michel123456

Do you know the word "agnostic"? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism An atheist is declared non-believing-in-god(s). He is persuated that God(s) do not exist. An agnostic simply declares "I don't know" There are free-thinkers also. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

In your opinion, is distance a thing?

I understand your point, but distance is a scalar. "Distance cannot be negative. Distance is a scalar quantity, containing only a magnitude, whereas a displacement vector is a vector quantity characterized by both magnitude and direction." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance#Distance_versus_directed_distance_and_displacement You wrote That is the second face of time. Inconsciently you used terms that belong to space in order to describe time. If you stick to these words, you are not far to agree with me.

In this kind of diagram, the Speed Of Light is an angle represented by the diagonal. Faster Than Light is in the white part of the diagram, left & right, the empty space where you put nothing. Infinite speed is the horizontal line (angle zero). Ten thousand times the speed-of-light is almost horizontal. A hundred of billions billions billions times the SOL is almost the horizontal. No speed can make circles around the diagram, all speeds end at the horizontal. So I can understand that entanglement means large speed (in order to reach the horizontal), but I cannot understand in this diagram why Faster Than Light mean "back in time".

Agree.

I don't see FTL in this diagram.

I do not deny observation. Take the question like this: There is a relation between mass & space. We are observing mass curving space. But mass we are. We are not impartial observators of the phenomenon, we are half the phenomenon. What is space observing? Or: what becomes to our equations if you turn everything symmetricaly like you turn a sock inside out? I guess space would see mass curving.

Indeed, no curvature, no external forces. But acceleration yes.

I have absolutely no background, no reference for my ideas. It is only a bunch of syllogisms based on nothing but seemingly logical statements. Don't take that too seriously. (I could continue explaining the formation of mountains, the origin of salt in the oceans, the origin of oceans, and ending into the accretion disk that formed the Earth, but it is taking this thread far over the edge.) I suppose gravity upon the surface is not only related to mass but to dimension too. A planet of same mass but greater radius (i.e. lower density) should have less gravity as measured upon the surface. I don't know the effects upon rotation speed or Moon's orbit.

Isn't that the same with free fall?

I know that. What I am proposing is to consider all the consequences of this interchangibility. If you can interchange 2 concepts, in some sense they must be 2 representations of the same thing. That's why I say: when you see distance, you see time. I don't think that distance is a property of space. I don't think that space is curved by mass ( please don't consider this statement as ignorance, consider it as disagreement). I don't think that space has any structure. Matter has a structure. You are right when you say that you can't curve nothing. I think space (& time) is a resultant of matter.

In early scriptures, and till past middle ages, God is not good. He is an almighty Pantocrator. Good God is a more recent description.

Indeed. IMO of course. Space, Time & Gravity are linked together. If you take in account that all 3 concepts are only the results of 3 different measurements of one & only single Reality, you could even imagine the 3 concepts representing the one and same thing. The problem resides in the passage from imagination to scientific demonstration.

In the word "dinosaur", you may recognize the word "saur" meaning lizard in the Greek language. The first idea was they were reptiles, based on skeleton morphology & the finding of eggs. Reconstruction of ancient animals were based on this assumption and still today, most of representations of dinosaurs look like reptiles. But more recent discoveries suggest they may be not like that, since reptiles don't have hollow bones. Some scientists even suggest that dinosaurs might have been warm blooded animals. _on the other hand, all reconstructions of dinosaurs have been made by analogy to today's creatures, counting the effects of the square law and assuming the global circumstances have not change at all. All this give us the image of heavy reptiles dragging their large bodies upon today's Earth. _on the third hand (...), we know that not only dinosaurs were gigantic creatures, but also insects, plants, the entire surrounding. exactly as there were a common scale factor for the entire biosphere. Just as if something had changed in the physics upon Earth. _on the fourth hand ( I begin look like an octopus), as far as I know, it looks like the gravity constant has not changed the past few millions years. But I don't know wether there are indications of a change in gravity upon the Earth in the past. Just a few thoughts. _on the fifth hand, if circumstances have evoluted, the extinction of dinosaurs would have been a consequence of a natural change, nothing mysterious.

The peculiar element in dinosaurs bones is that they are hollow, like birds bones. I am wondering if those creatures could lift their own weight on earth today, but I suppose I am the only one wondering such things, as I never saw any study on that.

Once upon a time a teacher asked 2 young boys to make a small experiment, measuring experimentally the speed of a snail. The boys went to the school yard and drawed parallel lines on the ground at 1 meter of distance. Then they put a snail on one line, and measure time with each one's clock. After a few ours, the boys came back, arguing to each other for the result, because they both measured different things. The first one had measured an average of 1 minute for each meter. He had measured a speed of 1m/60sec, or 0,016666..m/s The other boy had measured an average of 1 meter each 1 minute. He had measured speed as 60sec/m, or 60 s/m. Who was wrong, and who was right?

Right. But 2 objects can be at the same time at two different locations. It is the definition of 2 objects instead of one. And 2 objects cannot be at the same location at the same time. So to resume, we have a _one object @ one location @ 1 time. Possible. b _one object @ one location @ 2 times. Possible c _one object @ 2 locations @ 1 time. Impossible d _one object @ 2 locations @ 2 times. Possible. e _two objects @ 1 location @ 1 time. Impossible f _two objects @ 1 location @ 2 times, Possible g _two objects @ 2 locations @ 1 time. Possible. h _two objects @ 2 locations @ 2 times. Possible. a. is almolst trivial c. is a consequence of the limitation of SOL d. is the definition of motion e. is the Pauli principle g. is the definition of what 2 objects are. It is the inverse of point c. h. is almost trivial. b. & f. are the remains: the definition of time.

It is the conventional point of vue. Space is the strong element, and time is the weak element. Time is converted in space. It is convenient because you can represent the whole scenery on a sheet of paper. But you can reverse the balance, and consider Time as the strong element, and Space the weak one. Then you get Space converted in Time. Which is not so convenient I must admit. But essentialy it must give the same scenery, at the difference that nothing is static anymore.

_I don't suscribe to the multiverse concept because it looks to me as a logarithmic expansion of the energy. But I may be wrong on this. _ your second description is much more about what I am thinking, but not exactly. We should first agree on the definition of the verbs "happen", "exist" and "is".

I disagree completely with that point of vue.

Thanks Bill. You are perfectly right. Mention of the doppler effect for light is misleading. But I am surprised that nobody commented my last post. So I repeat myself: To make it clear like water: For any system under observation we have e=mc^2 Where e=total energy of the system in Joules =kg*(m/s^2)*m or kg*m^2/s^2 m=total mass of the system in kilograms =kg and C^2= elementary unit of energy= m^2/s^2 or (m/s^2)*m, and it is a constant. Is that correct?

Motion includes 2 concepts: space & time. As much as i know, a photon do not experience time, so the "moving" concept is unknown to a photon.

Toasty thank you. It is really amazing when someone tells you what was so obvious. Joules is the unit for energy. If a layman had to answer, what is that for a thing: energy/kilogram? he would answer , I guess: the amount of energy/kg is still energy. ........ It is the fundamental amount of energy. You multiply this fundamental amount by the amount of mass, and you get the total energy. Correct?

...which is weird, IMO. We already dicussed that, and I still find it weird. In e=mc^2, the constant is Csquared=8.98755179 × 10^16 m2 / s2. IMO very weird units. A speed multiplied by a speed, what is that? So we have e=energy, lets say we know what it is. m=mass, lets say we know what it is. C^2=???? If you make a search about C, you will find thousands of interesting articles, and about Csquared so few. IMO Csquared is the thing. IMO the fact that we are measuring C and not Csquared is another trick of Mother Nature. ......... A lot of IMO's here. Sorry.

I didn't expect you to be convinced so easily. It was a pleasure to disagree friendly. I really appreciate. Michel.