michel123456

Speculation: Hubble's Law is the natural result of observation from an accelerated point of vue combined with the delay imposed by the constancy of the Speed Of Light. In order to explain the concept, I will take a simple example of the combination of acceleration with delay. You are sitting in your car, waiting at the red light. There is a car in front of you, and another car behind you. At T=0, the red light turns green, and the first car starts. After one second, you start. After 2 seconds, the car behind you starts. The one second gap is the delay. What are you observing? The car in front of you accelerates. You are accelerating too, but the gap of one second between the 2 cars provoques an increasing distance. If both cars have the same acceleration, you will observe the preceding car getting away. What about the car behind you? If you look in the mirror, you will observe that the distance is also increasing, for the exact same reason. So, in this situation, where all cars have the same acceleration combined with a 1 sec. delay, all observators will see the distance between the cars increase. The distance between the 3 cars is actually increasing, it is an expanding configuration. Now, forget the cars. In the universe, there are no red lights. But there is light. Light propagates at SOL. Because SOL is a constant, the image we get of the universe is delayed. The further we look, the more the delay. When we look at a galaxy 100 Light Years away, we are looking at the galaxy as it was 100 years ago. Exactly as if we looked at a car not 1 sec. behind us, but 100 years behind us. The delay is 100 years. So, IF (if) we are accelerating, and IF (if) we are accelerating at the same rate, we should not be surprised to observe this galaxy receding from us. And what is most interesting, is that the further the Galaxy will be, the more receding it will be. The receding speed will observe a simple law increasing proportionaly in function of the distance. Exactly as predicted by Hubble's Law. From a rough calculation, a standard universal acceleration of about 7 10^-10 m/s^2 gives a good approximation of Hubble's Law.

Did i fail again ? You don't see any difference between constant & absolute, don't you? I won't go into a discussion about ["If space has properties such as permittivity, permeability, and gravitational curvature, it can't be nothing."]. IMO it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Urbandead The Fortress, its a game.

There are 2 ways to represent infinite. _The first is to figure out a line extending infinitely on both sides. It is the base of the Hilbert paradox. It is an open configuration, with the limits somewhere far far away, that drives into counter intuitive situations. It has been chosen by mathematicians for representing the numbers, and by many christian philosophs. _The second is to figure out a circle, something that goes continuously all way round. It is a closed configuration that drives into very simple situations, sometimes intriguing but always explainable. It has been chosen by geometers thousands of years ago and by philosophs of antiquity that had no problem into representing a never ending universe, although their universe was much smaller than ours. You could also remark that God in christianity is full of mysteries, and that any mystery arising from scientific knowledge, such as the infinite, is used as an argument for the existence of the almighty deity. In ancient times, gods were also almighty, but they were not covered by any peplum of mystery. In the contrary, the gods were used as explanations, and their manifestation was each time associated to a very real phenomena. In fact, there was more mystery in numbers than in deity.

In this syllogism, TODAY happens when you reach the desk? So it happens only once. It doesn't work like that. TODAY happens everyday.

I am still searching where I did I read an analogy of distances inside the atom with distances between planets. It is very instructive to understand that all stuff is made of a tremendous incommensurable huge quantity of void (can we say that?). Of course that does not negate what Spyman said. Because in physics, distance is not a relative thing. Distance is considered as an absolute concept. Distance begins at Planck length and goes up to infinite. In physics dominated by Relativity, distance remains absolute.

Sorry Zolar for not having read thoroughly all your posts. I get myself involved with aliens stuff very rarely, when I am really boring.

If we suppose that aliens exist, it means that generally we have presupposed that extraterrestrial life is possible. In this case, there must be a lot of aliens species out there, living upon a lot of other planets in a lot of solar systems in a lot of galaxies. So, what makes us so special to make those aliens so interested in us? It looks evident that they could gather enough information by observing from a distance (and by Internet) instead of making the journey. We should improve our touristic policy if we want them to come here.

What is the negative of O.K.? My point of vue is that the observers measured speed is constant, in a relative sense, that there is no "structure of space", that there is no absolute, and that to consider the propagation speed of light as constant in an absolute sense is an absolute nonsense.

I was unaware of that. I thought it was not considered at all. The void between the protons and the electrons is not tiny respectively to the proton dimension. Searching the web for a representation to scale. Here: 1. Size relationships of subatomic particles a. If the nucleus were the size of a period (.) the atomic diameter would be about 5 m. (The volume of the nucleus is about 1/100,000 the volume of the entire atom.) b. If the nucleus of an atom were the size of a baseball, the atomic diameter would be about 4 km. The electrons would each be smaller than a period (.) and would move about at random in the spherical region between the nucleus and the edge of the atomic diameter. from http://intro.chem.okstate.edu/chemsource/atomic/concpt3.htm

I hate nicknames. Mine was chosen by mom & dad. 123456 is an unbreakable code i invented since Michel was unavailable. Some other fellow took it. It was probably me in some older perenigration.

Excellent description. The thing I can never swallow with these kind of figures, is that in reality, the rubber band is made of void. The same void that we encounter inside matter, between protons & electrons, between quarks. In my understanding, if you want to stick to the rubber band analogy, you have to take a wheel made from rubber, and stretch the wheel too. In the standard model, it is not the case, it is considered that the wheel is not submitted to the stretching. I have some difficulties on that point.

You have understood very well. In fact, i was proposing to stand on the external part of the surface. And it works only under acceleration. An expanding sphere at regular rate don't product any more effect than moving through space at regular speed: impossible to detect. If you prefer, you can change the words "expanding sphere" by the words "scale factor".

That's an interesting point. I think criminality is part of society, having in mind the word society as the entire aspects of human social structures. Criminality involves all things that are forbidden by laws. If you like to drink, buy & sell alcohol, and if you live in the western world, there is no harm, it is legal (under some restrictions). Some years ago in the U.S., it was illegal, it was part of criminality. And it still is in some other countries. Prostitution is illegal here and legal there. Even the way you are dressed (or undressed) can be considered criminal depending the place, the environnement, and the country. Some activities are legal when practiced by States, and illegal when practiced by individuals (like gambling, raising taxes, practicing justice, espionnage, war, a.s.o.). In ancient Greece, cutting an olive tree was criminal and sentenced to death. Generally speaking, criminality involves all activities refuted by the specific society. It is always the bad part by definition, relatively to the society in question, but not as an absolute. The question is: is that "bad part" of any use? If you take the example of the Italian mafia, it was certainly useful for the insular poor society of Sicily. It was a kind of defense invented by poor people. Anyone could get a loan from the mafia and establish a business. Of course, the price was high when business went bad. The basis of criminal activities of mafia is that it is an organization that raises taxes instead of the government. It is a society inside the society, living mainly from the rebuttals, but not only. You can see many examples of such activities in poor regions. That kind of criminality kill people, but feed people also. The drug cartel in Colombia feed people & build schools. It comes to a very bad thing when it is exported to an entire country, when a central authority cannot accept that some other authority apply some other laws (taxes, justice, punishment) when dealing with all that stuff they have decided to call illegal (drugs, prostitution, murder, a.s.o.).

The difference I want to point out is about direction. When there is a slight difference between 2 phenomenas, there are 2 ways of reasonning: 1. to emphasize the difference in order to prove that the 2 phenomenas are completely different. In this case, you can say A=B but A has another physical nature of B, due to the mentionned "slight difference". That's another way of saying "physically equivalent". 2. to disform everything in order to prove that the 2 phenomenas are exactly the same. In this case, you can say that A=B, point. They are exactly the one and same phenomena, they are "physically the same", and the slight difference is caused by [fill in your hypothesis].

good points I think there is a kind of symbiosis. The first steps of learning are imposed by society to the young individual. There is no choice. After some time, the individual may start learning other stuff, what may or may not coincide with what is the best for the society in which he lives. But i don't think there is much of a choice. The bad one learns to be bad from other people who told him other values, transforming bad in good. Most often, what is good for you is bad for the other. All the distinction between good & bad is a balance. If you instruct someone that absolute good is for himself only, this one will become a very bad person. If you instruct the exact opposite, he won't live very long. To maintain the balance, there are laws. The instructions are generally that good is written in the laws. May it be secular or religious laws, that don't match all the time. Am I slipping out of the subject?

Say you are standing on the surface of a huge hollow sphere of mass approximatively zero (for simplicity). If I blow into the sphere in such a way that the sphere expand, you will feel a push. I can technically blow the sphere at a rate of 9.81 m/s2=g. Of course we know that the Earth is not expanding is such a way. And even if the Earth was actually expanding, what about all the other objects around us? Gravity is not a property of the Earth only, it is a property of all massive objects. Or, putting it another way, if I dare to consider that the Earth could expand in such a way, I should also consider that all objects around me are expanding in the same way too. Including myself. Of course, that sounds totally crazy, because we are not observing such an expansion happening. All that we are observing is a force that is equal to an acceleration.

You are a poet. He is not throwned into the trash can. He posts in speculations. Does he read his own threads? I doubt. This last title is intriguing. Or has it been modified?

That's the way it should be.

"when you don't know, and ask the question, you are stupid once. If you don't ask the question, you will remain stupid for your entire life." Chinese proverb

Stupid and inaccurate scale of this forum, intended I suppose to represent the value of the member in relation to the number of posts. There are other scales, you will find out. At your first post, you are a lepton, even if you have a master in astrophysics and 30 years of experience at NASA. Damn. I forgot. Welcome, Livingmartyr. You have chosen a pessimist name. Can we call you LM?

Isn't that naive? (Emphasis mine.)

No. I liked your first sentence: Tell him if he is wrong.

First, what do you mean by learning. Language is something that you have to learn. Isn' there no ethics in learning language? Or counting? Maybe you meant learning "more than the average"? As to the circular argument, yes it certainly is. That is what i meant, self-sufficient, circular, based upon itself, self referential, say it as you wish. Most (if not all) birds have to learn in order to fly. The Human being has to learn walking. In society, he has to learn to speak, to write and to count. In higher societies, he has to learn multiple languages, English with oxford accent, latin & ancient greek, integral calculation, history of art, a.s.o. Where is the ethic? I don't know. But there is no ethic in non-learning.

Waratheist is fascinating.