1

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 13:21:05 »

It's just human behaviors, isn't it?

2

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 13:20:38 »

Yeah, don't know how long we can lie to each other but a fair guess is to the end.

3

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 13:19:36 »

Remember this one?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/07/25/great-salt-lake-emissions/

I should have linked this one first

2023    https://www.newsweek.com/lakes-drying-worldwide-science-1801165

4

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 12:17:12 »

The last should be one in where you can expect using our laws to define others having a chance. In the first, assuming no such thing existing, our chances should be quite small.

5

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 12:14:58 »

You could even press it to its extreme, asking yourself if there can be one irrefutable logic, defining all others? Or maybe if it becomes a mosaic, in where our laws just is one part of a whole?

6

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 12:01:07 »

But they have so little to do with what we think they are.

7

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 12:00:35 »

If you look at it that way, walls exists all around us.

8

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:59:28 »

It's the same question I get when we use our local macroscopic definitions of clocks and rulers defining microscopic experiments, as with those done at a quantum mechanical scale.

We have a clock, but if decoherence becomes an equivalence to a singularity, can you still apply our laws on it?

9

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:52:25 »

And it opens for a question. Can we use our laws to define others?

10

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:51:19 »

It makes this universe we're in quite unique.

11

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:50:31 »

A place where 'laws' change

12

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:49:38 »

Decoherence is also a singularity, thinking of it my way.

13

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:49:04 »

Ah, yes. and a singularity

14

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:46:21 »

So light is energy, a speed, and defined my way, a clock

15

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:43:50 »

I find a equivalence between that 'real', or 'relative', event horizon of black hole, to that wall 'c' represents.

Both becomes singularities.

16

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:36:17 »

Light is energy

17

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:34:15 »

We call it 'energy'

18

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:33:42 »

I don't.

What a 'proper / invariant mass' is, becomes quite questionable in relativity.

19

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:29:05 »

A lot of people associate clocks with mass, as per the experiments by NIST.

Which then should mean that if that photon would have a clock, it also would need a 'proper' mass. And can't be at that ideal speed limit 'c' becomes.

20

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Yesterday at 11:14:31 »

And the same goes for time machines. The signal will disappear.