Jump to content

swansont

Moderators
  • Posts

    49801
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    171

Everything posted by swansont

  1. 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.
  2. ! 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. I notice that you didn’t answer the questions. All you did was deflect.
  11. 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/
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. What does that have to do with the spectrum? Collection vs collection to produce electricity are different things. As exchemist says, a matte black surface will collect a lot of solar energy, as long as it’s also black in the IR, but that doesn’t mean it’ll convert the energy to electricity. Which one are you trying to maximize?
  15. Do we independently observe gravity affecting time (or not affecting time) in this manner? Is there a theoretical basis for this? If not, you’re basically saying it’s magic.
  16. Except it’s not dependent upon distance when the distance is small. Testability is a requirement for it to be scientific Gravity. As has repeatedly been explained. Nothing in science has definitive proof, so this is an artificial objection.
  17. That's simply not something you can assert as true until you have the models available to compare. Because our model of space expansion has a caveat for gravitationally bound systems - an interaction that depends explicitly on distance. But not time. So you can't just swap them. No, but you can do tests that depend on these premises, and this happens repeatedly. The distinction being that we have models to inform us of what tests we can do. Without a model as guidance, you can't come up with tests. No, as previously discussed, we know why no expansion is observed in those cases. We have a mechanism. The time hypothesis lacks a mechanism. We can measure a signal that was sent yesterday, and was a light-day away. And I will keep pointing out that this is meaningless without an actual model that tells us what is supposed to be happening, and why we only observe it happening with objects that are not close to us.
  18. discharge means the water is passing through the chimneys and entering the ocean gradient means the pH is changing from one location to another
  19. Unsustainable means you can't keep doing it in the long term. Something in the process will run out; in this case it's land for further deforestation, when the previously cleared land stops being suitable for growing crops or grazing.
  20. If you're going to call it an interaction you need to identify the interaction and retract your claim that there is no communication. Otherwise it's a hand-waving misrepresentation of the science, and you're claiming something without defending it.
  21. Again, without a model, you can't guarantee this. We know the speed of light is invariant - we have physics that tells us this. We see changes in light that occur with an invariant c and space expansion - a redshift that only occurs in regions that are not gravitationally bound. So if you want to propose that this is an effect on time you would need to explain why there is no time shift for gravitationally bound entities, where the redshift is not observed.
  22. A problem is that you can't make the claim of paragraph 1 if paragraph 2 is the case. We have measured the fine structure constant. There is no effect from space expansion, because it's not dependent on space. But changing time? Does that affect the speed of light? One might imagine it does since the distance is the same but time is changing, but we don't know, because you don't have any science to point to that would give us a clue. Except you aren't because you have no math to present. It does, because expansion doesn't occur with gravitationally bound entities, and your proposal sounds like it would not; at least, there's nothing you've tied into it that would have such an effect. But your proposal doesn't come with enough detail to be sure. If the idea isn't falsifiable it's not science.
  23. Then you have to explain what the nature of that interaction is. Electromagnetic? Gravitational? You can't claim interaction and also say there is no claim of communication. The underlying issue here is the notion that the particles have to communicate/interact with each other, because how do they "know" what state to be in after one is measured? But that's an error. Since there's no information revealed by the measurement of the second particle, causality is not violated. It's like the old joke about a vacuum dewar being the most amazing thing by keeping hot things hot and cold things cold, and the person asking "How does it know?" Not to ruin the joke, but: it's the wrong question to ask; the physics lies elsewhere.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.