swansont

I don’t know what “time is applicable on energy” means Energy is a property, not a thing

So no matter is more believable than some matter? But the simulation is making you think this makes sense, so it’s all good, I guess

I’m not sure what the connection is to the point under discussion A photon is not “pure energy” (it has linear momentum and spin)

time doesn’t pass without changes in matter? No. Definitions or descriptions generally don’t. You have to study to gain understanding of physics

Grade-school algebra and cosmology are not really on equal footing. Do you have a substantive argument to make? I’m not going to watch; what is the connection between dark matter and living in a simulation?

What you think doesn’t matter much. This is science, so it’s what you can demonstrate. Science is a shared endeavor; there are no “personal truths”

Do you have any examples of this? Where it was the logic, and not a faulty premise, that is the problem?

And technically this is off-topic, a violation of rule 2.5. “Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand” Oh, please. Being obtuse isn’t inherently a rules violation, but one should still avoid it.

Relativity affects time; it’s not an effect on any mechanism of a clock, which would be accounted for separately. e.g. a pendulum clock ticks at a different rate if you change g, but that is not an effect of relativity. You would have to properly calibrate the clock.

Probably. A clock going faster on the moon would depend on the gravitational and kinematic time dilation involved. Clocks in some orbits run slower (e.g. on the ISS), and some run faster (e.g. GPS satellites). One would have to run through the calculations. No. Decay would be subject to the same time dilation as any other clock. If clocks on the moon run fast, decays run fast by the same factor. The rate of time passage differs. The concept of time is no different; one has already acknowledged that time is relative to one’s frame of reference and gravitational potential

If it’s a response, it’s not spontaneous. The behavior is induced. Saying “it can be explained” is easy. Coming up with a working model is what’s needed.

The consensus is that you’re the troll living under it.

No. Science makes models of the behavior of nature.Physics, especially, has elements that it admits up front are not supposed to be “truth” i.e. they don’t physically exist. There’s no way to confirm that these are the “truth” since the only way to test them is with observation/experiment. I don’t think this is true. A display of aggression and the resulting actions counts as communication. Birds do this all the time. ___ Do you have any concrete examples if Dao coming up with any scientific insights?

One definition is that time is what is measured by a clock. From a measurement standpoint, time is the phase of an oscillation. The time derivative of the phase gives you the frequency (w = dp/dt) thus you can get the phase by integrating the frequency. i.e. you count the oscillations.

Heat is energy transfer, owing to a temperature difference. It is not particles moving up and down. If that were the case, why would energy be transferred between objects sitting next to each other, especially if they are not in contact? The motion of particles owing to the thermal content can have a frequency - the vibration of atoms in a solid, for example - but the frequencies of all the atoms are not the same, nor are they constant. In an ideal gas the motion is random, and the speeds follow a distribution. Pretty far from being a SHO. Kelvin is used for temperature. It’s not an energy. As the link from sethoflagos points out, kT has units of energy

Things people object to with regard to time often apply to length as well, but nobody seems to complain about that; probably because different sensing is used (per your point 2) But the nature of time is metaphysics, not physics

Much like this statement, logic can be proper but based on a false premise. The conclusion is valid, but also incorrect. Not at all. First of all, saying that observation must be included is not emphasizing it, and that makes no statement about logic’s reliability. It says that logic is a necessary but insufficient component in science. Saying observation plays no role just shows ignorance about science. There are a number of self-consistent propositions that don’t speak to reality. Of course, one needs observation to be able to know this. You’ve provided empirical evidence that your Dao is flawed.

There has to an option for more than one response. A block of iron responds to a rise in temperature by expanding, or to outside pressure by shrinking, but a block of iron is not intelligent.

Time and energy being Fourier conjugates doesn’t come from relativity, and it’s a leap to say that this means something about the existence of spacetime and energy-momentum. Anyway, just because someone claims something does not make it true.

! Moderator Note Discussion on defeating quantum decryption has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133223-cryptography-in-the-age-of-quantum-computers-split-from-why-does-a-quantum-computer-render-rsa-useless/

! Moderator Note Split. This is more than slightly off-topic

Some guy on substack, where others disagree, is probably not to be taken as authoritative. But i’d like Airbrush to answer.

Where did you find it? Is it a credible source?

What dipole is associated with an electron and how is this relevant? Is there any experimental evidence that the electron has a radius given by the classical radius? A hand-wave is not a mechanism

Not all organisms require molecular oxygen. That’s only one evolutionary “strategy” but only humans and possibly a few other species follow it, with regard to human-like intelligence. (if you want to cast a wider net than that you really need to provide a definition of intelligence)