michel123456

(emphasis mine) I am amazed of such a dynamical description. I support & agree 100% That is the point I cannot swallow. Can you from your side at least wonder a few instants how it comes that we can agree on so many things and disagree on the conclusion ? There is a huge gap between our conceptions, and I'd like to bridge them. This is not intended to highjack the thread, I have the feeling Johan has a problem too. For sure.

Let's see it another way: Is it possible that Earth diameter was different in the past? If it was not different, it means the Earth from the right beginning had always the same diameter. The Earth came into existence with exactly the same dimensions as today, & never evoluted. Does that make sense?

I am patient. The horse will get thirsty. Here is a horse that likes water:

Yes, but I choosed a bad example. A ship wreck corresponds to an extinction caused by some external event. I was thinking more of a kind of process driving naturally a specie to extinction without any catastrophe. As if you considered a whole specie as an immense single organism, born, living, & dying.

I have nothing to say against that. it is much probable that the relation [math]a = Ho\ C[/math] is an approximation. Nevertheless it gives an indication that we are living in an accelerated world. Yes, maybe we are accelerating at a different rate. Which means not acceleration, but accelerated acceleration. I don't want to go into that because I fell like making speculations on speculations. If we keep the simple idea of "living in an accelerated world", what does that mean, in practice & in theory? For example, if this acceleration is a simple consequence of Hubble's Law, it must be related to some kind of cosmological motion. But if we encounter this acceleration in some theoretical construct, such as GR or other, it may not be related to a cosmological model, but to something more fundamental.

I was thinking about a situation where some specie is getting attacked by the whole environnemental pressure and naturally tends to disappear. Instead of "only the strong survive", imagine "all the strong die, only the weak survive". Like when a ship sinks, the women & children are saved, the captain dies.

This part was kaballistic to me. Could you make your point more clear?

This statement triggers my mind. DH's intervention was a relief. Overspecialization is the case of Homo Sapiens. But still... I wonder. Is it inconceavable that under the pression of evolution, a specie goes into degeneration ?

Yes it is exaggerated. I cannot find anywhere an image of what would look the Earth like, without hydrosphere. only this ------------------- and from http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/show_addon_details.php?addon_id=993 (also exaggerated)

My formula does not change an inch of the results given by Hubble's Law. In fact, Hubble's Law is presumed to be correct in order to give acceleration a. If Hubble's Law predicts the correct redshift, so will a. There are 3 elements: Ho C a The first 2 elements give the third. If the first ones are correct, then the third one must be correct too, under the condition of being correctly associated of course. ------------ Thank you for your replies.

Hm. [math]d_p[/math] is distance at time [math]t_p[/math] [math]d_q[/math] is distance at time [math]t_q[/math] The difference [math]D=d_p-d_q[/math] is the distance between the 2 objects in the interval [math]T=t_p-t_q[/math]. At each interval [math]T[/math] corresponds a distance [math]D[/math], something that corresponds to observation*. Because I use to discover old discoveries, before jumping into more speculative steps, or confirmation based on observation as you proposed, my first step consists in investigating existing theories. In 99% of the cases, it already exist somewhere. In this case, i found (almost) nothing, at least from a theoretical point of view. *here you have to remember some older post where i suggested that all observable objects are upon the surface of the past light cone. If you disagree with that, there is no way to proceed further.

Thank you Captain. Is it time to panic?

Sorry: http://jgslegacy.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/109/1-4/217 Wiki's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory#Current_status Accretion disk? _Clouds of gas and debris which exist in space have centers of gravity which cause the debris field to collapse toward a central point. This process is known as planetary accretion. As the field collapses angular momentum is conserved and primary rotation(s) begin. from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_various_theories_regarding_the_formation_of_Earth also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disc & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_nebula Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thanks. "chassez le naturel il revient au galop" (something like " a leopard cannot change its spots")

A thread was closed prematuraly. IMO Have you ever looked at what looks the globe without water? It is something like this You can have a look here: http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/8411/a000054.mpg To me it looks like an old apple. I have also the feeling that the Earth is shrinking. But there is no need to relate this the flood, and I don't believe it happened suddenly. It can happen smoothly, as a natural continuation of the formation of the planet Earth from an accretion disk. There are very few elements supporting the idea, since the general point of view* is that the Earth's dimensions never changed in the past and don't change today (except for the expanding earth theory defenders). Here what I found: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070709-earth-size.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14255 http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysics/the-case-of-earths-incredible-shrinking-field And another finding, from 1953, with some reservation: http://jgslegacy.lyellcollection.org...ct/109/1-4/217 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." If data gives 102 ± 2.8% , it is a gap between 99,2% (expanding earth), and 104,8% (shrinking earth). If it is correct, IMO, it is some evidence. 102% of earth's radius is 6371 kmx102%=6498 km or a decrease of 127km in the past 400 millions years. * corrected after Swansont's remark.

I was a kind of bored and got reading some stuff in this evolution area. I think evolution is misunderstood. (my opinion) As a read threads here, it seems that the concept of evolution is that of a conjecture where all species (including plants) develop along a line from simple living beings into more sophisticated & adapted ones. It is a part of the conjecture, but IMO it is not the whole story. At each moment of the living Earth history, the whole biosphere must have worked as an interlace of relations between species, a net in constant dynamic equilibrium. If a specie is not adapted to its environnement, it is believed (as I read here around) that evolution is supposed to drive this specie into more adaptatation. But it can also drive this specie to extinction. Not because the specie was "bad formated', but because environemental conditions change. You can be a wonderful specie and suddenly disappear because your place will be, bit by bit, set at the edge of the net. At some point, a little push will set you out. Some other specie can remain in the eco-system for million of years, never reaching the edge of the net, and never falling out. So, IMO evolution is not always a procedure going from simple to complicated. Simple organisms can evoluted or can disapear, and so for complicated organisms. As a resume, i believe that evolution don't work always for better. It can also drive to extinction.

The solar panel will deliver water at the same temperature independently of the temperature of the original cold input. Usually water goes from the solar panel to an insulated tank where the water is maintained at an approximatively standard temperature depending on the system.* The purpose of the mechanism is to get hot water on the left side of the diagram, where you'll put a faucet for example. If you put both pipes into the same insulation, the water at the faucet will not have the same high temperature. *most work till 60 celsius for avoiding intolerable temperature at the faucet. For other purpose such as air conditionning temperature can reach slightly lower than boiling (100 celsius), I am not aware of systems using vapor (above 100 celsius) but there might be.

Hum. From wiki, the whole paragraph: Hubble's law describes the observation in physical cosmology that the velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the Earth is proportional to their distance from us.[1] The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble in 1929[2] after nearly a decade of observations. The recession velocity of the objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured much earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him.[3] It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model. Did I say anything different?

Agree. But because the delay is caused by C, we know that the distance & the delay are linked. The distance measured to an object is also the delay, because C is constant. When D=1000 LY, T(delay) is 1 Year. Roughly. So, 2 elements of the equation are known. When a is known, only v is unknown. The equations give V (not D) as difference of velocity between 2 objects. ------------------------- [math]v=d/t[/math] [math]a=v/t[/math] [math]d=1/2 at^2[/math] Let's suppose 2 objects (p) & (q) [math]D=d_p-d_q[/math] (4) where [math]D[/math] is the distance between the 2 accelerated objects. We know that [math]T=t_p-t_q[/math] (5) where [math]T[/math] is the time interval, the delay. and we know that [math]D=c\ T[/math] (6) where [math]c[/math] is Speed Of Light then [math]D=c\ t_p-t_q[/math](7) and thus [math]t_p-t_q=D/c[/math](8) The difference of velocity is [math]V=v_p-v_q[/math](9) and [math]v_p=at_p[/math](10) [math]v_q=at_q[/math](11) V=a(t_p-t_q)(12) replacing [math](t_p-t_q)[/math] with [math]D/c[/math]see(8) we obtain [math]V=a D/c[/math] or [math]V=\frac{a}{c} D[/math] (11) Hubble's Law is [math]V=H_o D[/math] (1) The speculation of this thread is that [math]\frac{a}{c}=H_o[/math] by comparison of (11) & (1) see also(2bis)

That is funny.

You killed him. R.I.P.

"Hubble's law describes the observation in physical cosmology that the velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the Earth is proportional to their distance from us." from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law Hubble's law is observation. "cosmic expansion" is an explanation of Hubble's law.

aargh. I was very tired yesterday........ No excuse. Again: Using Hubble constant. V = Ho D (1) (the standard equation) Then with Ho = a/C (2bis) V= a D / C (3bis) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf you take a second thought about it, what is that all about? Take a constant (Hubble's constant), multiply with another constant © and you obtain...another constant (a). The question is to realize whether this new constant represents something real, or whether it represents nothing. If it represents nothing, simply throw it away. If it represents something, what is it? The new constant, a, is an acceleration. It corresponds to a phenomena represented in the car example. Formula follows naturally: you just have to input that the delay is caused by C. Just as we were living in a world in constant acceleration.

I am not incognito. HERE is a thread that caused a myocardial infarction to Martin. Sorry for that.

Hard, you are not alone. BBT smells bad. The problem is that science cannot accept the "No theory". You can find as many mistakes in BBT, there can be 1000 misconceptions, it will not be discarded. Swansont wrote And he is perfectly right in his statement, except that the Big Bang is a Theory (and not a phenomena, expansion is a phenomena) and also that Gravity is not explained through the BBT, inverse gravity is presupposed.

Eliminate the lines that join the verticals. you will obtain a set of vertical lines (earthquakes) independent from each other. ---------------- Or you can say that between earthquakes, there are earthquakes of null intensity, and thus join the verticals with a horizontal a zero. You will obtain a graph like an electrocardiogram. ------------------------ Also, to make the graph more readable, you should change the scale of time, multiplying by 10 or 100, without changing the scale of magnitudes.