swansont

It’s pretty simple. If c is invariant and the laws of physics work the same way in all inertial frames, then time and length are relative to the frame you are in.

! Moderator Note Then do so in a thread in speculations, following the rules of that section. Not by hijacking someone else’s thread. ! Moderator Note On the contrary, not supporting your claims, or not following other rules, is what will get you banned

At 100 LY, a probe moving at 0.1c (i.e. incredibly fast) will take 1000 years to arrive, and need an additional 100 years for the data to get to us.

But having that much CO in earth’s atmosphere is problematic. Health issues start to appear above ~10 ppm https://www.mcair.com/resources/carbon-monoxide-the-silent-killer#:~:text=0-9 ppm CO%3A no,the young and the elderly.

Depends on what they mean by “easier” The coulomb barrier is higher, owing to the larger charge, but it undoubtedly has a higher cross-section than p-p fusion, because that is too small to directly measure (the average proton takes more than a billion years to fuse in the sun)

The article says nothing about global warming.

From decay, as exchemist notes, and ionizing radiation, which means potentially dangerous.

Dragonball has been banned as a sockpuppet of Baron d’Holbach

How is this a “reversal” of causality?

And a lot of experimental research is finding vacuum leaks and ground loops.

Photon excitation or de-excitation probability is not dependent on the direction of the photon.

Why would it be increased?

If photons are causing the excitations, they will also cause stimulated emission, which would not be isotropic.

Your diagrams are not as informative as you seem to think they are. They might make sense to you, but that doesn’t mean they make sense to anyone else.

Photons cause excitation and de-excitation anyway, without time reversal, so I don’t see why this would be evidence.

1. That’s not entanglement, which has no information exchange after the entanglement is in place 2. Virtual particles are already identified in quantum physics. If that’s what you mean, use that terminology rather than introducing new terminology. 3. “exchange of information through their eigen space” is just more word salad 4. A model and/or evidence are required in speculations. You’ve not provided anything substantial

It’s an international organization. It is physically located in France (because it needs to exist somewhere), but is not a French organization. What fuss? The old definition was based on the triple-point of water, which is at 0.01 degrees C. The freezing point of water is still 0 C and 273.15 K. The redefinition happened because of a push not to define basic units on physical artefacts. e.g. the meter and kilogram are not based on platinum-iridium bars/blocks anymore.

OTOH, Skynet should have already become self-aware and carried out this scenario (with nukes)

That’s only a factor of ~2. With a value of 100 million, given the lack of precision, that’s ignorable. I remember a talk (I think it was highlighting the equivalent temperature scale of the TRIUMF protons down to the trapped atom temperatures in our experiment) and someone asked what the units were. The speaker said “Does it matter?”

Do you have a rigorous treatment of this, or are you just offering up buzzwords? Entanglement is a particular correlation of states. It’s not its own interaction.

The “killing the operator” was a hypothetical scenario that came up in discussion.

They didn’t change the value when they redefined it. It’s just now defined in terms of physical constants. It would only matter if you were trying to experimentally realize the value, since the method would differ.

Time is relative to the frame of reference of the observer, being affected by speed and position in a gravitational field. Aging is a more nebulous concept. As Phi notes, it’s probably a biology issue, so you should specify which concept you wish to discuss. Aging does not affect time. Time affects aging.

It’s calculus. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus

f(x) represents a function of x dx is a differential; it’s found in an integral (you could integrate f(x)dx) or as a derivative, as in dy/dx