Recent content by jdg812

What do you mean? Assume we have N atoms excited to the upper level, a*N of them may decay to lower level due to optical transitions and (1 - a)*N of them decay due to non-radiative (collisions with another atoms) transitions. Now, consider exactly one atom in upper state. May you apply your...

I can prove my body exists. This proof is good for you, but not good for me, because I admit my body may be my illusion. I can prove my personality exists. This proof is good for me, but not good for you, because you may admit I am a bio robot.

If plasma is hot, it emits light. If plasma is cold, it recombinates and becomes gas.

Every transition has "branching ratio", which shows % of decays from high state to lowest or metastable state.

Let's assume we live PART-TIME in a simulation, another part-time in a more or less real world... Let's assume the "real world" is just a PERFECT simulation, created by God for our poor and needy souls. Let's assume there is NOTHING for us in the world except one or another simulations.

My opinion is: Time exists. Flow of time in our brains exists as well. May be there are other creatures exist, different from human, that have other flow of time, opposite to ours in direction, or discrete, or integral reception of time or whatever they wish. But WE have no choice. We...

Regular Case: Human brain, which may process perceptions only one by one, receives perceptions one by one Cubism: The same brain receives all the perceptions at once. T-distributed observer: ? receives all the perceptions at once.

I like your model. It may be considered as a first step in understanding (if that is possible for human to understand different creature) what a T_distributed observer may feel about time. But there are differences between the simulated_by_you and the real T_distributed observers. 1. The...

Front sail goes from side to side when the boat changes direction. Front sail with boom cannot cross the mast. Wind speed is zero at h = 0 and increases with height so that generally the taller the mast, the faster the wind around tha sail.

I'm very sorry, but "we" do not distribute an observer. An ant cannot play with an elephant. (But an elephant can play with ant :wink: ) PS OK, well... There are observers distributed along commonly known in special relativity world lines. We call them T-distributed observers. (Actually...

Actually, a possible THEORY OF TIME may be based on one of the postulates: Future already exists, past still exists, but our perception is limited only to subspase t = t_our. This is a theory of a localized observer. OR Future does not exist yet, past does not exist already. OR...

This succession may be parameterized by a variable "t". "t" belongs to an open interval (T_birth, T_now). We are at the boundary point "T_now". There is NOTHING yet on the other side. We extrapolate this interval and believe our extrapolation is correct. We even do not predict exactly...

Of course, if future events do not have their own soul and will, they actually do not "wait" for us. They even DO NOT EXIST, before their time come. It would be better to say: WE waiting for them or we predict them, etc. It depends... The "future conditions" MAY BE predictably going to be the...

:wink: In another Thread I was trying to say practically the same thing ... :wink:

Yes, absolutely! It does a VERY good job, but NOT ALL job! No, GR is not the "final version of Newtonian physics" and GR is not even a "version of Newtonian physics". If only new principles , probably not yet. If ALL principles , probably yes. :smile: