michel123456

Oooh yes, Andrea Bocelli Serge Gainsbourg And for the (very) deep intelligentsia of Sfn French speaking members, the intranslatable life death and resurrection of a passion love Here below (as it seems only 2 Youtube clips allowed here) I I I V

I can't recall if I ever posted this but I can recall the whole track in my mind.

"think" is not enough. "ponder" is the thing to do.

It is not a joke

Music

Is that so complicated? It means a double rotation. I mean a rotation in X and Y axis, not only on X axis as a planet. I think. But anyway classically that would mean that the particule has some sort of structure, like a left & right side for example.

Maybe the disagreement between the OP & Swansont is about the use of the word "motion". If I understand clearly for Swansont "motion" is a phenomenon described by the laws of Newton. Could be called "Newtonian Motion". While the OP describes "motion" as any change of position in space. Maybe should the OP use the word "displacement", or any other better suited instead of "motion".

+1 to everybody for the interesting discussion.

There is a negative sign related with time and you don't address that. I mean, when transforming time into distance the sign is reversed. see discussion in the thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53525-why-negative/ At the end of the thread it is even suggested that: which has as consequence And that

found this: Penza is the town where the line seems to stop. No further info about the "Lomovskaya sentry line built in 1640" https://www.google.nl/maps/place/R158,+Penzenskaya+oblast',+Rusland,+442411/@52.9615576,45.0479314,13272m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m12!1m9!4m8!1m3!2m2!1d44.901894!2d52.9882774!1m3!2m2!1d45.0397761!2d52.9499346!3m1!1s0x41404359e1b923d3:0x5ae3941399493f2e Although looks weird to me that a human intervention with tree plantings from 1640 still persists today.

Kalos orises

Because you still are talking about a sphere of 100Mpc, and if I understand correctly, this sphere is not observable. It is the collection of objects that are 50Mpc around us (for example, since we are the observers) and that have the same cosmological age with us. However all observable objects that we are able to measure have a different age with us. The further they are, the youngest. Since everything that we observe lie into the past, we are the oldest observable objects in the Universe.

Exactly. To me, for the Cosmoligical principle to apply, the further you look back in time, the Universe should remain roughly the same. Does this comes from a measurement? Or is this a supposition?

........[resuming from speechless mode] ........ Are 326 million years negligible to the 13 billion years? it is about one in 39.

Oh. In this case, we are not talking about a sphere of 100 Mpc, but a circle of 100Mpc. A circle including all objects that have exactly the same cosmological age with us. Because with a sphere, all objects are cosmologically closer to the BB than we are. Is that correct?

I still am worried with the cosmological principle as commonly presented. Let me try to explain. Distance is related to time. When you reach cosmological scales, the sphere of 100 Mpc mega parsecs is a sphere that spreads in space AND in time. That is to say that observers that are physically related inside or on the surface of this sphere are not in the same time frame. But that makes no importance at all for the cosmological principle to work. IOW the cosmological principal teaches us that the universe should look roughly "the same" independently of position and direction AND time. The "and time" part added by me. And thus, if I understand correctly, the cosmological principle is not in agreement with the BB Theory, because following the BB Theory, the Universe should not look the same through time, but should change (because it expands). Or the other way round should be to say that NO, the Cosmological principle states that the Universe looks roughly "the same" but in a very specific time frame, and then how do you make a "sphere" of 100 Mpc? It is not a sphere any more.

My pet theory is not that we came from an aquatic ape: this is our future, not our past. Our past are the trees of Africa, today our wish is The Beach, tomorrow we will enter the waters like other mammals did before us.

That was a very (very) old one. on the same idea: At a construction site. A chimpanzee comes and ask for work. What can you do? Asks the foreman I can do brick masonry, answers the chimpanzee. And the chimpanzee indeed gets the job and works fine, even better than his fellow human workers. After a month, the foreman goes to the chimpanzee and tell him that a circus came in town. Why don't you ask for a job at there? Well, that is a strange idea says the chimpanzee. Why would a circus need a mason?

Bienvenue.

Yes, the grid has been scaled. And the points on the grid aren't. But when the grid expands, there is a change in position. ------------------------ And as I said before (with the feeling I am talking to a wall) The same exact effect is obtained when you keep the grid as it is, and shrink the points. Exactly in the same way with relativity of motion where you cannot know who is moving and who is standing at rest, the same relative effect can arise from scaling.

But there is a change of position. When we observe galaxies receding from us, I suppose you cannot say that they do not change position. Simply this change of position is not the result of proper motion but caused by the expansion of space. Isn't that what the model says?

That means either I or you do not understand what happens when scaling occurs. I will open a new thread about scaling.

That is scaling. It works only if the "points" are mathematical points, with dimension zero. If the "points" are 3d objects, the objects are scaled as well and they do not observe any change, no volume increase. Or it is the other wayout, and you must consider that the 3d objects are shrinking: then yes they will observe a relative "volume increase" even if the volume remains the same. -------------- The standard explanation is that while space expands, 3d objects do not expand because they are gravitationaly bound. So it means that space has a powerful hand able to transport the 3D objects at their new location from scaling, but that same hand is too weak to provoke a scaling of the object itself. I cannot swallow that. What I could swallow is the following: Scaling does happen, we are scaled continuously, and because we are looking constantly into the past, what we are observing in the past has another scaling factor than the one we have today. That would make sense.