swansont

There are multiple possibilities under the broad label of capitalism. Pure, unadulterated capitalism is horrible, which is why laws and regulations exist, and why most countries have socialist policies in place. Even the wealthy like socialism when it’s to their advantage, even as they use the label as a scapegoat.

Moderator NoteYou posted this in Astronomy and Cosmology. We expect mainstream physics to be discussed here. Non-mainstream science goes in the Speculations section, where you must comply with its rules

Images can be uploaded rather than linked, especially when the link is not a full, descriptive url. We don’t like anything that resembles a link shortener.

Yup. The 0.1% have convinced the lowest ~50% that the reason they’re not doing well is that others in that group are stealing from them in some way. Having oligarchs tell people to make do with less while they grab as much as they can? They can eff off into the sun.

Yep. Neil Ashby derives the full effect in his living reviews of relativity paper. I recall asking a colleague if we had to compensate our clocks for latitude, and they said no but weren’t sure why, so I dug into it. (Einstein got this wrong in his original SR paper, in assuming the earth was a rigid sphere, and GR not yet being developed.)

Agree. Not a joke. Red meat for the ravenous believer.

Chip-scale atomic clocks are among the least precise atomic clocks. Their utility is their size, not their stability. Not think it was rotating? The stars wouldn’t appear to move? Foucalt’s pendulum wouldn’t work? Surely you don’t think so. A perfectly spherical earth would have more relativistic effects than the oblate spheroid we live on. The deformation means the kinematic time dilation from rotation, which varies with latitude, cancels with the gravitational time dilation on the geoid. You seem to be under the impression that relativity only affects atomic clocks, which is not the case. Relativity affects time. Atomic clocks have sufficient precision to measure the effects, but if the effects were sufficiently pronounced, other clocks could measure it. A change in time implies a change in length. That’s relativity. This is not dependent on the definition of the meter (i.e. it was true prior to 1983) This is very much not what relativity says

English, please. What’s considered the international language of science.

The mods would be more responsive if others had not initiated the rudeness - and quite a lot of it - in earlier threads. We’re more lenient when the comments (which are fairly mild, really) are going both ways. The question here is who will de-escalate and focus on the subject matter. From the looks of it so far, nobody is stepping up.

One problem is that G isn’t determined to a very high precision 6.67430(15)×10^-11 m^3/kg s^2 The limitations on that would affect any system relying on it. You can measure dimensionless constants, such as the fine structure constant, to determine that

Originally adopted in 1952. The definition updated in 1960. And for scientific purposes (many of the applications of precise time, especially back then, are scientific. Commerce generally didn’t require the same level of precision)

“give me the scientific properties of theoretical traversing of the space time continuum” is pretty vague. What is it you want to discuss?

The rotation rate would still vary, owing to varying mass distribution on the planet (precipitation, rotation of weather systems, tectonic activity, etc.) and you’d expect it to slow from tidal friction. And the precision of the measurement of the rotation would still be significantly worse than atomic clocks. We use the rotational period of the earth because we live here. It’s convenient and what we’re used to, so change isn’t likely. Kinda like how the US resists the metric system. There’s nothing special about it when it comes to physics. It’s not “universal” by any stretch.

Why would different fields of science be looking at the same data? Do you have an example of this (different interpretations of data) happening?

The philosophy is that empirical evidence means something. The observed behavior is real, and not an illusion or hallucination. The methodology is what’s different. Sociologists don’t use e.g. mass spectrometers very often. But since it’s not a hard science, this isn’t particularly relevant.

That makes it a poor clock, but it’s still a clock. It doesn’t show any measurable time dilation, but that’s only because it’s not previse enough. The effect is still there. Much like how people don’t diffract when going through a door, or look like waves. The QM effect is way too small. If you did the calculation I described earlier you could show this.

Sociology is not a physical (“hard”) science*. I’m not sure how data interpretation counts as philosophy. *lots of things can be studied in a scientific manner, (e.g. hypotheses being falsifiable, and supporting or discarding them based on evidence), or incorporating relevant branches of science as tools, but that doesn’t make them science. It’s a way of increasing their rigor. History, for example.

You’re asking about some very specific effects here, and unless one of our me bers wirks in the industry and these aren’t trade secrets, I doubt you’re going to get answers. I will point out that it’s all heat transfer. There’s no such thing in physics as cold transfer. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy owing to a temperature difference. Things heat or cool depending on the direction of heat transfer, i.e adding or removing energy.

It’s kinda hard to isolate someone from other factors. One of the reasons for the fatalities is making you more susceptible to other factors. As exchemist suggests, rabies kills quickly. So does ebola. Even it’s not just the virus, you’re still dead.

All clocks experience time dilation. But it’s not measurable unless you have sufficient precision. (All clocks are affected by mundane environmental effects, too that are not effects on time) Earth rotation is one form of clock. As I pointed out above, not all things that affect clock rate are effects on time. Things that affect time affect all clocks. A slower clock on earth does not “make the day faster” - nothing would, unless time itself is affected. If a clock runs slow, it needs to be recalibrated against a standard. I’m not sure who you think claims they are mutually exclusive, but I don’t see how they say anything about the nature of time. They do definitely tell us about the nature of timekeeping. Earth rotation is not consistent and is of limited precision. But it is most definitely be affected by relativity, but owing to the limited precision, it’s not noticeable at a level it could measure This is based on a false notion. You might calculate the level of relativist effects on earth - how the speed changes over the course of a year and the variation in gravitational potential, to see what the relativistic effects are. Then compare it to the precision of earth time. Until you do that, your claim has no factual basis. ET is not invariant, period. The epoch for defining the second was based on the tropical year 1900, but the earth rotation rate varies on the order of ms per day, with an overall decrease over time, though we’ve seen periods where it’s sped up. We went away from using earth rotation because the earth is a comparatively crappy clock.

You can only show them to be wrong by having their models not match experiment. Does that happen? Kinetic energy in a Newtonian system. Lorentz factor in relativity. Law of Malus. Energy-momentum equation in relativity. Image location in optics. Please derive these using only dimensional analysis.

That’s why we adopt a common standard. It’s not that there is an absolute time, “absolute” having a particular meaning in the context of relativity, since we are free to choose another standard, and it’s dictated by convenience rather than physics. Clocks measure time. Saying otherwise requires changing what is meant by one or the other.

Moderator NoteTo all who read this: KNOCK THIS CRAP OFF

Examples? There are underlying philosophies of all science, such as the notion that there are objective, knowable facts to be discovered. That nature behaves according to consistent laws. That theories must be falsifiable,

Repeating this doesn’t make it true.