Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Tom Ring wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

John Smith wrote:

This page contains instructions on how to construct a cheap and
simple device to detect the ether.


Consider that the galactic red shift might be caused
by the expansion of the ether and not by movement of
the galaxies.

Oh Cecil. You disappoint me. I really thought you were smarter than this.

tom
K0TAR

Ahhh, Mr. Tom Ring, the number one heckler of Cecil Moore! A
personality in his own right, if for no other reason than his imbecilic
and insane persistence in this devotion to such petty heckling!

Let me see, there are many, many posts from Mr. Tom Ring to this
newsgroup, and these posts span a notable time span. Now, as to the
worth of these posts, let us have a look.

It seems Mr. Ring is very good at making some use of the available and
current technology. He even has made some recorded voice files
available on the net. Seems if questions asked here in the group are
more-or-less standard ones, and the knowledge is quite commonly
available, Mr Ring is very, very good at looking it up, citing sources
and pointing out known and very much accepted, traditional thinking,
solutions and methods. He might even be a master at using Roy's little
program to plot antenna design specs! Indeed, it might be said he would
be suitable to tutor another on and in its' use. And, I do believe he
has never failed in being able to match his antenna to his xmitter as a
proper load.

But, in my humble opinion, although you may search from the beginning of
his posts, here and in other groups or the web, he has demonstrated very
little if any real abilities, motivations or offerings in ORIGINAL
THOUGHT! Mr. Ring is a bit of a coward, and although any physicist with
a valid degree will acknowledge that we are far from having explained,
to any complete satisfaction, the workings of electromagnetic waves and
their propagation, the medium they exist within, etc., Mr. Ring hides
always in the shadows of others findings, proofs, theories, experiments,
designs, etc. It seems Mr. Ring is much, too much a coward to ever
stick his neck out and offer any original thought, and this is
especially noted if it would require such thought to be against
"Traditional Beliefs." Mr. Ring, I suspect, is more of a "YES MAN."

While Mr. Ring may be a devoted member of "The Church of Hardcore and
Steadfast Amateurs Devoted to The Traditions of the Decades" he quite
certainly will NEVER offer any ideas, theories, experiments or even
words against traditionally held beliefs, which even by the sheerest of
accidents, would contribute to anything, even remotely, resembling a new
discovery, a new design, a new method, a new tradition.

If you want to find plans for equipment someone else has designed, Mr.
Ring is your man! If you need antenna advice on any standard and
"amateur accepted" antenna, Mr. Ring is your man!

However, if you grow tire of the common, of the already "explored to
death", of touted lines from notary figures and wish to try new things,
you may expect only ridicule from Mr. Tom Ring.

I can only offer you my personal opinion of Mr. Tom Ring. But, I think
you already know what that opinion is, and I will spare you the
tirade... I am sure Mr. Ring already already suspects what he is, and
seeks to lessen taller men, with his imbecilic heckling, who threaten
him with their shadow--indeed, Mr. Ring attempts to silence any thought
which would lead to new discoveries--imagine if he was next to Tesla,
Bell, Pasteur, da Vinci, etc. in a newsgroup, AND WAS SUCCESSFUL!

A million men might offer clues and make attempts and fail before but
one man sees the light and is successful. Just think, that implies
999,999 hecklers might have been right--only one needed to be wrong for
a new discovery.

Thank God newsgroups were not in existence, and Mr. Ring present therein
when the Wright brothers dreamed...

Sorry, that has been building for a bit...

Regards,
JS

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
What would you see as the affect causing the red shift effect?

We are immersed in relativistic effects and cannot
measure or see the forest for the trees. If our
velocity is less today than it was in the past, then
seconds are shorter today than in the past. If we
measure a frequency with a second that is shorter
than seconds were when the frequency was generated,
the frequency measurement is red-shifted. If we
measure the age of the universe with shortened
seconds, we come up with a value that is too large.

What if the very first second after the Big Bang was
one billion years long measured in present day seconds?
Hyperinflation would not be needed. And there would
be a drift between carbon-14 years and Bristle Cone
pine rings.

This thought occurred to me some 40+ years ago when
I made a frequency measurement and the time base
selection knob on my o'scope was loose and pointing
to the wrong time scale. I measured 30 Hz for the
power line frequency.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Dunno. I still think time is a man made confarction.
After all, who was the one that determined just how
long a second lasted in the first place. Probably a
hairy man. Who would be the one to decide that the
length of a second has changed value? Again, probably
some hairly legged dude sitting at a desk.
Me? I don't think time exists as we know it. Time as
we know it was conceived by men, for men.
A second can be any length we choose.
Of course, through time as we know it, we have developed
tighter standards of tracking this unit of measure, which
was conceived by man for man. Of course, I imagine the
beginnings of keeping track of time were all solar related.
IE: sunrise, sunset, etc..
Time is infinite the way I see it.
In it's true state, it has no bounderies. In a way, it doesn't
even exist.
My name is not Einstein, but I approved this message anyway.
MK

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
What would you see as the affect causing the red shift effect?
We are immersed in relativistic effects and cannot
measure or see the forest for the trees. If our
velocity is less today than it was in the past, then
seconds are shorter today than in the past. If we
measure a frequency with a second that is shorter
than seconds were when the frequency was generated,
the frequency measurement is red-shifted. If we
measure the age of the universe with shortened
seconds, we come up with a value that is too large.

What if the very first second after the Big Bang was
one billion years long measured in present day seconds?
Hyperinflation would not be needed. And there would
be a drift between carbon-14 years and Bristle Cone
pine rings.

This thought occurred to me some 40+ years ago when
I made a frequency measurement and the time base
selection knob on my o'scope was loose and pointing
to the wrong time scale. I measured 30 Hz for the
power line frequency.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Dunno. I still think time is a man made confarction.
After all, who was the one that determined just how
long a second lasted in the first place. Probably a
hairy man. Who would be the one to decide that the
length of a second has changed value? Again, probably
some hairly legged dude sitting at a desk.
Me? I don't think time exists as we know it. Time as
we know it was conceived by men, for men.
A second can be any length we choose.
Of course, through time as we know it, we have developed
tighter standards of tracking this unit of measure, which
was conceived by man for man. Of course, I imagine the
beginnings of keeping track of time were all solar related.
IE: sunrise, sunset, etc..
Time is infinite the way I see it.
In it's true state, it has no bounderies. In a way, it doesn't
even exist.
My name is not Einstein, but I approved this message anyway.
MK


MK:

Indeed:

.... But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be
tracked through time. -- Einstein

You just sounded a LOT like him...

JS

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:

What would you see as the affect causing the red shift effect?


We are immersed in relativistic effects and cannot
measure or see the forest for the trees.

I'm holding out for Phlogiston theory to come back....;^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -


Could be that light ages over eons of travel time and the red shift is
actually a form
of fatigue. Or not. (G)

Harold
KD5SAK

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

kd5sak wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:

What would you see as the affect causing the red shift effect?

We are immersed in relativistic effects and cannot
measure or see the forest for the trees.
I'm holding out for Phlogiston theory to come back....;^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -


Could be that light ages over eons of travel time and the red shift is
actually a form
of fatigue. Or not. (G)

Harold
KD5SAK



Interesting enough, I found just such a theory being advanced awhile
back by a "real" university, it sounds preposterous, don't you think?
However, if you happen to have that page, please post it--I should have
at least given it a full read before dismissal...

Regards,
JS

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Could be that light ages over eons of travel time and the red shift is
actually a form
of fatigue. Or not. (G)

Harold
KD5SAK

Interesting enough, I found just such a theory being advanced awhile back
by a "real" university, it sounds preposterous, don't you think?
However, if you happen to have that page, please post it--I should have at
least given it a full read before dismissal...

Regards,
JS

I have'nt seen anything on that. It's just something that pops up out of the
back
of my mind on the rare occasions that I see a discussion on "Red Shift". Now
that you've mentioned it I'll do a web search and see if I can find anything
on the web. Be interesting to see what aspect of physics "they" think might
allow for that "light aging" to occur.

Harold
KD5SAK

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Amen!
That 'splains it! For a while I thought I have a "problem" :-)

Someone who can only spew "evaluations" of poster's mental faculties here,
without engaging in some technical discussion, belongs do Psycho-Antenna NG.

Those on the west coast can visit Tesla Exhibit in Vancouver BC Nov 16 - 30.
Should be very interesting. If Tesla was around today and posted here, I bet
W8JI would make him look like a F0OL too.

Another small step for Teslians in the (perfect ground) mud of N2EE site,
another large hole in the roof fixed. See www.TeslaRadio.org for some new
pictures.


73 Yuri, K3BU

Oh Cecil. You disappoint me. I really thought you were smarter than
this.

tom
K0TAR

Ahhh, Mr. Tom Ring, the number one heckler of Cecil Moore! A personality
in his own right, if for no other reason than his imbecilic and insane
persistence in this devotion to such petty heckling!

Let me see, there are many, many posts from Mr. Tom Ring to this
newsgroup, and these posts span a notable time span. Now, as to the worth
of these posts, let us have a look.

It seems Mr. Ring is very good at making some use of the available and
current technology. He even has made some recorded voice files available
on the net. Seems if questions asked here in the group are more-or-less
standard ones, and the knowledge is quite commonly available, Mr Ring is
very, very good at looking it up, citing sources and pointing out known
and very much accepted, traditional thinking, solutions and methods. He
might even be a master at using Roy's little program to plot antenna
design specs! Indeed, it might be said he would be suitable to tutor
another on and in its' use. And, I do believe he has never failed in
being able to match his antenna to his xmitter as a proper load.

But, in my humble opinion, although you may search from the beginning of
his posts, here and in other groups or the web, he has demonstrated very
little if any real abilities, motivations or offerings in ORIGINAL
THOUGHT! Mr. Ring is a bit of a coward, and although any physicist with a
valid degree will acknowledge that we are far from having explained, to
any complete satisfaction, the workings of electromagnetic waves and their
propagation, the medium they exist within, etc., Mr. Ring hides always in
the shadows of others findings, proofs, theories, experiments, designs,
etc. It seems Mr. Ring is much, too much a coward to ever stick his neck
out and offer any original thought, and this is especially noted if it
would require such thought to be against "Traditional Beliefs." Mr. Ring,
I suspect, is more of a "YES MAN."

While Mr. Ring may be a devoted member of "The Church of Hardcore and
Steadfast Amateurs Devoted to The Traditions of the Decades" he quite
certainly will NEVER offer any ideas, theories, experiments or even words
against traditionally held beliefs, which even by the sheerest of
accidents, would contribute to anything, even remotely, resembling a new
discovery, a new design, a new method, a new tradition.

If you want to find plans for equipment someone else has designed, Mr.
Ring is your man! If you need antenna advice on any standard and "amateur
accepted" antenna, Mr. Ring is your man!

However, if you grow tire of the common, of the already "explored to
death", of touted lines from notary figures and wish to try new things,
you may expect only ridicule from Mr. Tom Ring.

I can only offer you my personal opinion of Mr. Tom Ring. But, I think
you already know what that opinion is, and I will spare you the tirade...
I am sure Mr. Ring already already suspects what he is, and seeks to
lessen taller men, with his imbecilic heckling, who threaten him with
their shadow--indeed, Mr. Ring attempts to silence any thought which would
lead to new discoveries--imagine if he was next to Tesla, Bell, Pasteur,
da Vinci, etc. in a newsgroup, AND WAS SUCCESSFUL!

A million men might offer clues and make attempts and fail before but one
man sees the light and is successful. Just think, that implies 999,999
hecklers might have been right--only one needed to be wrong for a new
discovery.

Thank God newsgroups were not in existence, and Mr. Ring present therein
when the Wright brothers dreamed...

Sorry, that has been building for a bit...

Regards,
JS

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

wrote:

Maybe time has changed over time?

Dunno. I still think time is a man made confarction.
After all, who was the one that determined just how
long a second lasted in the first place. Probably a
hairy man. Who would be the one to decide that the
length of a second has changed value? Again, probably
some hairly legged dude sitting at a desk.
Me? I don't think time exists as we know it. Time as
we know it was conceived by men, for men.
A second can be any length we choose.
Of course, through time as we know it, we have developed
tighter standards of tracking this unit of measure, which
was conceived by man for man. Of course, I imagine the
beginnings of keeping track of time were all solar related.
IE: sunrise, sunset, etc..
Time is infinite the way I see it.
In it's true state, it has no bounderies. In a way, it doesn't
even exist.
My name is not Einstein, but I approved this message anyway.
MK

--
--------------------------------------
Visit my HomePage at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv/index.html
Visit my Baby Sofia website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv4/index.htm
Visit my OLDTIMERS website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv5/index.htm
--------------------
Irv Finkleman,
Grampa/Ex-Navy/Old Fart/Ham Radio VE6BP
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Irv Finkleman wrote:

wrote:

Maybe time has changed over time?

Dunno. I still think time is a man made confarction.
After all, who was the one that determined just how
long a second lasted in the first place. Probably a
hairy man. Who would be the one to decide that the
length of a second has changed value? Again, probably
some hairly legged dude sitting at a desk.
Me? I don't think time exists as we know it. Time as
we know it was conceived by men, for men.
A second can be any length we choose.
Of course, through time as we know it, we have developed
tighter standards of tracking this unit of measure, which
was conceived by man for man. Of course, I imagine the
beginnings of keeping track of time were all solar related.
IE: sunrise, sunset, etc..
Time is infinite the way I see it.
In it's true state, it has no bounderies. In a way, it doesn't
even exist.
My name is not Einstein, but I approved this message anyway.
MK


Although the "Universal Time Frame", if it is more than a dream and
exists, would NOT change (taken that it is a law and the ether obeys
such a law.) The speed the earth rotates at, has changed. So, without
doubt, our time reference point has changed; however, we keep
compensating for it.

Stupid thing to base time upon really, the rotation of any specific
sphere... Indeed, from such a reference point even the existence of
time, itself, is impossible to prove. Although time IS an effect of
motion, a second is NOT "time." A second only records the speed and
distance an object moves, in a rather round-about-measure.

Regards,
JS

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

kd5sak wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Could be that light ages over eons of travel time and the red shift is
actually a form
of fatigue. Or not. (G)

Harold
KD5SAK

Interesting enough, I found just such a theory being advanced awhile back
by a "real" university, it sounds preposterous, don't you think?
However, if you happen to have that page, please post it--I should have at
least given it a full read before dismissal...

Regards,
JS


I have'nt seen anything on that. It's just something that pops up out of the
back
of my mind on the rare occasions that I see a discussion on "Red Shift". Now
that you've mentioned it I'll do a web search and see if I can find anything
on the web. Be interesting to see what aspect of physics "they" think might
allow for that "light aging" to occur.

The aging of light is one of those strange concepts often brought out
by creationists as an attempt to make the universe "younger" in order to
fit in with their worldview.

One contradiction to that theory is the fact that while most distant
stellar objects are red shifting, there are also objects that are blue
shifting on us. Galaxy Andromeda comes to mind. So if redshift is to be
refuted, blueshift must also be explained.

Another issue is that Doppler effect, the basis of redshift, is so
easily demonstrated on so many scales - sonically, and
electromagnetically, that one would have to have a really strong
argument to refute it. I'd be interested in hearing the arguments though.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -