swansont

One definition is that time is what is measured by a clock. From a measurement standpoint, time is the phase of an oscillation. The time derivative of the phase gives you the frequency (w = dp/dt) thus you can get the phase by integrating the frequency. i.e. you count the oscillations.

Heat is energy transfer, owing to a temperature difference. It is not particles moving up and down. If that were the case, why would energy be transferred between objects sitting next to each other, especially if they are not in contact? The motion of particles owing to the thermal content can have a frequency - the vibration of atoms in a solid, for example - but the frequencies of all the atoms are not the same, nor are they constant. In an ideal gas the motion is random, and the speeds follow a distribution. Pretty far from being a SHO. Kelvin is used for temperature. It’s not an energy. As the link from sethoflagos points out, kT has units of energy

Things people object to with regard to time often apply to length as well, but nobody seems to complain about that; probably because different sensing is used (per your point 2) But the nature of time is metaphysics, not physics

Much like this statement, logic can be proper but based on a false premise. The conclusion is valid, but also incorrect. Not at all. First of all, saying that observation must be included is not emphasizing it, and that makes no statement about logic’s reliability. It says that logic is a necessary but insufficient component in science. Saying observation plays no role just shows ignorance about science. There are a number of self-consistent propositions that don’t speak to reality. Of course, one needs observation to be able to know this. You’ve provided empirical evidence that your Dao is flawed.

There has to an option for more than one response. A block of iron responds to a rise in temperature by expanding, or to outside pressure by shrinking, but a block of iron is not intelligent.

Time and energy being Fourier conjugates doesn’t come from relativity, and it’s a leap to say that this means something about the existence of spacetime and energy-momentum. Anyway, just because someone claims something does not make it true.

! Moderator Note Discussion on defeating quantum decryption has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133223-cryptography-in-the-age-of-quantum-computers-split-from-why-does-a-quantum-computer-render-rsa-useless/

! Moderator Note Split. This is more than slightly off-topic

Some guy on substack, where others disagree, is probably not to be taken as authoritative. But i’d like Airbrush to answer.

Where did you find it? Is it a credible source?

What dipole is associated with an electron and how is this relevant? Is there any experimental evidence that the electron has a radius given by the classical radius? A hand-wave is not a mechanism

Not all organisms require molecular oxygen. That’s only one evolutionary “strategy” but only humans and possibly a few other species follow it, with regard to human-like intelligence. (if you want to cast a wider net than that you really need to provide a definition of intelligence)

And I asked you for this calculation. You got ~2x10^12 kg. Clearly, that can’t be correct. Do you have a better calculation? What keeps this black hole from evaporating? But we’re not talking about a wire in a radio. EM radiation propagates in a vacuum. Then your calculation shows an inconsistency between experiment and your model

You went from photons bending space to black holes, so if that’s not it, what bends the space for these photons that purportedly comprise an electron? No current is required to have a varying electric and magnetic field. Why would current flow one way and then the other, in free space? Is there any evidence that an electron has a mass of 10^12 kg?

! Moderator Note Preaching is a violation of rule 2.8. We’re a discussion forum.

You need an hypothesis that can be falsified before you can discuss what evidence is needed.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it (IOW, don’t include your site’s link in posts)

The object exists at t=0 and at t= t1, the current time. It is likely to exist at some time t2>t1 One can speak of its past and future, though those are colloquial expressions. That's not how this works. Which is why we don't speak of present except in relation to our own frame. And my objection has nothing to do with the present. It's the assertion that relativity says that the future already exists. No additional conditions were specified. You've introduced other frames into the discussion, but that's just a distraction. We have an observer, who has a frame of reference. There are events that happened in the past, and some will (presumably) happen in the future. Relativity tells us that clocks in different frames will disagree as to when an event occurred, or the order in which events occurred. But regardless of your frame, there will be a time where the coffee had not yet been spilled.

If there’s no past, present or future, because they are human constructs, how is it that “relativity implies a block universe, which is to say that the future already exists”? If future is a human construct, not part of relativity. These statements are inconsistent.

Your scenario “If a time traveler went back in time and changed something, no matter his motivation, could we know?” requires that time travel be possible. They are based on what physics has to say. But there is no scientific basis for this, because it’s not based on science. You can propose whatever you want, but like most fiction, if you delve too deep Into detail you will find problems. How does a memory get erased? How do things broken in one timeline get repaired if they don’t get broken in the new one? But you can propose a different answer and have the same justification that that would be how it goes. An experiment, even a thought experiment, has to have a consistent outcome.

Time travel is theoretically possible under specific conditions, but the kind of arbitrary time travel you describe is not. Here’s a link from the other time travel thread describing what can and can’t happen with time travel https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2009/05/14/rules-for-time-travelers/ I don’t see where I ridiculed you or suggested that there was deception. I critiqued your conjecture, and you’ve been here long enough to know to expect that. Getting feedback should allow you to improve your question.

I don’t think this is a true statement. How does it imply a block universe, where “the future” already exists? What future? IIRC the possibility of time travel is limited, it’s not arbitrary. You can only go back to a time after you built a time travel device. edit: #8 https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2009/05/14/rules-for-time-travelers/

Also note that the Hawking radiation, strictly speaking, doesn't come from the BH itself. The effect is initiated at the surface or just outside the BH. So both statements can be true.

The thought experiment is underconstrained because it’s fictional. How can you be sure that people don’t turn bright plaid when they time travel? Because they chose that to be the story line. It’s fiction. How do you know the memory wouldn’t exist? Why does this have to be true? It’s just an assertion. There’s no science that backs this up. You could just as easily assert that we would know. We could get temporal headaches and crave chocolate milk.

I don’t think they know the actual truth, because they accept whatever fiction TFG, or FOX news, etc., peddles, as truth. I’m not sure what would happen if they stopped making stuff up, but why would they? Also not sure what this has to do with answering my question.