swansont

Carnivores eat herbivores, and sometimes other carnivores. This notion of producers and consumers seems overly simplistic. Like someone is applying a very rudimentary economic model to it.

Is that the part where it says “Therefore, the twin paradox is not actually a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction”? Just saying this doesn’t make it so. ”It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility.” doesn’t support that notion neither does “We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it”

Not really. He concluded that space has properties, but it’s not a medium that represents a preferred frame of reference, or is required for light. The aether he spoke of later is not the luminiferous aether of Lorentz theory.

Welcome to SFN AFAIK a time crystal is predicated on no energy loss, so you’d destroy it by removing energy from it. Like taking energy out of a pendulum - it would stop ticking. It certainly doesn’t generate any energy.

The latter part of my explanation applies to this. The current is uniform. There’s no way for it to vary.

If the voltage is constant (for a real wire) there would be no current. If there is a voltage drop, and thus a current, the current will be uniform even if the voltage drop is not (e.g. if there’s a resistor, or a series of different-valued resistors); there’s no way to vary it. Charge is conserved, so current flowing in to a point equals the current flowing out.

If you repeat your errors I will repeat the corrections. Red light lacks the energy to ionize, so that’s not what’s going on. I’ll leave it to others to correct the biology.

Which is not the photoelectric effect. In an LED you excite electrons to a higher band in a semiconductor, and when they drop back down you get a photon.

Photoelectric effect is basically the same as photoionization of an atom, for a single photon. Photon in, electron out. edit: an LED is not doing this

On what, specifically?

But one thing you notice is that such leaders are always around. Before this it was Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Khaddafi, and more, and that’s only going back ~50 years I don’t think I was saying BISS, or really making an argument (or advocating a position) as much as I was poking holes in what you were presenting.

Plenty of people without expertise participate here. The ones doing it successfully generally ask questions to fill in the gaps in their knowledge rather than pontificate in areas where their knowledge is deficient, and defer to those who know more.

Aging is a biological process. Time is time. Time passes at a different rate (i.e. frequency) in different reference frames Because that’s what happens in the Doppler effect. Red shift is shifted toward longer wavelengths and blue shift toward shorter. It’s observed to happen, so there’s no point in denying it.

Physical time? You keep using expressions like this, and they make no sense. The speed of a wave is frequency*wavelength The frequency increases by the same factor as the wavelength decreases. These terms cancel. The speed of the wave is the same. These are the same thing And you’re wrong. The speed of the wave is constant (it’s right there in the math) since both frequency and wavelength are changed.

That’s not what pop-science is. At least that’s not what most people mean by it. You can get science studies on places like arxiv, but it’s not written for the general public. They are preprints of articles that end up in journals. Definitely not meant for the general public. pop-sci typically removes most of the math, and with it, a lot of the rigor and ability to actually do science with the information If models aren’t getting it wrong, why do we need new ones?