michel123456

Eleven players is not enough. We could imagine many teams. And till now all players are from occidental civilisation. No russian, no chinese, no japanese, no indian. Where are Friedmann, Gamow, Landau, Linde (he is alive), Prigogine, Sakharov, Chen Ning Yang & Tsung-Dao Lee (too old to play, but alive), Charles K. Kao (alive), Makoto Kobayashi (alive), Toshihide Maskawa (alive), Yoichiro Nambu (american, but alive), Masatoshi Koshiba (still alive), Chandrasekhar (passed away), and C. V. Raman, or is that a Nobel Prize is not enough to take part of the team?

I have an obvious problem when trying to explain some concepts of mine. Each particle with mass has a center of gravity. When many particles are tied together making a macroscopic object, there is one and only one center of gravity for this particular object. The universe is made up with billions of particles & billions of macroscopic objects with billions of billions individual centers of gravity. When one discuss about the BBT, the expansion of space, or the "change in metric", all these happen in the gap between all those individual "centers of gravity". As you said, there is no (single specific) center of gravity that you can identify, because each individual center is equally good. (words in italic are mine). You can decide and take any point as the center of gravity of the universe, it must work. That is also part of the Copernican Principle si je ne m'abuse.

I know you always try to understand and I really appreciate your interest. I always listen, but I am stubborn. Never mind, end of offtopics. Back to the first question: "Can we see it ?" Here an extract from another post of yours in another thread: (emphasis mine) That is exactly the point I want to discuss. The "meaning that one cannot be observed from the other" is IMO completely misplaced.

There are billions of billions of billions of centers of gravity. You cannot say there is none: there are too manies.

IMO Galileo should be the coach. Put Mach as goal keeper..

I will surely look stubborn, but I disagree with this statement, & with Swansont. Why? Because I stick desesperately to the concept of speed as a relative concept. I believe C is the speed limit of our observation. No one, from any FOR, can observe anything moving at speed higher than C. That's all. IMHO of course.

Aren't they all dead?

You are screwed. You will never be sure that other people will print correctly your pdf. If you find a solution, tell me. Only through some CAD application. And even there you are never sure.

True. Offtopic: there are other available explanations that don't put necesseraly the Earth at the centre. We discussed that in another thread where acceleration was to only needed input in order to get the same resulting expansion. Besides (really offtopic), I am maybe the only one here to believe that we are not only "nowhere" in space, but also "nowhere" in time, something that the Copernican principle does not take into consideration (I call that the Extended Copernican Principle).

Is this a misunderstanding? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes. The last part of your sentence means light would be redshifted. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Discussion will go out of tracks. I don't want to argue whether imaginary results have some physical meaning, or whether this mathematical factor is ad hoc. There are arguments to provide. My point is: we are actually observing galaxies going away from us at FTL velocities, and they are redshifted. Because our Theory forbids the fact*, we have another explanation which is "space itself expands", which IMO is not an easy explanation. The peculiar part is that this explanation arises from the same theory that forbids FTL objects to exist. The circle is closed and everybody is happy. We are observing FTL objects, but no, we are not, we are observing SlowerTL objects & space expands FTL. IMO it is contortionism. It is much simpler to accept directly what we are observing. It is consistent with the fundamental axiom of Relativity, that SOL is constant for any FOR. * I think it does not forbid the fact. "In the language of special relativity, a tachyon is a particle with space-like four-momentum and imaginary proper time. A tachyon is constrained to the space-like portion of the energy-momentum graph. Therefore, it cannot slow down to subluminal speeds." from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

Try removing AVG for a while. Some software is running in the background. Antivirus programs are heavy and the third presumable guilty (after viruses & malware). If nothing improves, check the running processes in "Task Manager", and end one by one (you may crash if you end some iexplore.exe or rundll32.exe for example, but no other harm than a reboot). Good luck.

IIRC Relativity does not forbid FTL objects. What Relativity states is that SOL is impassable (that it cannot be passed). SOL is an obstacle, a barrier, that does not mean that on the other side of the barrier, nothing exists. It is commonly believed that if FTL objects were to exist, they would be invisible, because photons would go the wrong way. My point is that, as far as I can understand, when the axiom of Relativity states that C is constant, such hypothetical FTL objects must be visible. There is no way for photons to "go back" (see my post #18) because C is constant.

Does gravity become repulsive when time is reversed?

Sorry. In your post #19, you agreed with my post #18. (for some mysterious reason, posts numbers disappear when I reply to thread)

As I said before, I am evolutionist. I think everything is an state of evolution. Not only the living beings, but the stars, the galaxies, the universe, and as a matter of coherence, the planet. We know from observation that the earth considered as a whole is not in a stable situation: there are earthquakes, eruptions, tsunamis, and also hurricanes, floods, etc. We know that the Moon is getting away, we know that the length of the day was different in the past. We know that the magnetic poles happen to change from time to time. we know that the Earth at some period did not exist at all, and was formed in some way, that the Earth surface was hot, then cooled. In a few words, we know things have changed, and we know that things are continuing to change now. I think if you want to remain in an evolutionist spirit, you must admit the possibility that EVERYTHING can change, including all things we use to consider as a standard, for example Earth's dimensions. I think it provides a simple mechanism that explains the source of those gigantic forces that mave the tectonic plates move & collide. I cannot understand how it is possible to explain tectonics only through convection currents without any bigger change in Earth's structure. Gravity was less in the past, and will increase in the future. Relief will increase, in the past the surface was smoother. Almost the entire Earth was covered with a thinner ocean in which life appeared. Slowly, very slowly, the ground raised, and life began to come out of water. After some time, because gravity was increasing, some of these animals could not bear their weight anymore, and got back to the waters. The others dissapear, letting the place free for other living beings, smaller and more adaptaded to the increasing gravity. We are one of those, and slowly, we will feel being attracted by water. That's what I am looking for. As i said before, if you are not interested in a specific question, you won't find any answer. we know through physics that everything is interconnected. You cannot change the position of the Moon without any influence on a bunch of other parameters. So, when so many parameters are constantly changing, in don't see any reason why some others must remain stable.There are 3 possibilities: 1._Earth's radius is stable 2._Earth's radius is increasing. 3._Earth's radius is decreasing. 1 is the mainstream conception, no comment. 2 is the expanding Earth Theory, with some supporting and contradictory aspects. 3 is the shrinking Earth. No other comment.

Correct. That is a very good argument. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Sorry for the misunderstanding. I do not see the shrinking earth as a replacement of plates tectonics. I think both can happen, these are 2 different things, maybe the one causing the other. And I have well understood all of your post about null hypothesis. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hi John.

In your post #20, you agreed with my post #19.

Plate tectonics is a confirmed observation. I agree with it. But it's another thing to measure & observe, and another thing to explain. IMO you cannot explain plate tectonics through the cause of motion of tectonic plates. Whether plate tectonics is caused by convection in the mantel or core, by contraction or expansion, is wrong. IMO the observed fact, those gigantic plates slightly moving, is caused by the structure of the crust. When you take a body, a structure, or a construction; the way it breaks under some specific effect, is mainly an outward sign of its internal structure. When you smash a it breaks into pieces, large & small, with cutting edges. When you smash a , it breaks into a huge amount small pieces with rounded edges. The internal structure of the glass makes the way it breaks. The same symptoms are used in particle physics: scientists break tiny particles to understand their internal structure.For Earth's crust, it is the same. If it breaks into gigantic plates, it is caused by its internal structure, and by the way it is broken. The statement "The shrinking Earth theory would predict that mountain ranges would appear at random, all over the Earth" is a false argument, IMO. As for the null hypothesis, of course it cannot be rejected: it is the mainstream concept.

Fair enough. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged--------------- I will continue gathering information. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter "Theoretical models indicate that if Jupiter had much more mass than it does at present, the planet would shrink. For small changes in mass, the radius would not change appreciably, and above about four Jupiter masses the interior would become so much more compressed under the increased gravitation force that the planet's volume would decrease despite the increasing amount of matter." -------------------------- from http://jgslegacy.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/109/1-4/217 The evolution of a shrinking earth (1953, old stuff) George Martin Lees, M.C. D.F.C. Ph.D. F.R.S. Contraction of the earth's surface due to shrinkage of the interior is the only adequate explanation of the compression zones, but the amount attributable to cooling is thought to be inadequate. Estimates of the extent of compression during the Alpine, Hercynian, Caledonian and at least three Pre-Cambrian phases give a contraction of the earth's circumference of at least 3000 km. and perhaps much more. The processes of compression, mountain-forming and erosion were already an established regime at the time of the oldest exposed Archaean rocks, and in consequence there is no geological evidence on the nature of the primordial crust and certainly no hint that it was at one time molten. Assuming no important change in the mass of the earth since the Archaean, the average density at that, already advanced, stage of compression may have been about 4–5 g/cm3 compared with the present value of 5–517. Note: the 3000km value for the circumference equals about 477 km of radius decrease at the last phase of the precambrian period, about 500 millions years ago, or approximatively 3 times more than the previous estimation. And more contemporary stuff http://rt.com/Sci_Tech/2009-10-05/scientist-earth-shrinking-waistline.html "Our planet is shrinking, says a Russian geologist. Since its early days the Earth’s average radius has reduced by 585 kilometers. Vyacheslav Orlenok, professor of geology at the Kant Russian State University in Kaliningrad, compared ancient relief structures to those of today, he reports in a paper. He says 4.5 billion years ago, when Earth’s surface had just started to solidify, the little blue ball was a bit bigger. Its average radius was 6,956 km, and has since reduced by 585 km." --------------------------------------------------------- And to show you how impartial I can be, a counter-example: from http://www.apqj64.dsl.pipex.com/sfa/id59.htm "In Theory … There have been many theories (ideas) about why the Earth has a wrinkled surface (mountains and ocean tranches). One of the popular ones of the last century was the `Shrinking Earth' theory. It was imagined that the Earth started off as a molten ball of rock material, orbiting the Sun. As this cooled, a skin was formed, much like skin forms on cooling custard! This skin is referred to as the Crust. When things cool down, it is well known that they shrink. This would cause the solid crust to buckle, in the same way that the skin of an apple wrinkles when it has been left for too long without being eaten. The mountain ranges of the Earth were thought to be the wrinkles on the Crust. This idea was well accepted in scientific circles. As with all scientific ideas, eventually someone challenged it. Eventually it was replaced with the `Plate Tectonics' theory, which explains more facts accurately. The shrinking Earth theory would predict that mountain ranges would appear at random, all over the Earth. They are not, they are found only in narrow belts e.g. the Alps or Himalayas. Plate Tectonics predicts that mountains are only found in narrow belts, where two plates collide - this is what is observed. It would predict that mountains would constantly grow higher. They do not, they are eventually worn down e.g. the Scottish mountains are all less than 1500m in height, they were once the size of the alps at about 4000m high. Plate tectonics predicts this since mountains would cease to grow when the plates stop moving in that area. The shrinking Earth theory predicts that volcanoes and Earthquakes would occur at random, all over the surface of the Earth. They do not, they only occur in narrow belts. This is predicted by plate tectonics. Accurate measurements of the positions of countries can now be made using satellite technology. These show that countries are moving around the surface of the Earth. This can not be explained by the shrinking Earth theory. The rocks of Derbyshire contain fossil corals, indicating that tropical conditions once existed here. This can easily be predicted by plate tectonics. India is a sub tropical country. There is evidence that it has been covered in ice, millions of years ago. This is easily explained by plate tectonics." All information welcome.

Almost. The "due to cosmic expansion" part is not necessary: it is an explanation. You don't have to insert an explanation when describing an observation. If you want to stick strictly to observation you have to say: "Can we currently observe any* objects that are currently moving away FTL?" Yes. * with the reservation: the word "any" means "any object placed upon the surface of our past light-cone". All other hypothetical objects, if existing, are not observable.

I am afraid your thread don't go too well, Mr Skeptic. We are out of tracks.

Never begin a sentence with "The truth is..." I could agree with the following, as it looks to be a (unbelievable) fact: "we are currently observing objects that were receding from us FTL when the light we see now were emitted."

yes. Correction:From wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory#Current_status "Modern measurements have established very stringent upper bound limits for the expansion rate, which very much reduces the possibility of an expanding Earth. For example, paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius.[2] Furthermore, examinations of earth's moment of inertia suggest that no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 Million years could have taken place and therefore earth expansion is untenable." What is the pure scientific mathematical conclusion of this? That the Earth was an average of 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius, 400 million years ago. Or that the Earth's radius today is approximatively 98% of what it was 400 million years ago. Or that we have to close our eyes to the average value, reject it, and choose the other convenient one: the one that gives 100%. Is there any scientific reason to do that ? end of correction. ------------------ The data used into dismissing the expanding earth theory tells something. It is just a matter of what you want to hear. "no significant change" 127km in the past 400 millions years 0,0003175 meter/year or a decrease of perimeter about 2 mm/year if I made no mistake.

From wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expandi...Current_status "Modern measurements have established very stringent upper bound limits for the expansion rate, which very much reduces the possibility of an expanding Earth. For example, paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius.[2] Furthermore, examinations of earth's moment of inertia suggest that no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 Million years could have taken place and therefore earth expansion is untenable." What is the pure scientific mathematical conclusion of this? That the Earth was an average of 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius, 400 million years ago. Or that the Earth's radius today is approximatively 98% of what it was 400 million years ago. Or that we have to close our eyes to the average value, reject it, and choose the other convenient one: the one that gives 100%. Is there any scientific reason to do that ?

There are also similarities between BH and elementary particles. Black Holes & elementary particles share three distinguishing characteristics: mass, charge, and spin . The difference with your question is just a matter of scale. But if it turned to be right that an elementary particle corresponds to a minuscule kind of BH, then your statement "No singularity inside the universe" would become false. The universe would be full of singularities.