Leaderboard

Science aims to provide predictive models of nature. Truth is a notoriously tendentious word to use in connection with scientific theories. It has been said, rightly in my view, that in science all truth is provisional. In chemistry, for instance, it is not uncommon to have more than one model for the same thing, with both acknowledged to be only approximations. One chooses the model appropriate to the task at hand and it would be considered very naïve to call either of them "truth". Theories in science justify themselves by how well they model and thus predict what we observe in nature. If two given theories are not fully mutually compatible, that does not indicate a flaw in logic. It merely reflects the possibilities that either we do not have the relevant observations of nature to resolve the contradiction, or that the problem is too complex to model exactly. (Physics is unable to model exactly any chemical system more complex than the hydrogen molecule ion H₂⁺.) You may consider this response is such that you do not wish to discuss further with me, but if so I may draw conclusions about what tool is having trouble justifying itself. 😆

If there is any argument that condemns the current Republican Party more than this does it is certainly not obvious, at least to me.

Slightly off topic, but defeating quantum decryption is quite simple (human stupidity excepted) and the technique has been known since at least 1882. From Wikipedia In cryptography, the one-time pad (OTP) is an encryption technique that cannot be cracked, but requires the use of a single-use pre-shared key that is larger than or equal to the size of the message being sent. A couple of phones, each with say 64GB identical one time code storage and no ability to change the software without physical access should be fine for a few years of communication. For obvious reasons, adverts for increasingly powerful phones and encryption rarely mention this.

Fair enough, c, the speed of light in vacuum, is a well established physical constant. It's universal and measured with good precision. One centimeter of c gives a persistent time frame. And this time frame gives 1 centimeter. And you imply that the scientific community have united in this, or are working on this definition? It's okay, this way of defining time, c, is a most accurate and stable form of a clock. Space and time sort of united. It still doesn't answer the issue completely, though giving the physical dimension of time. Thanks for the excerpt of this definition.

To emphasise this point, the Kelvin was redefined in May 2019 as: ... though perhaps the wikipedia article should clarify that it's strictly one degree of freedom of thermal energy change rather than the total change.

It won’t work. Firstly, thermal energy is divided between different degrees of freedom, only some of which are vibrations, the others being translations and rotations. Secondly, where vibrations are involved, different substances have different characteristic frequencies of vibration. Temperature, on the other hand, is proportional to the total thermal kinetic energy of an object, regardless of what substance it consists of, or what physical state it is in.

"Why do we use kelvin to measure heat?" We do not.

..sending random data to the recipient would result in desynchronization. They would be in different bytes of the key.. The keyword here is "single-use", which is virtually impossible. Sooner or later you will end up sending the same key again. Plaintext with all zeros XOR key = key. Basic human communication in ASCII has few zeros (8th bit will be mostly 0), but binary data has many zeros, e.g. an ISO image can have an area with 32 KB of zeros, UTF-16 usually have 0 byte every two bytes, etc. etc. The key must be generated in some way. Discovering the key generation algorithm increases the chance of decoding the signal. Instead of brute force WiFi password hacking, you can check the device manufacturer and see how they created the password creation algorithm.. https://www.google.com/search?q=access+point+wifi+password+generation+algorithms or this: https://hackaday.com/2016/01/27/tp-links-wifi-defaults-to-worst-unique-passwords-ever/ "TP-LINK’s WiFi Defaults To Worst Unique Passwords Ever" Desynchronization forced by a third party or transmission errors will require resending the data.

But one-time pad keys are not public keys.

It removes the consideration of superluminal expansion from the point you were trying to make.

I explained my vision of this theory. What do you think about origin of a man? And yet. Do you operate with such concept as conscience. If you do, where does it come from for you? There is no conscience concept in the science. It's altruism here.

Don't forget that in science you have only bag with bones. You don't have definition for consciousness either for mind, or awareness. You don't know what they are. So where does conscience come from??? Maybe...you took this concept from religion?

It is your belief what others think. But what about a well known fact that we can see whole in small. It is also your belief what others think. * Ok, hold on. I've found another one article from The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong Something from it: Step three is Fodor's coup de grace: how, he says, can that possibly be? The whole point of Darwinian evolution is that it has no mind, no intelligence. But to "select for" certain traits – as opposed to just "selecting" them by not having them die out – wouldn't natural selection have to have some kind of mind? It might be obvious to you that being the same colour as your environment is more important than being white, if you're a polar bear, but that's because you just ran a thought-experiment about a hypothetical situation involving orange snow. Evolution can't run thought experiments, because it can't think. "Darwin has a theory that centrally turns on the notion of 'selection-for'," says Fodor. "And yet he can't give an account – nobody could give an account – of how natural selection could distinguish between correlated traits. He waffles." This evolution theory is wrong in the core, especially when it comes to origin of a human. It is written on a knee. Why don't you answer is evolution a change or development. If it is the change, what changes occurred towards common ancestor?? If science doesn't operate with such concepts as consciousness and mind, this change is some MUTATION!!! If it does operate, than this theory is comparison between a monkey and a human. And it is ugly. When i realize what some homo sapiens (???) do for others, i want to say don't offend monkeys that humans are their descendants. Animals don't do this to each other. So, what exactly process does this picture describe??????? And isn't this evolution theory a whole antropomorfizm? And something else. What if in the future AI would create similar picture , with human on the left side and AI on right, and named it "The theory of evolution"??!! Ultimately, AI is an offspring of a human.