swansont

Point 1: if you went to church, you might have a passing familiarity with the Bible. (I haven’t been in literally decades, and yet I know there are passages talking about spiritual rebirth. Googling them isn’t difficult). Try and be minimally informed. Otherwise it just has the appearance of bashing religion. Manufactured outrage.

Really? I’ve always understood it to be a spiritual thing, because that’s how it’s presented. Do you have any evidence that people are under the impression that they will be resurrected, when they aren’t actually dead? I disagree. You could look at the Bible itself and see what it actually says. Is that somehow unreasonable? Like John 3. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/JOHN+3.html It’s pretty clear it’s referring to something spiritual, and explicitly denies that it’s physical.

! Moderator Note You posted a picture, without any scientific basis why the setup should do anything. Word salad isn’t science. Don’t waste any more of our time on this

! Moderator Note The issue is what you can demonstrate. You need an actual model and ways to test it. The rules require it.

A doesn’t “change” its identity, since it doesn’t have one in the first place. Its spin is not determined until the measurement

Decay is a spontaneous reaction, and you are describing an induced reaction or a scattering reaction Fission is one possibility; thermal neutron-induced fission of U-235 releases 2.43 neutrons on average, so one would expect some fraction of the fissions to release just one neutron. For the scatter, a change into a different atom requires the ejection of a proton in addition to the neutron. A possible candidate would be something that undergoes beta+ decay, and the scatter excites the nucleus, which then decays more readily from the excited state.

No, not me, and it’s singlet (as opposed to triplet) Better is in the eye of the beholder. If you look at the wave function, it’s a superposition of the two states (|ud>-|du>)/sqrt(2)) so there’s nothing wrong with saying that.

In a limited fashion. You can send a clock signal into a long optical fiber and there will be a time delay which you can compare with the current output of the clock.

! Moderator Note Responses in science threads need to be mainstream science, and also relevant to the discussion

Is it possible to measure Hawking radiation? Yes. https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6612 (the journal version is paywalled) Not sure why you have to be at the event horizon to do this; that’s an unreasonable restriction, as is requiring that one be at the edge of the observable universe.

You’re the one pushing non-constant time. If you have no way to test it, then it can’t have any measurable effect. Same is true for comparing a clock with itself.

Why can’t it be with another clock at another location, but in the past?

The individual states are indeterminate, but the correlation is there.

Yes, Jesus. (it’s a name, you should capitalize) Where does it say this about anyone else? That it will happen for anyone else? You were talking of this being promised to churchgoers.

How would you test for non-constant time?

No, because GR has evidence to support that it works. But GR works. Tests of the equivalence principle don’t show any problems. Clocks that are supposed to agree, agree.

What parts of the Bible say this?

There’s no evidence that it’s not, for any clock relative to another clock in the same frame of reference. People have looked for deviations from the predictions of relativity and haven’t found any. AFAIK there are none. Certainly none with evidence to support them. How would we not notice this? That there is a time rate difference other than what we know to account for? If frequencies differ from expected, it would show up., and violate Einstein’s equivalence principle. Einstein’s equivalence principle

Are they? Do you have specific examples of anyone saying this? (keep in mind that “born again” is practiced in only a subset of Christian churches/denominations) The Bible speaks in allegory and metaphor a lot, doesn’t it? It speaks of eternal life, but that obviously doesn’t mean physical - everyone dies. So where is the lie if you’re using the same literary devices to sell the same product? It’s all the same truth, or the same lie, depending on if you’re a believer or not. I think you need the religions that incorporate reincarnation for that.

! Moderator Note Moved to politics, since this seems to be more about policy than science

mistermack has been suspended for continuing violations of our rules on soapboxing, introducing conjecture without support, and making bad-faith arguments.

! Moderator Note The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

When folks incorrectly cite my username once, I chalk it up to being an accident, a typo. When it continues, I assume it’s either lack of attention to detail or deliberate. In the future, more careful framing and rigor may prevent having to retire from an untenable position.

What algorithms? Numbers are stored?

No, you’re talking about time, and time depends on these things. Which you are ignoring for reasons I can’t comprehend. You asked a very broad question. The answer is no (or “the question is nonsensical”). You might have given specific conditions under which the answer is yes, but it would only be yes under those specific conditions.