swansont

This most definitely isn't relativity. Moved to speculations

What would be pulling the particles apart? That's not part of any cosmology scenario of which I am aware.

Why is it predictable and not dependent on the density in other ways? Why does it change with gravitational potential? Density changes with the acceleration, not the potential.

GR issues aside for the moment, energy is conserved. So we will not run out of energy. Time does not rely on energy, per se. But … time and energy behave like conjugate variables in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, [math]\Delta E \Delta t > \hbar[/math] so your ability to determine time has a dependence on your ability to measure an energy difference. The uncertainty relation potentially limits how well one can realize the standard of the second, but we aren't particularly close to that limit — so-called clock transitions are chosen because they are very narrow (delta-E is small) so that the time uncertainty can be small. And in the scheme of things, h-bar is very small when viewed in terms of limiting factors in making the measurements. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The answer to that requires an appreciation and understanding of quantum mechanics and the realization that classical notions do not apply at the atomic scale. The oscillation is of a coherent superposition of spin states of the electron. An electron can be in two different orientations (at the same time!), but never in between, and these orientations do not rely on position. So your argument relies on this being classified as motion. We could also measure time using the period of a decay, where the atoms are just sitting there. Where is the motion upon which the time relies ?

You generally gear your experiment so that the target will emit a distinctive photon (wavelength, polarization) so that you can match it with whatever you are investigating.

You can check the pressure problem by doing the experiment at different pressures to see if it's a linear effect with a zero y-intercept or not. And also by comparing the unloaded pressure vs loaded pressure.

Yeah, I was thinking about this after I posted, and the important number has to be the pressure on the wall of the tire, not on the tread — the pressure on the tread will not necessarily be the same as what is read on the tire pressure gauge.

But the evidence is that it's not dependent on the type of clock. Both nuclear and atomic processes, with different coupling constants, give consistent results.

Bt definition, the centripetal force is the net radial force for an object moving in a circular path. That's an argument of math and geometry — it's what the acceleration vector must be. (There can also be a tangential force, which is perpendicular, causing the object to change speed.) So you need to analyze this in terms of radial and tangential forces.

Yes, really. This is the physics section, and we are discussing relativity. Critiques of relativity or alternate proposals belong in the speculations forum.

Right, the surface area is wrong if you don't account for the tread. You might get an answer that's too big by maybe 40%, which means that the weight will be similarly off. So what happens if you reduce your surface area by a factor of 1.4? This is more an issue of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) than faulty physics. If you know the data are bad, the physics analysis isn't going to transform it into a good answer. The weight of the gasoline can be estimated and used to adjust your answer. Using physics, even, since density*volume gives the mass. It will be fairly small compared to the car's weight, since gas weighs around 8 lbs/gallon and you have at most 12-15 gallons in the car (you could estimate the amount by looking at the gas gauge), so it's around 100 lbs. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It's true there is some residual force in the tire and an unloaded pressure. But at the unloaded pressure, how much weight is it carrying? Zero. And the contact area is likewise zero. You could test this by seeing if the pressure changed significantly as the tires were loaded as you lowered the jack, or if the effect was simply the change in contact area as the load increased. A more thorough experiment would be to do a measurement and then change the pressure in the tire, and do it again. Repeat for several values of pressure.

It's the angle subtended by the object in your field of view. [math]\theta = \frac{s}{r}[/math] Something that's 1 meter tall and 100 meters away subtends 0.01 radians, so it looks the same size as something 1 cm tall and 1 meter away. Or, it's why the moon looks like it's the same size as the sun.

The second is defined in terms of an oscillation between the two hyperfine states of a cesium atom. Ideally, the atom is at rest so that there are no relativistic corrections to be made.

The centripetal force acts toward the center of the circle, which is why you can equate it with the gravitational force. So now you know what speed it has at the top. What height must you start at for it to have that speed?

Quantum mechanics is not formal logic. As I said before, you have assumed a binary condition — that only one thing can be true. QM doesn't work that way.

We know the odds in the lottery. We know one person entering and winning is unlikely, though not impossible, as a result. How do we know that outcomes A and B have the odds you attribute to them?

You'd have to do it by moving masses around.

What 200 mrem increase? Where is your data on the Radon? I don't really care what you "see" this as. You haven't presented any credible evidence of anything.

D H has already pointed out that this is particular problem is rather nasty to solve.

Most of physics consists of calculations … of quantities that we find useful. They do not fall into the categories of force or substance. That is a false dichotomy, which I what I was trying to point out. Time isn't a substance, but needs not be one to be real. "Real" encompasses more than substances and forces. But if you hadn't heard of something as basic as entropy before, then I fear there isn't much of a foundation for useful discussion here. If you want to speculate on the nature of time, sans physics, please do so in the speculations forum.

Differential equations is a class you take after a few semesters of calculus. A "general guideline" would be rather time-intensive

So all things are either a force or a substance? Can I borrow a cup of entropy?

No, and no. I can pop something in the microwave for a minute and heat it up. Time doesn't do that.

If it's massive it can't move at c, so let's limit ourselves to what physics permits us to see. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, it ages. It doesn't age 1000 years, though — the amount will depend on its speed relative to you.

Yes, it could be an unexpected result. But the criterion offered was no life possibility = undesigned, which begs the question. We need an objective test rather than circular logic if we are to treat this scientifically rather than philosophically.