Strange

how can you prove its existence?

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.

I 100% agree with everything you just said.

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)?

It is possable.

No it is not.

I don't even know where to start answering your misconceptions. You probably need to study some basic biology.

Evidence?? Are you joking? Which evidence?

That was exactly my point. You are expressing a (flawed) opinion with the certainty of proven fact.

Why should everything happen at once? It's like asking why subatomic particles don't move at once in every direction.

Because you claim time doesn't exist and so everything can't happen at different times. Therefore it must all happen at once.

3 Time as a dimension (it doesn't exist, and never existed).

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.

In the test to see if an electron is a particle or wave, they say that if you place a viewer before the slits that the resulting pattern on the back wall is a particle result. But if you aren't placing a viewer before the slit the resulting pattern on the back wall is wave interference.

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).

 

So how is watching the result on the back wall itself NOT placing a viewer thereby always causing the electron to act as a particle?

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.

In fact I'm designed to judge distances that's why human beings have two eyes, to do just that.

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.

Gravity waves are classical waves that arise when you linearise the equations of gravity.

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

But it belies common sense. There is no physical mechanism that can be imagined within the mind of a rational human being.

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.

And they still haven't figured it out when the solution is 50 years formulated!

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.

I think that the over riding incentives(social and economic factors) have silenced pure science and that as a consequence not much is currently being accomplished.

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

Gamma rays passing through a magnetic field creates both chiral forms of matter.

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.

 

Studiot suggests to me repeatedly that an atom cannot exist for long when stripped of it's electrons.

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).

Thoughtful and free thinking people who are not DRONES who are exercising ingenuous thought is the only way to find relief from this. Perhaps you do not agree?.

Yes. They are called "scientists".

Studiots idea that atoms cannot exist for long without the association of orbital electrons makes a keen argument for a steady state universe.

 

It is obvious that the overwhelming mass of the observable universe is in a plasma state with a disassociation of nuclei and electrons; and so I must assume this suggests a process opposing that of fusion.

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

 

And so this explanation would provide an opposite process working to break apart higher elements into more basic ones...there is then no reason to believe in a beginning or end...just a steady state?

Both fusion and fission occur naturally. Neither process creates new matter, which is what would be required by a steady state theory.

Strange,

 

Sheldrake has interesting ideas, and I hardly think it ingenuous to dismiss them without suspending skepticism for a bit and entertaining them for while even if it is only briefly?

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:

Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 radio broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_theory#Etymology

Was the phrase 'big bang' used by a physicist?

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.

Strange,

 

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

 

Now this still leaves the question of how fusion produces gamma radiation and how this is converted into visible light frequencies that we depend upon;have you any ideas?

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.

Since the time of Bohr, physicists have known the speed of the electron in, for example, hydrogen's ground state is about 0.7%c, about 1% the speed of light.

But the Bohr model is wrong.

Let me ask you a question then if you don't mind. You maintain that an atom completely stripped of electrons is unstable. If this is so, then what are the decomposition products, and this would be a fission result?

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 I mention it involves some conjecture because indeed the current experts on the sun believe that most of the element composition of it is in a state of complete disassociation of electrons from the nucleus and they are calling this plasma. If they are right and you are right then the overwhelming energy generating process within the sun is fission and not fusion?

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.

 

Also, they claim that photons are generated, but you insist it is gamma radiation, so which is it, and how is it that we receive visible light from the sun, or do we?

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.

Rupert Sheldrake claims that the so called universal constants change all the time in this youtube video.

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.)

This procedure is sometimes done to treat severe epilepsy. There is a discussion of some of the effects here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

Whether that means there are "two consciounesses" in one head rather depends on how you define consciousness. As there is no such definition it seems to be an essentially meaningless question, to me.