Strange

Depends what "use" you are thinking of. DNA can create proteins without being compared with anything. We can work out what certain genes do by looking at the effects of different versions (alleles). Not sure if that is covered by your definition of "comparing". To identify someone from DNA, we have to have their (or a close relative's) DNA to compare with. It might be possible, one day, to go directly from the DNA to a picture/profile of the person.

1. Your first reference (which is just one persons opinion anyway, rather than any scientific results) only mentions optimisation in passing and appears to refute your claim: “A bird is not a global optimum for flying,” 2. Your second reference has nothing to do with evolution or optimisation. 3. I asked what would disprove your idea. If there is nothing that would change your mind (and, based on the above, it isn't based on any evidence to start with) then it isn't science. It could be philosophy, but it doesn't have the level of logical rigour required. For example, there is no apparent connection between your point1 and 2. You leap from an (unsupported) assertion about evolution to a unconnected claim about intelligence. And as that is a prediction about the future, it has zero evidential value. The "goal" of evolution is not optimisation, exception the sense that those organisms which have the best fit to the environment are most likely to survive. This does not necessarily require intelligent. The majority of organisms do not have any intelligence.

einstein once described space time as "the aether". That is not "the" aether (the medium required for the transmission of light - which doesn't exist) but "an" aether - just an analogous name for space-time that something that (by definition) exists everywhere. You can choose a reference frame where you are not moving through space. Others (moving relative to you) will see your time dilated. Or you can choose a reference frame where you are moving up, down, left, right forwards, backwards, ... and others will still see your time dilated. And you will still see theirs dilated. In other words, the frame of reference you choose makes no difference. Which is what "no preferred frame" means.

Remember, all moment and velocity is relative. And time dilation is not something that happens to you because you are "moving through space", it is something that is measured by someone else who is moving relative to you (and you would measure the same looking at them). Who is to say that one of you is "moving through space" and the other isn't, or vice versa. You can be stationary in space (in your chosen coordinates) and someone else will still see your clocks undergo time dilation (and you, theirs). So it is not an effect of moving space on you.

It certainly isn’t “proof” of anything (remember, this is science so there is no proof). However it could possibly be evidence for a possible effect that might be consistent with a 4d Hall effect.

1MB is 1MB whether you think of it as bytes (8 bits) or words of 16, 32 or 64 bits. So it makes no difference. Pretty much all networks are bit-serial so whatever size your data is, it will be sent one bit at a time. But that bit stream is split into packets of about 1500 bits. Huh? 1 byte is 8 bits. 2 bytes is 16 bits, not 9. But if you are talking about addresses not data then 8 bits can address 256 bytes. 9 bit can address 512 bytes and so on. 2^992 bytes is billions of times more storage than exists in the entire world.

Well, what evidence would prove you wrong?

This is a discussion forum so if you have something to say ...

Nooooo....!!! My fault, I guess. I didn't use a piece of paper as the analogy because it is square -- if it is a 2D analogy to the observable universe, then it would be circular. It is the flatness (contrasted with say a spherical or hyperbolic surface) that is important. The piece of paper remains geometrically flat even if you roll it into a cylinder. Or even a torus. Note that, when we think of the surface of a sphere as a curved surface, we are seeing the 2D surface in a 3D space. In the case of the (3D) universe) if it were curved it would not require an extra dimension. The curvature is what is known as "intrinsic". (Which is almost impossible to get your head round - excuse the pun.)

It doesn't mean flat like a pancake. It means flat as in "not curved" or described by Euclidean geometry. If we reduce it to two dimensions, if the universe were like the surface of a sphere, then it would be curved. The angles of a (large enough) triangle would not add up to 180º, there could be zero or multiple parallel lines that go through a single point, and so on. If this 2D universe were like a sheet of paper (or the surface of a torus) then it would be geometrically flat and Euclidean. Now just imaging a 4D hyper-torus...

In the case of a rotating black hole, the singularity is a ring around the centre. There is a singularity at the even horizon in Schwarzschild coordinates (they only describe what happens outside a spherically symmetrical body). But you can use other coordinates where there is no singularity at the event horizon. But in all coordinates, the curvature becomes infinite at the centre.

"Inside the event horizon all paths bring the particle closer to the center of the black hole. It is no longer possible for the particle to escape." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon Of course it doesn't prove anything. On the other hand, it is not an assumption, it is current best (only) theory describing black holes. Citation needed. All the holographic principle says, as far as I am aware, is that the information inside the black hole can be represented on a 2D surface. Where does it say there is no centre?

Tried that. It brought up random collection of results related to politics, sport, literature, etc. Nothing obviously relevant to this thread. So ... what are you talking about?

Not sure why you think that. Biological systems are based on the same physics and chemistry as anything else. The earth was spinning once a day, and orbiting the sun once a year, for billions of years before humans were around. The universe didn’t spring into existence when humans arrived. (How could they have evolved if time didn’t pass?) But now you are not talking about the existence of time but describing it. You could say the same about light, trees, the moon, etc. but they all existed before we were around to d scrive them.

Because someone moving relative to you will see time passing at a different rate. That includes your pulse, bodily functions and aging. They don’t see your clock going wrong because they are moving. They see different elapsed time: ticks of your clock, beats of your heart, etc.

It doesn't, does it?

Aryan is a rather ambiguous term. It used to be used as a general term for people of European and West Asian heritage. It has also been used to describe languages of the Into-European family. It is a bit meaningless really. If anything, it means the same as Iranian. And we know they exist! But who are the people you mention? The Kalash, maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_people They speak an Indo-Aryan language.

You asked a slightly ambiguous question and got an answer that matched one interpretation but not the one you are putting on it! The important point here is that time dilation is not an effect on the clock. It can't be. For example, right now you are traveling at 0 km/h relative to your chair (no time dilation) you are also travelling at hundreds of miles per hour relative to Mars (a bit of time dilation) you are also travelling at 99% of the speed of light relative to cosmic rays (a lot of time dilation). Your clock can't be running at multiple different speeds, affected by every relative velocity. It is purely a change in the way one person observes another frame of reference. They won't see your clock running at one sped, your wristwatch running at another and your body clock unchanged. They will measure everything changed by the same, relative, amount.

There is nothing special about biological systems. They brave the way they do because of complex sequences of chemical reactions. Those reaction take place at a rate determined by fundamental processes. We have observed this same processes being affected by time dilation. So there is no reason why biological system would not behave the same as any other clock. The universe was evolving for billions of years before humans developed ways to measure time. So it is pretty clear that time is not a human invention. Our descriptions of what time "is" (philosophy) and ways of measuring it (science) are human inventions though.

If that were the case, then you would be aware of your clock running slow when you were moving faster. But that doesn't make sense because speed is only relative. So the time difference can only be seen from another frame of reference.

When you ask a question like this, try replacing “time” with “distance” and see if you still want to ask the same question. Also, no. They’re the same thing, just with different signs. Acceleration itself doesn’t, it is difference in speed that is important. A singularity means the theory no longer works - a bit like dividing by zero.

We know that all physical processes are affected. There is no reason why biochemistry wouldn’t be. If every possible method of measuring the time or distance between A and B gives the same result, is there really any difference between saying it is the clock or ruler that has changed rather than it is the time or distance that has changed? Certainly not in science, which deals with what we can measure.

Aging is just another clock. It is equally affected.

Oh yes. The Big Bang model is solidly based on GR. The first person to come up with this solution to the equations of GR was Lemaitre. Who then used the observations (later described as Hubble's law) to determine the rate of expansion. Kinda, yeah. He initially assumed the universe was static (because everyone did, then) and added just the right amount of energy to keep it balanced between expanding and contracting. When Lemaitre published his work, Einstein probably slapped himself on the head!

Interesting analogy.It doesn't quite work because you will feel a different weight on Earth and on the Moon. But you won't feel time run slower because of relative speed (or gravitational time dilation). Exactly. (Apart from the "at light speed" bit!) Not quite. You will have aged two years, but for the people on Earth a lot more time will have passed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-relativity-theor/ So if we ignore the "returning to Earth bit" let's just say you are in a spaceship passing the earth at high speed. You will see clocks running slower on Earth (and the people aging less than you). They will see your clocks running slow (and, hence, you aging less).