Ghideon

">" I think this was one of the first "mathematics-related" things I grasped* before counting, numbers, addition or other mathematics. That there could be more (or fewer) of something and more or fewer of different things. Understanding for instance "there are more apples than there are oranges in this picture" came before counting items in the picture. I have no formal or mathematical argument, this is more of a personal reflection. I note that @iNow's argument probably could be used here to put divison "/" before comparison ">"; first one realises that there are apples and oranges rather than one singe pile of fruit. Then comparisons (or other operations) can take place. edit (just saw Studiot's post): I note that my example above starts with this, I did not think of that as an operation. *) This was early in life so my recollection may be incorrect. I did of course not know or understand the specific notation or the mathematical implications at that time.

Today I learned that you are not allowed to remove litter from this grass covered beach. The reason is related to science. The beach is used as a reference for marine litter. The information collected from the reference beaches about the litter that floats ashore can be used in scientific modeling or studies. (Obviously you are also not allowed to add any litter but that rule applies nation wide in public places.)

I’ll try to explain once the material is posted in a format that can be quoted.

That does not answer the question.

Then please explain how it is valid in physics to state that those two equations are equal .

The introduction seems to claim that photon energy hv equals the energy given by E=mc2. Please clarify how it is valid in physics to do so. (accessing the forum by phone, I don’t have time to figure out how to quote from the pdf attached )

I know about Shrödinger's thought experiment. I do not know why you refer to that thought experiment in this case. You made claims about time and movement, which was my reason for asking about the case of 0 K and particle decay as an example. Particle movement (or their kinetic energy) and temperature is related, which one reason it is easy to refute your claims as they were stated. You added the cat to the discussion after earlier claims were found to be wrong. They are still wrong.

Im still hoping for some relevant answer about about particle decay where your claims are contradicted by scientific observations.

I don't know how the cat got entangled in this topic so here is my interpretation: Before I read the first post in this thread there were a possibility that the ideas presented were correct / incorrect (similar to the cat being dead / alive before the box is opened in Schrödinger's thought experiment) Now that I have read the ideas and compared them to documented scientific observations (opened the box / performed an observation Schrödinger's thought experiment) I've found that the presented ideas are wrong. This fact is independent of Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds interpretation or other variants; the claims regarding time and movement are incorrect and refuted by (for instance) particle decay at absolute zero. This threads state is similar to the cat; if the cat is dead when the box is opened the cat will stay dead until new physics (or, maybe in this case, progress in animal health care & resurrection) emerge. Just as the presented ideas will be stay wrong until supported by discoveries, theories and observations. Attempts to avoid the questions and arguments presented by asking me to "solve" Schrödinger's does not count as scientific evidence.

Ok. You brought Schrodinger Cat into the discussion but let's remove it from the discussion again. That does not change the fact that particle decay contradicts your claims. Would you mind addressing that instead of brining in unrelated topics?

Thanks for your reply, it does not answer the question how faster than light signalling is possible but raise more questions. I'm also curious why there is no example of evolution resulting in some more efficient or competitive use of this phenomenon you describe. Some questions: Per your idea, how does for instance kidney donation work? How do the particles of a kidney "transfer" from one human consciousness to another? Do conjoined twins, according to you, have a single consciousness or separate ones?

As far as I know there are no established models allowing faster than light* communication. What mechanism do you propose? *) Faster than speed of light in vacuum, c

I do not see a connection to the discussion about your claims and how they are incompatible with observations, sorry.

I am waiting for a reply* about particle decay where your claims are contradicted by scientific observations. *) direct link https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127439-a-time-experiment/?do=findComment&comment=1213500

I'd say quite the opposite; accurate predictions about rate of decay can be made regardless of movement. Decay is stochastic, you need a sample that is large enough to make predictions, not movement. Movement does not add accuracy. ( We can't predict when one specific particle will decay, nuclei half-life allows for good approximations for large samples on average. I think a detailed explanation is off topic.)

Let's assume a sample of a radioactive isotope at rest at a temperature of 0 K*. The half-life of the isotope depends on time, as far as I know, not any movement. This seems to contradict your claims above, can you clarify? *) Absolute zero. The isotope could for instance be sodium-26

That introduces even more contradictions (easily observed or logically concluded). Since your are learning I'll give you some time to reason and spot the problems before I post an explanation, this is speculations section after all...

I am referring to mainstream science* where charged balloons repel each other, and neutral balloons do not. Your statements contradicts simple observations of how balloons behave**. Without a new model for physics (and chemistry) and supporting evidence I'm arguing in favour of established explanations. *) There is no evidence supporting the claims of the OP **) Just to be unnecessarily clear: When filled with air, handled at room temperature as part of an experiment or for use as a toy or decoration or other purposes.

That seems to contradict trivial observations when handling balloons or performing typical simple experiments with balloons and static electricity.

Sorry, I don't see any explanations, just more and more contradictions. The neutral balloon that becomes negatively charged in the case above for instance contradicts the title "No material can have a net negative charge".

Can you provide a description of the ions in regular table salt (NaCl)? Also please explain what happens (per your ideas) in a static electricity balloon experiments, I was under the assumption that a balloon, when rubbed against someone's hair, acquires a net negative charge. That seems to contradict your statements.

Hello @retrodynamic and I do not understand the connection between Newtonian physics and Thermodynamics in your opening post. Can you clarify? Where does that quote come from, where and when did Albert Einstein say that? Possibly the "Mathematical symbol" you are looking for is the Lagrangian of the thing you wish to describe? You may want to look into Lagrangian mechanics*. in some cases it may be simpler to work with energies instead of forces, depending on the geometry of a problem or device. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics

@WAMF have you read about the ideas about electric universe or plasma cosmology*? It may be helpful to compare your ideas against these rejected cosmological models to learn more about issues raised by other members? *) Wikipedia may serve as a starting point and there are links to various papers in the references section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

An album cover, a work of art, might not be the best staring point when trying to reject established physics. As far as I know Goethe was a poet and intended to "portrait" rather than "explain". Stockholm may be worth a visit even without being offered a prize. But I'll have to admit that there are better times of the year than November...

But their visit here was not completely without friction, so the cycles may be slowing down and the motion eventually come to a halt?