swansont

Your state of motion or your potential can change over time.

I don’t see “butterfly affect” anywhere in that article. Affect is a verb, so I don’t know what you mean by “butterfly affect”

How does the government do this now? You’re presenting this as a new problem, as if the government doesn’t already do this. Is that actually the case?

Both of the ones I quoted in my previous post, both of which asked if time was constant. (the third statement wasn’t actually a question) I stated no such thing. Once you know that time depends on certain factors, it answers the question of whether time is constant. Whether there are more variables is a completely different question.

As I said earlier, we know time depends on your motion relative to another observer, and on your gravitational potential. What clarification do you need? Time is not absolute, so the notion that time is constant is nonsensical without considering who is doing the measuring, and what the conditions are. To the extent that the question makes sense, we know that the answer is no. As I already said. Time is going to run at a different rate, as compared to some reference clock, depending on where you are and your state of motion.

There is no box. There isn’t a mechanism at play. As joigus has pointed out the correlation is in place all along.

This has nothing to do with the discussion, so far as I can tell.

Probably. I'm saying as long as the equations are applicable, you can often pick different approaches to solving/explaining a problem. As an analogy, you can discuss a falling ball as speeding up owing to a force on it, or due to exchanging potential energy for kinetic energy. Both are correct. It's not one or the other.

It's common to refer to ex-presidents with their title. You just don't call them "the president" "The contemporary practice is to orally address and refer to former presidents as President (Surname) in conversation or in a salutation." https://www.formsofaddress.info/president-usa-former/

A flat fin is a different example, so basically this is a case of "different problems might need different explanations" This happens all the time in physics. Angle of attack is an application of forces/momentum. Bernoulli is conservation of energy. It's not a case of one being right and the other wrong, since they draw on different concepts in physics. They are not mutually exclusive.

Ethan Siegel wrote about this recently https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/06/04/ask-ethan-does-our-universe-have-more-than-3-spatial-dimensions/?sh=2caacddc6a7c

! Moderator Note Physics is more than this, though. You need to have a mathematical model, and then have experimental evidence or the ability to get it (i.e. you make testable predictions). Our speculations rules require this. What you have offered is an Animal House "our whole solar system could be like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being" WAG, whether or not mind-altering chemicals are involved. It's not anywhere close to being enough.

And your point is?

In this context, it would be "understand and investigate"

There are different manifestations of democracy, and I think people lose sight of that. When they say "democracy" they are often looking at the form developed in the US and adopted (with certain tweaks) in most western countries: a republican government where everyone who is eligible gets to vote on their representation (i.e. they are all equal in the eyes of the law), with some form of majority rule but also reserving certain rights for the people. One of the issues is that you say democracy meaning "American democracy" and those with poor understanding or an agenda will apply the equivocation fallacy and use a different manifestation/definition of democracy in their "argument"

That's interesting. I was sure the UK had an income tax, and government assistance programs, which would allow them to see which people have low income. I would never want my (US) government to be able to tap in to corporate/bank data. And what is your fixation with ai? I don't think it means what you think it means. In this application it's not some magic bullet. It's just computer programming - comparing an income to some predetermined number.

! Moderator Note This isn't your blog. You either ask a question, or present some science to discuss. Define what it is you are introducing. Provide context. Do better.

The "arrive at the same time" explanation has been, AFAIK, debunked. But the air flows faster. If it didn't you'd have higher pressure in front of the wing, which would then force the air to move faster. The examples are usually for a specific shape of wing (do stunt planes have that shape?), and if you are in a situation where Bernoulli applies, how does it not move faster and still conserve energy?

! Moderator Note You've been posting about this for a long time, and never give relevant details. This, the trash can. And posting to advertise your youtube channel is against the rule.

It might help to look at the Bernoulli equation to see what studiot is talking about http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html

There are two possibilities that your inquiry raises: someone has the information you seek, about specific studies in a very narrow sector of medical (not biological) study, or they know where to look for it. What you have been given is the latter: a path so you can delve into this. We are not your research minions, to be sent off to the library to seek out citations for you.

So you made what looks to be a factual claim, but then admit it was a WAG. That's really not how things work here. You can ask questions or you can present ideas, but the ideas have to have some level of rigor. And you seem to be following a pattern, and this does not end well. You will quickly use up your allotment of goodwill if this trend continues. The problem here is that if you don't know how the quantum effects occur, there's no way to assess what "errors" are occurring. There no science, just your buzzwords. It needs to stop.

And yet I still see no evidence being presented. This does not fulfill the requirements of speculations. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ 1. 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. Last chance!

Telling you how to find what you’re looking for is a perfectly reasonable response. If someone had the knowledge, they could share it, but expecting them to do the legwork for you is…well, I think zapatos got it right: Privileged.

And what does this have to do with electrons allegedly traveling faster than c in atoms? Where is your mathematical model? What testable predictions do you make? How is the idea falsifiable?