Field density question about time dilation?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by amber, Feb 8, 2018.

  1. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    We start off with a ''sponge'' that at ground level absorbs the thicker ''water'' and emits ''water'' at an equal rate.

    When we move the ''sponge'' at ground level the ''sponge'' absorbs less, so emits less.

    When the ''sponge''travels further way from the ground, the ''water'' becomes less dense, and the ''sponge'' absorbs less and emits less.

    When the ''sponge'' approaches the sun, the ''water'' gets thicker again, and the sponge will absorb more ''water'' than it can emit , the ''sponge'' will be no more?

    added- I know how much most of you do not understand different content, so the ''sponge'' is obviously the Caesium atom.

    Would 9,192,631,770 hertz (Hz = cycles/second) be a steady state frequency?

    steady state
    noun
    1. an unvarying condition in a physical process
    At ground level does the field density vary any?

    or is the field a steady state density at ground level?
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,870
    Readers, just before anyone considers responding to "amber", I invite you to bear in mind the text of a report I made on another forum, concerning someone called "antoine", also known here as Theorist-Constant12345, John P, Tony C and Dylan, and maybe more:

    "Here we go. This is exactly what he does. There are so many errors and misconceptions packed into this post that it cries out for a reply. But if anyone replies, they will just get enmeshed in a never-ending dialogue, boosted by further (deliberate?) misunderstandings introduced by Theorist (Antoine).

    This is why this guy was banned from sciforums. "

    You have been warned.

    It is just attention-seeking, with no logic other than making statements provocative enough to get scientific people to reply.
     
    origin likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    I did say in my troll thread that the real trolls would show themselves. Quite clearly the poster is biased in some strange way. I have asked a question to start a discussion, I do not see you with any threads of your own.

    What is your intentions? Why do you not want people to discuss science? Why are you attempting to be a thread wrecker if not a troll?

    People like you are killing science forums....
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    This thread with my analogy discusses the Hafele–Keating experiment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

    I put it in basic analogy so people who do not understand all the technical jargon could also participate in the discussion.

    ex-chemist in some way thinks this is not science or an attack on science.

    Field density decrease directly proportional to the inverse, do I need to remind you of this exchemist?

    So therefore increases directing proportional to the transverse.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

    So come on exchemist, discuss, nothing to do with attention seeking I am sitting here with a friend watching the bigbang comedy .
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
  8. RainbowSingularity Registered Member

    Messages:
    43

    ...(i am no physacist) does the property of the sponge(Cs) change with Gravity ?
     

Share This Page