swansont

You could post it here, at least the relevant parts (like posting the best argument for a claim. Posting evidence that supports it). As it is, you're making claims, and not backing them up. That makes it indistinguishable from guessing without any basis.

Both statements can be correct, and they are. Which is what phyti said was the context of the statement. On the contrary, saying that B and their clock re equally affected by time dilation is pointing out the effects from another frame of reference. Further, it's emphasizing that the effect is on time, and not some mechanical effect on the clock, which is a common misconception. Whether or not a true statement is useful is often a subjective statement. It may not be useful to you, or it may not be the way you would express something. But that might not hold for someone else. (It's not like you are arguing that it's irrelevant to the discussion, like saying that 'sharks live in water' which is true but has nothing to do with the conversation)

Agriculture is a relatively recent innovation. I'm not sure how population pressure comes into this, and what innovation is involved. One is unlikely to see much in the way of evolution in such a short time span as the last 10,000 years, except in isolated cases. Nothing with the bulk of the population. If you're going to make such sweeping claims, it would be nice to see more detailed support

No, I disagree. The Magnetic field of a current-carrying wire is proportional to the current. If the current is constant, the field will not be changing in time. i.e. there is no time variation. If there is, there will also be an electric field present (the dB/dt term in the time-dependent Maxwell's equations. But there are time independent versions of the equations, and give rise to static fields) The non-uniformity of the field is spatial, not temporal (I'm ignoring the transient when the field is turned on) Also, the electron's magnetic field (and that of other quantum particles) is not due to motion, though it is a QM analogue of motion (intrinsic angular momentum) But in the case under discussion, yes, the current is electron motion.

I think you have put the horse before the cart. Is there any evidence that tool use predates the opposable thumb and improved dexterity, and thus was a driver of the change? Even your own statement above implies that the increased dexterity came first. You aren't even arguing that there was co-evolution. (plus the issue of animals without opposable thumbs/precision grip who can and do use tools) Which also implies that evolution permits innovation. Innovation is not so much a driver of evolution. In fact, I would argue that innovation tends to prevent evolution, as it lessens selection pressure. You don't need to have the body adapt as much if an innovation is giving you an additional ability.

I specified a DC field. I didn't say any field, and I had commented earlier that I was discussing DC/static fields, as this is what the OP implied. Bringing up EMPs (again) is taking my discussion out of context. Yes, warmer objects have more mass than cooler ones. E = mc^2 The full equation is E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4, which reduces to E = mc^2 when an object is at rest (i.e. no CoM KE) Thus, energy that is not due to CoM motion is proportional to the mass, and vice versa. Hot vs cold, or spinning vs not spinning. The former has more energy than the latter, all else being equal.

We were talking about quantum states. The spin of e.g. an electron is either up or down. So if you don't make an exact copy, the only other option is to get it completely wrong. There is no "near duplicate"

I wan't thinking of temperature as the only factor. No, that's not a response consistent with evolution. You can't validly claim a specific feature must evolve in response to some environment. You also can't compare beings in different niches, since the selection pressure is not the same. Other primates have lots of hair. What niche do they occupy? What niche did the branch that walked upright occupy? And they live in somewhat different climates. You have to consider all selection pressures on a population.

! Moderator Note This isn't a conspiracy site. You have not provided evidence that it happened, and when pressed for evidence, the phenomenon suddenly stops. Which makes this indistinguishable from a conspiracy claim. Posting here means you bring the receipts and make them available. Not doing so is tantamount to trolling, and that's not something we tolerate. ! Moderator Note Regardless of the above, this is not an appropriate response to the situation

Corresponds is not nearly the same thing. And we know examples of maths having been created that had nothing to do with the physical world, because applications came after the math. There are undoubtedly maths out there that are not used in science. Science, OTOH is a description of the behavior of world around us, and is based on mathematical relationships. The universe follows rules, and therefore science is based on maths. But if you drew a Venn diagram (do these exist in nature?) scientific equations/relationships would be a wholly-contained subset of "Maths that exist" but would not be the entire set. There's a quote by someone whose name currently escapes me about how it's amazing that we can describe the world using mathematics. ——— One example to show that math isn't dictated by nature is that we can come up with equations that are self-consistent, but don't describe how nature behaves. Newtonian/Galilean physics for example, is only an approximation, and fails at high speeds. e.g. the limitation of traveling at c is one the universe places on us, but not mathematics.

! Moderator Note Which you just admitted doesn't exist, making this moot. Please don't troll. Generally speaking, modnotes are not for responses, unless one is called for in the modnote. They are for reminding people of the rules and parameters for discussion, or other information dissemination. Announcements, not discussions.

A DC field is static. It can't be constantly emanating, because you can't reach a steady state without a sink of some sort. If you have identical energetic particles ejected in opposite directions, momentum would not change, and energy would be reduced. No, mass is energy. Saying anything along the lines of "mass is converted to energy" is wrong, or at least a sloppy way of expressing the concept (and physicists do get into bad habits when discussing these things, because we know what the person means). Mass converts to other forms of energy.

! Moderator Note A tangent on math vs physics has been split into a new thread https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119998-math-v-physics-split-from-direction-of-time/

I agree

Yes. And since physics follows mathematically-expressed laws, that's should be unsurprising. I recently bought a Galton board which drops tiny balls into a stack of pins, laid out in a triangular grid, such that there's nominally a 50-50 chance of going right or left with each layer. The balls collect in a gaussian pattern (plus noise)

There's no complete circuit, thus no current. Unconnected batteries do discharge very slowly; I think that's an internal reaction, but the current would be tiny.

As I stated earlier, it depends on how you define the system. "If the source of the current’s energy is external to the system, then the wire and field increase in mass" The premise of your question is contrary to what I have already said. An EMP has no mass because photons don't have mass. The static field would.

Not sure what you mean by "evolution in tool using hominids" Bipedalism predates the evidence of tool use (Australopithecenes were bipedal). Admittedly that's not conclusive, though, since tool use wouldn't leave the same kind of evidence in the fossil record. Good luck discerning that from the evidence we have available to us. We have hair. Or, perhaps, living in the plains in Africa? Ah, I was not aware of this. (earlier statement stricken)

Any internal centrifuge would need a twin rotating in the opposite direction, else the entire craft would begin rotating. Also, 24 RPM in a small chamber, as it is drawn? It seems like that would be disorienting. You'd have a significant variation of acceleration from head to feet — the head looks like it's on the rotation axis..

QED is one of the best-established theories in physics. Virtual photons can't be detected directly. They can be inferred owing to the success of the model built on them.

Math requires that it be internally consistent. It does not require that it be compared to nature's behavior. That's why math can prove things.

Please upload the math, too.

20 miles/sec The sun is 93 million miles away 4.65 million seconds to get from the sun to us. That more than 7 weeks. 14 weeks from the earth’s orbit distance on the other side (ignoring speed changes from gravity) The earth moves more than a quarter of its orbit in that time. Meaning the comet can’t “hide” We would see it. It’s not moving fast enough. The greater danger is an asteroid (not shedding mass and creating a tail) coming at us from the other side. Dark, hard to spot, and not much parallax.

What is “big nose tip”?

And if we had that, we wouldn’t know why that mechanism was the one. It’s turtles all the way down.