Re: nuclear clock better then 'atomic' clock?? What's in a name...

On a sunny day (Thu, 5 Sep 2024 10:11:30 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <vbbotq$8po0$1@dont-email.me>:

On 9/5/24 07:20, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Major leap for nuclear clock paves way for ultraprecise timekeeping
  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240904130817.htm
  September 4, 2024
Source:
  National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Summary:
  Nuclear clocks would measure time based on changes inside an atom's nucleus,
  which would make them less sensitive to external disturbances and potentially
  more accurate than atomic clocks.
  These clocks could lead to improved timekeeping and navigation,
  faster internet speeds, and advances in fundamental physics research.
  Scientists have demonstrated key components of a nuclear clock,
  such as precise frequency measurements of an energy jump in a thorium-229
  nucleus.
 
future babble?
Paper is 25 dollars measured at today's nuclear inflation time, eh speed
I would have thought that NIST, financed by public money,
would publish their papers for free for thee.

>
You already mentioned this back in May. This is the follow-up we all
expected.
>
Jeroen Belleman

When you come to s^Hthink of it, 'time' is a very interesting thing.

If we (well 'I') look at clock speed variations in a different gravitational field
one can wonder if there may be a better way to 'define' time,
one that does not depend on the present gravitational field. (Le Sage compression in my view).
Then if we look 'elsewhere' at for example the repeating radio burst or gamma ray bursts from
stars / space, and possibly from stars / places outside our 'universe..
Or in a total different way..
Any ideas?