swansont

It’s not a matter of you being an idiot. The details here involve advanced physics. Quantum oscillations don’t involve motion as you normally think about it - it’s not like a pendulum, where you can make the amplitude a little smaller. In quantum systems the energy differences are like steps, and in the ground state there isn’t a lower step.

A rotation will slow the clock down; this has been independently measured citations 82-84 in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity You can analyze these as equivalent to gravitational redshifts with acceleration v^2/r

! Moderator Note What does this have to do with optics? Please stay on topic, whatever that is

Saying this is not the same as “there is a paradox except in the case where we postulate a privileged reference frame” but at this point I’m not surprised that you don’t see this. ! Moderator Note At this point you’re just repeating earlier claims, without making any correction to your errors, so there’s no point in continuing. Closed. Don’t re-introduce the topic.

Carnivores eat herbivores, and sometimes other carnivores. This notion of producers and consumers seems overly simplistic. Like someone is applying a very rudimentary economic model to it.

Is that the part where it says “Therefore, the twin paradox is not actually a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction”? Just saying this doesn’t make it so. ”It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility.” doesn’t support that notion neither does “We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it”

Not really. He concluded that space has properties, but it’s not a medium that represents a preferred frame of reference, or is required for light. The aether he spoke of later is not the luminiferous aether of Lorentz theory.

Welcome to SFN AFAIK a time crystal is predicated on no energy loss, so you’d destroy it by removing energy from it. Like taking energy out of a pendulum - it would stop ticking. It certainly doesn’t generate any energy.

The latter part of my explanation applies to this. The current is uniform. There’s no way for it to vary.

If the voltage is constant (for a real wire) there would be no current. If there is a voltage drop, and thus a current, the current will be uniform even if the voltage drop is not (e.g. if there’s a resistor, or a series of different-valued resistors); there’s no way to vary it. Charge is conserved, so current flowing in to a point equals the current flowing out.

If you repeat your errors I will repeat the corrections. Red light lacks the energy to ionize, so that’s not what’s going on. I’ll leave it to others to correct the biology.

Which is not the photoelectric effect. In an LED you excite electrons to a higher band in a semiconductor, and when they drop back down you get a photon.

Photoelectric effect is basically the same as photoionization of an atom, for a single photon. Photon in, electron out. edit: an LED is not doing this

On what, specifically?

But one thing you notice is that such leaders are always around. Before this it was Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Khaddafi, and more, and that’s only going back ~50 years I don’t think I was saying BISS, or really making an argument (or advocating a position) as much as I was poking holes in what you were presenting.

Plenty of people without expertise participate here. The ones doing it successfully generally ask questions to fill in the gaps in their knowledge rather than pontificate in areas where their knowledge is deficient, and defer to those who know more.

Aging is a biological process. Time is time. Time passes at a different rate (i.e. frequency) in different reference frames Because that’s what happens in the Doppler effect. Red shift is shifted toward longer wavelengths and blue shift toward shorter. It’s observed to happen, so there’s no point in denying it.

Physical time? You keep using expressions like this, and they make no sense. The speed of a wave is frequency*wavelength The frequency increases by the same factor as the wavelength decreases. These terms cancel. The speed of the wave is the same. These are the same thing And you’re wrong. The speed of the wave is constant (it’s right there in the math) since both frequency and wavelength are changed.

That’s not what pop-science is. At least that’s not what most people mean by it. You can get science studies on places like arxiv, but it’s not written for the general public. They are preprints of articles that end up in journals. Definitely not meant for the general public. pop-sci typically removes most of the math, and with it, a lot of the rigor and ability to actually do science with the information If models aren’t getting it wrong, why do we need new ones?

I don’t know what you mean by “simultaneity must vary physically” Things are simultaneous or not, and it’s a temporal effect. Events that are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in other frames. The earth twin sends out a continuous signal at some frequency, with some wavelength. The space twin travels at some speed, and sees this signal as red-shifted - they get the crest of one wave, but have moved away before the next crest can reach them, so they measure the signal with a longer wavelength and lower frequency. Then they turn around, and are now moving toward the source. They get the crest of one wave, but have moved closer before the next crest reaches them. Since the signal was sent continuously, this happens immediately - the light is already there to be detected. They measure the crests as being closer together and with a higher frequency. Blue-shifted. I can’t fathom why you think this would not happen as soon as they started moving toward earth.

I’m not sure what this even means. c being invariant has certain consequences, two of which are time dilation and length contraction Physics is chock full of mathematical constructs, so it’s not like this is a strike against physics. It’s not relativity, either. It’s a straw man of relativity. You’re the only one here saying the earth ages suddenly, and you’re not a credible source on the topic.

And when it’s a scientist it’s often slanted toward the views of individuals who make themselves available, but are commenting on topics outside their area of expertise, like Michio Kaku. Or just don’t have the background to understand the nuance that’s involved. (which the author might lack. see e.g. any quantum teleportation piece that mentions Star Trek) By and large pop-sci is journalists and not scientists, and the two groups don’t always get along. Who else would interpret the meaning of the evidence? When there’s some new result, we don’t necessarily know what it means. It takes time to figure that out. Until there’s a consensus it’s irresponsible to claim that we know what the evidence means. What you can do is make your argument, but the final decision has to wait for more evidence. IOW its description of subatomic behavior was wrong. What are current models getting wrong?

Given the numbers of each, conventional weapons don’t have to be as hazardous from a chemical standpoint to have a greater cumulative effect. TNT and RDX are toxic and possibly carcinogenic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX And this should be scaled to the amounts created for weapons

I think you are mistaking pop-science journalism with science. I can’t reconcile either of these statements Science is performed by the scientific community. Any shifting is from them. Not all surprising results pan out, so it’s not prudent to chase after them until they are confirmed, and one result might not be nearly enough to formulate a new model. If a model is not wrong - it accurately predicts/matches results - then what constitutes a better model? There has to be some discrepancy between model and experiment for there to be improvement in the model. i.e. there has to be something that it gets wrong.

I thought your position was that science doesn’t shift; these are quotes that imply that this is indeed happening. If models need to be replaced, they have to be shown to be wrong. You haven’t shown that. I recently saw there were some interviews on “new physics” and one of the comments, from Chad Orzel, was "Will there be new physics? We’re not done with the old physics yet". i.e. we know where the holes are in physics and where new physics is needed, but there’s a lot of science to be done in the established areas of physics. I think the same applies to biology.