Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But the sun is affecting those other things as well. To then remove those from the equation removes any other possibility of decay rates being affected by other means.
Air humidity, temperature, and pressure are only indirectly influenced by the sun; they can and do vary significantly, independent of the season (particularly indoors), so they are not suitable or reliable variables to measure if you're interested in an effect solely due to neutrinos from the sun. By minimising or eliminating the indirect and unreliable influences, we can reduce those sources of error.
Since decay rates by your own admission are random - only by statistically manipulating the data do you get a constant rate from a random process to begin with.
The only statistical manipulation needed is to repeatedly count the number of decays observed in given amount of material over a set period, and measure the time it takes for this to decline by a set amount (the standard measure of radioactive decay is the 'half-life', the time it takes for radioactivity to reduce by half). Repeatedly measuring this over a seasonal cycle gives you data points to plot against distance from the sun.
That you believe two things can move apart at an increasing rate without actually moving apart at an increasing acceleration well, I needn't say any more about that......
What is your magical thing composed of that can bend, accelerate and expand? Are you applying the behavior of a ponderable medium to it without then justifying the behavior of its motion? Are you telling me nothing is capable of such things? If so, please justify applying motion to nothing. Or are you advocating an aether in which we could then go back to aether theories? If you are advocating nothing - that's as good as magic. If you are advocating something, then you need to justify applying that motion to it.
Perhaps you are willing to accept magic as the scientific explanation, but I'm not.
Not magic, just the physics of spacetime as observed. The expansion of the universe is a scale factor change, it has no preferred direction of acceleration, and simply increases the distance between any pair of points. The equivalence principle doesn't apply.
No-one knows what spacetime is, we can only observe how it, or things in it, behave. Quantum field theory is the best model so far for it on small scales. On large scales, where gravity is significant, general relativity is usually more appropriate. Sometimes both are required, e.g. black holes, the big bang.
You're not obliged to accept or understand any of it.
I was referring to measurements of the fine structure constant, not the twin paradox. However, in the twin paradox, each twin will measure the same value for the fine structure constant if each twin measures it within his own frame of reference. If each attempts measurements in the other's frame, they may well get different values. That's relativity. Best to check with a physicist, I'm no expert.
The measurements are done in a single frame of reference, not between frames. Which do you suggest changes under acceleration, the electric charge of the electron, the speed of light, or Planck's constant?
Then you will have no problem citing the experimental evidence for the expansion of this imaginary spacetime? Do you or do you not have experimental evidence that spacetime is capable of expansion?
The expansion of the universe is a scale factor change, it has no preferred direction of acceleration, and simply increases the distance between any pair of points. The equivalence principle doesn't apply.
If the distance between two points is increasing in velocity as expansion is continuing to accelerate - then there is a change of velocity. Yes? Or are you postulating magic where two things increase in distance apart at an accelerating rate yet do not increase in velocity?????
Please cite experimental evidence where such a things has been observed in any laboratory?
No-one knows what spacetime is, we can only observe how it, or things in it, behave. Quantum field theory is the best model so far for it on small scales. On large scales, where gravity is significant, general relativity is usually more appropriate. Sometimes both are required, e.g. black holes, the big bang.
You're not obliged to accept or understand any of it.
Except General Relativity fails at a so-called black hole - so in reality says nothing about it. Also quantum physics forbids anything inhabiting a space smaller than its wavelength. The fact you are not willing to simply admit that sungularities are not physical realities, but simply a missing piece in the theory, while trying to make it seem as if relativity explains them when it actually breaks down, shows me the science is of no concern to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
"Many theories in physics have mathematical singularities of one kind or another. Equations for these physical theories predict that the ball of mass of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit. This is generally a sign for a missing piece in the theory, as in the ultraviolet catastrophe, renormalization, and instability of a hydrogen atom predicted by the Larmor formula."
"The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.
Oh I understand all of it, I just don't think you do, or you would not be postulating this Fairie Dust to me.
Especially when we do have direct experimental evidence of what the missing piece is and what singularities actually are.
So we have direct laboratory experiment with plasma in a universe 99% plasma - that it has nothing to do with your Fairie Dust beliefs. While you on the other hand have no experimental data of any kind to support your beliefs. Oh, I understand alright. I understand you understand nothing of plasma physics, yet want to try to tell everyone how a universe 99% plasma behaves, then wonder why you need 96% Fairie Dust added to your equations when they fail to work as advertised.
I was referring to measurements of the fine structure constant, not the twin paradox. However, in the twin paradox, each twin will measure the same value for the fine structure constant if each twin measures it within his own frame of reference. If each attempts measurements in the other's frame, they may well get different values. That's relativity. Best to check with a physicist, I'm no expert.
No they won't. Since each twin is using measuring devices that both measure different distances and tick at different rates - they are not measuring the same thing. Are you telling me that clocks that tick at different rates read the same time? Are you telling me that rulers not of the same length read the same distance?
You don't understand kinetic energy, so fail to understand the physics involved. You fail to realize zero points are reset proportionally to the energy gained. This is why the bullet always measures zero kinetic energy and zero velocity in its own frame. Just as we measure zero kinetic energy and zero velocity in our frame. Zero points are reset proportionally to energy gained or lost.
You may think they are measuring the same thing, but in reality it is the fact you call different length rulers meters, and different elapsed periods of time seconds. There is nothing the same about them in the least.
The speed of light isn't magical. It is a proportional measurement due to energy. Changes in measuring devices coupled with the reset of zero points due to changes in energy exactly compensates for changes in velocity - so that c always calculates to c regardless of frames. You are not measuring the same times and distances, but different times and distances in each frame.
Then you will have no problem citing the experimental evidence for the expansion of this imaginary spacetime? Do you or do you not have experimental evidence that spacetime is capable of expansion?
Thirteen years after its discovery the acceleration of the expansion is now firmly established and the concordance model constitutes the frame of a standard model of cosmology...
If the distance between two points is increasing in velocity as expansion is continuing to accelerate - then there is a change of velocity. Yes? Or are you postulating magic where two things increase in distance apart at an accelerating rate yet do not increase in velocity?????
There certainly is an accelerating increase in separation between arbitrary points (e.g. galaxies), but it's not due to acceleration of the galaxies themselves, as I mentioned previously it's a scale-factor change. It takes a little physical intuition, but perhaps an old-fashioned rubber sheet analogy for spacetime will help:
Imagine a large rubber sheet on which you've marked two reference points with a Sharpie. Oil the sheet, and on each mark, place a cheeseburger, to represent a galaxy (or a twin). Now, apply a strong lateral force to one cheeseburger. Note that it accelerates and slides along the sheet. You know it's moved because it no longer covers the Sharpie mark. The cheeseburger has accelerated, changing inertial frames. This situation is analogous to the outward journey of the Twin Paradox, or to a galaxy flung away from its path by a close encounter with another.
Now replace the cheeseburger on its mark and gently stretch the sheet in all directions, so the space between the cheeseburgers increases and their separation increases. Have the cheeseburgers actually moved on the sheet (i.e. through spacetime)? If you lift each cheeseburger, you'll see it's still sitting on the same mark it started on. So, despite their increasing separation, neither cheeseburger has moved on the sheet, and, by analogy, haven't moved through spacetime and haven't changed inertial frames.
Can you see the difference?
The fact you are not willing to simply admit that sungularities are not physical realities, but simply a missing piece in the theory, while trying to make it seem as if relativity explains them when it actually breaks down, shows me the science is of no concern to you.
You must be thinking of someone else. I'm personally skeptical of GR singularities of infinite density (as, I'm told, are most physicists). GR obviously can't describe them. This is probably an area where a quantum theory of gravity is needed.
E never knew me, but if he had, I'm sure he would have been polite.
So we have direct laboratory experiment with plasma in a universe 99% plasma - that it has nothing to do with your Fairie Dust beliefs. While you on the other hand have no experimental data of any kind to support your beliefs. Oh, I understand alright. I understand you understand nothing of plasma physics, yet want to try to tell everyone how a universe 99% plasma behaves, then wonder why you need 96% Fairie Dust added to your equations when they fail to work as advertised.
No they won't. Since each twin is using measuring devices that both measure different distances and tick at different rates - they are not measuring the same thing. Are you telling me that clocks that tick at different rates read the same time? Are you telling me that rulers not of the same length read the same distance?
As I said, they will get the same value if they do the measurement within their own respective frames of reference. I recommend brushing up on inertial frames of reference.
