swansont

Wow, it’s even worse. “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed plans about a military operation against the Houthis in Yemen on a second Signal group chat, this one on his personal phone and including his wife, lawyer and brother, three people familiar with the chat told CNN.” https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/20/politics/hegseth-second-signal-chat-military-plans/index.html

No, I don’t think that’s what anyone means by a theory of everything. I can’t think of any theories that require “an algorithm for legitimate descriptive language of models” Can you point to such a theory, or to anyone who makes this claim?

Any regular oscillation, sure. And? “the neutrino oscillation is an active research topic that is not yet fully understood. as of now, assuming the neutrino having a mass is just as much speculation given our current experimental results. There are even some conflicting data which are partially at odds with invariant nature, though there may still be other explanations. there is a reason why Lorentz violation is considered, including experiments that could test for it.” The passage I was objecting to was about perceiving different flows of time. I should have edited the quote further, but then again, I was hoping you could discern mainstream physics from non-mainstream

I’m not sure what you mean by this, or even just reality, but physics doesn’t claim to be describing reality, and math even less so. Physics describes how things behave, and admits to having lots of things that aren’t real. There’s plenty of valid math that works but doesn’t describe the behavior of things around us. Who told you it was supposed to?

What do you think is the “definition” of time? (in a physics sense) Is it something other that “that which is measured by a clock”? A massless neutrino might cause problems for neutrino models, but timekeeping doesn’t depend on them. Moderator NotePlease keep speculations in its own thread in the speculations section, rather than hijacking someone else’s thread with that discussion.

That’s an understatement. Moderator NoteWe require much more rigor than this. This is not sci-fi story time. Some technical critique: your equation is obviously bogus just from unit analysis. If you’re going to invoke element 115 you should make an attempt to justify this. But I don’t see that there’s anything to build on here to try and salvage a scientific discussion. All chaff, and no wheat.

True, but their discoveries would likely still happen, though perhaps later. Scientific work is usually happening among multiple people. People other than Einstein were working on relativity, for example.

Any inertial observer can decide they are at rest. Nothing about physics changes with your choice of inertial reference frame. So, if you want to be at rest, you’re at rest. (approximately, since we’re actually accelerating, and that’s not relative. But it’s small)

Mrs. Tilly likes pollo but not chicken

Unfortunately they don’t give any numbers. How much does the pH and CO2 concentration drop? They suggest it’s significant if they purport to be worried about the pH change having an effect on ocean life, but how can a small-scale project do that? And how much does that affect the absorption rate? That’s the key metric.

Threads merged. Please take a moment to review what was discussed. Feelings of deja vu might occur

Lots of spacetimes are mathematically possible, but do not reflect the spacetime we are in (e.g. Galilean another one, which ends up having unphysical implications) In this case you have to explain how t1 and t2 manifest themselves; what does it mean to have three time coordinates? Are they orthogonal, like spatial coordinates, and what does that mean?

Another aspect is that a static electric or magnetic field does not exist on its own. You need to consider the source of the field, which will have mass, and other properties, like charge.

Running it through a computation model suggests math, not a chat. And quotation marks are still expected. And it can only tell you if the math checks out, not whether it’s valid science. See rule 2.13 “you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made”

Can you say what the energy of the universe is? It could be zero.

Has it occurred to you that we can state our view without it being an attempt at rebutting yours? You asked for input and then complain that it’s been given. Restricting breeding of “purebred” lines that have all these problems is not genocide. You aren’t killing any being, nor getting rid of dogs. It’s akin to laws against incest. The genetic manipulation under discussion isn’t going to help living beings. This doesn’t remedy any wrong. Genetic modification would potentially allow us to replace breeding and make designer breeds of our choice, but as long as this inbreeding exists, the health problems exist. I don’t see any way around that. An orangutan has, so why not a chimp?

You talked about breeding and domestication, which is a different issue from extinction. Did you mention bringing back extinct species other than the dire wolf? And there’s also the issue that this effort is not actually bringing back a dire wolf. They seem to be massively overstating what they are doing. I’ve seen it described as being 20 dire wolf edits to the grey wolf genome. It would not be accurate to say it’s a dire wolf genome. It’s a grey wolf genome modified to be more like a dire wolf (bigger, whiter coat and denser fur) One comment I read was “would a chimpanzee with 20 gene edits be human?”

Are you referring to yourself incorrectly here, or is this a quote from someone else? If the latter, it must be attributed. If it’s ChatGPT, it a) carries no weight and b) knock it off, because the rules don’t permit that here.

I don’t disagree, but human industrialization didn’t cause the extinction of the dire wolf.

One danger is the idea (which has already been advanced) that we can be as careless and exploitative with the environment as we want, because reintroduction of a species is NBD.

The problem with this approach is that the time dilation can happen because of motion, and also because of the gravitational potential (not simply gravity), so just knowing the “time flow rate” doesn’t determine thing uniquely. That makes this an interpretation, not a theory. The theory is the math that gives you the results.

What’s the path of “around the cylinder”? (and how do you do that without curvature?) Not at all electromagnetic. And once again I will point out that you are making a connection between laws and units that simply does not exist. There are no “laws of the SI system” And saying there are other laws is pure conjecture.

The laws came first, and the definitions have changed over time, so I don’t understand why you continue to bring up units. You have cause and effect reversed. The definition of the meter was chosen because of the invariance of c, not the other way around. Since the results of SR are correct, I don’t see why any of this matters from a physics perspective. c is functionally invariant if there’s some undetectable effect that cancels out any changes to it. This has nothing to do with sound Moving around a circular path is not an inertial frame It doesn’t matter if you find exceptions. Invariant means it’s the same in all cases that meet the criteria, not just some of them.

Go measure it. I won’t hold my breath. I said atoms, not atoms in electric fields. Unlike light, it is possible to measure the one-way speed of sound. You would get a different answer if you send a sound source and its medium in motion. In fact, the medium can be moving faster than the speed of sound, and the sound propagates forward.

But why is that a problem? As you pointed out, all measurements are a comparison. You compare with a standard. The number used is irrelevant. Your arguments still travel back to an alleged variation that’s cancelled by another variation, so that the measurable result is the same. The utility of using atoms is that they are identical, which we know because Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics rely on it, and atoms follow one or the other, depending on their spin. You keep ignoring the elephant in the room. When we go to measure the speed of sound, we don’t get the same answer when we look at different frames. The speed of sound is empirically not invariant. The beautiful(?) theory slain by an ugly fact.