swansont

Clocks that contribute to UTC are in different gravitational potentials. How is that different? There are efforts to come up with a timescale to use on the moon, and for time in arbitrary locations in space (DSAC) Kinda like the Hafele-Keating experiment, only more complicated. Like how clocks in UTC must make elevation corrections. Because you keep arguing points that imply or say so, such as: If it measures time, it’s a clock.

Moderator Note…and this is where you took a sharp turn into WAG nonsense that is in no way compliant with speculations. (not to imply the veracity of anything else). Don’t post such nonsense here again.

A clock located at the appropriate location will give you that time, or something that could be converted to it. (e.g. adjust for the gravitational time dilation, which we do for UTC) You can do a similar conversion for any other location and frame.

Yup. If you chose imperial units you’d have the same situation. Numerically different constants. No, that’s not the case. You’d have a different value, but the invariance of c has not changed. The time just ticks faster by about 1.5 x 10^-8 Moving clocks are still clocks. Clocks in different gravitational potentials or different accelerations are still clocks. I don’t know why you think they aren’t.

I know there’s an effect called magnetostriction, which is the physical expansion/contraction of domains as you cycle the magnetic field; I think it’s responsible for the humming of transformers. My only exposure to magnetic refrigeration was in the context of discussion of cryogenic cooling, done by someone on my thesis committee, in contrast to the then-new concept of laser cooling that was used in my research. That was limited to small amounts of heat flow to get you fairly cold (tenths of a Kelvin?) but you still had to remove energy via other means, and had to start pretty cold (e.g. liquid nitrogen and then helium, IIRC)

But the US is not representative of developed countries. It’s one of the exceptions that doesn’t have universal health care.

How is this beyond your control? It’s your idea. If you don’t have a model, or can’t make predictions, then your idea has not reached the point where you should be making assertions that it’s valid/true. It doesn’t meet the minimum requirement for discussion here.

Mrs.Tilly likes moose and deer but not elk or caribou

You ignored the comma, which changes the meaning. “-g, directed downward” “directed downward” merely confirms what the - sign means, since an answer of “-g” could be misunderstood. Since you are free to choose any coordinate system, the - direction could mean up. It’s not the most popular convention, but it does get used.

Moderator NoteThere is no need to post your rough draft.

I can see this problem on my desktop but not the tablet

There are a number of different timescales out there. UTC, TAI, UT1, and more https://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/time.html GPS time is a different one as well, since it doesn’t include leap seconds, so it’s offset from UTC Clocks on earth tick at different rates, depending on their elevation (or possibly altitude) It simply isn’t a problem, since you can convert one into the other. Pendulums aren’t, and don’t have to be, a uniform length for a pendulum clock. You can use a variety of atoms in atomic clocks. Calibration/translation is mainly a matter of math. A regular and reproducible pattern can be made into a clock; but it’s not guaranteed to be straightforward engineering, and the quality of the clock (accuracy and stability) is not a guarantee. Most clocks don’t conform to SI standards, or don’t have to. Cs clocks are a small minority of clocks in this world, and an even smaller minority of all clocks when considered over history (probably most of which predate SI units)

I can’t recreate this (but it could be from my moderator powers)

Just some simple notions pop up - how does the time flow “know” to change when something changes from being nonliving to living or vice-versa? You kill food and eat it and it becomes part of a living thing again. Does the C-14 in it decay at a different rate when it changes state? Does K-40 decay at a different rate in a rock than in a potato or banana?

What evidence supports this, and/or what experiment would confirm it?

Why would it have to? There’s a whole lot of empty space out there. We can see stars and galaxies that are pretty far away, and if we can see them it means there’s nothing blocking the view.

I think one has to also consider that language changes over time, that the Old Testament was based on oral stories that were eventually written down, and errors are made in copying/retelling. What they meant when they told the story ~4000 years ago might not be what we interpret today.

How did you get this from a statement about calculation not being necessary? Not all analysis of evidence requires the inclusion of math. When Darwin noticed differences in finch beaks, and concluded that evolution happened, there was no formula that he wrote down.

I named two things in physics which are not real objects. I was asking which one you meant when you mentioned hypothetical object. Virtual particles are “found” in descriptions and calculations of particle interactions, such as Feynman diagrams. Electron holes are “found” in descriptions and calculations of semiconductor behavior. And it’s often useless to throw dictionary definitions around in science, since there are instances where those definitions differ from the definition used in physics (like coincidence, or acceleration, and perhaps more importantly, theoretical). In any event, neither virtual particles nor electron holes are hypothetical. They are real concepts. but not real objects.

Absolutely true, but youre the one who brought up physics and made dubious claims about it. Had you made dubious claims about chemistry, et al., other people might chime in. Not if you’re going to make baseless claims. I’m hoping you’ll stop that. What is this hypothetical object? The items I discussed don’t physically exist, and physics doesn’t claim they do.

Being ignorant of this is not the same as it being true. Not knowing the specific values is not the same thing as saying we don’t have evidence of it being nonzero. Doesn’t matter.

I don’t know why you think this.

cosmic neutrino background red-shift has indirect evidence to support it, but this is, once again, a distraction from the topic being discussed. Come up with actual evidence and there’s something to discuss. But you’re basing this on a what-if scenario that has no evidence and on a premise we know to be false (massless neutrino), so it’s based on yet another conjecture that some new neutrino exists. Has anyone built such a ruler?

It’s a pet peeve of mine, mainly from social media posts saying “look at this neat clock” and it’s a possibly neat display hooked up to a rather mundane physics package, which what does the measurement

Moderator Note A file called “Truth in Bible” isn’t about dark matter (it’s been removed)and discussing what ChatGPT told you isn’t acceptable here