Re: 1 Second Defined in a Formula

Path	csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: 1 Second Defined in a Formula
Date	Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:17:00 +1000
Lines	31
Message-ID	<dn8uffF8nt9U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<609ea73d-c7c6-412b-8ed9-b9b6f0ae6b4f@googlegroups.com> <dn3kh4Fscr6U1@mid.individual.net> <f793ff01-9d11-4d9d-b937-a989c9ad3fe2@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Trace	individual.net 7inWF3RUOUp9c2JPI9IEhA/rKUaU4RY6W4qg4vUWwNL1tfCPSH
Cancel-Lock	sha1:/JnRe834meHwmvNfqW9EHgixWKw=
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
In-Reply-To	<f793ff01-9d11-4d9d-b937-a989c9ad3fe2@googlegroups.com>
Xref	csiph.com sci.physics:570361

Show key headers only | View raw

On 13/04/2016 2:03 AM, omnilobe@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, Sylvia wrote:
>
> "Leaving aside the arbitrary constant you introduced, G is not known
> very accurately, so it's a very rough definition."
>
> See a correction at the end.
>
> Yes. G is rough and V, the proton volume is widely based on a radius
> from 0.84fm to 1.25fm. But the 5.1ns non-arbitrary universal constant
> is adjusted to match the V so the Momentum of Free Space (p) matches
> experiments.
>
> p = V / 5ns
>
> Conclusion for Sylvia : Yes it is rough, now. It is a theory to
> explain reality. It is not a guessing game where an arbitrary
> constant is used. The 5.1ns has been verified on six planets and two
> stars. Conservation of Continuum sets space equal to time magnitudes
> as gravity shrinks space and grows time from protons and neutrons.

What do you mean by "verified"?

At the moment, it looks as if you've taken 1 second, divided/multiplied 
it by the other constants, as appropriate, and the 5.131534 x 10^-9 is 
what's left. This makes it arbitrary. You could similarly define a 
second in terms of my daily alcohol intake and the average number of 
birds in my garden, if you include the necessary fudge factor. The 
result is physically meaningless.

Sylvia.

Thread

1 Second Defined in a Formula omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-04-11 20:54 -0700
  Re: 1 Second Defined in a Formula benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 02:39 -0400
  Re: 1 Second Defined in a Formula Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-12 16:56 +1000
    Re: 1 Second Defined in a Formula omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-04-12 09:03 -0700
      Re: 1 Second Defined in a Formula noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 17:41 -0700
        Re: 1 Second Defined in a Formula omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-04-12 19:50 -0700
          Re: 1 Second Defined in a Formula noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 13:26 -0700
      Re: 1 Second Defined in a Formula Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 17:17 +1000
        Re: 1 Second Defined in a Formula omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-04-14 10:11 -0700

csiph-web