swansont

You have an opportunity to present mathematical models of how nature might behave, and present ideas for experiments that would test the model. Or to present results of novel experiments, and discuss how they might imply new science. Just like anybody else doing science. Science isn't done with poorly-explained drawings (which are not experiments, BTW) and terminology that is unexplained, unnecessary or misappropriated from established science. You might notice that your first speculative thread was not shut down immediately. It was after you ignored questions that were put to you. Complaining about not having a discussion has to include your refusal to participate; it seems your "discussion" is just you lecturing, and that's not our idea of discussion. You can go get a blog somewhere for that. I'm an actual physicist and I do not agree with your assessment. Using terminology from physics is a necessary but insufficient condition for doing actual physics. Actual physics requires equations (derived from physics principles, not pulled out of one's ass)

No, this is not true, (though this is a common response) but it shows that you aren’t really paying attention to what’s going on. Your threads that have been closed were closed because you didn’t follow the rules. You were asked to comply, and you did not do so. If you had provided the information that the rules require, the threads would have remained open.

In the US it's not necessarily a huge number owing to the way elections are broken down. Only presidential and senate races have millions of people involved (in most states) for federal races (and elections for governor and some other statewide offices), and because of the electoral college, senate and presidential have the same voting population. Congressional and local elections have far fewer numbers. The sentiment involved is called civic duty and even then a decent chunk of people in the US can't be bothered; participation is generally higher in other countries. It may be tied in with historical abuses; people seem more interested in voting if the rulers have behaved badly in recent memory. Having the power of self-determination taken away from you (or never having it before) is pretty strong motivation. Given recent events in the US it will be interesting to see how much of a participation spike we see in this year's elections, seeing as loss of rights is very much an issue. Losing elections, especially by large margins, can be a motivating factor for politicians.

Your opinion isn't what is important here; this is a discussion of facts. Looking at the issue as "one vote doesn't matter" is flawed, because it's not just one person, it's all the people who might think that way. And elections can be lost if that attitude becomes pervasive. Elections have come down to narrow margins, and even single votes - there was one in my neck of the woods recently that ended up tied, and was decided by a coin flip. One more vote would have mattered a great deal. "One vote doesn't matter" is propaganda from people who don't want you to vote.

Novelty would mean something that is different, so they are looking at unique genetics of one virus vs another. The "arbitrary measure" suggests that some genetic differences might not matter in distinguishing between them, i.e. some measure of genetic difference might tell you that two viruses are different, when they should be classified as being the same virus. (or vice-versa)

The whole premise of entanglement is based on the fact that the states are undetermined. Local hidden variables have been experimentally ruled out.

One issue is that there is no “flip” or “change” since the states are not determined. “flip” implies going from one state to the other. The states are determined only when measured.

Time is the integral of frequency, so if there is a difference in frequency between two clocks (stemming from relativistic effects), the time they measure will be different. When will you share this model with us? And the experimental evidence that supports it? I haven’t seen a model. You gave an equation which you refuse to explain or derive, and haven’t shown how one would calculate any time dilation. Like a Nigerian prince scammer, you are promising things but not actually providing them.

I think if they don't know the term there's no real damage, though, since the gatekeeper is probably the journalist writing an article, so the quality of information depends on whether they are doing their due diligence, not the consumer of the article. I agree that some people don't realize that it's the much lower hurdle of not being obviously wrong or having shoddy methodology. It can still be wrong. The next step is checking the "repeatability" box. Not just one experiment, but several of them, with different approaches, to ensure there's no hidden issues, or that you didn't just get lucky that your p value was below some arbitrary value, or some other statistical happenstance.

I'm pretty sure most scientists and science journalists know what peer review is, and that's the target audience. What's the impact of not knowing what peer review is to a layperson? They don't read the journals.

! Moderator Note If you suspect a sockpuppet, the proper procedure is to report the post so that the mods can confirm your suspicions and deal with it. Discussion of that sort within the thread is off-topic.

in math, zero means there is nothing. It's not negative. If you had a model, you would be able to quantify how attractive this force is. Conservation of energy is not a force. If x=0 then hf/x is undefined, as it tends to infinity in the limit of x-> 0 You're just throwing around terminology that has actual meaning to people who have studied physics, but is gibberish in your hands. ! Moderator Note You've been asked for a model and have declined to provide one. The discussion does not meet the requirements of speculations. We're done here. Don't reintroduce the topic.

What's the evidence that supports your speculation? Your provided models? 1. You don't have a model 2. It's not time dilation 3. You've demonstrated nothing clearly No, evidence would be in the form of experimental results that show the equation is valid. Equations by themselves are not evidence. The temperature of atoms or ions matters for two specific reasons. Can you tell us what they are? No, the claim isn't that they can slow down time, the claim is that the frequency of the clock is affected, and if you are trying to realize the second, as one does with a cesium frequency standard, you have to account for any frequency changes that move you off of the 9192631770 Hz that is the definition of the second. Temperature not being 0 K is one of those effects. You can calculate the amount of frequency shift, and adjust your frequency assessment so that the clocks remain accurate.

What is the equation for which this is a solution? How is it that 0 represents an attractive force? In QM it represents no coupling between the states

Agree. Peer review would not catch a reasonably well-executed fraud, because the description of the method would be acceptable, and the data would support the conclusion. It would look like good science. Peer review might not catch plagiarism, either.

Yes, we do. We also know that the frequency shifts in the presence of electric and magnetic fields. We also know why these shifts occur. And what is the source of this equation? (e.g. a textbook, or journal article) Because that's not time dilation.

That’s why we take great pains to make sure such perturbing effects are minimized. IOW, this is taken into account. (to call it fake time dilation is to admit that one doesn’t understand time dilation)

The evidence itself would be a fact, but the theoretical framework that incorporates it is not. One might posit a model of motion that depends on invisible fairies. That's not factual, even though a ball dropping a certain distance in a certain amount of time is an experimental fact. Of that I have no doubt.

We already know E=mc^2, so this is nothing new, and "when the wave function collapses at the edge of space-time" , "energy will be inverted in direction" and "sending a CBMR back into the space-time reference frame" is word salad. And a second course. Wanting science at a science discussion site. The very idea!

If there isn't any measurable effect, then time changing doesn't matter - there is no effect. I will borrow and analogy I've read elsewhere: if you propose that there is a massless invisible gorilla in the room, and there are no gorilla effects that can be detected, then your proposition is not a scientific one. It's meaningless. What people investigate is whether dimensionless constants change over time, such as the fine structure constant. And the limit on how much that might have changed is quite small (a part in 10^17 per year as an upper bound)

Some fissions of heavy nuclei will release only one neutron. In general you will not find heavy nuclei that release only one neutron, on average, because they have a large neutron/proton ratio, so the fission fragments are very neutron-rich, so they are highly unstable and shedding the extra neutrons is energetically favorable. Sometimes the neutron emission is immediate, and often you get the lowering of the N/Z ratio via beta decay afterwards. To get only the one neutron out you would need to fission a much lighter nucleus (with a lower N/Z ratio), and that would require a lot of energy to be added.

They aren't, actually, when one gets down to the brass tacks. It's a subtlety that few people care about, but I am one of them. Frequency standards measure a frequency, and can be used as a clock, of sorts, but they are more like a stopwatch, measuring a time interval. Many of them get turned off (often for months at a time), and when they are off you aren't keeping track of the time, so they can't be considered clocks by themselves. Most people just call them clocks, though, because the distinction isn't important to them. The same people (generally) refer to THE atomic clock, as if there is only one, rather than many clocks that make up a master clock that keeps track of the time in the larger countries. (There are undoubtedly some countries that have just one atomic clock contributing to the BIPM) The clocks that I have helped build do not measure a frequency (and most do not use cesium). You can calibrate them with a cesium frequency standard so you know the length of a second. But they run continuously, so you can keep track of the time. That's why the second is defined at the geoid, and in the absence of any other perturbing effects. You make corrections for the elevation of the clock.

! Moderator Note First rule of the speculations section: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. I see nothing here that is testable or constitutes evidence. There is no measurement that is suggested. Your diagrams convey far less information than you think they do.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You can brag about how good it is, but at some point we need to have the pudding. How does one test your ideas? What confirmable predictions does it make?

Yes, and we don’t know which state it’s in once entangled That’s not the point in dispute. Before the measurement the spin is undetermined, so to say it changed (“particle A must change its identity”) has no meaning. It’s not a model, it’s an analogy, and one that (when properly presented) acknowledges that the indeterminate state aspect is not covered by it.