swansont

I think part of the issue is she’s complaining about a very, very narrow slice of physics, but since that’s her area, to her it seems like a bigger problem. There’s some tacit acknowledgment that physics is progressing but it’s by applying existing foundations of QM and GR. We went a really long time between Newton’s laws and special relativity. Sure, different techniques were investigated (Lagrangian and Hamiltonian) but they were just extensions of the basics - no new foundations. Did physics fail because we went >200 years before that happened?

And folks will say, “Why didn’t you tell me?” about all the stuff that people were trying to tell them, but it didn’t register, or they were tuned in to sources that fed them propaganda. Those same sources will find someone to blame, and it won’t be Trump.

! Moderator Note I will make this official: if you quote someone else, you need to give us the source.

Problem being the press wanting policy from democrats, but not from the republicans. But it’s true, propaganda won out. Trying to stick to telling the truth lost. The ill-informed electorate is swayed by emotion, not facts. You have to light a fire under them to get them to the polls

There are directly measurable variables, though some are not (like entropy); you need to specify. “system as a whole” doesn’t work, as there’s no way to guarantee a way of combining individual changes of variables of different quantities that makes any sense. (e.g. a change in position and temperature)

Yes. The time coordinate can’t be repeated.

Change in what? It’s going to depend on the variable. The question is too vague.

And relativity recognizes that the distances between points - including the time interval - is important, because relative motion affects the distance interval or time interval, such that the total is the same for both stationary and moving observers.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion site. It’s not about what you believe. It’s about what the evidence shows. You need to be discussing science If you want to vent, go do it on social media

Night FM has been banned for persistent fallacy use and repeatedly and consistently failing to engage in good faith arguments

! Moderator Note Advertising your other threads is frowned upon, and you can shill for bitcoin elsewhere

Anecdote from social media, but I suspect we will see a lot of things similar to this from a complacent and under-informed electorate as reality sets in

But, to the point of the OP, was this an advance of the foundations of biology? Or was it the exploitation of new tools that became available after the new foundational issue had been discovered (DNA) . I’d argue the latter, much like the last 100 years of physics have seen an exploitation of QM after its discovery, expansion (e.g. QED, QCD) and refinement.

kawiusz banned as a sockpuppet of Bart, bart2, ravell, exuczen

Perceptions are not facts

Oh, please. Stop with the trolling.

! Moderator Note By not naming and discussing them to establish this, it becomes a fallacy of unwarranted assumption, violating rules 2.4 and 2.12.

Which is why we want the receipts, and several people have provided them. Can’t help but notice that all you did was offer up the lamest of examples, which you have not bothered to defend.

Wrong = falsified You said electron. It’s true that in a composite system lime an atom you can absorb a photon, but the rules aren’t as simple as you suggest. Math is required. The problem is that without the rigor that comes with math, the predictions are too vague and it’s too easy to start tap-dancing. It ends up being a big waste of time (which we’ve seen before). That’s why the rule is in place. This isn’t the WAG forum. You want to ask questions and learn? Fine. But if you want to propose some new science, it has to be sufficiently formed as to merit discussion. You can re-introduce the topic when you’ve gotten there.

“specific” means quantifiable. A lot of your ”predictions” are things already known, so they aren’t really predictions. At least one of them was falsified (that a free electron could absorb a photon and have more angular momentum)

Then how can you make specific predictions, as we require?

Yes, exactly. Your charge pair twists must give us the electric field of the photon. The fields can’t cancel out. You need to show this mathematically. Pictures do not suffice.

Searching for topological dark matter with atomic clocks https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3137 Axions https://inspirehep.net/literature/1736720

But you are always close in your model. If you weren’t there would be no field. No field, no photon. Can’t have it both ways.

The thing is, some of these models are being eliminated or constrained by experiment. I recall seeing axion and dark matter talks at conferences, where atomic clocks played a role in the experiments. This is kinda the norm. There were e.g. a bunch of models of the atom back in the day, but we don’t learn about them because they lost out once there was enough data to test them. There are competing hypotheses everywhere that get forgotten because they ended up being wrong. ArXiv just makes it easier to notice the current ones.