swansont

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.

! Moderator Note Material for discussion still needs to be posted here. Since you’re not interested in following the rules, this is closed.

! Moderator Note You have a thread on this already, and advertising./spamming is against the rules

If you did a search I’m sure you’ll find efforts from the last several years.

This was actually done years ago, before we called it AI. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2009/04/computer-derives-natural-laws-observation “The researchers have taught a computer to find regularities in the natural world that represent natural laws -- without any prior scientific knowledge on the part of the computer. They have tested their method, or algorithm, on simple mechanical systems” I think there were other efforts, and there are more recent examples

It’s wider where some hitters contact the ball, which also moves mass toward the hands, so the same torque will let it accelerate more. So it’s wider without being heavier. Heavier bats would be slower. One key was analyzing the contact area and realizing that it was closer to the hands than was assumed. That’s not the case with all hitters, and only some hitters are using the new bat.

He’s certainly the fertilizer president.

That’s a strawman. You don’t seem interested in following the rules, or a discussion in good faith, and despite having been given ample opportunity to comply, you have not done so. That is why this is locked.

Perhaps you can explain why you think the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect has any relevance here. You offer it as proof that aberrations happen, but it’s not evidence of any aberrations in this particular experiment. So it’s a red herring. And you haven’t really shown more knowledge here than you did about atomic clocks, or how science works. The chip-on-shoulder act isn’t going to work to bluff your way through this. You either follow our rules, or this gets locked.

No, it’s not just you, it’s become all too common. Someone posts “I like pancakes” and some idiot responds “why do you hate waffles?” It’s the fallacy of argument from siilence. But some people do like to communicate in bad faith. It’s unreasonable to expect comprehensive coverage of topics, especially in short-form communication like social media, but even books and articles have length/scope limits.

Data that our rules require that you provide, and have not.

If you change what the laws of physics are, you throw GR and electrodynamics out the window. So there is no guarantee of an invariant c. Come up with laws that hold in an accelerating frame, for instance.

That’s much more than you were claiming, though. A change in the definition of time is not just changing the definition of the unit. You were arguing the opposite - that the unit definition drives the laws. “the laws of physics those experiments perceive when using those standards” Our unit definitions are based on our known laws of physics, which are interdependent. If you redefine what acceleration means, a whole bunch of stuff could chamge. That a whole other argument. No, as Markus stated, in a completely different argument about laws, rather than unit definitions.

Lazy You’re asking for other people to give you their time. Adding hurdles isn’t helpful, and the rules require that things for discussion be posted here. Besides, that link goes to a PRL which is paywalled. You want to find the ArXiv version, which is not. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047 But does not show “leaning” fringes that you are making unsubstantiated claims about. No, it’s claims based on no experiment, and unproven physics conjecture.

And yet you bring up situations where these don’t matter, because the experiments don’t rely on them. He uses ideal, perfect clocks, which don’t rely on the definition of any particular unit system, rather than real world clocks. And his concept of time is that of physics - it’s what’s measured by a clock. I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. Can you cite an actual experiment, rather than a contrived one? What’s an “SI atomic clock”?

! Moderator Note How? You don’t give a link to the experiment or even a proper citation. Then do the experiment and write it up. Until then, there’s no actual science here. It’s just “what-if” conjecture.

That's likely for a theoretical flight with some given parameters (probably same speed E and W) In the Science paper (Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4044. (Jul. 14, 1972), pp. 166-168) based on the actual flight parameters, the predictions give gravitational, kinematic and net effects The paper after that one gives the experimental results. I'm not sure why you would expect confirmation to happen pre-experiment. Predictions are the values expected from theory. Not at all. You can run the numbers yourself Once again, the relativistic effects only depend on the orbital/flight parameters, so there's no legitimate reason to expect new values if a different type of clock is used. Part of Einstein's theory is that the type of atom has no effect (Equivalence principle - effect of gravity does not depend on the composition of the matter)

You fail, once again, to specify what frequency. More than one component in an atomic clock has a frequency. Skimping on info isn’t the right tactic if you want to convince people. Why don’t we see this effect with co-located clocks of different species as atmospheric pressure changes?

As I said, it’s the quartz oscillator, at 10.23 MHz, that’s adjusted. The Ashby reference says this. You should have read the whole thing, because it also gives the follwing story about the shift “There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated [5]! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 1012. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.” Those numbers are figments of your imagination, which is why they aren’t in the literature. The Ashby reference is from 2003, and is well-known. No need for later references to explain it. And proper references would include authors and journal names. Can’t check them with the scant info you’ve given It’s in the one reference you provided. Look near equation 36 You put this in quotes, and yet I never wrote that sentence.

Really? “Environmental conditions can affect them. High pressure? Lab data backs it: crank pressure up a torr, and frequency drops ~0.1 Hz.” Sounds like atmospheric pressure to me. You say if pressure cranks up a torr, frequency will drop by ~0.1 Hz. But there’s no citation to where this information came from, and you don’t specify what frequency changes. Your later calculation suggests it’s the transition frequency of the atoms. Which are in vacuum, so that would be a neat trick. But if pressure cranks up a torr, that’s about 1/760 of an atmosphere - a little more than 1%. But it routinely varies by about 25x that owing to weather, and we don’t see effects from it. You are making stuff up and/or grossly misunderstanding the details. Without knowing where you got your “information” it’s hard to assess how much of each.