[yor_on]

So no, I don't expect much from you any longer.

[yor_on]

We seem to miss the most obvious things about us, as with intelligence just being a tool, for your emotions, beliefs, greed, ego, ad infinitum.

[yor_on]

It's no wonder that most thinkers through history keeps telling us that you first need to look at yourself, before you look at others.

[yor_on]

Well, whatever. Nevertheless I stated that India - Pakistan has become one of the most probable nuclear hot spots for 2025. And the reasons are many, religions and ideologies, but, to my eyes the biggest will be global warming, damming, and water.

India   

https://www.insightsonindia.com/2025/03/15/increasing-water-gap-in-india/


Pakistan  " By 2025, the country would suffer from complete water scarcity if the current situation continues and per capita water consumption reaches 500 cubic meters "

2024   https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article/15/8/3602/103263/Impact-of-climate-change-on-water-scarcity-in

And damming

https://mrpo.pk/pakistans-water-scarcity/

[yor_on]

Another is East versus West Europe, leaving NATO, our politicians and media free reins. Preparing for the 'inevitable' war, that must come. Or otherwise losing all face possible by doing as USA, backing.

[yor_on]

And then the upcoming war, which we (NATO and EU) already seem to have bought a ticket to.


USA - Taiwan  - China

[yor_on]

And you know, me looking at history. One of them will lead to all of them

[yor_on]

Exciting times, aren't they

2025

[yor_on]

I'm quite tired with it, and it makes me wonder about what you think sanity means?

[yor_on]

Being at each others throat?

[yor_on]

something physically weird

Try this first

https://byjus.com/physics/centre-of-gravity/

Assume that 'c' is a equivalence to a 'perfect', locally defined 'clock', able to be split into some 'smallest parts'. Then for fun assume it equivalent to gravity. Where is the 'center' of it? Assume that you could freeze a 'smallest instant' of lights speed in a vacuum, an equivalence to a 'clock tick'. Would that be what we call a photon? Which is a 'pointlike particle'. Turn it around, if there is a centre of gravity, don't you need a definition of what space, volume etc, it becomes a center of? A demarcation of sorts, some cutoff?


And photons as well as 'gravitons', being 'pointlike', have no spatial existence, which then makes it meaningless to ask if 'time' is a flow or 'discrete', well, as I think then. A 'quanta' of time nonexistent defined spatially just as gravity. Although you can argue that 'waves' have a spatial existence. And gravitational waves too

This is confusing :)





and a misplaced * ' *

[yor_on]

then again, physics is no worse than human behaviors, and a lot more fun

[yor_on]

It's tricky, we can measure a singular photon, even though it has no mass and no spatial existence.

[yor_on]

We can measure the effects of its existence may be a better approximation.

[yor_on]

What we define it to have is an energy and a momentum, nothing more as far as I know.

[yor_on]

We also define it to add or lose 'energy', f.ex in a gravitational potential, but only as defined by the observer, as with you standing on Earth watching infalling light. And we can't be 'at rest' with it and so define its 'eigenvalue'. We do it all the same in a lab called Earth.

[yor_on]

Hmm, you can't really add energy to it, a singular, already existing, photon. After all there's only one constant 'c' existing, not several. But you could argue that light passing f.ex the sun 'accelerate' after doing so. I think that was the way Pete looked at it? Not that something could surpass 'c', but that there was different 'speeds' to it.

[yor_on]

And you know what, thinking of it this way it makes a certain sense, an alternative sense maybe but as 'light' isn't here, only its effects, defining it this way you might be free to think of it that way too.

[yor_on]

And yes, gravitational time dilation's exist, just look at NIST's experiments with atomic clocks.

[yor_on]

I have this notion, however stupid, that we're born 'differently' genetically. It's not about some genetic structure being superior to another. More about nature 'planning' for different outcomes,  alternatively 'evolving' different traits in much the same manner that we discuss 'dormant genes'. This is if we admit to not knowing all types of synergies and interactions created genetically.