swansont

How is this known to be the case?

This has an effect on the normal force, which is what we perceive, but not on gravity.

We can see from the pictures that the tank is around 20 cm long, and maybe it’s 12 cm tall and perhaps 8 cm deep. That’s ~2 liters (edit: i.e. a half gallon, as periphery note). 4.4 lbs if it’s all water. So maybe 7 or 8 lbs, plus a few more for the glass. 10 lbs or so.

Can you explain why you think this is the case?

No, that’s not the reason. The ratio for nuclei stable vs beta decay grows larger as Z increases. And that ratio is not the reason for stability, merely an indicator. As Z increases, the electrostatic repulsion increases, as it has an infinite range, but the nuclear attraction saturates, owing to its finite range. You need more neutrons in larger nuclei. What the nuclei are “trying to obtain” is being in the lowest energy state. If a beta decay gets them to a lower energy state, they will decay. Similar to a ball rolling downhill to minimize its potential energy. same as above - spontaneous decay will happen because the final state is lower in energy. The mass is lower.

I’ve seen this claim before, but it’s actually erroneous. It’s true that if the GPS clocks were not adjusted they would accumulate a time difference of ~38 microseconds a day as compared to ground clocks (and ct would be around 10 km), but this would not show up as a positioning error in GPS, since the GPS clocks nominally run at the same rate, and the trilateration uses timing differences between signals from the GPS clocks. These clocks would random walk away from each other, and accumulate differences from orbital variations, if not synched up. But this would be on the scale of nanoseconds, not microseconds, per day. One of the reasons the clocks are adjusted is so that you can do clock corrections from the ground station, which uses time from the USNO master clock. If you didn’t do that, you would be forced to have clocks synchronize within the constellation (whose clocks are less stable than the master clock) which would be less efficient and less precise, so you’d potentially end up with a larger positioning error. But measured in meters, not kilometers

Did you? One can’t help but notice you haven’t provided any calculations in support of your proposal. Must pass all tests, yes. Must conduct all tests, no. As Markus has already noted, there are other ways to test GR, and we would have noticed issues. Nobody has denied this, or even hinted at it.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged

Yes, it’s just a different scenario, but this range has been tested. Slower and faster speeds, and deeper and shallower locations in a gravitational potential. No new physics is proposed that this would reveal, and no new limits are going to be tested. No compelling reason to spend from a limited budget since that could mean some other science would not take place.

That’s supposed to be the focus: inquiring about claims and/or responding with mainstream material that rebut or support them

But it is about the data range. When you see experimental GR or QM results reported, it’s invariably because the new results cover that new ground. As far as the “proper” calculation goes, you are free to do it.

No, I said you can’t justify spending money on an experiment without some expectation of a novel result. If you can test to a higher level of precision, that’s uncharted territory. Deviations from theory could be detected. The moon does not represent a range of speed or gravitational potential that hasn’t been tested. What experiments with high costs, that are testing some data range that’s already been investigated, can you name?

Clocks (and other hardware) that go to space must be able to withstand the vibrations and acceleration associated with launch, being in vacuum, temperature range/cycling, and the radiation they will be subjected to in space. (plus more) Not commercial off-the-shelf electronics. One example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-883 Since electronics depends on QM being correct, we are already implicitly assuming that QM is correct if we send missions anywhere. But you aren’t suggesting that QM is in question on the moon, and needs to be tested.

It wasn’t addison’s proposal, and it’s their thread.

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?