StringJunky

Yes, I used that earlier as a rebuttal to Beecee.

Aye, there's some truth in that.

Aerosol particulates (pollution) reflect solar energy back into space. The confounding irony of reducing particulate pollution, which is often tied in with green house gases, is it will negate some of the temperature reduction from reducing green house gas emissions.

But Canada's snow and mountains and pine forests and crystal clear, cold waters and log cabins....

ATM this discussion is on par with "Does God exist?"

As females go, "she's" certainly aggressive.

Yes, it detects the magnetic variation as the camshaft rotates. It exploits the Hall Effect.

Abnormal temp rise correlates with the beginning of the industrial revolution. Carbon dioxide output with population growth since the industrial revolution: https://populationeducation.org/how-does-population-growth-impact-climate-change/

When in Rome...

You shouldn't mix proof in science with proof in a court, but even in court, proof is based on the balance of probabilities i.e. it is not absolute.

Proof is for purely mathematical constructs and I think their solution is eternal. The level of certainty in real-world science is expressed as a confidence interval and anything over 95% is accepted as a fact, but note it will never be 100%.

Without evidence it's all just words and quite nebulous. Leaving it nearly 40 years makes it all but impossible.

I've seen it where I live albeit only once when the night sky was exceptionally clear when I was night fishing a few years ago. You can see it in Canada as well. This is what it looks like in Canada. Photos are always more contrasty because they can gather more light over time to make the image than our eyes can. This is from the UK and probably more realistic in that it's more wispy in appearance IRL.

We'll all be driving Teslas.

However you cut it, it boils down to some tangible, objective evidence is needed in any case before a jury or board. Some things, because of this, one has to put it down to experience, or lack of it.

Awesome. The one you are working on seems to have a frequency of 431nm. Does that mean the clock frequency of yours will be higher than the ytterbium one? Very clear writing in your paper although I don''t understand all the concepts, of course.

Yeah, time to get busy swansont.

I found this with Ludlow as an author. It might be the same paper as the OP: Atomic_clock_performance_beyond_the_geodetic_limit.pdf

Here's what he said on FB. Seems to be taking it appropriately:

I'm presuming he thinks he's not guilty, just as much as you seem to assume he is just because she said so. The evidence shall prevail.

If somebody accuses of you of something, to which you think you are not guilty, they are going to get the sharp end of your tongue; especially on a subject the media is sensitized to and will make a meal of, no matter how tenuous. I'd tell her where to go in no uncertain terms.

I think really you should say the speed is set by spacetime... but it's still wrong AFAIK.

I know. It appears to be fundamental, which means 'it is what it is'.

Relativity says c is the limit. It is the reference.

Do you think we'll ever be able say why c is that speed/what limits it, or will it always be axiomatic?