Genady

What components are they? Here is the composition of the atmosphere we breathe:

Yes, diffraction does not seem a correct explanation. Can it be tested? (I didn't succeed to reproduce the effect so far. Without glasses I can't say what's happening, while with glasses nothing like that seems to happen.)

To the contrary, from the muon's perspective time passes from its "birth" until its "death". Its mean lifetime is about 2.2x10-6s in the muon's frame.

Muon decay is not an emission of particles from muon. Rather the muon disappears, and other particles appear. Here is the diagram:

They change when they decay, but there are no: PS. When muon decays there is no muon anymore.

Does it happen if you replace the finger with say a pencil, a chopstick, etc.?

It is noticeable and very well quantifiable in GPS, for example.

I had in mind radioactive and particles decay. Another example of a non-positional change could be electron flipping spin in magnetic field. That happens when frames move wrt each other at any speed, and in any strength gravitational field.

In all studies of sciences, I've never heard that time is a thing. Evidently, this part of the OP article is a straw man fallacy. On the other hand, contrary to the OP article considering space and time together is not arbitrary but rather a necessity because space and time are related: what appears as time for one observer appears as space for another. Another claim of the OP article is that any duration measurement necessarily measures a movement. This is not so as there are processes that have duration without a movement such as decay. This processes in principle can be used to measure time.

You will.

It does not matter which gas we are talking about as long as this gas causes narcosis. Nitrogen is such a gas, that is why I mention it. Oxygen is not. A gas that causes the narcotic effect has a saturation level which depends on the air pressure and the tissue. When this level is reached, it does not matter anymore how much of the gas enters the body. It exits the body at the same rate as it enters it when tissues are saturated. The breathing rate does not affect the amount of the gas in the tissues anymore. The breathing rate increases with exercise because the tissues use oxygen and need more of it. Oxygen level never gets saturated because oxygen is used by tissues. The narcotic gases are not used by tissues.

What accumulation? Our tissues are saturated with the nitrogen at the saturation level for atmospheric pressure and breathing - more or less - does not change this level. That is, breathing more does not increase the amount of nitrogen in the tissues and breathing less does not decrease it.

In my early teens, I flew from my warm southern city of Baku to Moscow first time, in winter. I remember a shock of the first breath when I got out of the plane. I simply couldn't take it. My nose was shut with ice.

Eight! World Population Clock: 8 Billion People (LIVE, 2022) - Worldometer (worldometers.info)

Sorry, I don't want to interrupt the discussion, just to notice that I got exactly the same "diagnosis" many years ago soon after moving to a new country. My complaint was an abdominal pain. Later it turned out to be an allergic reaction to coconuts.

My last point has not been addressed, i.e., The point 6 in the OP is: but I don't think there is a similarity. Moreover, the "Narcosis while diving" does not appear until the air pressure gets above 3 atm. It is nowhere close to variations in atmospheric pressure in all other conditions mentioned in the OP article. It is also nowhere close to atmospheric pressure when people sleep.

@joigus: Here is to answer your question in another thread. I just got a neg rep, above.

Technically, this list is not a set of evidence, but rather a set of questionable similarities. More specifically (a retired SCUBA instructor is speaking here): 1. The phenomenon known to divers is not called "Narcosis while diving". It is called, "nitrogen narcosis." 2. The phenomenon is caused specifically by nitrogen and substituting it by other gases reduces or completely eliminates it. 6. The symptoms of nitrogen narcosis are not similar to sleep.

To the list of my doubts, I'd like to add that a conclusion regarding normality or peculiarity of a trait based on comparison of couple dozens of extant apes is weak. There were many times more apes during the last 15 or 20 million years. How many of the extinct apes were furless or had furless babies? Nobody knows. Humans happen to be the only ones surviving today. Even among other surviving apes, large parts of their bodies are in some of them furless or almost furless, such as lower bodies in some gorillas and faces in all of them. It is possible, that furlessness in humans is coincidental and does not have much to do with traits which "make us human."

I'm afraid it does not answer my question. A previous idea focused on constituent parts: (my emphasis) My question regarding application of this idea to electron is, what are the constituent parts of electron?

Absolutely agree. I learn languages by using them, NOT via translation. Moreover, it might be personal issue, but while I easily switch in conversation or when reading between the languages I know, I have a very hard time if I'm asked to translate what was said from one of the languages to another. This requires huge mental effort. It's like when I switch to a language the brain switches to a different mode and there is no direct connection between the modes. BTW, here is the ASL sign you've mentioned: PAST-YOUR-EYES-MILK-[pasteurized-milk]-[pun] - YouTube

One part of the OP that was not addressed yet, I think, is the mention of "infinity ... inconceivable for us." I agree that infinity is a complex notion, but I disagree that it is inconceivable. Though, like in other parts of the OP, it is not clear what they mean.

This "trait" of furless babies might be simply a delay of development of the secondary sexual characteristic. Then, it is not selected one way or another. The one variation it allows for is in duration of the delay until maturity, and this I think in fact varies between populations.

Maybe this very simple computer example will make clear how useless is DNA by itself. Let's take this "DNA" code: 60 00 00 80 A4 00 00 00 60 01 00 84 A4 01 01 00 60 02 00 00 60 03 00 04 60 04 00 00 60 05 00 01 08 00 00 02 20 00 00 03 20 04 04 05 11 20 04 01 and "seed" it somewhere. Nothing meaningful will happen unless it is "seeded" in a very specific place in memory of a very specific computer, in which case a number of zeroes will be written starting at a memory location, where the starting location is given at the memory address 0x80 and the number of zeroes is given at the memory address 0x84.

No. Everybody should be skeptical toward their religion.