exchemist

The rate of time depends on the frame of reference, sure, but that does not make it subjective. The decay rate of the radioisotopes in your example would be affected in the same way, whether they were accompanied by an observer or not. Just as the decay rates of atmospheric muons are affected, without them being in any way conscious. So yes we can agree time ( and equally distance, by the way) are relative, but neither of them is dependent on the presence or absence of an observer.

How then do you account for the age of the Earth, say? The decay rates of radioisotopes seem to me an objective measure of duration, applying to inanimate entities (atoms).

It is not the truth. There is no centre, according to the Big Bang theory: https://www.astronomy.com/science/ask-astro-where-is-the-center-of-the-universe/

Nonsense. A time delay of a millisecond or so does not make the information received and interpreted by the brain a "lie" at all. If you want to talk about how the brain "lies" to us, you would do better to start a thread on how the brain makes assumptions about the information it receives, which can in some cases prove faulty. And neither of these is anything like the delusions experienced by someone undergoing a psychotic episode.

It seems rather obvious that sensory and mental processes in the nervous system and brain, involving as they do cascades of electrochemical reactions, must take a finite time to take place. What has this got to do with physics?

None of this makes any sense at all. For example, what can "primes could be seen as carrying specific vibrational qualities" mean? How can pure number "carry" a "quality"? And what is a "vibrational quality"?

While a lot of this seems to be gibberish, the "proton battery" is interesting. I was not aware of this. However, as I understand it from the paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319918302714 the protons do not take the place of electrons in such a battery but play the same role as Li+ ions do in a conventional Li ion battery. In a Li ion battery, Li+ ions move into and out of a metal electrode, whereas in this "proton battery" it is H+ ions that move, across a Nafion membrane, into and out an activated carbon electrode. The "battery" is described as being a reversible fuel cell, in which water is electrolysed in the charging phase, loading the electrode with H atoms, which are then released and combine with oxygen to re-form water in the discharge phase. What I am not clear about, from reading the paper, is how the oxygen side of things works. Oxygen must be generated in the electrolysis phase and oxygen must be recombined with the emerging H+ to re-form water in the discharge phase. Is this oxygen released as free O2 and is fresh O2 from the atmosphere used in the discharge phase? Or is the O generated during electrolysis somehow sequestered within the cell and made available again for recombination with H during discharge?

I found this paper, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8867790/ suggesting there has been some work on a dipstick type test for progesterone. No idea how close to commercialisation such a concept may be. One issue may be that, as I understand this, it needs to be semi-quantitative, rather than a simple go/no go (like a Covid test for instance), as one needs to know whether the level of progesterone in the blood is above a certain threshold, rather than simply whether it is present or not. Developing tests like this with the necessary degree of reliability for use by non-professionals is not straight forward and the commercial incentive/clinical need may not be sufficient to support the effort.

It has always struck me as rather surprising that empty space should have quantitatively measurable properties, such as e0 and µ0.

You are having the “Theorist experience”. The modus operandi is to keep throwing in new bits of semiscientific nonsense, to keep you coming back to correct his “misconceptions”. But it’s all just a game, designed to waste your time. He can keep this going interminably. If he’s who I think he is, he has been doing this for years, under a variety of identities. I rather think Coxy123 was one of the more recent ones here, also Splodge, Pbob and others. Elsewhere he was for a while Theorist Constant 12345, under which name some of us first came across him.

I wonder what happened to the Flying Bum: https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-see-the-flying-bum-airlander-10-2021-9?op=1 It looked quite an interesting idea and had an emissions profile similar to trains.

ZZZzzzzzz…………

Yup. A very familiar timewasting technique, I think.

No, I don't agree that anyone is ignoring the obvious. It is you, rather, that seems to be ignoring the obvious, namely that the rate of metabolism must have an input on where the balance lies between weight gain processes and weight loss processes. But it seems to me the term "metabolism" is potentially a source of confusion if we are not careful to specify what we mean by it. To my understanding (I am not a biologist and stand to be corrected by better informed people here) metabolism is all the processes that extract energy by oxidising the "food* " an organism takes in, whether this be for heat, for mechanical work done by the organism, or for biochemical synthesis, i.e. conversion to fat, bone, muscle etc. I gather metabolic rate is in fact often measured by oxygen uptake (This applies only to aerobic organisms obviously). So a faster metabolic rate could serve to enable a higher rate of doing mechanical work, or to generate more heat, or to build up body tissues. But the food also provides the building block for building body tissues, so any food used for that is not metabolised. It is an observed fact that doing a lot of mechanical work requires a larger oxygen uptake, indicating a higher metabolic rate, and that as expected athletes eat a lot more than sedentary people, without becoming fat. So you can't argue that metabolic rate is not relevant. Regarding your comments about weightlifters vs marathon runners, it is the runners who have the higher oxygen uptake, by far, indicating a higher metabolic rate. * I take "food" to comprise all the sources of chemical energy taken in by the organism, so it would not include radiation taken in through photosynthesis, for instance.

Yes so 12.6m diameter ballon, if it is approx.spherical, per tonne of lift. (The lifting gear and gondola itself may weigh half that, before you start.) So it’s going to be very big.

Actually that's a good point. Post amended.

This looks like a classic complaint from someone suffering mental disturbance. See this Wiki article for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_harassment We get these on science forums from time to time. I suggest contacting a medical professional.

Doubtful as a hoist, since the volume required to lift any significant weight is so large.

It seems like a statement of the obvious to say that body weight is determined by the balance between anabolic (i.e. building up) and catabolic (i.e. breaking down) processes. How could it be otherwise? It is also totally unnecessary to say that there is no violation of the laws of physics involved. Of course there isn't. This is not much of a theory, so far.

......."vaginitis".......... 🤪

I have just watched an interesting video made by a Marine Chief Engineer, on this incident: He is not privy to any inside information but he can make certain deductions from looking at the footage of the incident. They key points I got from this were that: (i) the emergency generator did not restore power within the 45seconds mandated by SOLAS rules. It came on but after about a minute, too slow, why? and (ii) there was black smoke from the funnel after the restoration of power after the blackout. He does not believe they would have had time to restart the main engine, which would have shut down when electric power to run its fuel pumps etc was lost. So it cannot have been from the main engine. It must therefore have been from trying to restart the main generators. But these are indeed supposed to run on MDF when manoeuvring close to port, which should not produce black smoke, even during start-up. So the finger of suspicion points to the fuel fed to the main generators. Possibly there was something badly wrong with the MDF or possibly they were incorrectly trying to run the gensets on RFO too soon and something went wrong with the switchover from MDF to RFO. The ship should have been able to operate its rudder even on only the emergency backup genset, but without the propeller, the turning effect from the rudder would have been very limited. He did make the comment at the end, just in passing, that if the port regulations had required tug assistance until out from the bridge channel then the outcome would have been different. That thought had occurred to me too. Expecting these large ships to get out on their own, with the tidal current in the river estuary......well.....I don't know.

You owe Einstein an apology then. As has been already pointed out, you have no relative motion between any of the components in this setup, so time dilation does not occur anywhere. Look up time dilation and re-establish what it is, before you go any further. You are speaking here about time delay, which is not time dilation. Secondly, the phase shift on reflection of a wave is 180 deg, not 90deg and it is not a red shift, as it does not alter the frequency. Thirdly, this sort of nonsense is starting to have a familiar smell to me. I'm wondering whether neurological reference frames are more your thing............ 😁

Dawkins or @Gian? 😁 Dawkins has I think mellowed somewhat with age and may even realise that throwing coconuts at the Aunt Sally caricature of religion he has spent years attacking is a is bit counterproductive. The Four Horsemen of New Atheism have at times come across as evangelical preachers!

I wonder if that could be an effect caused by a mix of reddish and greenish light, appearing to the eye as a yellow tint. I don't think anything in blood will actually fluoresce, not least because the UV will be attenuated under water more than visible light. But the way light is attenuated by seawater seems to be quite complicated. The red end of the visible spectrum seems to be absorbed more than the green and blue, but UV is also absorbed. And then there is the competing phenomenon of scattering which will scatter the blue more than the red.

Oh I see, because of the light at such a depth. Why fluorescent, though?