Strange

Then you would need to show an experiment that can distinguish between them.

That is irrelevant. There is only one theory under discussion: quantum mechanics. There are multiple interpretations (descriptions that appeal to human intuition). You prefer one, other people prefer another. There is no other reason to choose between them.

I would say you are mixing up two different things (at least) here. There are several scientific definitions of time, used in different theories. (And, quite possibly, there will be more in future.) Then there are philosophical and cultural concepts of time. These are not necessarily connected to science - they may not be testable, for example (that is one of the things that differentiates science and philosophy). I think it is unrealistic to expect to come up with a single concept or definition of time that works for all philosophies, cultures and scientific theories.

But you don't need a speaker; you can transmit directly to people's minds. Or have you forgotten that? Ah, so his is just a scam to raise money. You still haven't explained why you believe this to be true. (No one else does. No one else has any reasons to. You have provided no evidence.) So, again, how do you know you can send messages to people's minds? Why does that matter. If you can have a conversation with someone, or go into a coffee bar and order a drink, without speaking words it doesn't matter if they know you or not. Unless the video is going to consist of you staring at someone and them saying "are you pretending to send me a message again?"

There is no evidence that reality is mathematical. It is an interesting (but flawed) philosophical idea, but I can't see how it could ever be tested so it isn't scientific. The universe can be be described fairly accurately, but not perfectly, using mathematics. So I see no reason why we should expect it to be logical or mathematical. It is what is is, and we produce our best descriptions which happen to be mathematical because we invented mathematics as a way of describing the world around us. Wrong way round: we are finding mathematics that conforms to the universe. As we try to create more accurate models, the mathematics gets increasingly complicated because the universe is not mathematical and so we need ever more complex models to approximate it better.

Interesting that the article is by the same guy I referenced. I had guessed the article might be by Sabine Hossenfelder, so it is interesting to see that it was about her book. I haven't read it so can't comment further. But she is an interesting and provocative writer, so it is bound to be interesting. Interesting that I wrote "interesting" four times in that post!

! Moderator Note Do you have something to discuss? If so, you need to do better than this.

It depends who you ask https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/19/the-strong-cp-problem-is-the-most-underrated-puzzle-in-all-of-physics/#40127e0a1ea7 The thing about science is that you don't know which ideas are worth pursuing until after you have done the research. There are many different approaches to detecting dark matter, for example. We can't know in advance which ones (if any) are going to work out, so they all have to be funded so that there is a chance that one or more of them produce results. p.s. why not link to the article if it is interesting?

Is it? I didn't know that. (I have to assume you are right, based on your username ) You need to use limits to evaluate something like 1/infinity. You can then show that as the divisor gets arbitrarily close to infinity, the result gets arbitrarily close to zero. That is why, as mathematic says, it is possible to choose to define it as 0.

Of course, this means he could be the world's best ventriloquist.

You seem to have missed the point that velocity is a vector. Therefore, because A is moving in the opposite direction to B, the velocity should have the opposite sign. It doesn't;t matter that they came from different points in your video; the velocities are still in opposite directions. Also, you need be explicit about which frame of reference the velocity is measured in. (Mixing frames of reference is one of the things that confuses people who don't understand SR.) ! Moderator Note Spamming links to drive traffic to your website or YouTube channel is against the rules of the forum. This thread is closed. Do not bring this subject up again.

Infinity is not a number, therefore 1/infinity is not a number. It is. What is your point?

Incredible. I was thinking of suggesting that. I must be telepathic! (But I hadn't thought of the twist of just delivering the punchlines like that.)

It is possible. But even without encryption, their communication would be likely to use broadband spread-spectrum techniques (as most terrestrial comma does). This means that the signal is indistinguishable from noise and can also be transmitted at lower levels than normal signals.

Wait outside a bank for a police officer to come past. Project into their work mind “I am going to rob the bank (I am not armed)” and start walking into the bank.

Anything could be a measurement error. (See also superluminal neutrinos). We can’t be sure about that until someone else reproduces the result

Anyone defending the video (which I haven’t watched) would appear not to understand SR

The question was: HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? Sorry, that is not very clear. Why are your neighbors not good test subjects? Do you mean you can have a conversation where you only think and they reply by speaking? For example: Arnold (thinking): did you see that film last night? Friend (speaking): “which film?” Arnold: the one with Arnold Schwarzenegger? Friend: “no, I don’t like action films” Arnold: what sort of films do you like? Friend: “I prefer romantic comedies” And so on. You could film a conversation like this. The trouble is, it would be too easy to fake. You are 39 years old and looking for work as a customer support rep. That is the only search result for that name in Davao. If there are news stories about your amazing g abilities being demonstrated then why not post a link? OK, here is a low cost idea for how to test this, without relying on local people. (Not sure why we should believe the other 2 million people in the city can’t be trusted but you can, but never mind.) You could use something like Facebook Live and get a few people to watch you walk down a street in Davao. Any of the people watching can name a coffee shop or bar that you have to go in. When you get in there, another person tells you what to order and you place your order without saying anything. (I can think of several ways to fake this, but it is a little bit more difficult than the conversation idea above.)

! Moderator Note This question is far too broad for a discussion forum. Try google or Wikipedia. Or your parents.

! Moderator Note Stop posting random nonsense

Well, you will have to find the money. No one else is going to pay to prove that you don’t have thus ability You say that but you still haven’t answered the question that was asked: what makes you think you have this ability?

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

Radon is one of the "noble gases". These have no valence electrons available for forming bonds with other atoms. This means that the radon atoms are not bound to one another as gold or lead are in the solid form.

I *think* that bosons which are force carriers have non-zero spin. Although it is not mentioned in this article, that is claimed to be the case for this new boson. (The Higgs boson is spin 0, because the High field is scalar.)

It is bizarre that there are still people trying to claim that such a well-established theory is wrong. It makes about as much sense as insisting that there is no such thing as oxygen, and it is just dephlogisticated air. Or claiming that diseases are caused by imbalances in the four humors. Quite, quite mad.