swansont

You cut off the list of criteria that describes the conditions. That doesn’t make them go away. Absorbers and emitters aren’t physical phenomena. Absorption and emission (individually) are. Once you expand your view to systems, it’s likely you won’t be able to apply CPT CPT doesn’t apply, so this is moot And this focus on incorrect physics is why I previously locked these threads. You’re violating rule 2.8 (and possibly 2.5)

And the CPT theorem says that CPT isn’t a good symmetry in that situation, so applying it is wrong. (feel free to show how it fits the parameters given earlier, if you disagree) Yes, “we” should understand this, and it’s clear that you don’t. Even though the answer has been presented to you, you stubbornly refuse to incorporate it into your thinking.

No, it’s in certain equations in certain parts of physics. Most people don’t expect a cup of coffee at room temperature to spontaneously heat up, and that’s an analogous process to what you described. A hot object emits photons. Run it in reverse and it would absorb. As I pointed out several weeks ago, when you only offered part of the wikipedia entry on the topic, it says “The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with a HermitianHamiltonian must have CPT symmetry.“ You keep invoking CPT in scenarios that do not conform to this. The number of absorbers and emitters points to entropy being involved. CPT applies to individual processes, as described above. Once the configuration enters into it, you’re probably outside of a process where it’s a good symmetry.

Because that’s how entropy works in this case. It’s dissipative, with the emission of photons. CPT isn’t a good symmetry for the process so why would you expect it would apply?

If you look at the system with time reversal, the electron would be absorbing photons. But the overall process is one that represents an increase in entropy, which is not subject to CPT symmetry, an issue you continue to ignore. The only topic for discussion is your misunderstanding of when CPT applies.

How is this philosophy? (other than the false premise, and failed logic ) Moved.

Moderator NoteYour thread was closed. Since you obviously missed the intent, it means don’t bring the topic up again.

Seems to be a lot of that going around. A commonality seems to be an autocratic leader interested in personal power, who surrounds themselves with like-minded lackeys, scapegoating certain people. The US and Israel are making headlines these days, but there are other countries doing/trying it.

Restating your assertion does not address my question. It just serves to reinforce the idea that your position is an exercise in the fallacy of argument by personal incredulity. (it’s also soapboxing, which is against the rules)

That’s not an answer to my question.

No, I didn’t, but you specifically said to look at the OP, as if that was sufficient. So? So you say, but you do not justify this. What if we assume there is a cause. What prevents and infinite number of events from getting to an arbitrary point in time?

No, it’s not. The OP makes an assertion, which you have not supported.

I did. Where’s the actual contradiction? Why can’t you have an infinite number of steps?

You are, too. Repeating an assertion is not proof. Making a statement that you can’t figure out is not a paradox. Where is the actual contradiction? One problem is that you have a mathematical proposal but refuse to engage in math.

As exchemist noted, the interaction between electrons involves a virtual photon. You keep trying to apply CPT when it doesn’t apply (thermodynamics), we’ve been down that path before, and you were told not to bring it up again since you show no interest in correcting your misconceptions

What is it you want to discuss? This isn’t a blog, it’s a discussion forum.

No reason, but I think you shouldn’t try and sell philosophy as physics. You can solve physics problems without the why; we’ve been doing it for hundreds of years now, quite successfully. And as ontology, I don’t see it.

You’ve offered your framework up as ontology. i.e. the why is philosophy. Physics tells you how the universe behaves. Physics equations have no inherent units attached to them. The only requirement is that you use a consistent set, once you start solving them.

Yes, it was something like every equation drops the readership in half

I should clarify - I doubt little that’s covered in the book has changed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time A part of the book is historical, so surely nothing about that has changed. The rest is written at a popular level (the only equation is E=mc^2), so there wouldn’t be a lot of detail that corresponds to advancements since the mid-80’s. New discoveries, sure, so while Hubble showing galaxies is breathtaking and allows us to refine cosmology, the basics given in the book are the same.

I read it back then, so I don’t recall much about it, but I doubt the physics involved has changed all that much.

It depends on where it hits. I don’t think states all have the same level of preventative measures in place. Florida gets hit the most and has the highest incidence of areas with D and F ratings. The risk is to coastal and adjacent areas, and that’s basically all of Florida

I particularly like the Acknowledgments section

Pathway Machine has been banned for being an insufferable troll

In a different context an independent researcher could just be someone unaffiliated with the company or institution presenting a finding. But here I think it means little other than being a self-bestowed honorary title.