swansont

And we were using colloquial language, so… I doesn’t, because I described a pendulum, as instructions for building a clock. I did not tell you how to operate the clock, but that wasn’t what was asked for. You can make fancier clocks, but the “physics package” is a mass suspended on something. Some of the rest of it is the readout, but a clock display is not a clock. The clocks I worked on don’t provide such output, and several of them still comprise the best continuously-running cold-atom microwave clocks in the world. I think clocks good enough to be incorporated into the BIPM timescale (and given maximum weighting in their algorithm) should count, and these are the ones that just output a 5 MHz signal. But I’m not the one claiming that a clock output defines time, and if you are suggesting that then we have lots of definitions, because no two clocks will ever agree, as long as the measurement is precise enough. And transformation behavior is just calibration, which is what timekeepers do as part of their job. The USNO Master Clock, for example, is a weighted average of close to a hundred clocks, all of which disagree to some small extent. It would likely be much less precise for a variety of reasons but it would not “differ” as such. A neutrino that oscillated every ~3 km would oscillate at ~100 kHz. Then you have poor signal/noise because of detection problems. If you could overcome the latter it would be about the same precision as a quartz clock but much bigger.

So? This doesn’t actually address anything. You said “it is a topic of geometry amongst others and mathematicians had quite some trouble to figure our (sic) a usable ways to do it.” and astronomy offers several options that were used and therefore usable. And I asked for a definition that’s not circular. Length and distance are synonyms. You’re jumping into the math without actually answering the question I asked, or the objection that started this tangent. Yes, that makes sense from a commerce perspective. In the US weights and measures standards are the province of NIST, which is in the Dept. of Commerce. Commercial measurements have to trace back to the government standard, and worldwide standard, so people can do business with each other It has nothing to do with issues with physics. And yet we’ve gone very long stretches where this was not the case. There are different version of an hour (one is 1/12 of the period of daylight, so it varies over the course if a year, or with location) but yet the concept of time still existed. What time is is not the same as how we define any particular unit of it* Standardizing was driven by commerce. *same thing applies to length, and you must tacitly agree with this, because you offered up a mathematical definition rather than cite the SI definition of the meter, or any other standard.

There’s a suggestion that the recently-fired Pentagon folk were ones that leaked this new story. And at least part of Trump’s backing is that he will never admit to a mistake. Trump needs a scapegoat, and for Hegseth to resign for some fabricated reason.

I know the T dropdown gives us options to increase or decrease, but if I copy-paste something in a big font, like a headline, clicking “100% (default)” does nothing. Somehow, that’s the new default size. Young tourists deported from US after not planning their trip well enough I can only drop that to 80% size Young tourists deported from US after not planning their trip well enoughIf I copy-paste again, it still knows that’s 80%. The only way to get it normal is to paste it where I’ve already typed, so it uses the existing setting Young tourists deported from US after not planning their trip well enough Does anyone know a simpler way? (edit: and now 80% is the new default, so “default size” basically means nothing)

We have to go with the system the new host provides. There are no more modnote boxes, because they were custom code and that’s not supported by this version.

Ambiguous statements can be interpreted multiple ways. That’s something that religion leverages. Whatever you want the answer to be, is the answer you use.

I’m pretty sure the concept of a year with seasons dates back quite a way. So, not quite that difficult to find a usable way. Sun dials date back at least ~3500 years “Arc length is the distance between two points along a section of a curve.” “Length is the distance” is self-referential. And if you do it with coordinates and positions, now you have to define those without being self-referential. You can’t define things in terms of other things without eventually looping back. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a math theorem that shows this. If I have 10 elements in my lexicon, I can define the first in terms of 9 other options, but the second leaves me 8 options, and so on. 10 elements but only 9 unique definitions.

Maybe it’s concentration? 400+ ppm is around 1 mg/L and the most you can dissolve in water is around 1g/L (at STP) and we’re not at that maximum.

Instructions to build a clock doesn’t define time. “take a mass and suspend it from a string” is not a definition of time, but you didn’t seem to have a problem with that “definition” “defining” time is an issue of metaphysics - telling people what time “is”. Physics is interested in how it behaves - the measurement. Define length without any self-reference.

I’d ask you the same thing. You certainly aren’t familiar with any physics beyond some high-school stuff. Some of the non-real items are blatantly labeled as such, like virtual particles. Is an electron hole an actual object?

Yes, but that was in the context of official government communication, where the inclusion of an “outsider” was an error. This is so much worse, because there is no circumstance where someone without a clearance and need-to-know (wife, brother, lawyer) should be included, and never on a personal device. The earlier report should have gotten him fired, and this makes that decision look even more horrible.

That’s a requirement from science itself, not part of any specific theory. A theory of everything would only explain things explainable and predictable by science. IOW, a theory of everything is not everything.

The OP asked a question, and responses should try to answer that question, and attempt to clear up any misconceptions, with mainstream science. It’s not an invitation to introduce non-mainstream discussion. Even now, after the topic has been split, we expect mainstream science. Non-mainstream science can only take place in their own thread in the speculations section I have been involved in building ~10 atomic clocks, and at no time did the definition of the second enter into the process. The definition of the second has changed since the fist atomic clocks were built - a fact you continue to ignore - so they could not have depended on it. I disagree. We do that all the time with definitions. How can you not, for a finite set of words that only reference each other? Even if it takes multiple steps, you end up in a circle.

Wow, it’s even worse. “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed plans about a military operation against the Houthis in Yemen on a second Signal group chat, this one on his personal phone and including his wife, lawyer and brother, three people familiar with the chat told CNN.” https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/20/politics/hegseth-second-signal-chat-military-plans/index.html

No, I don’t think that’s what anyone means by a theory of everything. I can’t think of any theories that require “an algorithm for legitimate descriptive language of models” Can you point to such a theory, or to anyone who makes this claim?

Any regular oscillation, sure. And? “the neutrino oscillation is an active research topic that is not yet fully understood. as of now, assuming the neutrino having a mass is just as much speculation given our current experimental results. There are even some conflicting data which are partially at odds with invariant nature, though there may still be other explanations. there is a reason why Lorentz violation is considered, including experiments that could test for it.” The passage I was objecting to was about perceiving different flows of time. I should have edited the quote further, but then again, I was hoping you could discern mainstream physics from non-mainstream

I’m not sure what you mean by this, or even just reality, but physics doesn’t claim to be describing reality, and math even less so. Physics describes how things behave, and admits to having lots of things that aren’t real. There’s plenty of valid math that works but doesn’t describe the behavior of things around us. Who told you it was supposed to?

What do you think is the “definition” of time? (in a physics sense) Is it something other that “that which is measured by a clock”? A massless neutrino might cause problems for neutrino models, but timekeeping doesn’t depend on them. Moderator NotePlease keep speculations in its own thread in the speculations section, rather than hijacking someone else’s thread with that discussion.

That’s an understatement. Moderator NoteWe require much more rigor than this. This is not sci-fi story time. Some technical critique: your equation is obviously bogus just from unit analysis. If you’re going to invoke element 115 you should make an attempt to justify this. But I don’t see that there’s anything to build on here to try and salvage a scientific discussion. All chaff, and no wheat.

True, but their discoveries would likely still happen, though perhaps later. Scientific work is usually happening among multiple people. People other than Einstein were working on relativity, for example.

Any inertial observer can decide they are at rest. Nothing about physics changes with your choice of inertial reference frame. So, if you want to be at rest, you’re at rest. (approximately, since we’re actually accelerating, and that’s not relative. But it’s small)

Mrs. Tilly likes pollo but not chicken

Unfortunately they don’t give any numbers. How much does the pH and CO2 concentration drop? They suggest it’s significant if they purport to be worried about the pH change having an effect on ocean life, but how can a small-scale project do that? And how much does that affect the absorption rate? That’s the key metric.

Threads merged. Please take a moment to review what was discussed. Feelings of deja vu might occur

Lots of spacetimes are mathematically possible, but do not reflect the spacetime we are in (e.g. Galilean another one, which ends up having unphysical implications) In this case you have to explain how t1 and t2 manifest themselves; what does it mean to have three time coordinates? Are they orthogonal, like spatial coordinates, and what does that mean?