StringJunky

@swansont is the best person for this.

Think about an unstable atom that may decay at any time (a spontaneous process) but nothing is happening until then... time is still progressing but no change is occurring. I'm sure one of the guys that know more can elaborate further. But is it a property of space, at a minimum, and fluctuations/zero point energy is the minimum of space/volume? Hope that make sense.

But how is a wood one to do with it?

What's that got to do with physics?

Best to quote his whole sentence because he also says "duration", which does not necessitate change.

That should be quicker.

I don't know if there is a way to do it now but, in that case, I do it the way you have just done it there: Quote the whole post with the name in, then transfer sections into new quote boxes without the name header. I think it's clear who the subsequent quotes are from.

The problem is that most people that initiate this subject have an agenda.

I don't know if that option is there any more but if you write directly in bbscript it will execute it. x without the x's Edit: Can't write with the code showing instead of the box.

Yes. That's the general thrust of arguments that the people with scientific knowledge of this subject, particularly genetics, put forward. The differences are too nuanced for the general layperson and need to be understood within particular conditions or contexts with the prerequisite expertise. For instance, certain groups are more vulnerable to certain diseases or conditions.

You mean where, instead of seeing the quote box which you put text in, it showed the code for the quote box. I can't write it in here because it brings up the box instead of the code I'm trying to show.

If volume, aka space, is a property of things, how can it be measurable if there is nothing there? i would think there needs to be at least virtual particles present.

That reminds me of: "'Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Yeah, east of you.

Top one I think. You get it at 5000 posts IIRC.

I've got the title, all I need is the brain to go with it.

It's done on no.of posts, not rep. He needs to pm Cap'n Refsmat and tell him he's stuck on the Molecule designation. Mine was stuck there for years on Molecule until I mentioned it to him.I can't remember what the problem was that caused it.

Thank you chaps. Great job. I appreciate now that m/s/s is the naive/wrong way but it is intuitively self-explanatory.

....or just another clueless person. The arrogance of the ignorant can be quite tiresome when you see it nearly everyday. It's ok to have a toy model and see it stands to scrutiny but many are convinced that they are presenting a new paradigm and it gets old really quick. There is no way any unqualified person without decades of specialised experience is going to present an idea that will fundamentally change physics. The relatively easy stuff was done in the 17th - 18th century.

Thanks. I was just reading it wrong and couldn't see how it was mathematically equivalent. Thanks guys.

I've read they are the same and 'm/s/s makes sense to me but m/s2 looks like to me it's saying velocity is squared with each passing second,

Can someone explain how these are mathematically the same?

That's because peer review is the norm. It is not the function of your peers to support your idea; it is their function to try and break it.

The bit that matters is the maths and he probably put the meat on the bones by doing that.

Yes, humans are not perfectly binary.