Strange

So you are saying that there are no people who have beliefs or feelings that there is something beyond material existence? (Even if you think they are wrong.) That is so obviously untrue, I'm not sure how you can say it.

We are not in agreement because you said "there is no spirituality" which is obviously false. As I say, one could refer to a dictionary.

It does. But it doesn't require that the spirits exist. Spirituality is a description of a human characteristic. Religion (and, more relevantly, religiosity) does not require the existence of gods. Harry Potter does not require that magic actually exists. Science fiction does not rely on humans actually travelling to distant stars. One could always refer to a dictionary.

I think you need to check the meaning of the word. Spirituality does not require the existence of spirits.

You are not going to find all this data in one place. There are a large number of catalogs of galaxies and redshift (recessional velocity, assuming that is what you mean by "rate of removal") here, for example: http://www.astro.ljmu.ac.uk/~ikb/research/galaxy-redshift-surveys.html Then there are catalogs of galaxy data including mass, for example: https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/W3Browse/all/neargalcat.html One problem is that (I think) mass is only easy to measure for relatively nearby galaxies, while the distance-redshift relation only becomes significant for distant galaxies. Some of the catalogs here combine both: https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/cgro/db-perl/W3Browse/w3table.pl?MissionHelp=galaxy_catalog A short list of black holes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_holes (there are more extensive catalogs)

I have no idea what that means. What do you mean by "fix (m)"? What do you mean by "make it absolute"? What do you mean by "Not just theory"? The equation e=mc2 has been tested and found to be correct. What do you mean by "1 gm of mass is not relative to to every 1 gm of mass"? Every 1gm of mass is equal to every other 1gm of mass. But I don't know what "relative to" means.

But that is wrong. Speed is distance/time not distance/distance. What you could say is that the wavelength is 3.261 cm, multiply that by the number of cycles in one second (9192631770) and you get 2.997 x 1010cm, which is the distance light travels in one second. But that just follows from the relationship that speed = frequency * wavelength.

What does "not relative to" mean? True (as long as X is not equal to Y).

But there is more to understanding functions like sin or ln than doing calculations. I don't understand it!

Wow. Really? Surely it is such an important mathematical function it can't be ignored

I can see the advantage of using a single isotope, I was more wondering about how there being only one stable isotope helps with that.

What is the advantage there? Does it mean it is easier to ensure you only have the one isotope?

! Moderator Note You have a thread on this already.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please provide evidence to support your claims.

Rather than running away, why not just answer questions and explain what you are talking about?

The current standard for defining the second is based on the hyperfine transition of caesium 133 because (I assume) it is a stable and accessible reference. As swansont works on atomic clocks he may know more about why the standard was chosen. But it has nothing to do with energy, distance or voltage. (Why do you think voltage is related to frequency?)

! Moderator Note Agreed. Discussions of previous posts, membership time or votes is off topic. (I assume old posts got lost at some time in the past.) As you have 16x I would think about taking the log of both sides, as a start... (log2 to keep it simple)

! Moderator Note You already have a thread on this.

That is nonsense. 1 second does not equal 3.26 cm. What??? That is the energy of a photon. You can't just arbitrarily associate frequency and energy. And what does that have to do with voltage?

Time can be related to distance, but they are not equal. For example, 1 light-year is the distance light travels in one year (and 1 light-second is the distance light travels in one second). In relativity, spacetime coordinates are given as (x,y,z,ct) to convert the time dimension to the same (distance) units as the spatial dimension. The wavelength of radiation with a frequency of 9,192, 631,770 Hz is c / 9,192, 631,770 = 3.26 cm. But ... so what? How? What is the relationship between frequency and voltage?

That is an odd way of putting it. The frequency is simply 9192631770 Hz, or 9192631770 oscillations per second. (And this is not the "frequency of the valence electron".) But this is not relevant to the fact that your original post was a mess because you seem to be trying to equate frequency with metres.

Copper has lower resistance (per unit area) and is lighter than gold, so would probably still be the preferred choice. Silver would be better, if price were no object. Gold is used for contacts in electronic circuits because of its corrosion resistance, which means it maintains its resistivity better than copper.

Or, as we say in English: "practice makes perfect". Interesting thread here on how this is said in lots of different languages: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/practice-makes-the-master.1973252/

! Moderator Note If you don’t like the rules, don’t post here. Thread closed as the OP’s question was answered and it is only attracting low quality posts.

There is no "the answer"; science creates models that can successfully describe the world. Often there are multiple models to describe the same thing. A law is a (usually simple) mathematical relationship, usually derived from observation. So we have Ohm's law, Faraday's law, the Hubble-Lemaitre law, and so on. Often these are explained by some underlying theory. For example, the Hubble-Lemaitre law is explained by GR and the Big Bang model. Kepler's laws are explained by Newtonian gravity. Faraday's laws are explained by classical electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations) or by quantum electrodynamics.