swansont

Claimed, perhaps. Not explained. The main problem with this claim is that the meter wasn’t defined this way until 1983. Prior to that it was based on the wavelength of light coming from a transition in an isotope of Kr. But relativity worked prior to that. Not surprising, since it has nothing to do with how units are defined. (c wasn’t a defined value until 1983, either) Atomic clocks measure time without relying on a measurement of length, or the value of c. You’re just comparing the frequency of an oscillator with whatever atomic transition you’re using. And you can add in any other effects, just as long as they cancel.

To the extent that this is true that makes this a philosophical discussion, rather than science. This suffers from the same shortcoming as LET; there’s no way to empirically show this, since there’s always a magical fudge factor that equalizes the results. “The price of asset X is constant” is a null set, but if we’re idealizing things, you can always convert Euros to dollars and vice-versa, and the transitive property applies here. No, because we can measure the speed of sound and see that it’s not. Unless you invoke a magical medium, but that makes it science fiction. I can’t help but notice the complete avoidance of discussing/defending the premise of your OP - how unit definitions come into this - despite repeated requests. If you’ve abandoned that you should say so. I don’t care if you want to pursue discussing an invisible pink unicorn interpretation with others, but I focused on your scientific claim and I don’t like bait-and-switch.

Linking to another thread doesn’t show the option to make it just a link. Just that blue line in a box.

How does one experimentally test for such a physical substance? Can I put it in a container? Can I exclude it from a region? Real? The electromagnetic field is matter?

Temporal states of what? If time doesn’t run at the same rate in these states, then this phase difference will not be constant. What does that im-ly for space? You need math for this to be anything other than word salad.

There are also several threads showing the calculation of how large it must be to be practical. (fast rotation and small runs into problems) such as one you started:

You have to read past the first couple of sentences. “Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos” QM interpretations are not theories. They are a way to think about QM to make it make sense to a person, not QM itself. In what way does this relate to, and depend on, the definition of the second?

It takes a while to go through the laundering process so it can’t be traced back to Soros.

“Better” is an objective assessment, and is out of place in a subjective discussion. The one you like is the better one.

! Moderator Note Merged. SSDD

That’s why they do testing. On animals, sometimes, though that’s less common than in the past. In the US the companies are required to determine that ingredients are safe. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-science-research/product-testing-cosmetics AFAIK, minor issues, and ones that vary between individuals (e.g. allergies) aren’t strictly a safety issue. Something could be an irritant if you use it too often, and as long as that’s disclosed, it’s allowed.

It depends in what one means by bad, and the individual. Something could be “bad” because of some ethical concern or it could be “bad” because it irritates the skin of some individuals. Something that’s generally harmful would likely be discovered quickly, and regulation usually precludes its use*. (*offer no longer valid in the US)

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.