swansont

Universe times disagree - your value for the muon frame isn’t the same as the other places you give it. Which one is correct?

No, you need to post information here, to comply with rule 2.7 That doesn't really make sense. What about a clocks on the earth? They are changing more than one spatial coordinate. No, clearly I am not. How about you explain it to me. So moving in the +x direction makes time go backwards? That's not a problem. But you must not use relativity terminology, and we'll just focus on experimental results, which are independent of theory. How do you get from 0.95c to " 0.0975s per 1s rest frame clock time"? The distance is 10km, not 1 km, but more importantly, I thought you claim that there is no length contraction in the muon frame. Everybody agrees on the length. ("Length is a physical property of the universe that is constant for all observers.") The velocity is higher? In the earth frame, at 10km, the muon experiences a little over 4 half-lives (while without relativity you would expect >22 half-lives) The time dilation factor is around 5. Without length contraction, to make the same trip means going ~5 times faster, or ~4.75 times the speed of light. So how would I synchronize a clock in that building to mine? How do you measure this distance? The amount of timing difference can be measured because we can measure time very precisely. Put another way: you need to propose an experiment where it's possible to actually measure the results to see if predictions hold up. The key to relativity is to understand that measurements in two frames of reference must agree, with the same physics being applied. You don't have one set of rules for one frame, and a different set of rules in another frame.

People don't seem to realize that not getting vaccinated means that there's close to 100% probability that you will eventually catch the disease. Unless you die from something else. High vaccination levels would make the latter more of an important part of the equation, and includes "old age." In the US we're already at >10% having had the disease.

Then you can share the analysis here. There's no distance in the rest frame? I can see a building that looks to be 100m from me, and neither of us is moving. It's not actually 100m away? Or if I have an imaginary starting line for muons that's 10 km above the earth, it's not actually 10 km above the earth, because we're in the same frame? Light does not have an inertial frame in relativity. The results diverge; you can't transform into that frame or out of it. e.g. for my example above, if I told you that light took no time in its own frame to get to me from an adjacent building, could you tell me how far away the building was? As none of us are photons, this shouldn't be a problem for analysis. We only have to worry about the lab (rest) frame and the frame of some moving, massive object. Future axis? Non-future axis? Those are things you've added; they aren't in the OP. Is your model in the OP not sufficient to do analysis? We need the whole model. Units matter here. The relativistic way of dealing with this is to use ct as a distance. Or, I suppose you could use t = d/c. But use proper and consistent units, please. 1 second is not a distance. I'm not asking what happens in light's "frame" None of the questions I have asked or will ask require an analysis in light's frame. As I said, none of us are photons. I want answers that will be the result of measurements taken by (massive) observers in a given frame. It's a derived constant? Please derive it. But not until after you provide us with your analysis of the muon experiment in the earth frame and muon frame.

How about comparing your conjecture with the known relativistic effects of muon decay in the atmosphere The speed of light is not infinite Then why does it take a noticeable/measurable amount of time for light to travel to/from a satellite? Why do experiments measure a finite value of about 3 x 10^8 m/s?

I think this depends on what is meant by "space" which is somewhat ambiguous But it probably doesn't mean volume for this graph, because we should see the volume increase and then decrease for positive curvature, and that's not depicted. And for negative curvature, you don't shrink. AFAIK you wouldn't shrink starting from the BB anyway. I interpreted as depicting curvature. Graphing that over time, however, is...interesting.

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your site and requiring people to go there to get information violates rule 2.7. Bumping without addressing some long-standing questions is soapboxing, a violation of rule 2.8

It's a graph, with time being on the x-axis. Usually one uses a linear scale, unless there's a compelling reason not to. Nothing. It's a graph. Only the lines mean anything. No. This has nothing to do with travel. It's different possibilities of how the universe might have evolved after the BB. As Endy said, evidence supports the notion that we evolved along the blue line, rather than one of the others. Yes. If we're on the blue line, so is everybody else.

We read up on entanglement in our journal club probably 5 or 6 years ago, and I recall from one paper where there were different polarization state combinations possible, but one in particular was desired*, and you could do a unitary transformation in the QM analysis to get from one to another. In an experiment this would be a half-wave plate in one of the photon paths. I'm much more attuned to optics/lasers techniques than spin, so that's what stuck. *this is an educated guess rather than a clear recollection, but having cross-polarizations mean you can combine or split them using a polarizing beamsplitter, which might have been what they were after Right. And it's a common misconception (and repeated in pop-sci articles) that you are wiggling one particle and seeing the other instantly wiggle in response, and that's decidedly NOT happening.

Power is going to be a function of the area of your collector and the efficiency of coupling. Your stated requirement means you need 1 kW/m^2 of sunlight. You start with ~1380 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere, and you lose some from absorption and scattering in the atmosphere, and you have to modify for the angle from latitude and time of day, so your goal is only possible near the equator and around noon, unless your system is tracking the sun, which would buy you some more time. It also assumes you are coupling all of the light, and it's never cloudy. (None of the above violates the second law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law limits you to not being able to heat the target to a temperature higher than the source)

Why does a bell ring when you strike it? Here's a simple physics lab where the speed of sound was measured in precisely the fashion you say doesn't work http://seniorphysics.com/physics/PhysicsEducation_V35(6)_2000.pdf Repeating this doesn't make it true. You can get both transverse and longitudinal waves in a string

Some of it is. But some (perhaps most) is not.

You can change the spin, or with photons change the polarization. With the latter you just send it through a half-wave plate. All this does is change the correlated states. If the initial entanglement was up/down (or H/V for photons) then you've made the correlation to be the same state. If you measure a spin to be up, you know the other is up. These actions do not inherently break the entanglement

! Moderator Note Nobody here is qualified to diagnose you; you can get some tidbits of information, but beyond that it's a matter of you discussing this with a medical professional. Either asking your current doctor why they think it's migraine-related, and/or getting a second opinion.

It looks to me like iNow has properly clarified their position on this, and I agree with the assessment that you should know how this works. It's not that the claim is untrue, it's that it's invalid without evidence to support it (which is why the inference - not the conclusion - is deemed false). And it's your burden to support the claim.

Really nuclear energy, misnamed. Pet peeve o' mine. Gave us images like and one here: https://www.toonsmag.com/herbert-block-1909/

Science provides us with knowledge. That this knowledge can be used for good or ill isn't science's fault - those are choices people make.

If that were the case there wouldn't be fusion going on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core hydrogen mass fraction starts to decrease rapidly after the core radius has been reached (it is still about 70% at a radius equal to 25% of the Sun's radius) and inside this, the hydrogen fraction drops rapidly as the core is traversed, until it reaches a low of about 33% hydrogen, at the Sun's center (radius zero).[5] All but 2% of the remaining plasma mass (i.e., 65%) is helium, at the center of the Sun.

You gave a book title. A proper reference would include a page number. That, and the likelihood that you simply misunderstood the comment, or took it out of context. The burden of proof is on you to back up your claims. I asked a question, because it's laughable to suggest that particles cannot be contained. So it's obvious to me that there is detail being omitted, and you need to supply the detail. In my experience, scientists don't hand-wave in this fashion. A proper reference would include exactly where the source material can be found, and might even include a quote from the work in question, in order to establish the context. In any event, it's what we expect here on this forum. Fair use allows you to post passages. Projection?

That's already the case. The constant entropy condition is the crystal itself, and the state it's in, and ignores all of the equipment necessary to get the crystal into the state where this behavior is possible. The materials identified for these time crystals aren't very precise oscillators, and the things we use for precise clocks (i.e. atoms and ions) aren't candidates for time crystals. That doesn't preclude some candidate being identified in the future, but for now, and talk of time crystals as clocks is a nonstarter, other than as a novelty item. Plus, as you note above, reading out the oscillations would require interacting with the crystal, and you'd lose the constant-entropy condition. There are classical analogues to this, where you have master-slave pendulums, so the high-precision pendulum is only perturbed slightly, which minimizes the compromise to its behavior.

Or the tap water has gunk in it (that’s not common to both data sets). But I’d bet on moisturizer additives in the soap.

Nobody has gotten around the 2nd law, which states that entropy of an isolated system can’t decrease, and it hasn’t. Usually it increases, and in this case it hasn’t, or at least that’s apparently the case.

The issue isn’t that they change spins - the spins are undetermined until measured. And in entanglement, once you measure one particle, you know the spin of the other. It’s one event.

I’m on an iPad and it plays embedded. Maybe the OS capabilities impact this - whether some codec is supported, allowing embedded play? (edit: sorry, my earlier post was pre-caffeine and I thought you were apologizing for how the video rendered.)

The period varies with the square root of the length, so the oscillations are out of phase. But they will eventually get 180 deg. out of phase, and later back in phase, with each pendulum having completed a different number of oscillations, and relatively quickly if you choose the lengths properly.