Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Simon4159870717 last won the day on April 21

Simon4159870717 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Simon4159870717

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

219 profile views
  1. ´╝Ěhen an electron jumps from an energy level to a lower energy level, it releases electromagnetic waves. The atomic clock counts these electromagnetic waves to click time. When an electron jumps into another nucleus, it won't come out and jump to lower energy level anymore, and it won't release wave for the one jump before. Atom clock will miss the count of the jump. Suppose that the jump of electrons is limited by a certain distance. In this distance, higher density will contain more nucleus, more nucleus meaning more chance to jump into nucleus. Negligibly means greater than zero. 3
  2. No matter the temperatures, electrons still have chance to jump into other nucleus. I hope you can understand how different my hypothesis is right or not. It can turn satellite atomic clock phenomenon to against the Relativity.
  3. My friend, I am not talking about confusion or flip a coin, I have no problem with them. I am talking about missing counting. I summarized my questions as follows: Is there any chance an electron jumps into another nucleus? When an electron jumps into another nucleus, will we lose a count? Does density affect the chance of jumping? Has the designer of the atom clock anticipated this situation and devised a preventive mechanism? Any of the above can negate my hypothesis.
  4. My friends, thanks for your replies. But it is a little far away to talk about dark matter and gravity wave. Let's come back to my hypothesis. "... a detector counts the number that flipped to higher energy states..." acutaully it counts the waves which electrons release. When a electron jumps into another nucleus, we miss a count. Density doesn't play role in atom clock design really, but doesn't it matter the atom clock? When the density is high, the nucleus are closer, and the chance of electrons jumping into nucleus are higher. In other words, in higher density, we miss more coun
  5. So is there any chance a electron jumping into another nucleus? Gravity influencing clock rate is much different with influencing time.
  6. Atom Clock and Time Dilation In short: when an electron jumps from an energy level to a lower energy level, it releases electromagnetic waves. The atomic clock counts these electromagnetic waves to click time. ---------- The above does not need to be discussed ---------- Does each jump release a wave? My hypothesis: There is a little chance, the electron jumps into another atom nucleus directly, then we will lose a wave. When the density of cesium increases, the distance between cesium atoms decreases, the chance of electrons jumping
  7. Thanks for your reply. Can I interpret your answer as "after the rotation, the light does not change"? Is the device of Michelson-Morley independently of direction as well?
  8. If observer_1 saw the light hit point A on mirror 1, them observer_2 would see the light hit point A on mirror 1 as well. In my experiment, the mirrors, light source, earth and observer are all in a same frame. What I am curious about is the direction of the light.
  9. I think you misunderstand me because of my terrible English. Allow me state it again. I set up two perfectly balanced mirrors, plumb to earth. One faces south and the other faces north. I set up a light source in them, keep the light being reflected back and forth at a fixed point in the two mirrors. Because whole set equipment is moving from west to east, then the angle of the light source must not be perpendicular to the two mirrors, but slightly to the east. If the light is not affected by the movement of the light source, the light source must be slightly east to ca
  10. No fighting please. Let's go back to the experiment at 1st, after I rotate the set, what will happen? Do you guys think the light will move to west?
  11. Can I understand it this way: "everything that has energy has mass"?
  12. I have to say: Not everything must be composed of something. Under the sun light, you can see your shade, that means sun light is blocked partially, so sun light is not a whole piece. Light from star take years to come to earth, even the star was gone, that means light can be separated from the resource. So I think light is composed by photons is reasonable. Gravity is NOT composed by anything, gravity is just a phenomenon, not a substance.
  13. My friend, if I say: Gravity is not caused by the curve of space, but by the consumption of space.
  14. I never witnessed any experimental evidence personally. So I doubt everything. I believe in photons because I think photon is the lowest unit of light. Light must be composed of something, and it's okay to call it a photon. I am very interested in light, I will read your articles.
  15. The reason why I don't believe in the theory of relativity is mainly because the phenomenon can be explained by the theory of relativity, and other theories can also explain it, and it is more reasonable. Nowadays, the theory of relativity is more like religion than science. People who do not support the theory of relativity basically have no right to speak. Sane scientists are no less enthusiastic about the theory of relativity than priests preaching Catholicism, and they can't even insist on being objective. If the momentum of a photon can be absorbed by others, can its speed be reduc
  • Create New...