joigus

So what we're getting here is nothing but a cluster of last-ditch attempts to get saved just in cosmologically-plausible time --in a manner of speaking. That knowing --if those civilisations are in any way intelligent-- that the farther away you are, the least likely you are of being of any help? One problem with your theory (by no means the only one) is that it's based on a number of extremes (and I'd need a double emphasis on the word 'number"): The chances of something very unlikely happening is, say, 0.01 (one in a hundred). The chances of another (independent) very unlikely thing happening is, say, another 0.01. (one in a hundred again). The chances of both happening, then, is 0.01x0.01 = 0.0001 (one in a ten thousand). You get my drift: Not bloody likely!!

Transforming lead into gold (as found out in the LHC) is not about re-arranging electrons, but about re-arranging nucleons (protons and neutrons). BTW, it's an extremely low-efficiency process (requiring billions of years just to produce a pair of earrings).

Exactly!! That's the reason why she loves aardvarks but has no regard for anteaters.

Very interesting. Thank you. I remember having thought time ago something along the lines of "what if the honest-to-business symmetry group of GR is not as humongous as the group of all differentiable transformations of the coordinates, but something smaller and in a sense less unwieldy"? The diffeomorphisms would be a mathematical convenience, but the physical group, being rather about classes of valid systems of accelerated observers. Not sure if the starting point of this proposal stems from a similar motivation, but it seems to go in a similar direction.

This is interesting.

So how does your idea involve fractal dimensions? I'm every bit as intrigued as I was before. Fractals involve boundaries that are not measurable. Every answer that you give me is more and more profusely worded and farther and farther off-target wrt my question.

There are infinitely many time scales. But that doesn't involve fractal dimension necessarily. How does your idea involve Haussdorff dimension? I'm intrigued.

Just an innocent question, before I become acquainted with the finer points of the discussion: How is this thing 'fractal'?

Bad.

I've emphasised where you started to go wrong: This looks like that, so basically that's what it is. You were as good as lost from there.

How can I be part of a problem? What problem? What is it that's wrong with physics that you set out to put right? OTOH, this doesn't look like a discussion on classical physics. It seems more like a speculation to me. And you didn't address any of my criticism. It's not about 'disparaging' anything. It's about stating clearly what it is that you're addressing. And then addressing any possible criticism.

So what's the point to be discussed? You talk about photons in terms of "inertia in transit" which does not single out photons in any way. All energy moving from A to B would be inertia in transit. You also say that dark matter is without inertia, which is sure to be doomed as a useful physical concept. Not that anybody has tried to accelerate a galactic halo, though. Anything containing energy must possess inertia. Dimensional analysis only gives you a zeroth-order approach to physics. It weeds out lots of possible silly mistakes and allows you to qualitatively predict the parametrics of physical problems. But trying to guess the whole of physics from dimensional analysis is akin to figure out global economics by counting beads.

You're not making sense. You need a then and a there. Force is not an attribute of mass. Nor are either of them (force or mass) space-time references.

I agree with the criticism. Also, whenever you write down t (for time) or d (for distance), you should immediately ask yourself: Time and distance with respect to what? That these concepts are mere references that require coordinatisation was first realised at least in 1632.

Read the comments on Stackexchange. Then read about "Zeno's paradox". And then go for the real thing "the quantum Zeno effect", which is no paradox, but an actual effect.

Supporting? Yes!! Endorsing? Never!! That's Mrs Tilly's way.

Loves soot, hates coal. She likes a dribble, but dislikes a trickle. Go figure.

Very interesting. Thanks.

You sound like one who's read about quantum mechanics and is trying to extrapolate it to the familiar world of human affairs. Language that's used to talk about yes/no propositions (the one that rules the classical world) is alien to the eigenvalue/eigenvector world of quantum superpositions. Eigenvalues and eigenvectors are also useful to talk about mechanical tensions and strains, moment of inertia, etc.

Great! There's another shortage of toilet paper now. But power is back. Funny that you mention this. I've been thinking about it for the whole 8 hours that this has lasted.

That's not the way of mathematics. Prove that you were wrong! Have some coffee first.

She likes forgetting, but not forsaking; forbidding but not forebearing. While she enjoys foreseeing, doesn't have a sense of foreboding...

Mrs Tilly likes a good footing, but doesn't like a fine base.

Electricity wasn't invented. It was discovered. Ways to tap electrical energy were invented. I concur with @CharonY . There are laws (patterns of evolution), initial conditions (how things get started to a limited precision), and historical contingencies. Not even in physical dynamics do we have same behaviour for very close initial conditions on a system that can be simply formulated in terms of few parameters. Imagine how different life could have been with a different panoply of astrophysical contingencies (close-by supernovae, asteroid collisions, etc) to name but one type of contingencies. There are also molecular, geophysical, atmospheric, (etc) contingencies that boggle the mind. So no.

Chinese peasants apparently have become both money lenders and manufacturers of electronic components. That's not disrespectful. Sounds more like ignorance to me. The most dangerous vice in this world is probably a half-arsed sense of security based on what you think you know when you combine it with power.