swansont

Again, this is a revelation only to you.

I failed to recognize them as proofs because they are not. You’ve been told this several times, and yet you seem incredibly uncurious as to what is lacking. You have a number of people familiar with, and actually trained in science who could critique your “efforts” As you have acknowledged, temperature affects all atoms’ transitions, and thus cesium is not unique, so this can’t be a consideration. The earth’s non-constant spin was apparent well before atomic clocks were invented; pendulum clocks, and later quartz clocks, were able to show this. You’re 0-for-2 (you also seem to be confusing accuracy and precision) You don’t say what the 3.24 cm refers to, and you should know that in a cesium beam clock such as a 5061 or 5071 (formerly made by HP) there is no visible light involved - the atoms are detected - and should also know that the time-of-flight to the detector doesn’t matter in the measurement. But you don’t know this, because you are way out if your depth.

turnover here is referring to changing one thing to another. It’s caused by the viruses, so it’s viral turnover. Whatever the products of the lysis are is the fertilization.

Thank you, captain obvious. That’s the standard understanding of darkness: the absence of light.

“proofs”? You’ve asserted it, with no supporting science, and I countered that assertion. You’ve not addressed what I have said in rebuttal. Your contention that some other standard could have been chosen, that would not be subject to temperature effects, contradicts this. Perhaps you can discuss the reasons cesium was chosen as the standard, to demonstrate your understanding of the issues. News flash: absolutely nobody is claiming that temperature changes control time. Except you. “field energy differences”? How, exactly, does this allegedly slow down the frequency?

All atoms are subject to the effects of temperature. Cesium is by no mean unique in this regard. Your fixation on this suggests that you don’t actually understand the issues involved The definition is for the atom at 0 K; the effects of temperature are accounted for when doing a frequency evaluation. I believe I covered this already. Earth rotation variability is much larger than the temperature effects - rotation variation is on order of milliseconds per day over the course of the year. IIRC for our rubidium fountains the effect was smaller than a part in 10^16 per degree, so maintaining the temperature to 0.1 K variation was the goal. So more than a factor of 10^10 better. One motivating factor for adopting atomic time.

I don't know what "time value added to the cesium atom" means Time positively cares about the frequency, since you "count the ticks" to tell what time is. More ticks means more time has elapsed. fewer ticks, less time.

There was a frequency change, so the accumulated time was different. The amount of time difference depends on the duration of the trip; IOW both descriptions are true and valid. But it's objective, not subjective. It's not incorrect. They frequencies disagree, and this is in accordance with the theory of relativity. Time (and frequency) are relative to the frame of reference in which they are measured.

You are free to make a compelling argument as to what this incorrect physics is, and why this is the case. But given your track record, I'm skeptical that you will do so. (I expect we will get more vague drawings) Science is also self-correcting, in the long run which is one reason why scientists have jobs.

The label is beside the point.

Funny how you never mentioned the Casimir effect, nor provided any equations related to it. Actually that second part isn't all that surprising, since the Casimir force depends on the fourth power of separation distance of the conducting plates, and is hard to see even with micron-level separations, so making it more than a million times bigger means the effect is 10^24 times smaller. And that's one reason why the math is important: so we can quickly rule out wild supposition. But you don't go through any mathematical justification whatsoever. Nada. Zilch.

! Moderator Note You need to be more explicit in step 2 (those of you familiar with Sidney Harris will get the reference)

You have an opportunity to present mathematical models of how nature might behave, and present ideas for experiments that would test the model. Or to present results of novel experiments, and discuss how they might imply new science. Just like anybody else doing science. Science isn't done with poorly-explained drawings (which are not experiments, BTW) and terminology that is unexplained, unnecessary or misappropriated from established science. You might notice that your first speculative thread was not shut down immediately. It was after you ignored questions that were put to you. Complaining about not having a discussion has to include your refusal to participate; it seems your "discussion" is just you lecturing, and that's not our idea of discussion. You can go get a blog somewhere for that. I'm an actual physicist and I do not agree with your assessment. Using terminology from physics is a necessary but insufficient condition for doing actual physics. Actual physics requires equations (derived from physics principles, not pulled out of one's ass)

No, this is not true, (though this is a common response) but it shows that you aren’t really paying attention to what’s going on. Your threads that have been closed were closed because you didn’t follow the rules. You were asked to comply, and you did not do so. If you had provided the information that the rules require, the threads would have remained open.

In the US it's not necessarily a huge number owing to the way elections are broken down. Only presidential and senate races have millions of people involved (in most states) for federal races (and elections for governor and some other statewide offices), and because of the electoral college, senate and presidential have the same voting population. Congressional and local elections have far fewer numbers. The sentiment involved is called civic duty and even then a decent chunk of people in the US can't be bothered; participation is generally higher in other countries. It may be tied in with historical abuses; people seem more interested in voting if the rulers have behaved badly in recent memory. Having the power of self-determination taken away from you (or never having it before) is pretty strong motivation. Given recent events in the US it will be interesting to see how much of a participation spike we see in this year's elections, seeing as loss of rights is very much an issue. Losing elections, especially by large margins, can be a motivating factor for politicians.

Your opinion isn't what is important here; this is a discussion of facts. Looking at the issue as "one vote doesn't matter" is flawed, because it's not just one person, it's all the people who might think that way. And elections can be lost if that attitude becomes pervasive. Elections have come down to narrow margins, and even single votes - there was one in my neck of the woods recently that ended up tied, and was decided by a coin flip. One more vote would have mattered a great deal. "One vote doesn't matter" is propaganda from people who don't want you to vote.

Novelty would mean something that is different, so they are looking at unique genetics of one virus vs another. The "arbitrary measure" suggests that some genetic differences might not matter in distinguishing between them, i.e. some measure of genetic difference might tell you that two viruses are different, when they should be classified as being the same virus. (or vice-versa)

The whole premise of entanglement is based on the fact that the states are undetermined. Local hidden variables have been experimentally ruled out.

One issue is that there is no “flip” or “change” since the states are not determined. “flip” implies going from one state to the other. The states are determined only when measured.

Time is the integral of frequency, so if there is a difference in frequency between two clocks (stemming from relativistic effects), the time they measure will be different. When will you share this model with us? And the experimental evidence that supports it? I haven’t seen a model. You gave an equation which you refuse to explain or derive, and haven’t shown how one would calculate any time dilation. Like a Nigerian prince scammer, you are promising things but not actually providing them.

I think if they don't know the term there's no real damage, though, since the gatekeeper is probably the journalist writing an article, so the quality of information depends on whether they are doing their due diligence, not the consumer of the article. I agree that some people don't realize that it's the much lower hurdle of not being obviously wrong or having shoddy methodology. It can still be wrong. The next step is checking the "repeatability" box. Not just one experiment, but several of them, with different approaches, to ensure there's no hidden issues, or that you didn't just get lucky that your p value was below some arbitrary value, or some other statistical happenstance.

I'm pretty sure most scientists and science journalists know what peer review is, and that's the target audience. What's the impact of not knowing what peer review is to a layperson? They don't read the journals.

! Moderator Note If you suspect a sockpuppet, the proper procedure is to report the post so that the mods can confirm your suspicions and deal with it. Discussion of that sort within the thread is off-topic.

in math, zero means there is nothing. It's not negative. If you had a model, you would be able to quantify how attractive this force is. Conservation of energy is not a force. If x=0 then hf/x is undefined, as it tends to infinity in the limit of x-> 0 You're just throwing around terminology that has actual meaning to people who have studied physics, but is gibberish in your hands. ! Moderator Note You've been asked for a model and have declined to provide one. The discussion does not meet the requirements of speculations. We're done here. Don't reintroduce the topic.

What's the evidence that supports your speculation? Your provided models? 1. You don't have a model 2. It's not time dilation 3. You've demonstrated nothing clearly No, evidence would be in the form of experimental results that show the equation is valid. Equations by themselves are not evidence. The temperature of atoms or ions matters for two specific reasons. Can you tell us what they are? No, the claim isn't that they can slow down time, the claim is that the frequency of the clock is affected, and if you are trying to realize the second, as one does with a cesium frequency standard, you have to account for any frequency changes that move you off of the 9192631770 Hz that is the definition of the second. Temperature not being 0 K is one of those effects. You can calculate the amount of frequency shift, and adjust your frequency assessment so that the clocks remain accurate.