|
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
In a lecture meant for his inauguration at the University of Leiden in
1920, Einstein remarked: "...we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. 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. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." Shortly before his lecture in Leyden in 1920 he admitted in the paper: Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt: "Therefore I thought in 1905 that in physics one should not speak of the ether at all. This judgement was too radical though as we shall see with the next considerations about the general theory of relativity. It moreover remains, as before, allowed to assume a space-filling medium if one can refer to electromagnetic fields (and thus also for sure matter) as the condition thereof ". Perhaps he was correct, you think? JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
John Smith wrote:
In a lecture meant for his inauguration at the University of Leiden in 1920, Einstein remarked: "...we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. 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. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." Shortly before his lecture in Leyden in 1920 he admitted in the paper: Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt: "Therefore I thought in 1905 that in physics one should not speak of the ether at all. This judgement was too radical though as we shall see with the next considerations about the general theory of relativity. It moreover remains, as before, allowed to assume a space-filling medium if one can refer to electromagnetic fields (and thus also for sure matter) as the condition thereof ". Perhaps he was correct, you think? JS Of course, other theories and proposals exit to the unknown/"un-understood": http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
John Smith wrote:
In a lecture meant for his inauguration at the University of Leiden in 1920, Einstein remarked: Perhaps he was correct, you think? JS I think like this. Amateurs look, to me, like a couple of guys who build some equipment (or buy it), hook it to a wire, and communicate between themselves and possibly others. They keep on developing different and sometimes better gear and they learn many uses, games and recreation purposes for it. However, and lately, they make NO moves to advance it, a responsibility the the mere possession of an amateur license places on oneself... Now, I liken the "wire" in the above to the ether. And, these amateurs NEVER question where the wire (ether) came from, how it works, how long it is, the characteristics of it, etc. I think, obviously, that any "NEW" and "REAL" discoveries, developments, technology, etc. will ONLY come from answering the question which is implied above or, "How does the ether factor into communications? Will a(the) manipulation(s) of the ether further radio technology, its' use, worth, etc.?" Now, I do think antennas are an excellent place to begin such studies and research. They obviously, in my humble opinion, interface with the ether! Or, if your belief in the ether is holding you back, I offer the following as an example of hunting for it: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/webster.k.../Detection.pdf This page contains instructions on how to construct a cheap and simple device to detect the ether. It uses a laser (laser level--mine cost 12.95 + tax) and a few front surface mirrors... (I am still proving the ether to myself and undecided as to whether to have the same faith I hold for God, for it (ether)...) I would love to come up with a way to use RF. Point being, DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE or SHUT UP and go about your BS over the airwaves(vibrations of the ether really!) smile Or, said simply, "Those who can do, those who can't fire up the rig and rag chew." JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
John Smith wrote:
Perhaps he was correct, you think? Of course, he was correct. Empty space has been proved not to be empty and certainly appears to have a structure with particles winking in and out of existence. The physicists were correct about the existence of the medium (ether) but they made incorrect assumptions about its nature. It was a mistake to assume the ether didn't exist just because its nature was different than expected. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
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. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: Perhaps he was correct, you think? Of course, he was correct. Empty space has been proved not to be empty and certainly appears to have a structure with particles winking in and out of existence. The physicists were correct about the existence of the medium (ether) but they made incorrect assumptions about its nature. It was a mistake to assume the ether didn't exist just because its nature was different than expected. Of course, the ether has not yet been seen, and the unseen is difficult to prove and accept... http://www.uoregon.edu/~rwh/physics/twoslit.html http://web.syr.edu/~dmalling/history.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/mmhist.html http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physic...ww/node67.html http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1935JScI...12...75D http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/1998-12/msg0013841.html http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine...i/absolute.htm http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~jack...f/lecture6.txt http://humboldt.edu/~scimus/Instrume...cScp-Noyes.htm JS |
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. Cecil: I suspect you of being a rather "Doppler Fellow!" Or, is that "Dapper Fellow?" Whatever... grin Warmest regards, JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
John Smith wrote:
Of course, the ether has not yet been seen, and the unseen is difficult to prove and accept... Quoting "Alpha & Omega", by Charles Seife: "Quantum physicists are forced to conclude that the vacuum isn't truly empty. It is seething with particles and energy. ... The need (to understand) is more pressing than ever before, because they think that the energy of the vacuum, the zero-point energy that is everywhere in the universe, is forcing the universe apart." That force is thought to be the same thing as the Casimir effect which has indeed been measured. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
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. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: Of course, the ether has not yet been seen, and the unseen is difficult to prove and accept... Quoting "Alpha & Omega", by Charles Seife: "Quantum physicists are forced to conclude that the vacuum isn't truly empty. It is seething with particles and energy. ... The need (to understand) is more pressing than ever before, because they think that the energy of the vacuum, the zero-point energy that is everywhere in the universe, is forcing the universe apart." That force is thought to be the same thing as the Casimir effect which has indeed been measured. Cecil: You made a mistake in your spelling, a first (well, maybe!) But surely, you meant the "Cashmere Effect", the effect my suit has on women! "Dutch physicist Hendrik B. G. Casimir first proposed the existence of the force, and he formulated an experiment to detect it in 1948 while participating in research at Philips Research Labs. The classic form of his experiment used a pair of uncharged parallel metal plates in a vacuum, and successfully demonstrated the force to within 15% of the value he had predicted according to his theory. The van der Waals force between a pair of neutral atoms is a similar effect. In modern theoretical physics, the Casimir effect plays an important role in the chiral bag model of the nucleon, and in applied physics, it is becoming of increasing importance in development of the ever-smaller, miniaturised components of emerging micro- and nano- technologies." -- Wikipedia Hey, does an affect cause an effect? Or, is each and every effect is followed by an equal and opposite affect? Geesh, confusing... .... makes me see visions of Fleischmann-Pons dancing in my head, only thing keeping me up is a long tether tossed me from NASA and it might have broken! Warmest regards, JS |
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. The passage of time will make that known beyond doubt, the universe expands at an ever increasing (yet, rather slow increase) rate... (Or, what color red do you like?) What would you see as the affect causing the red shift effect? Regards, JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
John Smith wrote:
... only thing keeping me up is a long tether tossed me from NASA and it might have broken! Nope, the tether is expanding right along with space. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
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 |
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. Cecil: So, you are committed to the universe WITHOUT a universal frame reference, and therefore the (implied?) Einsteinian Model; but, the Tesla Model remains, yet, to be proven false. Personally, I favor the Tesla Model (or a near work-a-like); a gut feeling (some "evidence", no real [depends on "real" here] proof) of mine implies it much more favorable towards a condition of holding free energy in an unknown/yet-to-be-measured form and being able to affect the imbalance effect capable of producing/containing some form of kinetic energy on a "self-generating" and subatomic scale of, virtually, boundless proportions (or, what good is an imbalance if you can't measure it?) Something akin(?) to that expanding universe and the "pressure(s)" holding everything apart and having the ability to overwhelm/overcome gravity itself (I mean, if you are going to dream, dream BIG!) Now, I must disclose a secret (well, alright, it is obvious really), I am a conspiracy nut when it comes to the suspicion that the powers which be would move to suppress knowledge of freely available energy and how to manipulate such an energy source which exists in an manner and form which is "easy" to access and to use in abundant and diabolically-dangerously large quantities of (Or, where is Fleischmann-Pons? Have I lost my tether--why won't you tell me--or at least attempt to toss it again? Is that universe fading from view due to my failing sight? Etc.) Really, I think they would hide such knowledge--I would! Just imagine middle-east terrorists with the ability to toss out a string and annihilate the world (or just Israel!) Could we already consider it done? Regards, JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
What holds empty space together? Does the ether
cluster in gobs? Just wondering. :-) Irv VE6BP 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. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com -- -------------------------------------- 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:
What holds empty space together? Does the ether cluster in gobs? Just wondering. :-) Irv VE6BP 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. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Irv: Your question is an excellent one and your point well taken. And, that simple question strikes right to the crux of the matter, doesn't it. So, what is your best guess? grin Warmest regards, JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
John Smith wrote:
Irv Finkleman wrote: What holds empty space together? Does the ether cluster in gobs? Just wondering. :-) Irv VE6BP 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. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Irv: Your question is an excellent one and your point well taken. And, that simple question strikes right to the crux of the matter, doesn't it. So, what is your best guess? grin Warmest regards, JS Irv: My first response was only meant to be provocative. I hear your question as a baffling inquiry composed of the following: a) What kind of table does space lie upon. b) What kind of "void" does space, itself, hang suspended in? (floating in?) c) Does the "state of the ALL" exist as a solution, or an emulsion, a gas, a solid, etc? d) Is the ether composed of the smallest particles possible, or are their smaller particles which the ether is composed of? e) Is "our matter" which "our world/universe" is composed of the largest particles possible or, are there much larger particles in existence and our universe only a particle of this larger matter and would that larger matter be the largest possible? f) Etc. To even propose an answer, I would truly believe in, to what you ask is impossible for me, at least for me to do so in any real way... I seek answers and have only questions and possible ideas on how to find answers with. I often look in others ideas, can you blame me? Regards, JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: ... only thing keeping me up is a long tether tossed me from NASA and it might have broken! Nope, the tether is expanding right along with space. :-) Cecil: Surely you jest? You really want to propose that my yardstick grows longer (has no relation to human body parts, I am sure! Hmm, could this be possibly be desirable?) while my seconds grow shorter? Hmm, come to think of it, I could measure much larger things in much shorter time spans, could be quite handy, really! Regards, JS |
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. Oh Cecil. You disappoint me. I really thought you were smarter than this. tom K0TAR |
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. I'm holding out for Phlogiston theory to come back....;^) - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
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...
"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 - |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Irv Finkleman wrote: wrote: Maybe time has changed over time? I think that would only be from a humans point of view, if that were the case. MK |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
John Smith wrote: 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. There doesn't have to be any motion. A second is just an arbitrary measurement given to a certain amount of elapsed "living time", by some hairy legged man. An object could move zip in that second, or it could move up to 186,000 miles if light. Of course, some will argue light is not an object per say. Time is probably one of the most brain warping things to think about. Time doesn't know it's time. Time is never late. Tiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmee is on my side, yes it is... Of course, man may well have needed to measure the speed or distance of something to have a decent reference point when measuring time, but thats their problem, not time. Time could care less cuz it's infinite. MK |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
|
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: 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. There doesn't have to be any motion. A second is just an arbitrary measurement given to a certain amount of elapsed "living time", by some hairy legged man. An object could move zip in that second, or it could move up to 186,000 miles if light. Of course, some will argue light is not an object per say. Time is probably one of the most brain warping things to think about. Time doesn't know it's time. Time is never late. Tiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmee is on my side, yes it is... Of course, man may well have needed to measure the speed or distance of something to have a decent reference point when measuring time, but thats their problem, not time. Time could care less cuz it's infinite. MK I have a favorite quote re time, don't even know who said it, it's ---"Time is natures way of keeping everything from happening at the same time". Harold KD5SAK |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
John Smith wrote: wrote: John Smith wrote: 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. Ahhh. You make me remember my younger years. The world was a much simpler place and I knew it all... I really hated to grow up... JS Judging from many of your previous posts, I have to wonder if you ever did. Why would I remind you of your younger years? I'm a 50 year semi old fart. What makes you think a "second" has to involve distance or a certain speed? I can spend one second sitting in this chair, not moving, or I can spend it in a car doing 70 mph. A second is still a second. You disagree that time is infinite? I bet it is. There may be no worlds left as you know it, and the stars may be in different places, but "time" will still be ticking away. Forever and ever and ever. As far as "knowing it all", who said anything about me knowing anything? I'm just giving my opinions on time the way I see it. I may be fairly close, or I may be totally wet. But if you don't like my answers, it "time" for you to kiss my ass. I don't like a smartass. And your track record for being one is proven over *time*. MK |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
John Smith wrote:
You really want to propose that my yardstick grows longer (has no relation to human body parts, I am sure! Hmm, could this be possibly be desirable?) while my seconds grow shorter? Both concepts are contained in Lorentz's transformations. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
wrote:
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. Time falls into a group of concepts "discovered" by man. Did time exist before man existed? Did God exist before man existed? Did truth exist before man existed? Did infinity exist before man existed? The list is virtually endless. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
John Smith wrote:
The speed the earth rotates at, has changed. Did seconds exist before the earth existed? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
wrote:
John Smith wrote: wrote: John Smith wrote: 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. Ahhh. You make me remember my younger years. The world was a much simpler place and I knew it all... I really hated to grow up... JS Judging from many of your previous posts, I have to wonder if you ever did. Why would I remind you of your younger years? I'm a 50 year semi old fart. What makes you think a "second" has to involve distance or a certain speed? I can spend one second sitting in this chair, not moving, or I can spend it in a car doing 70 mph. A second is still a second. You disagree that time is infinite? I bet it is. There may be no worlds left as you know it, and the stars may be in different places, but "time" will still be ticking away. Forever and ever and ever. As far as "knowing it all", who said anything about me knowing anything? I'm just giving my opinions on time the way I see it. I may be fairly close, or I may be totally wet. But if you don't like my answers, it "time" for you to kiss my ass. I don't like a smartass. And your track record for being one is proven over *time*. MK At 54 years old, I do believe I am your senior. At 54 my father "acted" very much like he was 54--it only pleases me you find I do not. And, don't bother bowing, I know a few college students which are my equal, and a couple my better, they only suffer from the lack of my experience ("time" on earth you would say--worldly exposure I would say.) 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. Now, as to your dislike for responses from a "smart ass" like myself, easy to fix, don't act, speak or text like a "dumb ass" and you will NOT experience the former from me... Regards, JS |
Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
Mike Coslo wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing the arguments though. Take a look at Lorentz's transformation equations. The physical dimension increases as velocity *decreases*. So an increase in a physical dimension doesn't necessarily imply an increase in velocity. When relativity is involved, it implies a decrease in velocity. Thus, decreasing velocity can cause a relativistic red-shift. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com