Feature Join us for Space Chat every Friday!

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Nov 18, 2019
As physical clocks use the recorded number of cycles to calculate the elapsed time and the number of cycles is the product of time and frequency, according to special relativity, the time of the moving frame becomes shorter than the time of the stationary frame, and the frequency of the moving clock becomes faster than the frequency of the stationary clock which makes the product of time and frequency of the moving clock the same as that of the stationary clock, it seems that the two clocks always show the same time no matter whether they are moving or not and clock time is still absolute in special relativity. How do people think that special relativity tells us that the moving clock ticks more slowly than the stationary clock and think Hafele-Keating experiment has proved the so-called relativistic effect?
Last edited:


The devil is in the detail
So what does the radiation from the Universe look like today. If one speculates on what the present (todays) radiation from the Universe would look like. It is surprisingly similar to what the CMBR is: it is quite homogeneous for obvious reasons and it is a fairly strong signal.
What temperature is the radiation you are measuring? That is important. Have you taken that into account?

Cat :)
Apr 5, 2021
Could we achieve electrical superconductivity at room (or air) temperature if we insulate power lines from air (friction) by applying liquid nitrogen-impregnated laminated paper-insulation to high voltage cables?

Because, the molecular mass of air (29) is significantly higher than nitrogen (14) , and things are made from 99% empty space as Jzz has mentioned. So less collisions and loss of heat, as in a vacuum.