geordief

@Genady (can't get the quote function to work) ,I used "appreciate" as "understand" sounded too final ,too presumptuous. Otherwise ,you can only think of that one instance?Me too. If its practical impact was so strong then that seems to me that we have a kind of Sigma 5 discovery on our hands and ,to date that is probably where our correct understanding of the nature of time lies. Not that we will ever stop asking this question ,I suspect and presumably we should expect further enlightenment if and when we make progress on quantum gravity.

Are there any instances in the history of science where a change in appreciation of the nature of time has given rise to a significant advance in the realm of practical technological achievement? If there is might that indicate that the new appreciation of the phenomenon of time was superior to the old (if only in terms of probability)? Would the instance that stands out be the Minkowski spacetime model? I don't include the greater and greater precision in timekeeping that has occured down the ages** as an example .I mean a change in appreciation of the concept. **the latest interpretation of the animals in cave drawings as applied to the "hunting seasons" and very recently published is fascinating. https://www.livescience.com/ice-age-cave-art-proto-writing-claim

Aesop rocks😀

Could the Dems nominate someone else for giggles to take even more advantage of and draw attention to the Reps' discomforture? Ivanka?

How important is the speakership to the Reps if they have a majority anyway? Could they even let the Dems have the post so long as they could exercise power through that majority? (Edit: if they cannot unite on this issue is that disunity going to dog them all the way even after this issue is resolved?)

I thought I saw a rock formation in there somehow (with contours). Also thought I saw the pattern of a fly's eye(or a wasp's honeycombed nest. It is a really nice photo.

If those are the historical precedents,why should this time be much different? Consensus seems to be a dirty word these days and everyone seems to play the game for their own reward and at others' expense. Who,I wonder loses out if this drags on?Do they all think they are winners?

Because "they" may be turn out to be very simple .The approach** may be very confusing but there may be the possibility that the fog will clear ,the solutions will be relatively simple and we will have to go back to wondering about questions that affect us at the macro (and all other) levels -for the rest of our times. **as in the roads leading up to them.

Do any of the photons have a "direction" or is the direction only revealed when they impact another object such as gib65's eye? Suppose at any particular instant there was a finite (N) number of photons emitted from the star and all of those N photons improbably impacted objects that were NOT gib65's eye,would the star be invisible to gib65 for that brief period (taking into account the time for the photons to travel as far as gib65)?

I had more or less the exact same (mis) understanding as @gib65 If you are right I feel even less smart now😕

Does your "stream bed" work as well as an analogy if there is no top and bottom no rocks to cause perturbations ,no gravity and if the various independent flows through the "stream" simply interact with each other? Would "particles"/perturbations be formed the same way? And would one perturbation lead to a cascade of other perturbations? I am imagining an infinite number of very small streams,interacting with each other .

I have a vague memory of them being skinned first and then parboiled to remove the membrane. In aid of what? Probably they were pureed but I can't remember now. I bought some chestnuts a few years back (and I have an open fire) They sat unused for a whole year before I got around to throwing them out. Didn't even plant any in the ground to replace the chestnut tree that died 20 years ago.

Thanks

I think I have heard it said( a few times) that fhor an object entering (the EH?) of a black hole that space and time are reversed. Is that correct? If that is indeed what is said then (here we go again?) is this just saying that this is what the model does and the actual body notices no change?

We have millennia ahead of us to occupy our minds.We would be pretty stupid if we didn't attempt to answer questions like that (and others) At the present time though the priority must be to ensure we don't trash our planetary home for our future, and present generations

Louie Louie as performed by the Kingsmen https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jan/23/louie-louie-ultimate-rock-rebel-anthem

Did the results of the tests justify his prior interpretation?(if that is a sensible question)

Would I be right to guess that most instances of the former lead to a QM development because the tests results run counter to what the interpretation suggested?

Is there a good book for the layman that describes the historical steps that came in the development of QM Did any of the researchers rely on their interpretation of what was "actually " happening or was it just a case of accumulating observations and finding models to predict behaviour as a result?

Just a throwaway observation that the line in the (very great) song can be interpreted to be saying that apparent knowledge of a situation is a mirage and that the meaning lies further down the road One of my favourite songs and I used this thread to shoehorn it into the public arena since I do see a parallel of sorts(not scientific admittedly)😉

"To understand you know too soon" "It's all right Ma" B.D. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Alright,_Ma_(I'm_Only_Bleeding)

The upgrade to our local road was held up by objections to it on the grounds that these were populations in danger of extinction. I am not sure what the outcome was .Perhaps the route was diverted or abandoned.I am trying to find out . At the time these objections were held up to ridicule. I can't say how important an issue this is as we are in the middle of a mass extinction . Is the fate of the freshwater mussel especially important in that context?

Thanks @Mordred and @Genady Time for my bed😀

I thought that as we went back in time that particles like protons were torn apart and only existed as their constituent parts and at enormously high energies

Seems to me like @Mordred is saying that no matter is created either in the inflationary or in the expansionary period.(so I assume that as we "roll back" to a smaller and denser universe the particles just get smaller and more energetic. Anyway ,if it is the case that the creation of matter **is not what distinguishes the expansionary/inflationary models from "my " scenario where the protons repel each other,what is /are the differences? Is my scenario (just) an explosion? ,Would it still be an explosion if done with particles that were of a comparable size to those in the ecpandionary-/inflationary period?(ie not with protons but with more primitive particles) **it doesn't happen in any scenario