MigL

You remind me of another member we had a few years back, who continuously bragged about his stock portfolio. He crashed and burned very quickly. Are you really participating/contributing in the discussion if you post cryptic comments, then refuse to clarify when politely asked ?

No,no, Studiot, I have one for you... If you inhabited a 'space' with just the three orthogonal dimensions and NO time parameter, how exactly would you 'see' the teacup ? Could you interact with one aspect of it, say the spout, and then another ? Remember the teacup doesn't change with time as it has no time parameter, but you are also intrinsic to that particular space, and there is no time parameter for you either.

It's a good thing most of us ignore your 'generally disagreeable' position, because it's as clear as mud.

While I can easily imagine functions ( or teacups ) changing according to parameters other than time, I suspect the problem is with our common definition of the concept of change; it necessarily involves time. Even though it is not a variable of the system under observation, it is necessary for the observer to detect 'change'. Sure, the teacup 'changes' with respect to location ( from spout to bowl ), but for us to observe both aspects of the teacup, time must necessarily be involved ( first you observe the spout, then, the bowl ).

I understood the OP to be asking whether GR can be expressed in terms of changing scales of the 4 constituent dimensions, NOT whether GR can be expressed as a scalar field. I think we all agree it cannot be expressed as a scalar field, but neither can changing scales in 4 dimensions. I believe I've read some of K thorne's work where he claims aspects of GR can be expressed as either 'changing lengths/intervals' at constant scales, or 'changing scales' at constant lengths/intervals. I'll have to look into the standard model Lagrangian problem with changing scales.

There is a certain simplistic truth to that statement. ( I did not downvote ) We all make choices based on our own priorities, and should be responsible for those choices. The OP seems to believe a 'chemical imbalance' absolves the perpetrator of a crime from responsibility. As an example, drunkenness is a temporary 'chemical imbalance' which affects judgement; are we going to absolve drunk drivers who kill others of responsibility ? I don't think anyone here would support that. Even if you propose that the driver had previously made the choice to drink and drive, the counterargument is that alcoholism is a recognised disease, so he/she is still not responsible for their actions. So where do you draw the line of accountability ? Society has no choice but to consider most to have free will and to be responsible for their actions. So, if you choose to steal ( and possibly hurt others in the process ), instead of making do with what you have, asking for government assistance, or even begging, because you are hungry ( or greedy ), you have made your choice, and are held accountable by society.

Oh, I thought you were going to say "If you're puzzled by women, you're in good company" ( nothing better than a complicated woman )

Another irrelevant dead-end argument. Why change now ? I have told you,, and you can easily look it up, inertial and non-inertial frames date back to Galileo; why do you keep mentioning Einstein ? As to E Hubble vs A Einstein, of course E Hubble is correct. He made observations; how can he be wrong ? Must be nice to live in your world, where you know very little, but think you have all the answers.

The scale of 'objects' in space does NOT change. But yes, the co-ordinate system we call space-time is 'scaled' (smaller ) in the vicinity of mass ( energy-momentum ). And the grid lines of this co-ordinate system we call space-time, appear to be curved as a result. Which means geodesics, or the paths of least action followed by masses ( paths of least time by massless light ) are curved. IOW, curvature seems to be a much more appropriate word to use; less confusion.

Expanding on String Junky's example... Picture yourself alone ( in a spacesuit ) in empty space with no other features. ccan you tell if you are linearly moving at 10 km/hr ? Can you tell if you are moving at 1000 km/hr ? How about at 100 000 km/hr ? NO ! You would have no 'feeling' of speed, no sensation that there was any difference from you being at rest. And there is no experiment you can do to determine your speed. That is an inertial frame; and they have been known about at least since Galileo ( never mind Einstein ) Now picture yourself sgain in the same situation but you accelerate from one seed to another. Even though you have nothing as a reference to measure your speed against, you immediately know that it is changing because you are pushed back into your spacesuit. And the simplest experiment, like dropping an object, will see it left behind. You know that you are moving in many ways. That is a non-inertial frame. To re-cap, in a non-inertial frame you can always tell if you are moving. In an inertial frame you cannot; in an empty space, you might as well be at rest no matter what your speed, and the only way to tell if you are moving is 'relative' to another object, which is probably itself moving. That means all our experiments and derived laws of Physics apply to these inertial frames where we actually have no idea what the 'true' speed is, as there is NO 'true' speed. This is what Swansont told you at the beginning of this thread; you would have been further ahead asking questions about what you don't understand, instead of blindly insisting 'everything is in motion' ( irrelevant dead-end argument ). Any questions ???

Drakes, can you please tell us what you think an 'inertial frame' is ? And a non-inertial frame ? You seem slightly confused.

Most people put up with the status quo because they have a lifetime of work invested in 'business as usual'. Most anarchists have nothing to lose.

Don't have to. Conservation laws and Thermodynamics do it for me. ( and I got my 'training' in school; not YouTube videos )

Don't borrow and you'll never be a slave to debt. If, on the other hand, you're greedy, and you want a nice house, a nice car, the latest iPhone, the best schools for your kids, and two vacations a year, go ahead and borrow. Lenders are only too glad to have you pay interest. But don't be confused. You're not a slave to debt, but to your own greed.

Didn't know there was a right reason to kill anyone. Please enlighten us as to what these 'right' reasons are. Or are you just pissed-off because you didn't learn proper English, and you have to make up the difference with boorish cussing.

You can repeat the gibberish as often as you like; You can't 'create' energy where there was none before. You can't even break even; entropy always 'steals' some so you end up with a net loss. There is no free lunch !

Soooo ... You want to discuss a bad movie ?

Although there are ways to 'harvest' the energy of an existing Black Hole, if you are going to create that BH first, you will always end up with a net deficit of energy. Even Black Holes have entropy.

Simply astounding, how insignificant we are.

Mae West would have been impressed. She said ... "Is that a pistol in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me ?" You have a whole universe in yours !

At parts per million the chemicals won't do much. But as Studiot mentioned, there are dangers involved; don't burn yourself with the 'heat', or drown in the water.

Not sure if you'll be able to improve vortex generator aerodynamics using Autodesk software. ( although I've never used it ) Most working aerospace engineers will use CATIA software by Dassault Digital Systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CATIA

Apparent galactic motion, or more specifically, recession, is not a speed. G does not define 'difficulty to move'; mass is what resists inertia changes.

Only familiar with vortex generators on military planes. These usually take the form of sharply swept leading edge root extensions on the wings, where hi-pressure underLERX flow is allowed to circulate to the top of the LERX, setting up the spiral circulation for the over-wing vortex flow. This effect re-energizes 'stagnant' flow, and allows an aircraft to remain controllable at extreme angles of attack without experiencing 'stall'. Notable examples being the F-5E, F-16 and the F-18 with its massive LERX. Other systems include 'canard' foreplanes as originally used on the SAAB AJ-37 Viggen, to generate the vortex. Small strakes above the delta wing of the Dassault Mirage 2000. Nose, or forebody, 'chines', originally seen on the Lockheed SR-71, but now very common on the F-22 and F-35

Grown men don't play with dolls, Endi. Picture your typical simulation of an expanding universe, a balloon with dots on it. As you pump air into the balloon, it gets bigger and the dots separate just like galaxies do. There is no center to the surface of the balloon, no matter if finite or infinite. For eternal inflation, picture multiple 'aneurysms' on the surface of this balloon; areas where a smaller sphere starts expanding on the surface of the original balloon. In real space-time these new 'aneurysms' would be separated from the original by an event horizon, but in our balloon analogy they are still connected so that air can be pumped in. As the 'aneurysms' expand, any dots you draw on them will again start to separate like galaxies do, and again, there is no center to the surface of the 'aneurysm', whether finite or infinite. Actually eternal inflation can have 'aneurysms' on top of 'aneurysms' on top of the original balloon, but space- time is only represented by the surface of the balloons/aneurysms in this analogy.