swansont

Does the universe follow rules? Then it's mathematical. How would a non-mathematical system behave? I don't see how that follows. Even for the science we have today, there was a time when the math that supports it did not exist.

Survival of the species is, but not survival of the individual. There are multiple elements involved. Narrowing it to one is a mistake.

One of the conditions of the derivation is that the current in the wire is constant.

It's possible, but you would have to raise the entropy somewhere else. edit: xpost with studiot

I don't think it's this simple. Boxing, and sports in general, are activities available to kids/young adults who can't realistically make a determination about risks. We already know that even adults are generally bad at assessing risk.

Evolution doesn't have a goal. An individual could possess a trait that lessens its fitness for survival. A species could have a trait that's neutral with respect to survival, under a certain environment, that becomes widespread in the species. And traits don't have to be directly coupled to reproduction in order to give a survival advantage. You have even given examples of this.

That really makes no sense. And since we can measure these energies, you have effectively falsified your hypothesis. That's the problem in a nutshell. ------- Thus far there is no model, and what could pass as predictions don't comport with experimental results. Without a model there's no way to really critique specifics, since you can't make specific, testable predictions.

Then you need a new model for EM radiation, because that's not how it works. Scattering experiments, for one. Why is an electron oscillating like that? Why would you think that the binding energy of that system would be on the scales you indicate? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

We know that atoms do not behave according to classical physics. If an electron accelerates, it will radiate, and you would need to explain why this doesn't happen. The nucleus of an atom is not a singularity. There is no way that the electron has MeV, much less GeV or TeV, of energy. Most of your diagrams make no sense to me.

These are pretty basic questions. That's pretty meaningless, unless you have physics you can apply to someone who exists outside of time. No, we already have something called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and that's not it. That's nonsense and completely unhelpful from a physics point of vie. Entanglement doesn't work the way you are proposing. Why? Once entanglement is broken, there is no correlation of states, so there is no "half information" as you call it. Yes, opposite directions in time. So two events do not happen at the same time, if they involve these entangled pairs. One event happens at t, and the other at -t. What has this phase that is shifted by 180º? Phase implies an oscillation. How does a virtual orbit differ from a real one? And what is the entanglement interaction? Quantum entanglement is not an interaction, it is the result of an interaction, which leaves us with correlated outcomes with a superposition of states.

How would that be deterministic? You seem to imply it depends on entanglement. Once the entanglement is broken (i.e. once a state is determined), you don't get it back. If you have entangled particles you don't know their state. That information is already "hidden" Your earlier diagram implies that this is not what is going on, though. We do interference without entangled antiparticles, and they happen at one time, not two different times — your depiction has the entangled particles moving in opposite time directions. Again, how? With your description of time, and all the rest of physics, how do they orbit? Even without that, why don't they just de-excite and annihilate? What prevents it?

"Elvis, if pressed" (referring to records) is a double pun. More than enough payback for my causality joke.

You have both a shadow and a bright image. Refraction is in play as you (as Strange) have noted. (For the shadow, it's also reflection keeping light away) That bends the light and is also responsible for multiple colors you might see, as with a prism, since refraction is wavelength-dependent If the material were spherical, even in part, you could form an image of the light source — fires have started because sunlight passed through a glass/crystal sphere and focused the light onto something flammable.

That would seem to violate causality.

And to shed heat, it requires the surroundings be at a lower temperature.

So being a particle does not necessarily mean it’s an object? You appear to have a circular definition: To be an object it must have mass, and to have mass it must be an object. one issue here is that we have come up with definitions based on physics we observe, and you are inquiring about the first moments of the universe, as if looking for some loophole in the definitions. Why does this matter?

No, that’s not what I said. I said energy is not mass. They are not the same thing. Yes. That’s why GR includes energy, and not just mass.

By that point we had established that the premise of your OP was incorrect; energy is not mass, and mass being proportional to the energy content is not the definition of mass In a separate (and later) part of the post.

There is nothing in first MigL's statement that would let you apply it to the first fraction of a second of the universe and think that the conclusion is derived from that. It's a conclusion from what we observe now.

I seriously doubt that this is what's keeping 1/3 of Americans from embracing the democrats. Trying to be nice hasn't gotten results. Airbrush's statement was "the president should have the license to lie constantly" and you 1) aren't citing the statistics on lying, and 2) are omitting one of the categories on truth (which makes Trump look even worse, as he scores but 14%, while Obama scores 26%) Trump: 71% mostly false + lie + pants on fire Obama: 25% mostly false + lie + pants on fire Bill Clinton: 24% mostly false + lie + pants on fire Can't find a scorecard for GW Bush The others aren't presidents

It seems to correlate really, really well with mass, though. GR is often summarized as mass tells space how to curve, and space tells mass how to move. It sounds like you want to just say “space tells mass how to move” I’m not seeing how that’s metaphysics

This is how general relativity is presented. That’s the understanding of gravity if we had a quantum theory.

! Moderator Note Yes, because scientists will be doing science when this happens. You aren’t coming close. Don’t bring this up again. Or anything, if it’s as lacking in rigor as much as this is.

If you do a which-path experiment you don’t get interference

But you haven’t said anything scientifically useful about what you mean by virtual mass, and how it behaves.