swansont

It’s unreasonable for you to expect anyone to watch a 50 min video and sort through the arguments, which is why we have a rule against it to add to this: measuring one photon doesn’t even tell you it’s entangled It could possibly rule out entanglement, since the correlation could come out wrong. But that’s it

You can ask questions of the original poster as long as it’s on-topic

Entanglement can’t be used for faster than light communication, which is the usual proposal

The first two responses gave some details of what cosmology says on the matter

! Moderator Note And you have a thread for that, so we won’t be discussing it here

That’s just silly Source: me, who worked for ~25 years at the US Naval Observatory in the precise time department

But why would they stay in orbit if there is no longer a black hole? They tend to go in straight lines. LOL no. There have been experiments that yield a much smaller value

I prefer Rb-87, but that’s a personal bias. Some former colleagues like calcium and strontium How does this differ from length?

it’s a possibility that some want to explore. They want to find evidence for it, though Something has to have written and be running the simulation, if the hypothesis is true

You introduced it as somehow being a consequence of the notion of dark matter - you suggested it’s a clear connection. If it’s not your position, why bring it up?

How does this reveal anything about time? You can have static forces If you are doing work on an object (which requires exerting a force) the energy can increase or decrease in time

Radiation is heat if it’s coming from a thermal source, e.g. the sun’s blackbody radiation has a fair amount in the visible. Something cooler radiates in the IR ”yields are low” is a key phrase in the above description

To add to what exchemist said - at each step of using waste heat the medium is at a lower temperature, so you quickly lose the ability to extract work.

…and ? a dynamic field changes in time. What’s the connection?

I don’t know what “time is applicable on energy” means Energy is a property, not a thing

So no matter is more believable than some matter? But the simulation is making you think this makes sense, so it’s all good, I guess

I’m not sure what the connection is to the point under discussion A photon is not “pure energy” (it has linear momentum and spin)

time doesn’t pass without changes in matter? No. Definitions or descriptions generally don’t. You have to study to gain understanding of physics

Grade-school algebra and cosmology are not really on equal footing. Do you have a substantive argument to make? I’m not going to watch; what is the connection between dark matter and living in a simulation?

What you think doesn’t matter much. This is science, so it’s what you can demonstrate. Science is a shared endeavor; there are no “personal truths”

Do you have any examples of this? Where it was the logic, and not a faulty premise, that is the problem?

And technically this is off-topic, a violation of rule 2.5. “Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand” Oh, please. Being obtuse isn’t inherently a rules violation, but one should still avoid it.

Relativity affects time; it’s not an effect on any mechanism of a clock, which would be accounted for separately. e.g. a pendulum clock ticks at a different rate if you change g, but that is not an effect of relativity. You would have to properly calibrate the clock.

Probably. A clock going faster on the moon would depend on the gravitational and kinematic time dilation involved. Clocks in some orbits run slower (e.g. on the ISS), and some run faster (e.g. GPS satellites). One would have to run through the calculations. No. Decay would be subject to the same time dilation as any other clock. If clocks on the moon run fast, decays run fast by the same factor. The rate of time passage differs. The concept of time is no different; one has already acknowledged that time is relative to one’s frame of reference and gravitational potential

If it’s a response, it’s not spontaneous. The behavior is induced. Saying “it can be explained” is easy. Coming up with a working model is what’s needed.