swansont

The line that set this off is "This types of comments just indicate ignorance." and in the context of the exchange, the topic was already known, so it was not (or should not have been) ambiguous to those in the conversation. What was being discussed was based in science, so it's much less of an opinion and much more about what you can support. ———— But Phi is absolutely correct: being called ignorant is not a personal attack in the context of our rules if it refers to some issue being discussed. Disagreement is not, either. If you assert an opinion as if it were a fact (especially an uninformed opinion), or something contrary to facts, then one should expect pushback. "You cannot dictate to others" would be an example of pushback. It's not like only one person is not allowed to dictate to others. OTOH, "you lack integrity, honesty, decency and are too cowardly to enforce a rather simple rule. Now go f**k yourself" is a string of personal attacks. As I've written before, "This is a place to discuss science, not a self-esteem support group. Civility is required, but this does not extend to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos."

Remember that the terminator did not kill that particular Sarah Connors.

To me, the fact that "smart" algorithms try and interest me in things I just bought is a pretty strong indication that the internet is not close to being self-aware. [Me] <buys toaster> [internet] Hey, I see you like toasters. Can I interest you in any of these twelve toasters? <sends terminator to me to try and sell me more toasters>

Yes, if one is going to say that science is trying to establish what reality is, you'd best define the term. I'm not, so that's best left to others.

It's interesting (to some, anyway) and yes, it might open the door to new physics. Likely at scales we can't yet probe, or are at the edge of probong, because otherwise we would probably have noticed something by now.

I would replace "reality" with "behavior" We can see how something behaves, but how do we test to see if that is reality? First step, as always, is defining what we mean. Is it reality vs illusion? Or reality as in "objectively exists"? We know that certain components of the models we build in physics do not objectively exist, because we made them up as a convenience. We know right then and there that physics is not a search for reality. As a test of something objectively existing, I ask this: is a hole real? Or is it a convenience? (edit: and does this matter? If we're searching for reality we have to know. If we aren't this doesn't matter so much)

“beta decay reactions” are ones that swap a proton and neutron. In a decay, both the particle and its associated neutrino (one of them is an antiparticle) is released. In the detection reaction, the particle is absorbed and the neutrino emitted see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/neutrino2.html If a reaction needs e.g. 10 MeV to occur and your source is giving you 5 MeV particles, you won’t cause the reaction. One would need to check the specifics of the solar neutrino spectrum and the specific reaction to see how much of an issue this is. The muon mass is > 100 MeV and tau mass is ~1776 MeV, so they definitely require added energy. A bare neutron is only a few MeV more massive than a proton, and the energy difference in a nuclear shell is of similar magnitude. edit: from this document from SLAC it looks like the solar neutrinos are all under 20 MeV (p.208, graph on 209) So if they changed to muon neutrinos along the way, they don't have enough energy to create muons in a n—>p reaction

No, they are not.

So they are, in fact, detectable. The ones we use, because of the neutrinos we detect. Muon and tau neutrinos do similar reactions. The detection of the muon neutrino got the Nobel prize in 1988 (edit: it's trivially true that they don't participate in a reaction where an electron is emitted, because that violates lepton number conservation)

I'm not sure who "we" is referring to, because I am arguing that we strive to do just that. We don't rely on someone to tell us the color of the light, because we can't trust their perception. We using e.g. a diffraction grating, to improve precision and remove personal bias. To quote Obi-Wan: Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them. Yes, we can do that, too. If someone is e.g. dreaming or hallucinating, I can claim that their experiences are not real. I agree, science can't reveal reality to us. I don't think anyone was arguing in favor of that proposition.

Perceive undersells the situation for relativity. The time is actually different, regardless of perception. To use "perceive" suggests there is a true value underlying this for someone with perfect clarity to discern. The time difference is real. It's not an illusion.

Sure you can. If the stopwatch we are using says the duration of something is 3.00 seconds, there is no disagreement that the stopwatch says 3.00 seconds. We don't ask people how long they think the duration was. We remove perception from the problem.

And he did the same thing with distance. It's not perception. The actual amount of time passing is different for observers in different frames.

No, it's formulated as a physics question, and asks about measuring time, which means we are excluding perception.

One factor is that the muon and tau particles that would be produced by the muon and tau neutrinos are more massive than the electron, so more energy is required in the interactions.

I didn't mean for you to not pursue this. It's something that has merit, but it's not something existing physics is going to be able to answer. Precisely when. (and it's more hydrogeny, cesiumy and rubidiumy)

Space with nothing in it isn't possible. Contemplating whether time is emergent from this notion is something that some scientists and/or philosophers pursue, but that doesn't mean the situation is physically realizable. i.e. it's a gedanken experiment, a thought problem, where one ignores the constraints of physics. There's a whole bunch of physics we can and will do without understanding time's behavior or nature at the Planck scale. Time as an emergent phenomenon may not be a question of relativity. But, you posted this in relativity...

That's not what I said - it's not that the carbons are distinguishable. It's what you have made out of the carbon. Two diamonds will be different. There will be lattice defects and inclusions that make them different, even if each of the carbon atoms all have the same composition.

Seeing as this is posted in the relativity section, I am giving you answers according to relativity. Time is what we measure with a clock. When you posit conditions that are contrary to physical law, then physical law isn't going to be able to give you answers.

Yes. We don't have knowledge of the laws of physics at that scale. We don't know the answer. Why does it have to happen instantaneously? That's not the only option.

! Moderator Note It's OK to discuss what hacking is. One could even discuss instances that have made the news. What we will not be doing is exploring any details of ways to hack.

You can't have completely empty space. Relativity tells us that physics acts the same in all inertial frames and in all places in those frames. This means if I measure time at one place, I know the passage of time in all points in my frame; it's the same. IOW, I don't need a clock at a particular location to know the time there, if I have sufficient knowledge of the conditions.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.5 Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory Rule 2.10 Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking. This does not address the discussion in the OP, so it is a hijack. Further it is based on your personal conjecture, so it's inappropriate for discussion here. Lastly, it's a topic you were told not to re-introduce, after 4+ pages of fruitless discussion.

! Moderator Note Good for you. Now stop spamming the forums with drek. You can ask questions about science, you can raise issues for scientific discussion. "I have ideas about fairies" is neither.

! Moderator Note Is there a question here, or a point of discussion?