swansont

The rotation rate would still vary, owing to varying mass distribution on the planet (precipitation, rotation of weather systems, tectonic activity, etc.) and you’d expect it to slow from tidal friction. And the precision of the measurement of the rotation would still be significantly worse than atomic clocks. We use the rotational period of the earth because we live here. It’s convenient and what we’re used to, so change isn’t likely. Kinda like how the US resists the metric system. There’s nothing special about it when it comes to physics. It’s not “universal” by any stretch.

Why would different fields of science be looking at the same data? Do you have an example of this (different interpretations of data) happening?

The philosophy is that empirical evidence means something. The observed behavior is real, and not an illusion or hallucination. The methodology is what’s different. Sociologists don’t use e.g. mass spectrometers very often. But since it’s not a hard science, this isn’t particularly relevant.

That makes it a poor clock, but it’s still a clock. It doesn’t show any measurable time dilation, but that’s only because it’s not previse enough. The effect is still there. Much like how people don’t diffract when going through a door, or look like waves. The QM effect is way too small. If you did the calculation I described earlier you could show this.

Sociology is not a physical (“hard”) science*. I’m not sure how data interpretation counts as philosophy. *lots of things can be studied in a scientific manner, (e.g. hypotheses being falsifiable, and supporting or discarding them based on evidence), or incorporating relevant branches of science as tools, but that doesn’t make them science. It’s a way of increasing their rigor. History, for example.

You’re asking about some very specific effects here, and unless one of our me bers wirks in the industry and these aren’t trade secrets, I doubt you’re going to get answers. I will point out that it’s all heat transfer. There’s no such thing in physics as cold transfer. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy owing to a temperature difference. Things heat or cool depending on the direction of heat transfer, i.e adding or removing energy.

It’s kinda hard to isolate someone from other factors. One of the reasons for the fatalities is making you more susceptible to other factors. As exchemist suggests, rabies kills quickly. So does ebola. Even it’s not just the virus, you’re still dead.

All clocks experience time dilation. But it’s not measurable unless you have sufficient precision. (All clocks are affected by mundane environmental effects, too that are not effects on time) Earth rotation is one form of clock. As I pointed out above, not all things that affect clock rate are effects on time. Things that affect time affect all clocks. A slower clock on earth does not “make the day faster” - nothing would, unless time itself is affected. If a clock runs slow, it needs to be recalibrated against a standard. I’m not sure who you think claims they are mutually exclusive, but I don’t see how they say anything about the nature of time. They do definitely tell us about the nature of timekeeping. Earth rotation is not consistent and is of limited precision. But it is most definitely be affected by relativity, but owing to the limited precision, it’s not noticeable at a level it could measure This is based on a false notion. You might calculate the level of relativist effects on earth - how the speed changes over the course of a year and the variation in gravitational potential, to see what the relativistic effects are. Then compare it to the precision of earth time. Until you do that, your claim has no factual basis. ET is not invariant, period. The epoch for defining the second was based on the tropical year 1900, but the earth rotation rate varies on the order of ms per day, with an overall decrease over time, though we’ve seen periods where it’s sped up. We went away from using earth rotation because the earth is a comparatively crappy clock.

You can only show them to be wrong by having their models not match experiment. Does that happen? Kinetic energy in a Newtonian system. Lorentz factor in relativity. Law of Malus. Energy-momentum equation in relativity. Image location in optics. Please derive these using only dimensional analysis.

That’s why we adopt a common standard. It’s not that there is an absolute time, “absolute” having a particular meaning in the context of relativity, since we are free to choose another standard, and it’s dictated by convenience rather than physics. Clocks measure time. Saying otherwise requires changing what is meant by one or the other.

Moderator NoteTo all who read this: KNOCK THIS CRAP OFF

Examples? There are underlying philosophies of all science, such as the notion that there are objective, knowable facts to be discovered. That nature behaves according to consistent laws. That theories must be falsifiable,

Repeating this doesn’t make it true.

The length of a day of an earth rotation isn’t constant, and ET is defined in terms of the revolution about the sun. I have no idea why you think it’s not a clock. I can measure durations measured in days with earth rotation. Atomic time is used because it can be measured more accurately and precisely than any method based on earth rotation/revolution.

Did Musk do any hidden donations, like Russia contributing to the NRA, or the Russian oligarch that used middlemen to launder contributions? I know there was an issue with how he amplified things on Xitter. I’m not sure what “interfering” Vance did; he made some awful and idiotic comments, but speech isn’t interference, either. Not like the state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. Just a doofus politician being a blowhard, being amplified by the media. And with the anti-Midas touch similar to Trump’s.

I wouldn’t call being the cautionary tale “interfering”

Bottom line is that it’s complex and no one variable is going to capture the situation. The complexity of the analysis also points to the inter-connectedness of the policies. The US embarked on multiple policies that encourage sprawl, basically requiring cars for a fair fraction of the population, which constrains other policy decisions.

“Perhaps tell them to read” is in their very first post in this thread. (Wed 12:58 PM, by the time tag for my time zone)

The standard language of science is English. If you want to have a discussion, that’s the standard we use.

Rule 2.7 Upload is for reference/supplemental material only (mainly it’s meant for pictures to be displayed in the post) It reduces the number of people spamming us with walls of text, and helps force them to actually engage. Editing is only possible for a limited time.

Part of the reason Americans drive more is that things are spread out and transit infrastructure is lacking, relative to Europe. Pretty sure there are more lane-miles of road in the US, with half of Europe’s population, so those roads cost more per driver. And driving more means more wear and tear on those roads, which drives up the cost.

As discussed in another thread, this is not necessarily the cause of inflation So you have a certain amount in constant dollars, but in a bank you still earn interest.

This is in the philosophy section.

I’m getting rather tired of accusations like this, and it’s happened from multiple people, to multiple members, that lack evidence. From my vantage point, it seems no more than a vibe based on syntax that someone finds unusual. Nobody has made a case (that I can see) that weird syntax does not happen with e.g. people for whom English isn’t their first language but trying to write it, or are getting a translation. “You’re a bot” is like mocking someone for having an accent. “You talk funny” is a children's schoolyard taunt. You (collectively) are rolling out the unwelcome wagon. You have the option of just not participating. Please choose that option. If you have actual evidence of LLM use, the post should be reported along with that evidence. There’s no acceptable option that includes accusing someone in a thread.

Moderator NoteAny material for discussion needs to be posted here - not an upload (or link) Perhaps you could start with specifically how superposition fails - in what experiment(s) does it not occur? Certainly if you overlap two incoherent sources, it properly predicts intensity, and it gives us the spacing of maxima and minima in interference (spectrometers and spectrophotometers work, after all) You posted here 10 years ago, but did not follow up. Just FYI