swansont

Just because you don't have the resolution on your scale to measure the time does not mean an interval has a duration of zero. IOW, just because you don't have a second hand doesn't mean that seconds don't exist. A duration of seven seconds is still seven seconds. That completely misses the point. If you graph the speed vs time, for what extent of time is the value zero?

Time ≠ time display The duration wasn't actually zero. The reporting lacked sufficient resolution to tell you precisely what it was. There are a lot of articles out there that basically say "look at this neat clock" when what they mean is "look at this clock display" That, like this notion about computers, mistakes the wrapping for the package.

The methods that Chad describes are for atoms, and perhaps molecules, where changing the KE shows up as a change in the temperature. That's not going to be the case for bulk items. Also, the effects don't typically scale very well.

"Time never stops" is not a proper response to the question of whether a duration of zero is possible. Answer the kinematics question from above: If I toss a ball upward, it has a velocity in the upward direction. Then it slows down under gravity, and will have a velocity in the downward direction. What is the duration over which it has zero velocity?

Science must include logic, but logic alone is not science. Survival ≠ evolution These are two separate arguments "Nothing to do with" is not what you proposed. You were arguing that the evolution of humans was solely due to innovation. That it was the driving force.

A solar cell that only absorbs green light? Is that really going to improve things? The solar cell gets less efficient, and the plant gets the same sunlight as before, just without the green. Things cool off a bit for the plant, which improves growing, perhaps. But you cut out maybe half the light for the cell, since the solar spectrum peak is in the yellow/green part of the spectrum. I'm not seeing that as a win-win, since you compromise the solar production. There are applications where the solar cells are transparent, and only grab a fraction of the light, such as being used on top of windows in office buildings. (in development; I don't know if they are commercially available). Maybe you could apply the idea to greenhouses, where the emphasis is on plant growth rather than electrical generation (so the electricity would be the bonus), but for solar utility installations I don't see how it improves things You think there's a lot to be had in the efficiency of photosynthesis?

Mosquitos aren't attracted to the UV lamps in your typical lantern bug-zapper, which limits their effectiveness in that application. However, there are apparently ones that give off CO2, which does attract them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_zapper "Mosquitoes are attracted to carbon dioxide and water vapor in the breath of mammals, not ultraviolet light.[6] However, there are now bug zappers that emit carbon dioxide or use an external bait, such as octenol, to better attract biting insects into the light."

If you disagree post some physics that backs it up. Where is the paper that derives something that contradicts me? But if that's just your private view, well, it's not up to you. The way Einstein derived E=mc^2 is an historical fact. This is physics — you don't get to have a personalized version of it. Well, then, you are free to come up with a self-consistent version where you include vibrational KE as a separate item in the treatment of energy. Meaning you will have to re-work the marriage between mechanics and thermodynamics, among other things. Good luck. Meanwhile, when we discuss mainstream physics, translational KE is accounted for separately.

If you have an image of a person, 1.8 m tall, and the image is 1.75m tall, it will not appear to be very far away. If it’s 10 cm tall, it will (or at least it can). It needs to subtend a small angle. Do things on the horizon look big, or small?

If you want something to appear as if it’s far away you make it small, not big.

That’s not the argument. The OP is asking for detection that does not try to measure the energy. You could expose film to do the measurement. Or something like a CCD. You want position information. You don’t need a detector that tells you the energy.

Did they forget about relativity in #2? Otherwise they would understand what had happened, and one would not fret about “physical processes” It’s not an effect caused by “physical processes”. That’s a bad way of describing it.

Which means the same mass, as I said. That’s not a physics argument. In fact, it’s more of a statement about not being familiar with the relevant physics. E = mc^2 was derived under the condition of an object at rest, so translation has to be accounted for separately.

We don’t need to “assume” it, as you can confirm that the relationship holds. But you seem to be suggesting that Bragg’s law is somehow on firmer footing, which is confusing. Both of these rely on an indirect method using a mathematical relationship. Which is widespread in physics and especially so in QM

You can do diffraction with x-rays and gammas. Crystal lattices have spacing that is appropriate for this. X-ray crystallography would work with some gammas

The title says in empty space (i.e. a vacuum). The effect involving the eye, and brain, is not in a vacuum. (If you aren’t in a vacuum you can do four-wave mixing in a nonlinear crystal, and get photons at the sum or difference frequency.)

You only get that effect because of the eye. Color perception is not an inherent property of light

I am not the one presenting the scenario. I am rebutting the silly claim that the only advantage to walking upright is carrying a club.(and that walking is less efficient than continuing to stay on all fours) Please read the thread

Light can interact with itself (photon-photon scattering) but the energy has to be quite high. Gammas, not light from a laser.

I don’t see where I claimed a future advantage, or that the change was not incremental. Why is this not directed at the OP, who presented the scenario? This contradicted by the Nature paper I cited earlier. And if you can’t see them, but they can still see you? That’s better, somehow?

If you want to know what the KE is, you are by definition considering it in isolation. It depends on mass and speed. You had already said the items were identical, so the mass is the same.

This does not rebut what I wrote. It's like I am saying "These apples are red!" and you are claiming I'm wrong because they are spherical. Can you actually make an argument that efficient locomotion, by requiring less food, is not an advantage in and of itself (i.e. without bringing other factors into the discussion) when food availability decreases? Same question, only applied to being able to see predators from a distance.

Seeing predators more easily is an advantage the enhances survival probability. Efficient locomotion is an advantage the enhances survival probability.

Blatantly untrue, and evidence has been presented to the contrary.

I don't know how you could think this is a reasonable argument. If food is somewhat scarcer, you have to expend more calories to find food. Energy efficiency of movement could be crucial. If you continually expend more calories than you ingest, you will die. How can you "guarantee survival" if everyone starves?