swansont

One danger is the idea (which has already been advanced) that we can be as careless and exploitative with the environment as we want, because reintroduction of a species is NBD.

The problem with this approach is that the time dilation can happen because of motion, and also because of the gravitational potential (not simply gravity), so just knowing the “time flow rate” doesn’t determine thing uniquely. That makes this an interpretation, not a theory. The theory is the math that gives you the results.

What’s the path of “around the cylinder”? (and how do you do that without curvature?) Not at all electromagnetic. And once again I will point out that you are making a connection between laws and units that simply does not exist. There are no “laws of the SI system” And saying there are other laws is pure conjecture.

The laws came first, and the definitions have changed over time, so I don’t understand why you continue to bring up units. You have cause and effect reversed. The definition of the meter was chosen because of the invariance of c, not the other way around. Since the results of SR are correct, I don’t see why any of this matters from a physics perspective. c is functionally invariant if there’s some undetectable effect that cancels out any changes to it. This has nothing to do with sound Moving around a circular path is not an inertial frame It doesn’t matter if you find exceptions. Invariant means it’s the same in all cases that meet the criteria, not just some of them.

Go measure it. I won’t hold my breath. I said atoms, not atoms in electric fields. Unlike light, it is possible to measure the one-way speed of sound. You would get a different answer if you send a sound source and its medium in motion. In fact, the medium can be moving faster than the speed of sound, and the sound propagates forward.

But why is that a problem? As you pointed out, all measurements are a comparison. You compare with a standard. The number used is irrelevant. Your arguments still travel back to an alleged variation that’s cancelled by another variation, so that the measurable result is the same. The utility of using atoms is that they are identical, which we know because Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics rely on it, and atoms follow one or the other, depending on their spin. You keep ignoring the elephant in the room. When we go to measure the speed of sound, we don’t get the same answer when we look at different frames. The speed of sound is empirically not invariant. The beautiful(?) theory slain by an ugly fact.

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)