swansont

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.

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.