Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Word salad.

There is no such thing as a "subjective 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.

Word salad.

There is no such thing as a "subjective frame of reference".

You might even be the reincarnation of one of the
Catholic priests who condemned Galileo to house
arrest. :-)

You never tire of bringing up the Catholic Church and Galileo, do you?

Sorry, I don't know much about the Church other than they screwed
Galileo and you can shake it twice to clean the bore, but shake it
thrice and you've sinned some more.

Anyway, it appears that either:

A. You don't understand what a frame of reference means in physics.

or

B. You're bored and want to argue for it's own sake.

or

D. All of the above.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

John Smith I wrote:
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.

Yeah, so what?

The lever hasn't improved in thousands of years other than in the use
of new materials.

The same can be said for cannon and revolver design since about 1900.

When was the last time you heard of advancements in the design of milling
machines, lathes, fork lifts, the CRT, and any number of things?

Technologies mature, get over it.

Oh, and 377 Ohms and the permittivity of free space are not "mysterious"
to the educated.

snip remaining

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Nonsense.

The universe most certainly does age one second with each passing
second within the frame of reference where the second was defined.

If a scientist living somewhere else in the universe uses the same
frame of reference, he will get the same result.

If he uses a different frame of reference, he will get a different
result which can be converted to our frame of reference and the
result will be the same.

GPS satellites are in a different frame of reference but manage to
provide results that agree with our frame of reference.

What I really don't understand is why understanding frames of reference
is so difficult for many evidently otherwise intelligent people.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
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.

Yeah, so what?

The lever hasn't improved in thousands of years other than in the use
of new materials.

The same can be said for cannon and revolver design since about 1900.

When was the last time you heard of advancements in the design of milling
machines, lathes, fork lifts, the CRT, and any number of things?

Technologies mature, get over it.

Oh, and 377 Ohms and the permittivity of free space are not "mysterious"
to the educated.

snip remaining


BUSTING-A-MAJOR-GUT!
Regards,
JS

wrote:

...
What I really don't understand is why understanding frames of reference
is so difficult for many evidently otherwise intelligent people.


Garbage in, garbage out ...

A frame of reference which is in error is subject to that rule ... end
of story.

Regards,
JS

No reason for saying "percieved". It was a very real and obvious
problem.

On Jan 23, 3:56 pm, "art" wrote:
The reason for the original design was because in rarified locations
such as
Quito, Equador the yagi produces excessive corona at the element tips.

The quad solved the perceived problem. I say perceived because the
corona will eat away at the yagi antenna element lengths , In a
hazardous
area the quad is more suitable than any other antenna.
Art



Rick wrote:
On Tue, "Yuri Blanarovich" K3BU wrote:

Let's not forget this 3D champion that decimated Yagis and other inferior
contraptions by the antenna gurus and professoirs and scientwists. :-)))

73 Yuri da BUm da father of Razors

Hey Yuri,
Is it true, I've heard you can't operate a Razor over dry land, or
where there is flamable material nearby because of the fire hazard?

How about we put one up over a salt marsh, would that be safe enough
to not endanger the population?

Rick K2XT- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

One defines a standard and works with the standard.


The point is that our "standard" second changes
with velocity and we have no idea what our
velocity is or was or will be. We are defining
our average velocity as a constant without any
evidence whatsoever to support that definition.
That's no different from defining our average
position as the center of the universe.

You really need to try and get your head around relativity. And
understand that what you are worried about doesn't matter a whit.

However, this will likely degenerate into one of your famous "Cecil
against the world" ****ing matches as usual.

tom
K0TAR

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
What I really don't understand is why understanding frames of reference
is so difficult for many evidently otherwise intelligent people.


Garbage in, garbage out ...

A frame of reference which is in error is subject to that rule ... end
of story.

Babbling word salad.

Then again, there are those without a snowball's chance in hell of
ever understanding what frame of reference means.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

...
ever understanding what frame of reference means.


Nope, sounds like my goldfish in the bowl would satisfy some here ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
ever understanding what frame of reference means.


Nope, sounds like my goldfish in the bowl would satisfy some here ...

Sounds like you either need more education or less alcohol/drugs.

Maybe both.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.