swansont

Just some simple notions pop up - how does the time flow “know” to change when something changes from being nonliving to living or vice-versa? You kill food and eat it and it becomes part of a living thing again. Does the C-14 in it decay at a different rate when it changes state? Does K-40 decay at a different rate in a rock than in a potato or banana?

What evidence supports this, and/or what experiment would confirm it?

Why would it have to? There’s a whole lot of empty space out there. We can see stars and galaxies that are pretty far away, and if we can see them it means there’s nothing blocking the view.

I think one has to also consider that language changes over time, that the Old Testament was based on oral stories that were eventually written down, and errors are made in copying/retelling. What they meant when they told the story ~4000 years ago might not be what we interpret today.

How did you get this from a statement about calculation not being necessary? Not all analysis of evidence requires the inclusion of math. When Darwin noticed differences in finch beaks, and concluded that evolution happened, there was no formula that he wrote down.

I named two things in physics which are not real objects. I was asking which one you meant when you mentioned hypothetical object. Virtual particles are “found” in descriptions and calculations of particle interactions, such as Feynman diagrams. Electron holes are “found” in descriptions and calculations of semiconductor behavior. And it’s often useless to throw dictionary definitions around in science, since there are instances where those definitions differ from the definition used in physics (like coincidence, or acceleration, and perhaps more importantly, theoretical). In any event, neither virtual particles nor electron holes are hypothetical. They are real concepts. but not real objects.

Absolutely true, but youre the one who brought up physics and made dubious claims about it. Had you made dubious claims about chemistry, et al., other people might chime in. Not if you’re going to make baseless claims. I’m hoping you’ll stop that. What is this hypothetical object? The items I discussed don’t physically exist, and physics doesn’t claim they do.

Being ignorant of this is not the same as it being true. Not knowing the specific values is not the same thing as saying we don’t have evidence of it being nonzero. Doesn’t matter.

I don’t know why you think this.

cosmic neutrino background red-shift has indirect evidence to support it, but this is, once again, a distraction from the topic being discussed. Come up with actual evidence and there’s something to discuss. But you’re basing this on a what-if scenario that has no evidence and on a premise we know to be false (massless neutrino), so it’s based on yet another conjecture that some new neutrino exists. Has anyone built such a ruler?

It’s a pet peeve of mine, mainly from social media posts saying “look at this neat clock” and it’s a possibly neat display hooked up to a rather mundane physics package, which what does the measurement

Moderator Note A file called “Truth in Bible” isn’t about dark matter (it’s been removed)and discussing what ChatGPT told you isn’t acceptable here

And we were using colloquial language, so… I doesn’t, because I described a pendulum, as instructions for building a clock. I did not tell you how to operate the clock, but that wasn’t what was asked for. You can make fancier clocks, but the “physics package” is a mass suspended on something. Some of the rest of it is the readout, but a clock display is not a clock. The clocks I worked on don’t provide such output, and several of them still comprise the best continuously-running cold-atom microwave clocks in the world. I think clocks good enough to be incorporated into the BIPM timescale (and given maximum weighting in their algorithm) should count, and these are the ones that just output a 5 MHz signal. But I’m not the one claiming that a clock output defines time, and if you are suggesting that then we have lots of definitions, because no two clocks will ever agree, as long as the measurement is precise enough. And transformation behavior is just calibration, which is what timekeepers do as part of their job. The USNO Master Clock, for example, is a weighted average of close to a hundred clocks, all of which disagree to some small extent. It would likely be much less precise for a variety of reasons but it would not “differ” as such. A neutrino that oscillated every ~3 km would oscillate at ~100 kHz. Then you have poor signal/noise because of detection problems. If you could overcome the latter it would be about the same precision as a quartz clock but much bigger.

So? This doesn’t actually address anything. You said “it is a topic of geometry amongst others and mathematicians had quite some trouble to figure our (sic) a usable ways to do it.” and astronomy offers several options that were used and therefore usable. And I asked for a definition that’s not circular. Length and distance are synonyms. You’re jumping into the math without actually answering the question I asked, or the objection that started this tangent. Yes, that makes sense from a commerce perspective. In the US weights and measures standards are the province of NIST, which is in the Dept. of Commerce. Commercial measurements have to trace back to the government standard, and worldwide standard, so people can do business with each other It has nothing to do with issues with physics. And yet we’ve gone very long stretches where this was not the case. There are different version of an hour (one is 1/12 of the period of daylight, so it varies over the course if a year, or with location) but yet the concept of time still existed. What time is is not the same as how we define any particular unit of it* Standardizing was driven by commerce. *same thing applies to length, and you must tacitly agree with this, because you offered up a mathematical definition rather than cite the SI definition of the meter, or any other standard.

There’s a suggestion that the recently-fired Pentagon folk were ones that leaked this new story. And at least part of Trump’s backing is that he will never admit to a mistake. Trump needs a scapegoat, and for Hegseth to resign for some fabricated reason.

I know the T dropdown gives us options to increase or decrease, but if I copy-paste something in a big font, like a headline, clicking “100% (default)” does nothing. Somehow, that’s the new default size. Young tourists deported from US after not planning their trip well enough I can only drop that to 80% size Young tourists deported from US after not planning their trip well enoughIf I copy-paste again, it still knows that’s 80%. The only way to get it normal is to paste it where I’ve already typed, so it uses the existing setting Young tourists deported from US after not planning their trip well enough Does anyone know a simpler way? (edit: and now 80% is the new default, so “default size” basically means nothing)

We have to go with the system the new host provides. There are no more modnote boxes, because they were custom code and that’s not supported by this version.

Ambiguous statements can be interpreted multiple ways. That’s something that religion leverages. Whatever you want the answer to be, is the answer you use.

I’m pretty sure the concept of a year with seasons dates back quite a way. So, not quite that difficult to find a usable way. Sun dials date back at least ~3500 years “Arc length is the distance between two points along a section of a curve.” “Length is the distance” is self-referential. And if you do it with coordinates and positions, now you have to define those without being self-referential. You can’t define things in terms of other things without eventually looping back. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a math theorem that shows this. If I have 10 elements in my lexicon, I can define the first in terms of 9 other options, but the second leaves me 8 options, and so on. 10 elements but only 9 unique definitions.

Maybe it’s concentration? 400+ ppm is around 1 mg/L and the most you can dissolve in water is around 1g/L (at STP) and we’re not at that maximum.

Instructions to build a clock doesn’t define time. “take a mass and suspend it from a string” is not a definition of time, but you didn’t seem to have a problem with that “definition” “defining” time is an issue of metaphysics - telling people what time “is”. Physics is interested in how it behaves - the measurement. Define length without any self-reference.

I’d ask you the same thing. You certainly aren’t familiar with any physics beyond some high-school stuff. Some of the non-real items are blatantly labeled as such, like virtual particles. Is an electron hole an actual object?

Yes, but that was in the context of official government communication, where the inclusion of an “outsider” was an error. This is so much worse, because there is no circumstance where someone without a clearance and need-to-know (wife, brother, lawyer) should be included, and never on a personal device. The earlier report should have gotten him fired, and this makes that decision look even more horrible.

That’s a requirement from science itself, not part of any specific theory. A theory of everything would only explain things explainable and predictable by science. IOW, a theory of everything is not everything.

The OP asked a question, and responses should try to answer that question, and attempt to clear up any misconceptions, with mainstream science. It’s not an invitation to introduce non-mainstream discussion. Even now, after the topic has been split, we expect mainstream science. Non-mainstream science can only take place in their own thread in the speculations section I have been involved in building ~10 atomic clocks, and at no time did the definition of the second enter into the process. The definition of the second has changed since the fist atomic clocks were built - a fact you continue to ignore - so they could not have depended on it. I disagree. We do that all the time with definitions. How can you not, for a finite set of words that only reference each other? Even if it takes multiple steps, you end up in a circle.