swansont

One factor is that the muon and tau particles that would be produced by the muon and tau neutrinos are more massive than the electron, so more energy is required in the interactions.

I didn't mean for you to not pursue this. It's something that has merit, but it's not something existing physics is going to be able to answer. Precisely when. (and it's more hydrogeny, cesiumy and rubidiumy)

Space with nothing in it isn't possible. Contemplating whether time is emergent from this notion is something that some scientists and/or philosophers pursue, but that doesn't mean the situation is physically realizable. i.e. it's a gedanken experiment, a thought problem, where one ignores the constraints of physics. There's a whole bunch of physics we can and will do without understanding time's behavior or nature at the Planck scale. Time as an emergent phenomenon may not be a question of relativity. But, you posted this in relativity...

That's not what I said - it's not that the carbons are distinguishable. It's what you have made out of the carbon. Two diamonds will be different. There will be lattice defects and inclusions that make them different, even if each of the carbon atoms all have the same composition.

Seeing as this is posted in the relativity section, I am giving you answers according to relativity. Time is what we measure with a clock. When you posit conditions that are contrary to physical law, then physical law isn't going to be able to give you answers.

Yes. We don't have knowledge of the laws of physics at that scale. We don't know the answer. Why does it have to happen instantaneously? That's not the only option.

! Moderator Note It's OK to discuss what hacking is. One could even discuss instances that have made the news. What we will not be doing is exploring any details of ways to hack.

You can't have completely empty space. Relativity tells us that physics acts the same in all inertial frames and in all places in those frames. This means if I measure time at one place, I know the passage of time in all points in my frame; it's the same. IOW, I don't need a clock at a particular location to know the time there, if I have sufficient knowledge of the conditions.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.5 Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory Rule 2.10 Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking. This does not address the discussion in the OP, so it is a hijack. Further it is based on your personal conjecture, so it's inappropriate for discussion here. Lastly, it's a topic you were told not to re-introduce, after 4+ pages of fruitless discussion.

! Moderator Note Good for you. Now stop spamming the forums with drek. You can ask questions about science, you can raise issues for scientific discussion. "I have ideas about fairies" is neither.

! Moderator Note Is there a question here, or a point of discussion?

Personally I’d use atomic clocks. I imagine they were discussing the next level of theory, much like Newtonian physics was “doomed” by relativity, and yet, it works just fine in most everyday situations. It’s possible a concept of spacetime won’t work at the Planck scale.

If you don’t have math, you don’t have a theory

You must be unfamiliar with modern physics; we don’t personally experience many things in it. We gather evidence the shows the entity exists. Belief doesn’t enter into it. Quarks. Neutrinos. Atoms. Electrons. Neutrons. Protons.

! Moderator Note Why is this in the evolution bin? Why is the thread title so different from your OP? Why do you keep spamming us with drek?

That’s not the issue. You don’t have to perceive something for it to exist. You can be oblivious to it.

“I don’t see” doesn’t make something untrue. It’s argument from incredulity.

You’ve started a number of threads that lack rigor, so this is hardly the appropriate criterion. Pointing out blatant errors doesn’t require asking questions

! Moderator Note And yet you’re here…

We do this in science by removing human perception and using instrumentation where appropriate

It is analogous in that it’s not a choice. (gender, like sexual orientation, might have more factors involved than simple genetics)

Just because you don’t think two hours have passed doesn’t mean that it hasn’t. Time is not the same as time perception

Why do you choose to be right/left-handed? This whole stance is analogous to asserting that everyone is right-handed, but some people just choose to use their left hand. Or vice-versa.

Note the use of “traditional” in that explanation. IOW it references pat views and excludes the current realization that gender is not so simply defined. One might think that the dictionary definition of “feminine” might someday include “archaic” in the notes. Perhaps one whose rights are being denied, are at least not being recognized? Like just about any minority, to some extent.

! Moderator Note Please establish that this is true.