michel123456

That's enough to me.

The result is that if such a FTL object exists, we should be able to see it.

In relation with Sisyphus's Well, from the beginning of this thread, I am speaking about "objects moving away from one another" and not about "the amount of space in between them increasing", following this simple reasoning: Lets take an object moving away (not receding) at speed v < C. This objects emits light that we can see. The naive concept says that the photons that will reach us must have speed C-v= F. (1) But Relativity shows it is completely wrong. Photons are reaching us at C. Always. Now, when we take another hypothetical object moving away at v > C, we are used to make the same substraction, putting C-v= F (2) and obtaining negative F, meaning that the photons will go away from us instead of reaching us. IMO it is exactly the same error, because equation (1) is the same erroneous with equation (2). We simply cannot make the naive substraction, it is wrong. In any case, the photons will reach us at C.

THAT is the point I am discussing. I think the above statement is wrong.

Emphasis mine. I think it is absolutely correct. I only don't understand the "into negative energy" part. That's the question. If , following Relativity, simple Newtonian summation of speed is wrong, it must be wrong by all means. The concept "a photon that is emitted from an object receding FTL will never reach us" is the intuitive result of simple summation of speed. But we know that Relativity is strongly counter-intuitive. IMO we cannot assume that such a photon will never reach us. If we stick to the strict fundamental statement that "C is constant", even a photon emitted by an object receding from us at FTL will reach us. And from our FOR, we will see this photon traveling at C, the same as all the other photons emitted by any other object traveling at any other speed. That's what Sisyphus stated when writing: On the other hand Swansont wrote: IMO it should be stated that "in locally flat spacetime we are always observing objects moving at speed lower than C", which is exactly corresponding to observation. The statement "can't be moving faster than c" is a (rash) conclusion based on this observation.

When an object emits light, we can see it. _when the objects moves away at some speed, we observe light coming at us at constant speed = C. _when the object moves away at speed less than C, we observe light at C. _when the object moves away at C, we observe light at C (because C is constant) _when an (hypothetical) object moves away at speed faster than C (?), we must observe (I suppose) light coming at C, because C is constant. So I suppose that even when an object like a galaxy is receding from us at speed faster than C, we are observing the light coming from this object traveling at C. Independently of any "space expansion". Or, in other word: an object receding at FTL, can we see it?

Good question. IMO it is a wrong interpretation of the results of Relativity. Here is how I understand things, with all reservations. The infinite increase of mass & energy is as seen from Earth, not as lived by the moving object. The astronaut on the spaceship can assume that the Earth is moving at near C speed, not him. Nothing strange happens to the spaceship, and it can increase its speed as the commander wishes without annoyance. But that is not what someone upon Earth will observe: this one will observe that the spaceship will never reach C.

No. A distance like that would be negative and as such does not belong to the "real world".

Funny how the same discussion arises again & again. Yes you are right: everything around us is in the past. The past has a position in space: outside all around the observer. Question: does the present has also a position in space? Answer: yes. Here, at the point of space where the observer is. Q: does the future has also a position in space? A: yes. "inside the observer". Nothing more logical.

I don't think turbulence is an integral part of weather, meaning, if I understand your point, that turbulence is inherent. Turbulences are caused by outside parameters, like Life (as mentioned by StringJ), that's the butterfly, and volcanoes (cf StringJ) which are phenomenas caused by other turbulences inside Earth's shell. I was thinking that if you take a chaotic model representing weather and let it evolve freely without any disturbance (no life & no volcanoes), only with the parameters of rotation (coriolis force), other astral movements & relief, I guess the model should become regular i.e. not chaotic any more.

A question about that triggers me: How come that the climate is so chaotic and has not stabilized in fluent currents, like trade winds? The earth is 4 billions years of age, it should have been enough time. Or is there something that continously destabilize the system and makes it chaotic?

A good reading, small book from Dennis Guedj, Numbers: The Universal Language, transl. Lory Frankel. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers (1997): available at the MOMA in the U.S. Ancient greeks believed number 1 was the equal of existence. I think Clipper is about saying the same (he is thus right but 2500 years too late). If he had posed 0-1 (as proposed by KK) instead of 1-1, he would have reached Leibnitz (350 years ago). If he wants to reach the present, he should realize that in his statement 1-1 there are 2 concepts: _a. There is the number 1, which is the existence (see the Greeks, or fermions in current science) _b. There is the connection sign - (see bosons in current science) IMO it is too elementary to see any god in those. If god(s) is (are) somewhere, it(they) cannot be in the elementary small, but in the infinite big (but that is for a religion forum).

About Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749 – 1827) in wiki: Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, 'Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.' ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.") Emphasis mine.

World Record Highest Dive He enters the water as described by Mr skeptic. I am not a fan of RB but they have a wonderful picture (from another contest):

Verlinden & Padmanabhan's papers have all the ingredients: _acceleration _horizon _full relativity _no use of graviton _and in watermark the principle of least action. If I understand well, Verlinden's is a description of the scale factor, although it is not expressed in such terms. Despitely, he missed Time. IMO it will follows. Very exciting. Thank you Martin.

Entropy seems to be the center of interest lately. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_as_an_entropic_force and all the links provided.

Ough, quite technical reading. For sure they are on something. From Padmanabhan's paper at the end of page 79: "At a conceptual level, this may be welcome when we note that every key progress in physics involved realizing that something we thought as absolute is not absolute." I agree 200%. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe door is open. Things move on. see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.1625v2.pdf dated 03.10.2010 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.2510v3.pdf dated 04.05.2010

I think this way you loose a lot. Have you ever lost a pencil on your desk? A green pencil? Well, I can assure that you will not find your green pencil, if you are wrong in the first place and your pencil was not green but red. You will look for hours searching a green pencil that do not exist. From the moment you realize your error, and remember that your pencil is red, you'll find it very quickly. It was there in front of you, all the time. My point is: if you don't know what you are searching for, you will never find anything. I strongly believe that someone must first have the enlightment (the falling apple ), and then can find an explanation. I agree with you that in the specific case, it looks rather a somber enlightment. Example: I was looking at the globe, wondering why continents looked so random: the coastlines are totally chaotics, there is no regular shape anywhere, no axis, no preference, no obvious law, except the match of west Africa with East America. No such a match for west America & Asia. Thinking. Wondering. After a while, I asked myself, what am I looking at? Answer: continents. Question: are continents a structure of randomness? If randomness was the law, would there be continents in the first place? Or would there be a huge amount of small islands distributed equally around the surface, the same way craters spread around the Moon surface? Or: why are there continents? Why are there (tectonic) plates? Why are these plates so immense? Why aren't there a lot of small plates, and a much larger amount of volcanoes? Everywhere. Is there a kind of equilibrium between the internal structure of the Earth and the number & the dimension of plates & volcanoes ? I guess there must be some kind of equilibrium, otherwise the Earth wouldn't look so stable. Without such an equilibrium, the Earth would obviously and quickly expand, or collapse. If you don't ask the question, you won't find the answer. Just an example.

As always, I expected another answer. But this one is better. No I was not aware that geometry is supposed to be able having a temperature, and yes I will look further at Verlinden and Co. Thanks.

What is bugging me: On one hand you have matter, radiations, atoms, quarks, etc. On the other hand you have a concept: geometry. What you say is that geometry is not a concept, geometry is something, and that "something" is expanding. What I say is that geometry is a human concept, and geometry cannot expand. But matter, radiation, atoms, quarks can. You could say I am looking in the left hand, you are looking in the right hand. But I think I am looking in the right one, and you in the wrong one. Is that cheap enough?

If you don't ask the question in the first place you won't find any evidence. The only elements I could find are summarized in my first post. Evidentally not enough to make a claim. It is one of my few "theories" I use to keep in a drawer. Maybe some day it will find some support.

International laws suck. My point is: States must stop behave like States and begin behave like ordinary people. States are wearing guns, are lying, theaving, spying, killing, all things that are forbidden to ordinary people. _make war illegal, that's my wish. When people make munitions, put them in jail. When people sell weapons, put them in jail. When people (politicians) begin a war, condamn them (both sides). Make a new law obliging the politician who command a war to be incarcerated under the accusation of crime against Humanity. Make a law that obliges the one being attacked to go to jail, under the accusation of crime against Humanity for not being able to resolve a problem peacefully. In the specific case: _Some politician decided to use the army in order to make an intervention. Who is he? He is partly responsible for the death of 9 (foreign) citizens and injury of tens of others, between them Israelian soldiers. _Some military (or politician) decided to act out the frontiers of the State. Who is he? He is partly responsible too. _Some military (or politician) decided to give real munitions to his soldiers. Who is he? _Some military decided to put his soldiers under a situation where no retreat was possible. If you respect human life, never never never put your own people in such a situation. Who is he? Soldiers and militants are victims of these people. These people have name and address. Who are they? They are drinking their coffee right now, reading quitly the newspapers they don't even pay for, eating belgian chocolate. Other ones are in a coffin, others are crying, others are hating, and others are afraid. When you are in disagreement with your neighbour, what do you do? Do you go and smash his face? That is what Palestininans and Israelians are doing right now. Is it correct? Do they smash correctly using international laws, where it is written how it is legal to smash this way or the other? Is that the question? Don't they understand that both are victims? Don't they understand that other people are laughing to them? That other people decide and make constantly wrong decisions where foukarades suffer and die?

Feelings, only feelings. _I am a 200% evolutionist. It makes sense to me when things evolute. I find it very unphysical to examinate something and consider it absolutely stable. That's a feeling of the philosoph. _the Earth is structurated in layers, with the most dense in the center (the core) and the less dense at the perimeter (the atmosphere). As I conceive it, it must be the result of a movement of dense materials toward the center, expulsing the light elements outside, something comparable to the Archimedes principle, due to gravity. I don't see any reason why this movement must have stopped. _between the light elements expelled at the surface, there is water. it looks logical to me that the oceans were created from the expulsion from the whole mass, like juice coming from a squeezed orange. explaining by the same way the salinity of ocean's water. _a shrinking Earth would maybe give some other explanation to the gigantic horizontal forces that drive the tectonic plates and give birth to mountains, valleys and abyss. _a greater Earth in the past, in dimension, with the same mass , with smoother relief, would have been the living place of ancient animals. with a bigger radius, and the same mass, I just can guess gravity at the surface must have been lower, and larger animals & plants could have lived without annoyance. _when shrinking, gravity must have increased, pushing some species to adapatation in another environnement (aquatic mammals) or making other species disappear. -I have to go. See you tomorrow.

Why can't we live together? Mooeypoo, you are very sensible. IMO you have no reason to try defend the undefendable. As you said in your firsts posts, you are a citizen, as I am, as we are. You have been throwned in a situation you have no command at, as I am, as we are. If you were born palestinians, now you would be in the west bank supporting a situation you have no command at. What to do instead? Did someone asked you? Did you give the command for the assault? No. Nor did I nor anyone here around. You are not responsible for your country. People are dead. Shame on us. All of us. There is no reason to support anyone. People are dead. Mothers & fathers are crying. you must know about that. It was not an accident, not a disease, not a natural catastrophe. Man decided. It is not important if Man was Israeli or Turkish or Serbian. Man decided to use weapon, Man killed. It is bad. There are no excuses. What do you expect when you send the army? Do you know what happen when governements send the army instead of the police against protesting civilians? Do civilized governements dare to use the army against, even armed, civilians? No. Never. When they do, they are not civilized any more. Israel is in a constant state of war. Israel cannot make the difference between a turkish civilian protester and between an ennemy: Israel is not part of the civilized countries. Israel is wrong. What would have been the reaction of any civilized country? A civilized country would have said "oops, sorry, error, people were killed on my command: I resign. But no, here some say that people were killed properly. Without trial, without advocate, without judgment, without appeal, condamned to death at once. Do you realize that this "at once" procedure do not exist in civilized world? Do you realize that other nations live in peace? That people from different nations & religions are free to pass the borders without even a passport? Do you realize that you are alone? Now I feel better. Israel has a wonderful talent of being the most antipathic country in the world. You probably don't realize how much. And you don't realize, or do you, how dangerous it is. Because in people's simple mind, when Israel do something, the entire population of the state of Israel, plus all the hebrews around the world, are fautive. Antisemitism is growing again in occident, for numerous reasons. This was only an incident for future historians. There are other things going round against the people of Yahweh. You don't have to be a fortune teller to see that innocent people will suffer again. Be careful.

No, my suggestion has nothing to do with any increase of mass. How to put it? Earth surface is a thin crust. It is supposed to be floating upon a viscous mantle. It has been showned that the crust is broken in tectonic plates that rise or sink at their common edges. And I suppose that the tangential forces that make the plates move are in dynamic equilibrium. And I suppose also that the whole structure of the planet is in equilibrium. Gravity has a pulling effect, and all other interactions must counter act the effect of gravity in such a way that the globe remains the way it is. But what if those suppositions were not accurate. What if the Earth, and the other planets & stars, were dynamical systems constantly evoluting? i.e. not exactly in equilibrium.