That is correct.

maybe it s just cause it s in space, where is no weight. like if you put a clock way down inside earth, the time also will be different.

---

maybe it s just cause it s in space, where is no weight. like if you put a clock way down inside earth, the time also will be different.

They did an experiment where one very accurate clock was flown in a jet one way around the world, and another was flown around in the other direction. Both clocks were obviously subject to the same weight-conferring property of gravity. Because of their motion relative to one another, the clocks then differed very slightly in their elapsed time. The amount of this deviation was consistent with that predicted by relativity theory.

Einstein is consistently annoying !!!

And consistently right!

Yep, he tends to do that a lot ;-)))

maybe it s just cause it s in space, where is no weight. like if you put a clock way down inside earth, the time also will be different.

Weight is just the mass multiplied by the force of gravity (converted to units of earth gravity). So, on the surface of the earth one kilo of mass also happens to weigh one kilo. Take it to the moon and that same mass would weigh only 0.167 kilo. In orbit around earth, it would have effectively no weight. The mass, however, remains one kilo no matter where it is.

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

Density = Mass per unit volume, Weight is due to gravity.

I was OK up until the point where the school chemistry lab renamed the Specific Gravity (SG) bottles to Relative Density (RD). I lost the plot after that .....

Density = Mass per unit volume, Weight is due to gravity.

A significant observation for Relativity: 'Weight' due to gravity or due to acceleration are indistinguishable. (Which I find to be rather interesting...)

I was OK up until the point where the school chemistry lab renamed the Specific Gravity (SG) bottles to Relative Density (RD). I lost the plot after that .....

Relative to what standard reference?...

That sounds like a good move to avoid artificial units arbitrary conversion constants... Hence the SI units where strangely enough, the only 'arbitrary Human artefact' unit is mass... (Temperature is 'out on its own' as an arbitrary Human scale until being redefined with respect to Boltzmann's constant.) All of the SI system of units is being updated to be uniformly based upon physical constants only.

Anyone for the old femtofurlongs per second?


Keep searchin'
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia5
See & try out for yourself: Linux Voice
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Meanwhile, OT for a waste of time:

Anyone for the old femtofurlongs per second?

Anyone up to the 'challenge' of converting femtofurlongs per helek into something more understandable?!

It's all to do with a Hebrew system using Babylonian barleycorns! (See also the FFF system :-) )


Keep searchin'
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia5
See & try out for yourself: Linux Voice
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Anyone for poundals and slugs , or ergs and dynes.

Lets bring back ells, pecks, bushels, gills, grains, pennyweights, white fivers ....

Yes, fortify Dover, repel boarders, a plague on the Continent, Bournemouth for the incontinent, run up the Union flag .....

Stop making sense with facts and logic!! Can't you just get along with the other people's delusions!!!

You are upsetting people and should be shamed! SHAMED!

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

People, humans know a lot more then they themselves can describe. But we do, it is obvious. This is done by knowing a face in a large crowd. Anyone of us can pick out a loved one in a crowd. We do so by understanding the design of our loved one. It is almost instantaneous depending on the size of the crowd. It is much harder to tell someone what a loved one looks like, example, if someone is lost and you need to tell another what they look like or if you were to tell an artist and he is to paint your loved one, but you yourself can pick out that loved one very quickly in the crowd. You do so by their design.

When a person reads, like you do right now, you do not read each letter and come up with the word, a child does at first, but you do not. You attend from the letters the word to their meaning. We focus on the meaning embedded in the arrangement not the letters themselves.

Natural scientist do the same as the above to define design in nature here on earth and the universe. Life itself is a book, one that is read in DNA. It's design is also obvious. Such complexity as a book would be not by a chance happening. Looking at it just like the written word tells of a design, this I'm sure will be denied by some but the overall vast majority of us who will not deny it.

Irony? Maybe. However, the more we learn about what it takes for life to root and grow into a thinking being like us the more remote the chance of life being on another planet. The Copernican Principle and indeed SETI actually reduces hope of finding intelligent life on another planet. With the revised Drake Equation we find that it takes a lot more for intelligent life to pop up then we once thought in the 60's. As I have said the more deeply we read the book of nature the more complex the book becomes and the less likely there is that life has popped up elsewhere. Chance in effect precludes chance the more complex things become.

Life as we know it, the placement needed for life, and complexity all deny a chance happening.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

With the revised Drake Equation we find that it takes a lot more for intelligent life to pop up then we once thought in the 60's.
....
Life as we know it, the placement needed for life, and complexity all deny a chance happening.

yeah maybe the %chance for life is alot lower than originally thought but we know now 99.8% of all stars in the universe have from 1 to 16 planets. not only we dont divide anymore the number of suns / by the chance to have planets. we instead multiply the number of suns by a median number of planets ( stars X 8 planets )
not counting the number of moons these planets have ^^

---

That is statistically silly.

---