swansont

MigL is obviously on the Signal chat.

I wonder what John Barron, John Miller and David Dennison think about this.

What is the “neutral zone” of a magnet? If you need another magnet, how is this “self-motion”? What is the “main pole” of a magnet?

Define “definitive” 70% consensus? 90%? If you require 100% and the pool is sufficiently large it’s unlikely, since even in hard sciences there are credentialed people with expertise who disagree with mainstream views. In something more nebulous, like economics (where there are “schools of thought”) I’d say it was much harder. (Economics being a field that prompted the joke about predicting 9 of the last 4 recessions.)

Have you read the rules? (2.7 in particular) LET is discredited because you can’t experimentally confirm that one aspect of it that distinguishes it from SR. It also has nothing to do with any “convention tied to our choice of units” which was the premise of your first post. Since the results are equivalent to those of SR, nothing changes in regard to unit definitions. You still get the same results. I don’t see how adopting LET changes the length of a platinum-iridium bar or the rotation rate of the earth, and you haven’t shown that it does. Since the modern definitions are based on those, how does anything change with a change in the laws of physics that give results the must be consistent with SR?

In the context of the OP, invariant means the same in all inertial reference frames. It has nothing to do with the definition of the time and length standard; these have changed over the last ~120 years, and the theory of relativity did not change as a result.

You said “So for example, if we take an ideal medium and look at the acoustic wave equations, we can find a time standard that allows to treat it with the same framework as SR - rendering the speed of sound a perfect constant which need to be set and perfect Lorentz invariance but around the set speed of sound” But you admit that the speed of sound isn’t invariant. How do you build such a clock that “knows” how fast it’s moving with respect to some arbitrary reference frame, and its location with respect to some arbitrary origin? (though your equations can’t possibly work; unit analysis shows this)

Now how about addressing my objection, which was to the speed of sound, rather than the form of the wave equation. If you have a source and the sound medium moving at some speed, (like on a plane) the sound wave moves at the speed of sound + speed of the plane. i.e. it is frame-dependent.

The thing is, the equations in physics require more than being mathematically self-consistent. They have to be consistent with experiment/observation. You can’t just define the speed of sound to be invariant and expect to construct valid laws of physics, because the speed of sound is not invariant.

! Moderator Note It’d be nice if a math thread had some actual math.

! Moderator Note Too much handwaving, not enough science.

Pacemakers draw ~10-20 microamps, so they'd be one potential application.

Betavoltaic battery is going into production https://www.techspot.com/news/107357-coin-sized-nuclear-3v-battery-50-year-lifespan.html “The BV100 harnesses energy from the radioactive decay of its nickel-63 core.” More technical analysis here https://www.wired.com/story/is-this-50-year-battery-for-real/ “this new battery announced by BetaVolt uses a different technology called betavoltaic generation. Instead of tapping thermal energy, it captures the ejected electrons, known as beta particles, from a radioactive isotope of nickel to form an electric circuit. It's made up of several layers of nickel sandwiched between plates of diamond, which serve as a semiconductor.” Ni-63 has a ~96 year half-life, and decays to Cu-63, which is stable. 3V generating 100 microwatts (at the beginning of life) so this version only generates 33 microamps of current.

! Moderator Note Material for discussion still needs to be posted here. Since you’re not interested in following the rules, this is closed.

! Moderator Note You have a thread on this already, and advertising./spamming is against the rules

If you did a search I’m sure you’ll find efforts from the last several years.

This was actually done years ago, before we called it AI. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2009/04/computer-derives-natural-laws-observation “The researchers have taught a computer to find regularities in the natural world that represent natural laws -- without any prior scientific knowledge on the part of the computer. They have tested their method, or algorithm, on simple mechanical systems” I think there were other efforts, and there are more recent examples

It’s wider where some hitters contact the ball, which also moves mass toward the hands, so the same torque will let it accelerate more. So it’s wider without being heavier. Heavier bats would be slower. One key was analyzing the contact area and realizing that it was closer to the hands than was assumed. That’s not the case with all hitters, and only some hitters are using the new bat.

He’s certainly the fertilizer president.

That’s a strawman. You don’t seem interested in following the rules, or a discussion in good faith, and despite having been given ample opportunity to comply, you have not done so. That is why this is locked.

Perhaps you can explain why you think the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect has any relevance here. You offer it as proof that aberrations happen, but it’s not evidence of any aberrations in this particular experiment. So it’s a red herring. And you haven’t really shown more knowledge here than you did about atomic clocks, or how science works. The chip-on-shoulder act isn’t going to work to bluff your way through this. You either follow our rules, or this gets locked.

No, it’s not just you, it’s become all too common. Someone posts “I like pancakes” and some idiot responds “why do you hate waffles?” It’s the fallacy of argument from siilence. But some people do like to communicate in bad faith. It’s unreasonable to expect comprehensive coverage of topics, especially in short-form communication like social media, but even books and articles have length/scope limits.

Data that our rules require that you provide, and have not.

If you change what the laws of physics are, you throw GR and electrodynamics out the window. So there is no guarantee of an invariant c. Come up with laws that hold in an accelerating frame, for instance.

That’s much more than you were claiming, though. A change in the definition of time is not just changing the definition of the unit. You were arguing the opposite - that the unit definition drives the laws. “the laws of physics those experiments perceive when using those standards” Our unit definitions are based on our known laws of physics, which are interdependent. If you redefine what acceleration means, a whole bunch of stuff could chamge. That a whole other argument. No, as Markus stated, in a completely different argument about laws, rather than unit definitions.