swansont

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.

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.

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.

discharge means the water is passing through the chimneys and entering the ocean gradient means the pH is changing from one location to another

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

! Moderator Note Please note that our rules require you post your material for discussion, and not rely on downloads or links

I wonder how much of the US effort was from industrialization and the associated rise of business, and the increase of a (northern) population that didn't require slavery, so they were free to see the enslaved as people, while the ones who were economically dependent on the institution (who saw slaves as property) just fell into a minority that was too small, even with the slave states wielding outsized influence in federal government. Which of course led to slave states seeing secession/war as their only option to maintain their worldview.

The electron that’s captured is an “inner” electron (1S) and bonding is via “outer” electron(s), so the effect on the decay is likely minimal. That Be sees an effect makes sense to me, since it only has the four electrons, so you would have the most possible effect on the 1S orbital depending on what bonds are formed.

Chart of the nuclides give decays for the known isotopes. There are a few software packages out there, and websites.

That may be an outcome, too, but that’s an answer to a different question.

If you ignore a book, you don’t read it. If you ban a book, other people don’t read it, too. The former is a personal choice. The latter is a decision foisted upon others.

TIQM uses, as far as I understand, an interaction between the particles

I can’t parse this. What does this have to do with the discussion? Motion isn’t absolute, so what motion is required?

You have to look at the weight of the evidence. The fact that a whole bunch of results show a null result and one does not points to some kind of experimental bias in the one experiment. Are you suggesting we don’t routinely compare clocks with each other? I can assure you we do. For normal timekeeping, and also for tests of relativity

One has to look at the evidence, though. What would a contracting universe look like? (as we've ruled out a stable one) A problem here is the claim that the interpretation can agree with the evidence, but you have not provided an actual model to test. That's incredibly thin. You have to show that the alternative fits. One cannot say it does based on waving of hands, it requires a quantitative analysis to be able to say it fits. You would not just be getting rid of some parts of GR with your conjecture. How does your idea affect the fine structure constant, for example? And just how much of GR are you dispensing with? GR makes predictions other than expansion.

Let's not muddle things. We're talking about c, the speed of light in a vacuum, which means there is no medium. That value is constant and invariant.

What is the nature of this "wavelike connection"? I think the loss of some connection can count as communication. I agree that there is no transfer of information, and as such there's no point in arguing about non-locality, since no communication removes any need to determine if communication is superluminal or not. But it also requires that there be no "connection" or "transaction" between the particles. You can't have it both ways.

And yet we don't rely on motion to characterize time; great effort has been made to reduce motion of atoms or ions in clocks over the years, since it contributes to a frequency error in the clocks.

I was referring to your analogy, and claim that that '"self-arranging atoms" decide to spontaneously form banana peels directly from thick air makes more sense' (you can tell I was referring to this because it's what I quoted with my response) You offer this and them make a ludicrous claim about banana peels forming spontaneously as if this is a reasonable analogy. As far as expansion goes, it's what is predicted by a wildly successful theory called General Relativity, and what agrees with the evidence, such as the redshift and the microwave background radiation, and the confirmation that the universe is, to a large degree, isotropic and homogeneous

If direct tests were required of physics there would not be much physics going on. So that’s an artificial requirement. Not in my example. In yours, fine. Then you have indirect evidence. You would need a compelling model, and evidence to support it, that explains why this makes more sense.

In what way is the receding of galaxies not measurable? I can't think of anything that is observable that is not measurable in some way. That would be an indirect measurement of them, so it would not fulfill the notion that there is no interaction. The interaction is that they eat bananas and render them invisible, and leave the peels behind. This is how neutrinos were theorized, and then detected. It's perfectly fine to do so. What you need to do is find some effect that the non-constant time would have. What is the variable time equivalent of the banana in that scenario? Is this consistent with all distance measurements, like supernovae, cepheids, parallax, etc.?