swansont

I was recently reading a claim that the kinematic time dilation difference between us and the galactic core is 1200 years (though I did not verify the number) for the age of the earth. The difference between our gravitational dilation and that of the mean mass density would probably be similarly small. So to the precision of the age of the universe measurements, there is no difference. edit: numbers roughly check out, though maybe it was 12000 years. Same issue of not being significant compared to the precision. 10^-3 c means a dilation of 10^-6, so a thousand years per billion. (I was doing this in my head while at the gym, so it's just a rough estimate)

We're doing the measurement, so those two situations are the same.

Is this an issue? Any lensing sends light toward the earth, not away from it (for a higher index, light bends towards the normal), so it's a converging lens. And any increase in CO2 is going to have a minuscule effect on the index of refraction. At STP it's 1.0003, so it's small to begin with.

! Moderator Note Yes. Posts on Yang's debt plan have been split to a new thread https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121156-debt-free-college-yangs-plan-split/

UT1 is a timescale based on earth rotation with respect to the distant stars. Similarly, we have GMT which is mean solar time tied back to the prime meridian at Greenwich. What the world uses is Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), which is the time derived from all of the government timing lab contributions to the BIPM. It's still sort of based on the stars, though. Even though it's generated from atomic clocks (the atomic timescale is TAI), it is occasionally corrected before there is a difference with UT1 that exceeds a second. That's why we have leap seconds. Clocks that are moving or in a potential well will run slow relative to another clock not subject to those conditions, so they will see that less time has passed. Unless we are in some deep well that we don't know about, it's unlikely our time has been dilated by a factor of more than 2 relative to some other reference that could then measure 30 billion years. But a clock near a supermassive black hole in the center of a galaxy might have been dilated by a noticeable factor, and would think the universe is younger than 14 billion years.

! Moderator Note Indeed. ! Moderator Note You've brought this up before and it was closed because you brought no support — no model, no evidence. You were told not to bring the topic up again without that support. Now you have, and with a bait-and-switch tactic.

In 1g, for a 1m height difference, it’s about a part in 10^16 frequency shift. Current cutting-edge optical clock technology is a couple orders of magnitude better than that.

1. To use iNow’s phrasing, they currently have empty seats. The “new demand” places no new burden on them. It’s also not an increase in demand, it’s a reversion to the old demand, at least to start. 2, There’s no need for loans if tuition is free. 3. Colleges are still competing with each other. What is the evidence that demand will increase faster than supply? Enrollment is down by about a million from 2011 to 2017, and the number of HS graduates that don’t go to college is less than a million each year - almost 70% of graduates already go to college. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/ https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/69-point-7-percent-of-2016-high-school-graduates-enrolled-in-college-in-october-2016.htm The point is that the supply, in essence, grows. Latent capacity. If the supply/demand behaved as you predicted, (i.e. it applies here as you are claiming) tuition must have been falling for the last few years. Doesn’t look like that’s happening https://medium.com/@noamaltzman/keeping-up-with-modern-society-rising-cost-of-higher-education-ce451f052428

No, the power of impeachment is enumerated in the constitution.

LaurieAG has been added owing to recent posts.

Grey area? No, not so much. It's not like we don't have other evidence, presented to the house, or statements made outside of the impeachment hearings. Plus I don't think what Trump believes enters into it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and all that. The question is one of facts: did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens? If yes, he's guilty of abuse of power. Did he withhold evidence congress asked for? Yes. This should not even be in question.

That's not what I asked, though. I wasn't proposing that the court find them innocent. The danger is that they will be found guilty, and the defendant should be motivated to not want that verdict. Previously you said that innocent people are sometimes found guilty. OK, the premise then is a person who is innocent. Why would they not present evidence of their innocence? If the defense claims are true, though, then he isn't innocent. So that's a different premise, and a motivation to not have witnesses testify, and not release documents. If he's innocent, how can it harm his case?

Because, as the article points out, the bottom 20% are less likely to go to college and thus incur the debt. IOW, there is a separate problem in play. Statistics often need context. The statistics here are a criticism of a different problem, one that this plan is not meant to address. I'm not sure why you think the tuition would go up. Enrollment is declining, so there are empty slots. Colleges can take on more students without having to expand staff or facilities. More students is more income, without a corresponding increase in cost. And especially if this is coupled with subsidized/free tuition at state schools, there isn't the same incentive to raise tuition when you have to compete for students What is the harm? What I've seen is a contrived example whose math doesn't actually check out, and a claim that tuition will go up based on...nothing.

Wouldn't you say it's unusual for a person to suppress evidence if that evidence exonerated them?

The sock analogy is limited because the black sock is always black. A quantum sock does not have a color until it's measured. So if you grab one sock in the dark and put it in your gym bag, it doesn't have a color until you pull it out in a lit room. Then you instantly know the other sock has the (un)matched color. There are experiments you can do to tell whether or not the sock had a color while it was in the bag. Another limitation of the analogy is that the color of the sock does not depend on how it is measured. But a quantum particle does — if the photon has a vertical polarization and you put your detector at 30º, you will get a transmitted photon 75% of the time and an absorbed photon 25%. But if the polarization is undetermined you get 50/50. These kinds of measurements are how you can show entanglement.

Whose plan would cancel all of John’s debt? Are you criticizing an actual plan, or is this more like the “welfare queen” criticism, of an outlier case, but offered up as typical?

You can’t have an event happen in one frame but not another

Perhaps you could include some science in your responses. Even better would be science that addresses objections that have been raised.

It's not relevant because that wasn't the scenario that was presented. The followup post made it clear that the gravity gradient was not the issue being brought up, and as several people have made clear, it is not the reason for the timing difference. What Markus said was true, and is also not being applied to the problem.

How is that any different, as far as economic results go? It's just a matter of how the bureaucracy is implemented. If you tax people so that e.g. $10k of tuition becomes free for all state schools, or you let people take out loans and get forgiveness for their $10k of loans, the end result is the same. The burden on my parents was paying for a portion of school as I went. I paid off my loans own my own. I used deferments as available to delay paying them back (being in the navy afforded me this vehicle) That's not relevant here, for a few reasons. I doubt anyone who graduated 35 years ago still has debt, because of the time and because the debt was smaller. If they chose not to repay, they have suffered consequences already, to their credit rating. I have discovered government assistance that I did not qualify for, but others did. I got past it. e.g. in ~1990, Oregon did away with some rent assistance program owing to budget cuts, so I missed out while others benefitted in earlier years. That's just how it is. OTOH, I had GI bill benefits. Also, as I pointed out, the amounts were smaller in the past. Criticizing a program for not being perfect is easy, and probably not worth the effort of addressing. That depends on the repayment program. If it's capped, this is not really an issue. If you choose a more expensive (i.e. private) school, you should still be on the hook for that extra money, IMO. As I pointed out above, this means you've got to be willing to risk your credit rating on not paying money you owe Why would that make them unattainable? If the banks are guaranteed to get their payment, they would bend over backwards to make these loans. And one would hope the people who most need them are most easily approved, rather than people who are trying to game the system (those who can afford school but try to take out loans anyway)

Of course we have Trump's own catch phrase from "The Apprentice" when he wanted to fire someone. "Take him/her out!" He's famous for that.

! Moderator Note You already have a thread on this, and have been warned about relying on linked documents for support, rather than posting the information here.

One element of this is that you don't know (and can't know) the states of the particles after the interaction, but because of the interaction and the nature of the states (and conservation laws) the state of one particle dictates the state of the other, whenever they are determined. Another element is the weirdness of QM. Superposition, and indeterminate states. There's no "memory" of the states, because they aren't in a particular state.

If the balls were ferromagnetic, one could alter the path with magnets behind the board. Strong ones would not work, as the deviations would be obvious. But you could skew the probabilities. Or subtle shaping of the pins - the deflection not being 50/50 But it's probably not necessary. This is a game of chance, and in the long run, we know the outcome. All the show has to do is make sure its revenue exceeds its cost, like any game show. No different than running a roulette wheel at a casino. The house has a several percent advantage, and even though it pays out people getting the number right, it takes in more than it pays out in the long term.

The short form of this is "will an object become a black hole if it moves fast enough?" and the answer is "no"