Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51   Report Post  
Old November 13th 06, 01:55 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,614
Default Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...

Mike Coslo wrote:
Are you talking about displacement when you refer to physical
dimension?


I'm talking about the space dilation equation.

x' = (x + vt)/SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2)

Quoting George Gamow: "It was Einstein who first
realized that Lorentz transformations actually
correspond to physical reality ..."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
  #52   Report Post  
Old November 13th 06, 02:04 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,614
Default Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...

John Smith wrote:
What say you?


Virtually everyone is in mutual agreement that there
was no such thing as time before the "time" of the
Big Bang. :-)

Note that time is so ingrained in our language that
it is impossible to talk about a "time" before time.
T=0 occurred "immediately after" the Big Bang. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
  #53   Report Post  
Old November 13th 06, 03:18 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 52
Default Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
John Smith wrote:
What say you?


Virtually everyone is in mutual agreement that there
was no such thing as time before the "time" of the
Big Bang. :-)

Note that time is so ingrained in our language that
it is impossible to talk about a "time" before time.
T=0 occurred "immediately after" the Big Bang. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com



Time existed before the BB, there was just nothing against which to index
it.
It's like when you're waiting as your Mrs. tries on clothes or shoes. Time
stretches
to infinity, it's a relativity thing.(G)

Harold
KD5SAK


  #54   Report Post  
Old November 13th 06, 06:51 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 666
Default Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...



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.


Most current thought is that the expansion of the ether might be
caused by the movement of (expansion of the space between) the galaxies.

73 ac6xg

  #55   Report Post  
Old November 13th 06, 07:52 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,614
Default Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...

Jim Kelley wrote:
Most current thought is that the expansion of the ether might be caused
by the movement of (expansion of the space between) the galaxies.


Space and ether are likely exactly the same thing.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


  #56   Report Post  
Old November 13th 06, 07:57 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 666
Default Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...



Cecil Moore wrote:

John Smith wrote:

I suspect you of being a rather "Doppler Fellow!"



Consider that the mere expansion of empty space itself
would cause a red shift possibly unrelated to the
Doppler effect.



Hopefully you're not considering that we can observe objects move away
from us at apparently high speed without observing a doppler red shift
- at least in part.

73, ac6xg

  #57   Report Post  
Old November 13th 06, 08:35 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 666
Default Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...

Anonymous pseudonym wrote:

If you wish to prove time to me, or anyone else for that matter, you
have but to show me or propose a demonstration/experiment where it can
be seen and measured. However, and remember this well, the
demonstration/experiment you propose MUST NOT reference movement and/or
distance--as that is what I am admitting are the only possible things
our clocks CAN measure.


If time did not exist, how old would you be when you read this, and
how old would you have been when I wrote it?

73, ac6xg

  #58   Report Post  
Old November 13th 06, 10:01 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,614
Default Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...

Jim Kelley wrote:
Hopefully you're not considering that we can observe objects move away
from us at apparently high speed without observing a doppler red shift -
at least in part.


The red-shifted background radiation is not
necessarily a Doppler effect.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
  #59   Report Post  
Old November 13th 06, 10:36 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 666
Default Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...



Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Hopefully you're not considering that we can observe objects move away
from us at apparently high speed without observing a doppler red shift
- at least in part.



The red-shifted background radiation is not
necessarily a Doppler effect.


The background radiation might not even be from the Big Bang,
necessarily. But like the doppler red shift, it's the best
scientifically supported explanation at the moment.

73, ac6xg

  #60   Report Post  
Old November 14th 06, 12:16 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,915
Default Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...

kd5sak wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
John Smith wrote:
What say you?

Virtually everyone is in mutual agreement that there
was no such thing as time before the "time" of the
Big Bang. :-)

Note that time is so ingrained in our language that
it is impossible to talk about a "time" before time.
T=0 occurred "immediately after" the Big Bang. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com



Time existed before the BB, there was just nothing against which to index
it.
It's like when you're waiting as your Mrs. tries on clothes or shoes. Time
stretches
to infinity, it's a relativity thing.(G)

Harold
KD5SAK



Everything real has an affect and produces one or more effect. In the
universe you propose, with ONLY time, what do these "look like?"

Oh, that's right, there would be NOTHING to effect! So NO affect, so NO
time! DUH! But, a tree DOES make a noise, even if nothing is there to
'enjoy' it... And, other things are effected by the trees affect of
falling...

Now if you claim time IS God, perhaps...

JS
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
whyd oes dave seem to believe that the 10 comandment only apply to other people not himself an old friend Policy 0 January 20th 06 07:46 AM
ton of wire to apply at 90 Mhz Dan Jacobson Antenna 4 April 10th 04 12:54 PM
Do relay ratings apply for RF? nick Homebrew 14 March 31st 04 11:40 PM
LIMP ONES NEED NOT APPLY **K#4#O#K#A** General 0 October 2nd 03 11:53 PM
LIMP ONES NEED NOT APPLY **K#4#O#K#A** General 0 October 2nd 03 11:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017