swansont

If they are going to paint an entire group of people with such a broad brush, I'm not against making them feel a little unsafe. Especially when it's unbidden as it was here. One person - and AFAICT not among those DD was responding to - had identified themselves as atheist. It was an assumption, consistent with "if you are questioning my religious stance you must be an atheist" as if one can't cite the Bible and point out inconsistencies if one is a follower. I think we can do without that.

! Moderator Note It’s a mistake to try and assign motives for peoples’ inquiries. We expect claims to be backed up, and asking for such information is fair game. Deflecting with a “prove it wrong” stance is shifting the burden of proof, and is unacceptable

Since a clock measures time, you can’t apply this to time but not the clock. It’s not the same thing to note that things move, and to say that the motion is required. Investigating time is scientific, or can be, but contemplating the fundamental nature of things is philosophy. There are things that science can’t investigate, and not because of technological limitations. Science models the behavior of nature, since it’s only the behavior that we can observe and measure.

This is a non-sequitur. What does atheism have to do with this?

You ask as if you don’t know the answer, despite it being given multiple times. YOU DON’T HAVE EXPANSION WHEN THE CURVATURE IS LARGE ENOUGH. Because now you aren’t swapping this time oddity for expansion, you say it’s there in addition. Without any theory to predict it, and no way to test it. It’s completely ad-hoc, and science routinely rejects ad-hoc explanations. Make up your mind. At the very least you need to be consistent. Apparently you believe it too. At least some of the time. You didn’t ask about redshift. I didn’t answer about redshift. You asked about negating expansion. String theory at least has math and a theoretical basis.

You might recall that Einstein said god did not play dice with the universe. He did not embrace the probabilistic nature of QM, so hanging on to a classical notion that there must be an interaction between these particles isn't all that surprising to me. The EPR paper was also well before the door closed on hidden variables, so this might play a part in the mindset.

I don't think that scolding a layperson for phrasing something in non-technical language is a good look. There's nothing "inappropriate" about that phrasing. You're blaming them for not having learned something yet, and they're here asking questions! One might be tempted to point out to you that this is not generally true; what is true is that going to a higher energy level does not happen spontaneously, and that the post you're responding to said nothing about decay It's entirely possible that any individual cosmic ray could strike the earth is such a way that it would speed the earth up. This is true of any collision, which is why you always have some atoms/molecules with high speeds in a thermal distribution. And why you can do a slingshot with a satellite that speeds it up, even though it has far less energy than the planet.

Obligatory pussy pic. (maybe someone will follow with beaver pics)

But that's not the point. Yes, clocks have motions, but your claim is that motion is required in order for clocks to work, i.e. it's a fundamental requirement, rather than being some consequence or practical limitation that we have to live with. Why would a motionless atom or ion not be able to tell time? And the idea suggests that less motion is bad for clocks, when that's the opposite of truth. Less motion of the atoms or ions has made for better clocks. And what does "how we operationally measure time" have to do with your mention of time being a lattice, whatever that's supposed to mean? The "fundamental nature" of time, space and energy is a matter of philosophy (metaphysics), not physics, so blaming physics for not having such answers is misguided.

It's infinite in many systems. Legendre polynomials, which show up in the solution for the hydrogen atom, are one example. https://people.iith.ac.in/bpriyo/Ananya.pdf

They are similar (analogous), in that vectors in each dimension are orthogonal to vectors in a different dimension. So if you take a dot product you get zero - there is no way to represent a vector in one dimension as a linear combination of other vectors in the orthogonal directions. This concept applies to the eigenstates mentioned above, and why one might sometimes think of them as dimensions, but for eigenfunctions instead of vectors.

I notice that you didn’t answer the questions. All you did was deflect.

Multi-layer cells allow each layer to be optimized for different wavelength ranges. Efficiency approaching 50% https://physicsworld.com/a/sunny-superpower-solar-cells-close-in-on-50-efficiency/

In Newtonian terms it’s an attractive force. So it’s an even weaker claim, since you acknowledge that expansion happens. So how does gravity eliminate redshift? So we can measure expansion, owing to redshift but not time effects? If it’s not testable, it’s not science.

We observe that gravity negates the expansion; there is no corresponding redshift. Gravity is an interaction that is experimentally confirmed. You claim is that the effect on time is measurable as it is responsible for the redshift. So why isn’t the time metric contracting uniformly, if there is no change in scale? How does GR support the static (or contracting) universe that must result?