michel123456

yeap. IQ tests have to be done in certain time limits. I gave myself about 2 minutes for each test. if you want to spend more time, IMO it is a waste. waste of time, and cheating. Also, all these tests have a gradient of difficulty. They always begin with simple configurations and going further into more complicated ones. The procedure to solve the test is also a learning procedure, by the meaning you are involved little by little in the thinking of the test's creator. There are plenty of books you can find in the bookstores. If you begin the tests backwards, from the end to the beginning, you will not solve half the problems than if you took the tests in the regular way. Your IQ result will be totally different. In the specific case posted by George, the learning procedure has been cutted off.

"À l'équateur le pendule y oscille dans un plan fixe." from french Wiki.http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendule_de_Foucault transalation:" at the equator, pendulum oscillates in a fixed plane" in other words, it does not rotate. Why? see Wikipedia.

O.K. good comment. I suppose that even in QM you need more than one particle in order to interact. So let's say that the entire prison escapes. 3 thousands convicts spreading into the nature. The Pauli's exclusion principle applies. Anyway, an analogy is never but an analogy. i hope you understand my comment, as much I understand yours.

I am not so good at these, but all are combinations of different movements executed at the same time. 1) answer D. the 3 little squares in the down left corner go up. reaching the upper corner, they go back to beginning. The other black squares turn clockwise. The hitch is when the one superposes the other, the little black change color and get white. Ouf. 2) mystery. 3) deep mystery 4) answer E. Backround must be grey, and rotation 135 degrees clockwise is executed. 5) answer D, the only pattern with central (radial) configuration. 6) supposing E without strong confidence. 7) answer B. square, above , never the same orientation of the line between same schemes. 8) going home, friday evening 20.35, too late....

I am a fugitive in a stolen car. The Policemen know the kind of car (a corvette), its maximum speed, and its possibilities (no off-road). They don't know the direction (I am radiating) but they know the starting point (the prison I escaped). They also know the starting time, and they have a map. They can mathematically evaluate the probability of finding me at any point on the map, depending on time. They can considerate the fugitive as a probability wave. They are blocking all roads at the right distance from the jail, and catch me. They don't know where they will find me, but in any case, i will be detected. At the time of the detection, the "probability wave" will collapse, in the sense that only at that moment, the police will know exactly where I am (the eigenstate) Does that mean that I am a wave? The term "collapsing" means that the mathematical evaluation of my position simply ends. I do not "collapse" (i just go to jail again....)

Severian is right. I think time & space are more complicated. We use to think that space is understood, & that time is not. The basic unit of space is distance. Q: Is distance independent of time? We know that we cannot travel distance without spending time. Just like time was "inside" the distance. Q: Do we really know what the word "distance" means?

You say it, I read it a thousand times, I respect it, but still I cannot swallow it. As I understand, detection let us know the particle's exact situation, something that we could not know before detection: this is my interpretation of the collapsing. When you transform that into "Detection causes the wave function to collapse" it is just like transforming the effect into cause, something I cannot swallow.

Intuitively, this is not what you will see: the second image will not be different from the first one. I really don't understand why the image would change due to the turning on of the WPD. The WPD is a detector, not a cause. The collapsing of the wave is a detection, or did I understand nothing (again)?

Fascinating.

Well, let's analyze "scientifically". It is a science forum, isn't it? _"this thing was happened two time at me ." If the man travels with his girlfriend twice a day, and he knows his girlfriend let's say about 1 month, it means the probability to happen is 2/60. If they live in Belgium, that is not difficult to happen. If they know each other a year, it becomes 2/730. That can happen anywhere, except sahara I presume. _"when the time im driving the car and my girl friend ask me the direction and speed. after i tell her 60km/h and east ..then she will use phone to call someone to report the direction and speed. then just some second i feel hot and sky are change color(..) If they drive east, and it is in the morning, the sky changing color is simply the sunrise. If it is in the evening, it is the sunset. _"(...)and then the rain come". that is not a surprise on Earth. Maybe they live in some tropical country where it rains everyday at the same hour. _"and the most terrible thing is she was know a man(..)" That is troubling, your girlfriend knowing another man. _"he drive a car like mine" You mean a car with 4 wheels, or exactly the same model? That is troubling, except if your car is a Ferrari, that should explain your girlfriend's behaviour. _"and that car was strike by lightning". That is the most troubling, because cars use to be insulated from the ground through tires. It seems to me a very strong indication that all the above is pure nonsense. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAfter a few more thinking here are 2 explanations: 1. You are an ancient greek god (Zeus), and when your girlfriend speaks to another man, you strike his car with lightning. 2. You are a high positionned person in the maffia. You have put your girlfriend under surveillance, and give the order to burn the car of anyone talking to her. In both cases, you are the bad guy, your girlfriend is not a witch. Maybe she has to call the Police Department in case her (second) boyfriend's car is burned. I hope the guy was not inside (how could this happen twice?). Maybe your question was not "how did" but "who did?".

icarus, I really try to follow. Sorry for this silly question, but you wrote [math] m_1 \vec a_1 = - G\frac{{m_1 m_2 }}{{r^2 }}\hat r [/math] I thought it was Where F=m a of course.

Icarus, I have to admit that I have not the knowledge to criticise your thinking. Wonderful work as it looks to me the same admirable as a magic presentation: I understand nothing. But i will try to dicuss it. First of all, I don't know how you will avoid circular reasonning in your calculations. It looks to me that your input is the same as your conclusion. I may be wrong on this comment, just make attention to it. Then if you want scientists look in their telescopes in search of negative mass, you should describe its properties. Some time ago I went on a search upon this subject, and there are a few things to find. It came to my understanding that negative mass, if it exists, is not so strange as it could appear at first sight. For example, (be carefull, I am far from an expert), it appears that negative mass is connected with negative energy through the e=mc^2 equation. On some sites (this is not an adequate reference) it is claimed that the "real" equation is e=+- mc^2, where the negative sign has been discarded as illogical. On some other sites, it is claimed that negative energy is related to time, and to serious search about time travel ( sorry if this comment will propulse this thread in the speculations waste basket, i don't want that to happen). In my understanding (it is less than a reference) negative mass is simply regular mass traveling backwards in time. But that would take a while to explain, surely in the waste basket.

Right gib64. Time is not a beloved entity. It is not understandable, and once you begin talking about Time, you often fall into the tenebres of philosophy, existentialism, and blah blah. Space is more tangible. Also Time is difficult to be represented on paper. It is so easy with space. I am surprised that we have now new technologies that make available representations in the time scale, i.e. gif diagrams for example. They are used, and you can find some on the Web, but it is IMO a wonderful new tool that is not utilised as much as it should.

If I understand well, what you are saying is that we are actually observing a repulsive force in the universe. When you consider this force as repulsive gravity, it must been radiated by negative mass, and when you imput these hypotheses into the equations, everything fits well. Right?

I suppose because momentum is a product ("produit" in french) Also found these. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec99/945106537.Ph.r.html http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=146&page=2 http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00725.htm

I mean (please correct if I am wrong): _Points A & G are outside the light cone, they are not observable at the present time. They will become observable in a few moments in the future. _Points B & F are upon the SOL lines, they belong to the light cone, they are oservable. _Points C & E are inside the light cone: they were observable a few moments ago, but they are not observable at present time. _Point D belongs to the life line of the observator (the green line of time): it was his own past a few moments ago and it is not observable at present time.

From your answer, I can conclude that ONLY points B & F are observable.

Here is a space-time diagram I made by myself. I have some questions about it. In this kind of diagram, 3D Space is reduced into a single line, the horizontal white one. Time runs from down to up. The past is beneath, the present is upon the space line, and the future is above. The observator by convention sits on the center of the diagram, because he belongs to space at present time. The diagonal lines represent the Speed Of Light lines (the intersection of the light cone). As everybody knows, all the observable universe is in the past, in the lower part of the diagram. My question is quite simple: Which of the points A,B,C,D,E,F,G, are observable? As you may conceive, this is not really a question, because I have made an idea on this, but I am wondering maybe I got wrong somewhere. So I prefer asking the question instead of presenting false ideas.

O.K. So, the difference is about direction, not about intensity, speed, acceleration or wathever. But (to go back on track) I thought that the regular sequence of dimensions were: 1,2,3 Space (Euclidian as it shows) 4 Time 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, abstract dimensions. You cannot avoid Time in the sequence. And transforming the 4th dimension into a spatial one is not correct (IMO).

Thanks.

Sisyphus wrote " Everything is regressing from everything else at rates proportional to distance," (OK, I knew that) " and that isn't consistent with what you would see with an expanding 3D object, like a conventional explosion." Could you please explain the second part. Thanks.

I think there are some confusions here. "the 3D universe as the surface of a 4D sphere" transforms our 3d world into a surface. That means you cannot go "outwards" nor "inwards".When you are thinking a "4D sphere", you are transforming the time dimension into space-dimension. This is not correct (IMO). IMO, there is another way to introduce the 4th dimension, which is actually the conventional one: introducing time. At the paradoxal risk of not being conventional, you can leave the time dimension as-it-is. By introducing time as the 4th dimension, the 3D space (the sphere) can move, translate, rotate, jump, grow, shrink, etc. Choose wathever motion you want, and ask again.

Mr skeptic, could you post the mathematics of that? I suppose that to keep the square proportion,"the surface of the sphere" has zero thickness, isn't it?

Nicolas Fatio de Duiller, Gabriel Cramer , Albert Redeker, George-Louis Le Sage, Leonard Euler, Daniel Bernoulli, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg ,P.Leray, William Thompson 1st Baron Kelvin, Peter Guthrie Tait, Samuel Tolver Preston, Paul Drude , Carl Gottfried Neumann , Hugo von Seeliger, Caspar Isenkrahe, A. Rysanek, F.A.E. and Em. Keller, L. de Boisbaudran, J.J. Thomson, Thomas Tommasina, Charles F. Brush, Lyman Spitzer, Radzievskii and Kagalnikova, Shneiderov , Buonomano and Engels, Adamut , Jaakkola, Tom Van Flandern , Edwards, (sorry if I missed some) and H. Snapper. Except that H.S. had obviously no knowledge of the Le Sage Theory. Good for him. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think the Le Sage theory has been examined by all aspects, and decided not correct. But not enterely wrong, if you read carefully the link on wikipedia. I suppose that the right answer on gravity resides in some sort of such a mechanical explanation. The most interesting comment IMO on this was made by Peter Guthrie Tait : “ The most singular thing about it is that, if it be true, it will probably lead us to regard all kinds of energy as ultimately Kinetic."

Happy Snapper's idea looks much like Le Sage's Theory of gravitation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation Interesting stuff.