swansont

You persist in saying they interact, and yet have not explained what the nature of the interaction is.

! Moderator Note Similar topics merged

Nothing I've discussed requires you to try and be in a photon's frame of reference.

! Moderator Note Since we're omitting the religion I've moved this to speculations, but as has been pointed out, you need to develop a model and present evidence or tests that could be conducted. How do we detect this aether? Are we at rest or are we moving through it? How do you explain the experiments that say we are not at rest nor moving through it? (rather than concluding that there is no aether)

Photons are quantum particles, so you've already excluded classical behavior that you could include if you just said "light" Atoms can exhibit classical behavior and quantum behavior, depending on what you're looking at. So photons are more quantum than atoms. I'm not sure (I'm not a cosmologist), but we do know how long it took for recombination to occur, so there have to be some features that are time dependent.

Eventually it does, but the ticking is an interaction between photons and atoms.

Atomic clocks involve quantum systems, so obviously the answer is yes. I think an issue here is you are asking very general questions, when specific ones need to be asked.

If we send polarized light somewhere and there are no interactions along the way, the polarization will be the same on arrival. There are experiments which rely on this. If there is an interaction that affects polarization, all bets are off. As before, it depends on the interaction.

It depends on the measurement being made. If I measure the charge on an electron, the result is not going to depend on earlier measurements. The energy of a photon won’t depend on the determination of its polarization. (with a properly designed experiment) Other measurements will affect subsequent ones.

You need to learn what “proof” is (i.e. evidence) is in science. Your post was not deleted. It was moved out of the thread because AS I TOLD YOU, religion, and not science, discussion belongs in a religion thread. They should not be mixed. You ignored this. Having a hissy for your willful ignorance and non-compliance does not endear you to the staff. Your powers of observation are suspect, especially considering your stay here dates back a whole three days, and 7 posts. Or have you been here before under a different user name? The rules are pretty clear, as was my instruction to you. Were you confused by my moderator note? A legend in your own mind Perhaps a fellow mod will do the honors. I think keeping you as the Dunning-Kruger poster child might be of some benefit.

Looking at an average, and looking at it annually makes it look linear. Plus the rise has been smaller in the past, which points to an accelerating trend. If you look at the graph here https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level you can get a linear trend out of it, but that would ignore the flat stretch from ~1915-1930 and the slight concavity of the graph. The future will likely have a similar character to it, but with an increasing slope if nothing is done to arrest warming. 10 inches is ~250 mm, which we got over 140 years on that graph, and if that's expected in the next 25-30 years, it's definitely not a linear trend.

That's an average. The rise is not linear in time and will also vary geographically.

! Moderator Note …and you ignored what I said about mixing the two topics. This is a mere assertion, as is all of it. Take it somewhere else

The best you can validly conclude is that some clocks use movement. Some automobiles use an internal combustion engine, but you can’t use that factoid as proof that all autos use them. “Obvious” to you, perhaps, but that’s not a substitute for a scientific argument. It’s not obvious to me why motion is required, and what has to move. Right. Like using a quantum state of an atom, but the atom doesn’t have to be moving.

! Moderator Note When discussing religion please limit yourself to citing religious texts, and for science, mainstream science. Asserting that "The Holy Ghost is Electromagnetism" crosses a line into speculation, which is is not appropriate for discussion in religion. And without some kind of theoretical and/or evidentiary support, would not be appropriate for our speculations section either.

! Moderator Note This is a site for science discussion, not conspiracy theory.

Having movement and needing movement are not the same thing. What does the movement do for the measurement? Why is it required?

I’m guessing it’s “die in large numbers in a war of attrition” which seems to be a Russian tradition. I blame the crab people and their mind control technology.

! Moderator Note Making threads to link to articles is not in keeping with our rules on advertising. If you want to discuss something, post the material here.

If they are going to paint an entire group of people with such a broad brush, I'm not against making them feel a little unsafe. Especially when it's unbidden as it was here. One person - and AFAICT not among those DD was responding to - had identified themselves as atheist. It was an assumption, consistent with "if you are questioning my religious stance you must be an atheist" as if one can't cite the Bible and point out inconsistencies if one is a follower. I think we can do without that.

! Moderator Note It’s a mistake to try and assign motives for peoples’ inquiries. We expect claims to be backed up, and asking for such information is fair game. Deflecting with a “prove it wrong” stance is shifting the burden of proof, and is unacceptable

Since a clock measures time, you can’t apply this to time but not the clock. It’s not the same thing to note that things move, and to say that the motion is required. Investigating time is scientific, or can be, but contemplating the fundamental nature of things is philosophy. There are things that science can’t investigate, and not because of technological limitations. Science models the behavior of nature, since it’s only the behavior that we can observe and measure.

This is a non-sequitur. What does atheism have to do with this?

You ask as if you don’t know the answer, despite it being given multiple times. YOU DON’T HAVE EXPANSION WHEN THE CURVATURE IS LARGE ENOUGH. Because now you aren’t swapping this time oddity for expansion, you say it’s there in addition. Without any theory to predict it, and no way to test it. It’s completely ad-hoc, and science routinely rejects ad-hoc explanations. Make up your mind. At the very least you need to be consistent. Apparently you believe it too. At least some of the time. You didn’t ask about redshift. I didn’t answer about redshift. You asked about negating expansion. String theory at least has math and a theoretical basis.

You might recall that Einstein said god did not play dice with the universe. He did not embrace the probabilistic nature of QM, so hanging on to a classical notion that there must be an interaction between these particles isn't all that surprising to me. The EPR paper was also well before the door closed on hidden variables, so this might play a part in the mindset.