Strange

Wrong. Any detection of the location of the particle, conscious or otherwise, will change the result.

I don't think there is a need to prove the existence of time (after all the time people have spent discussing it in this thread). It might be interesting if someone had a slightly more compelling argument than, "it doesn't exist". But, using the same level of complex argument, I guess my "proof" would be: yes it does.

So you both share the same baseless opinion. <shrug> If either of you had any evidence or logic to support your personal opinions, it might be a different matter. Can you show that Newtonian physics, GR or QED work better without time? What practical benefits are there to pretending time doesn't exist? Why is this in the Physics forum rather than Philosophy (being generous)?

No it is not. I don't even know where to start answering your misconceptions. You probably need to study some basic biology.

That was exactly my point. You are expressing a (flawed) opinion with the certainty of proven fact. Because you claim time doesn't exist and so everything can't happen at different times. Therefore it must all happen at once.

That is a such profound argument supported by so much overwhelming evidence and sophisticated logic that I think my only response is: Yes it does.

I think this is a very confusing way to think about this experiment. I'm not sure I can give you a less confusing one though... The important point is that the electron always behaves somewhat like a wave and somewhat like a particle (while not being either). When you detect the electron, it will always be detected at a single point ( like a particle). If you don't determine which slit it went through then you will, over time, build up an interference pattern as you would expect from classical waves. If you do detect which slit the electrons go through, then you will end up with a distribution the same as you would expect from classical waves passing through a single slit. So it is almost as if, when you don't check, the electrons go through both slits (*). But if you do check, then they only go through the slit you detect them at and not the other one. (*) That is one interpretation but not one I am very fond of. After all, electrons are indivisible.

Ah, maybe that is the problem. Some of us also have the ability to judge the time between events as well; it is built into the brain. Those of us with this "miraculous" ability struggle to see why someone would think time doesn't exist.

Strictly, gravitational waves (gravity waves are something very different).

The mechanism is the geometry of space-time. Obviously it is hard to imagine 4-dimensional curvature but that is why we use mathematics so we are not dependent on the limits of our ability to visualise. But what does common sense or the ability to imagine have to do with it? There is no necessity for the universe to obey your personal concept of common sense. To others, it seems perfectly sensible.

What reason do you have to think it is "the solution"? On second thoughts, don't answer that. This is totally off topic.

I know what chirality means (from having studied physical chemistry if nothing else). I just don't know what the phrase "both chiral forms of matter" is referring to.

Evidence? (You know, in the spirit of science.)

I don't really know what that means (both chiral forms of matter"?) but even if it is true, it is not "creating" matter; it is simply converting energy to matter. The total amount of energy-matter doesn't change. I assume he simply means that they cannot exist for long in that ionized state. Under normal conditions. Obviously, in a plasma they do exist in that state - and there is no increased rate of fusion or fission (otherwise neon lights would have been banned).

Yes. They are called "scientists".

I don't know where you got that idea. Ions or atomic nuclei in a plasma are just as stable as they are as atoms. Also, the overwhelming majority of plasma in the universe consists of hydrogen and helium, both stable element.s Both fusion and fission occur naturally. Neither process creates new matter, which is what would be required by a steady state theory.

I have read enough of his work to recognise it as pseudoscientific nonsense. There is never a reason to suspend scepticism or critical thinking.

Possibly not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_theory#Etymology

Yes, Fred Hoyle was an astrophysicist (some say he should have shared the Nobel prize for his work on stellar nucleosynthesis). He always preferred a steady-state model.

It is hard to imagine that somehow velocity affects all biological, mechanical, atomic and nuclear processes to an identical degree. And there is no theoretical basis for such a conclusion. It is much simpler to consider that time is observer dependent as predicted by theory and confirmed by experiment.

1. How much energy does it require to spin the block? 2. How much kinetic energy does it have? 3. What is the margin of error in "measuring" (crudely estimating) the height each block reaches? 3a. How much variation is there in speed, mass, etc of each bullet? 3b. How much variation is there in the mass and size of the blocks? I can't be bothered to estimate 1 and 2 (we would need more information, anyway) but I am fairly confident that the proportion of energy used to spin the block is sufficiently small that it is dwarfed by the errors in 3.

Not really my area. I keep meaning to learn more about this. There is an overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain There are two sources for gamma rays in the process. Positrons are produced (through the weak (beta) interaction, I assume) which then annihilate with electrons to create gamma rays. Then other fusion reactions produce gamma rays directly. Some of the thermal and gamma ray energy produced is ultimately converted to visible light (plus infra-red and ultra-violet) by heating the outer layers of the sun.

But the Bohr model is wrong.

An atom stripped of one or more atoms (i.e. an ion) is "unstable" in the sense that it has a net positive charge and will rapidly recombine with free electrons to form a stable atom again. Unless there is sufficient energy to keep ions and electrons apart (i.e. a plasma). It has no effect on the stability of the nucleus and hence will not lead to fission. The reason that fusion takes place is the same reason there is a plasma: the high energy (temperature). This makes it possible for nuclei to overcome the repulsive force and collide, leading to fusion. I guess (but I don't know) that the absence of electrons may also reduce the energy needed to make nuclei collide. They are photons of gamma radiation. Gamma radiation is just electromagnetic radiation (like light or radio waves, but higher energy/frequency). All electromagnetic radiation is made up of photons.

In which case, I would assume it is not true. (If he said the sky was blue, I would have to go outside and check.)