swansont

It’s not clear that this is the case. There are examples where it isn’t - Loki, Hades, etc. Indifferent or malevolent gods.

How do you test this idea?

What is sec? I don’t recognize that as a variable.

#2 Yes. When a molecule absorbs a photon that excites it above the lowest excited state it can then emit lower-energy photons as it decays back to the ground state

Evidence? He killed the deal that was keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons. People can make money in the stock market even in a bad economy. That’s not the case for workers and small business owners. Trump’s “deal” with the British means a few rich people can buy a Rolls Royce. Meanwhile, US auto companies are still getting hammered by tariffs on imported components. (Trump has no legal authority to make trade treaties, and his tariffs are likely illegal) Who the hell thinks parents buy their kids 20 dolls for Christmas? Rich idiots, for one, who get whatever they want. And they’re quite adept at telling the masses to make sacrifices while they make none. We’ll see how that plays out starting pretty soon, when certain goods aren’t available.

How do each of the constants in physics change (i.e. by what factor are they bigger or smaller if c doubled)? Planck’s constant, vacuum permittivity and permeability, fundamental charge, etc.

Yes, basically. They realize the second, or a frequency tied to that, so you can tell if your clocks are running fast or slow, and make adjustments as necessary. So you’d have a bunch of clocks, and do the calibrations once in a while. It can be a year between these assessments; they sometimes dismantle the standard to modify it. Yup, but small improvements add up over time. Most people aren’t going to notice the result but it does push other standards labs to make similar improvements.

The first thing I’ll note is that it’s a frequency standard, not a clock, but that’s a pet peeve that basically only bothers me. (clocks run continuously) I’m guessing that the new cavities they mention incorporates a lot of cavity design modeling that Kurt Gibble has done over the years. The basic fountain design is decades-old technology by now, but the best you can do for a primary standard, which has to use cesium and probe the microwave hyperfine transition (a spin flip of the ground states) By tossing the atoms up at a few m/s you get them to be in a superposition of those states for a good fraction of a second, so it’s billions of oscillations, and since it uses the same cavity you eliminate certain errors you get with a two-cavity beam apparatus. By making the atoms cold you can get some fraction to come back down on-axis; the thermal speed at the temperatures they run at is of order 1 cm/s, so the ball of atoms they toss slowly expands. Since it’s a primary standard, much of the paper is the assessment of the various frequency shifts and uncertainties in them that are present. (Trivia questions that imply that you’re probing at 9,192,631,770 Hz are wrong; there’s a magnetic field present that moves you away from that, but you can determine that field so you know what the shift is. Not being at 0 K also gives you a shift) That requires a lot of careful work It’s an incremental improvement more than being ground-breaking, much like shaving a millisecond off a world record sprint time. It’s still a new record.

You’re missing the point. ET doesn’t compensate for relativity because you can’t measure the rotation to sufficient precision. If you could, though, you’d notice relativistic effects, because relativity affects time. You need to do more than assert otherwise.

Levers work and cranes work, so you need to be a lot more descriptive. A diagram would help immensely.

What is the expected relativistic effect, and is a measurement of rotation capable of this level of precision? Geosat sees ~50 microseconds a day, which is roughly 8.6 x 10^4 seconds, so you need to measure rotation to a part in 10^9. So, ~10^-8 radians If you can’t do this, then you can’t offer it as a test. We can, however, measure time dilation in physically rotating systems (a centrifuge) using Mössbauer spectroscopy.

Can you think of an experiment that would confirm that ET is not subject to the effects of relativity?

All actual evidence to the contrary. Nothing says genius like four bankrupt casinos.

There are multiple possibilities under the broad label of capitalism. Pure, unadulterated capitalism is horrible, which is why laws and regulations exist, and why most countries have socialist policies in place. Even the wealthy like socialism when it’s to their advantage, even as they use the label as a scapegoat.

Moderator NoteYou posted this in Astronomy and Cosmology. We expect mainstream physics to be discussed here. Non-mainstream science goes in the Speculations section, where you must comply with its rules

Images can be uploaded rather than linked, especially when the link is not a full, descriptive url. We don’t like anything that resembles a link shortener.

Yup. The 0.1% have convinced the lowest ~50% that the reason they’re not doing well is that others in that group are stealing from them in some way. Having oligarchs tell people to make do with less while they grab as much as they can? They can eff off into the sun.

Yep. Neil Ashby derives the full effect in his living reviews of relativity paper. I recall asking a colleague if we had to compensate our clocks for latitude, and they said no but weren’t sure why, so I dug into it. (Einstein got this wrong in his original SR paper, in assuming the earth was a rigid sphere, and GR not yet being developed.)

Agree. Not a joke. Red meat for the ravenous believer.

Chip-scale atomic clocks are among the least precise atomic clocks. Their utility is their size, not their stability. Not think it was rotating? The stars wouldn’t appear to move? Foucalt’s pendulum wouldn’t work? Surely you don’t think so. A perfectly spherical earth would have more relativistic effects than the oblate spheroid we live on. The deformation means the kinematic time dilation from rotation, which varies with latitude, cancels with the gravitational time dilation on the geoid. You seem to be under the impression that relativity only affects atomic clocks, which is not the case. Relativity affects time. Atomic clocks have sufficient precision to measure the effects, but if the effects were sufficiently pronounced, other clocks could measure it. A change in time implies a change in length. That’s relativity. This is not dependent on the definition of the meter (i.e. it was true prior to 1983) This is very much not what relativity says

English, please. What’s considered the international language of science.

The mods would be more responsive if others had not initiated the rudeness - and quite a lot of it - in earlier threads. We’re more lenient when the comments (which are fairly mild, really) are going both ways. The question here is who will de-escalate and focus on the subject matter. From the looks of it so far, nobody is stepping up.

One problem is that G isn’t determined to a very high precision 6.67430(15)×10^-11 m^3/kg s^2 The limitations on that would affect any system relying on it. You can measure dimensionless constants, such as the fine structure constant, to determine that

Originally adopted in 1952. The definition updated in 1960. And for scientific purposes (many of the applications of precise time, especially back then, are scientific. Commerce generally didn’t require the same level of precision)

“give me the scientific properties of theoretical traversing of the space time continuum” is pretty vague. What is it you want to discuss?