinois.edu/psfile/ECE553/FeynmanLecturesOnPhysicsChapter2-19.pdf I think Bird11dog did indeed bring up a very similar idea in the thread he mentions. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83655-time-gravity/ From my limited understanding I think that it may not be possible to disentangle time dilation from spatial contraction.

Is America going to lose its competitive position in the low carbon economy that we are headed for like it or not? Or will American industry be in a position to thrive (in that economy) even if its home market is damaged ? Will the public be in a position to boycott goods(or buy "foreign" product) produced by private companies that do not engage in making products for the low carbon future ? What is the engine of the coming low carbon economy? The public? Big business? Government?

I came across this idea on a BBC documentary last night -already put out on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75ESo5IPpBs at I hour 25 mins and 15 seconds onwards Although the idea does resonate with me , I am unable to discuss this intelligently and am hoping someone on this forum can see if the idea has merit. To me it seems to be putting (or seeing) gravity in a back to front way in regards to its relationship with the workings of time but I do not have a good grip on the processes involved. Here is the passage in the book that Khalili was clearly reading from ("The Science of Interstellar" by Kip Thorne) "Everything likes to live where it'll age the most slowly & gravity pulls it there." https://books.google.ie/books?id=PbWYBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT62&lpg=PT62&dq=%22everything+likes+to+live+where%22&source=bl&ots=h7L5wczpdS&sig=NUYtfOqzJltUpVUbc89WZ6FZI3U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHiquzxvvSAhVPFMAKHSZGBfwQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22everything%20likes%20to%20live%20where%22&f=false

It is surprising that a link to nocturia was not made before ( unless it was;but I don't think it was) Low sodium diets are also indicated for high blood pressure -which can apparently make strokes more likely amongst other things.