John Smith I wrote:
The laws of mathematics, physics and the sciences exist in an absolute
form, somewhere ...

Too bad we haven't discovered them yet. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
If you feel it is more useful to make measurements using standards from
another reference frame, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.

You missed the point, Jim. Calculating the age of the
universe, ever and ever more accurately, with a standard
that may be continuously changing is technical insanity.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
There is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference, or much of
anything else absolute except the value of pi.

There is no absolute quanta of time, length, mass, flux density, energy,
power, angular measure, force, or speed.


Jim:

Well then, we can safely assume you have no belief in God! And,
certainly not a God prone to playing dice in the dark!--but, still able
to follow some rules ... (thanks for that one Cecil)

Non sequitur.

Well then, that leaves the "Man is God" theory, we will just make up the
rules as we go along ... I have tried that with women--I find most of
them even have rules I must obey ...

Non sequitur.

You do babble a lot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
If you feel it is more useful to make measurements using standards from
another reference frame, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.

You missed the point, Jim. Calculating the age of the
universe, ever and ever more accurately, with a standard
that may be continuously changing is technical insanity.

You missed the point Cecil.

Time never changes in our frame of reference.

The second is always the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim Kelley wrote:
The point you're missing is that the standard isn't changing with
respect to the frame in which the observations are made.

The standard is not changing with respect to a subjective
frame of reference but it is changing with respect to an
objective frame of reference? What is wrong with this
picture? Ignorance of the objective frame of reference
is no excuse, IMO.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
The dollar is an arbitrary unit so why strive for accuracy in your paycheck?

How much did an ounce of gold cost in dollars one
year after the first super nova? That is the point
that you are missing.

But, I know you are just playing word games here.

Nope, you completely missed the point. Our seconds
are just as arbitrary as our dollars. Our dollars
didn't exist one year after the first super nova
and neither did our seconds.

How many times have I said standards are arbitrary, Cecil?

That the standards are arbitrary is irrelevant.

That the human defined unit of time called the second didn't exist before
humans defined it is irrelevant.

Time existed before humans and will continue to exist after humans are
long gone.

There is no such thing as a quanta of time.

The human defined unit of time called the second is simply a way to
measure time.

The universe existed for a very long time before humans came along and
defined a unit of time called the second and put a number related to
those units on it's age.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Time never changes in our frame of reference.

I agree with you. Time never changes in our subjective
frame of reference exactly as the center of the universe
never changes in the 17th century Catholic Church's
frame of reference.

But our subjective time frame of reference is
no more valid than the Catholic Church's subjective
space frame of reference was - and maybe even less so.

You might even be the reincarnation of one of the
Catholic priests who condemned Galileo to house
arrest. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
You missed the point, Jim. Calculating the age of the
universe, ever and ever more accurately, with a standard
that may be continuously changing is technical insanity.

Cecil:

This has become an impossible argument. And, Richards' comment about
paying some attention to staying on topic caught my attention.

My point is, with our present state of knowledge and understanding of
such things as time and the "mysterious 377 ohms" (not EVEN to mention
the permittivity of space) our antenna designs and advancements have
stagnated.

It is hard to prove a negative, as you have stated before. So, let us
not move forward to prove, rather to investigate--to leave no stone
unturned (not to mention to go where no man has gone before!)

Or, look at Roys' program EZNEC. The antenna, by present understanding
of the mentioned "standards", has become ALL TOO PREDICTABLE. (not to
offend Roy, he has done an EXCELLENT job and he is an asset) It is at
the point where we begin to dare advance that progress killing
statement, "All is known, all has been discovered."

When things become this predictable, when advancements are up against
the wall and stalled, isn't it time to go back and look at these
"truths" we began with in the first place? I would like to think a new
discovery is but around the corner ... we may not do it, but we can
create a forum where it will happen.

What kind of men would allow this to exist?

Warmest regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
The standard is not changing with respect to a subjective
frame of reference but it is changing with respect to an
objective frame of reference? What is wrong with this
picture?

Skewed perspective of the artist.

73 de ac6xg

wrote:
The human defined unit of time called the second is simply a way to
measure time.

The universe doesn't age one second with each passing
second of subjective-arbitrary Earth time so what good
is any estimate of the age of the universe? A scientist
living somewhere else in the universe will get an entirely
different result. One of the cornerstones of science is
that if the results are not reproducible everywhere at
every time then they are invalid.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com