swansont

I should have been more clear. We see objects which occupy space. We don’t experience time the same way.

You don’t directly sense it as you do with the dimensions of space (which are sensed with vision)

That implies there is an equation with a solution that is zero. But there is no equation.

The things that orbit in the disc have collisions. If you don’t, then what would make a particle orbit in that plane?

“Time is not frozen from light's perspective, because light does not have a perspective.” So one can’t provide an answer to “As far as light is concerned, how long does it take for light to travel from A to B ?”

You wrote “The kinematic time dilation caused by the moon rotation around the earth is the one of interest to me, not the gravitational components” You’ve also insisted it’s the gravity, not the speed Which is it? The earth’s frame and the GPS frame are not the same. Compare their centripetal accelerations. Earth is not an inertial frame, but can be approximated as one under some circumstances. It can be a bad approximation in others. (who are “they” and what exactly did “they” say?) How is this an answer to my question: The moon is moving relative to us. How does kinematic time dilation not occur? Relativity is well-tested. We’re past the point of having the necessary confidence that it’s valid within the levels of precision we’ve tested. Confident that gravity behaves the same on the moon as on earth (which we’ve tested in a number of ways) That symmetry only applies to inertial frames of reference. No, I don’t think it would necessarily be cheap. Hafele-Keating was cheap because the incremental cost was plane tickets; they already had the clocks. What you’re proposing needs space-qualified clocks, which are generally not sitting around, and more expensive. And the cost of launching payloads is significantly higher than getting on a plane.

Your original statement was “DM particles attracted by massive objects, like stars and planets, may form DM atmospheres around them? If not, why not?” Which sounds a lot like you think they should exist. The mechanisms, other than gravity, involved in firming an atmosphere are absent. Genady and Janus both posted about this, too, and you responded. Cold, warm and hot dark matter have all been hypothesized https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_dark_matter

You wrote “The kinematic time dilation caused by the moon rotation around the earth is the one of interest to me, not the gravitational components” So why do you need a different gravity well? What is special about the moon’s speed, that we can’t use a satellite, which can be higher? And the moon would have both. No, it’s not an inertial frame. The moon is moving relative to us. How does kinematic time dilation not occur? You can use whichever frame you wish. The adjusted clocks on GPS satellites give nominally the same time as the ground station. This is true if you are looking at it from either reference frame. Use of a particular frame is a choice, often chosen by convenience. It’s not dictated by the physics.

“now” is not well-defined for anyone else, unlike t=0. Speculations does not mean anything goes. While one may introduce a speculation (if they follow the rules of the speculation section), responses need to be established science . We are limited to following relativity.

There’s a reason why we use “t=0” rather than “now” You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules of speculations

Does that mean you don’t form mental images?

I claim that nobody makes mental images. What evidence can you present that they do?

Except for the timing delays that you acknowledge. You account for them in physics experiments when relevant, e.g. coincidence measurements or delay lines. The fact that they are biological instead of copper or fiber optic doesn’t mean that physics isn’t involved. Signal delay is signal delay.

! Moderator Note English is the international language of science Open a new thread should you choose to post in English

I don’t think this is an issue. I doubt ascending to the presidency is why he wanted the job, but if he was set to take over the presidency, he would no longer be the speaker, and if there was a need for him to take over, it would happen immediately - before the house could oust him as speaker.

I’d think that all afflictions were identified before being officially recognized and listed in a manual. Not recognized ≠ not real

Speed of sound wasn’t one of the given variables. Pressure was. Inflammatory? You’re the one who said “these questions cannot be quantified with authority,” not me.

So your estimation of 8 degrees was not based on any well-established science? Was your statement based on any science or measurement, or did you just make it up?

Speculations need to be backed up by evidence. I’ve been trying to get you to show that there is some solid foundation for the idea. You claimed that “The peak of the pressure wave is hotter and the trough cooler due to compression/expansion and this does affect sonic velocity.” but this seems to not be much of an effect for normal sound levels. There’s nothing speculative about establishing this. The pressure amplitude of the sound generated is not directly from blowing, but from vibration, be it a reed or one’s lips, and trying to equate the two is erroneous. If you want to analyze the temperature effects from really loud sounds, that’s fine, but you need to acknowledge when the analysis applies and when it doesn’t. Constant speed of sound looks to be a really good approximation for most cases.

So at some other point the value is different. If you measure it at the bell, it’s a smaller area, and thus a larger pressure value Your analysis and conversion seems ad-hoc. It wouldn’t work for a point source. An actual bell, for example. Citation, please So the temperature effect at “standard distance” will be much smaller.

How did you get from 2.5W to 2.5W/m^2? Being able to generate 10kPa of pressure for airflow does not mean that’s the sound amplitude

But if it’s 174 dB for your 8 degrees, and the actual sound level is 124 dB, then the pressure amplitude is below 100 Pa, with a corresponding drop in temperature. < 0.08K doesn’t seem like it’s a big deal, which is likely why it’s ignored.

I’m getting just under 174 dB. (not sure why it depends on the frequency) with 20 microPa as the reference pressure https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/db https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure

How many dB does that represent?

! Moderator Note No. I don’t think the evidence supports this allegation, but the more important issue is that this is off-topic and irrelevant. If one thinks a proposition is poorly framed, one may ask for clarification. This is not uncommon.