wrote:

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

Maybe both.


Jim:

Well, gee, good thing we don't go on sounds, because you sound like the
MOST stupid idiot I have ever had the displeasure to chat with, but hey,
I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt

Hang in there buddy ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

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

Maybe both.


Jim:

Well, gee, good thing we don't go on sounds, because you sound like the
MOST stupid idiot I have ever had the displeasure to chat with, but hey,
I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt

Hang in there buddy ...

Everything I've posted about time and reference frames can be trivially
verified.

If you want to remain an ignorant, arm waving babbler, that's your choice.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

:-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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

*Only* within the frame of reference where the second
was defined which didn't exist for the first 2/3
of the history of the universe.

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

My point exactly!
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:

...
Everything I've posted about time and reference frames can be trivially
verified.

If you want to remain an ignorant, arm waving babbler, that's your choice.


Damn! Wonder why it feels so late ... yawn

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
There is no such thing as a "subjective frame of reference".

:-)



Regards,
JS

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

*Only* within the frame of reference where the second
was defined which didn't exist for the first 2/3
of the history of the universe.

Babble.

The universe has aged one second with each passing second within the frame
of reference where the second is defined whether or not there was anyone
around to define a second and will continue to age at that rate in that
frame whether or not there is anyone around who could take notice of the
fact.

And since the frame of reference is a defined thing and not a physical
reality, it doesn't matter if the Earth continues to exist or not either.

You seem to have a lot of difficulty with this concept.

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

My point exactly!

So your are saying you don't understand what a frame of reference is?

It is getting kind of obvious.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:

...

Cecil:

I feel like a damn idiot, this guy has been at this for sometime (this
is from 2004), bet Richard has been having a laugh, look at the following:

Richard Harrison wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"

I have not seen that question before, but will speculate that Edwin
Hubble deserves the credit as he used "red shift" in the light from
other galaxies to show that they are speeding away from us and our
galaxy. In fact, they are accelerating so that the farther the galaxy is
away from us, the faster it is moving away.

From continuous acceleration, the distant galaxy will eventually reach
the speed of light. Then, light from the distsnt galaxy won`t reach us
because it will tag along with the fast moving galaxy.

There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.

Hubble has also shown that the Doppler effect would shift the frequency
lower as velocity of the retreating thing increases. Shift the frequency
low enough and the wave is no longer described as light but may be
classified as a millimeter radio wave.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

To be accererating, there would have to be a force .

Where would this force be coming from and what pray tell is directing
it?

The speed of light is a constant in all reference frames. If a light
source were to be moving at the speed of light away from an observer,
an impossiblity in itself, the light would still be moving at c towards
the observer.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote in news:aqfuh.4372$O02.4066
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:

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

*Only* within the frame of reference where the second
was defined which didn't exist for the first 2/3
of the history of the universe.

Actually, the second is defined as a certain exact number of oscillations
of a cesium atom in the same reference frame as the observer. The
transforms of general relativity permit us to predict the behavior of such
atoms (relative to our own observation) in other reference frames as long
as we have a good mathematical handle on their velocity and gravitational
warp.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

...

Cecil:

I feel like a damn idiot, this guy has been at this for sometime (this
is from 2004), bet Richard has been having a laugh, look at the following:

Richard Harrison wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"

I have not seen that question before, but will speculate that Edwin
Hubble deserves the credit as he used "red shift" in the light from
other galaxies to show that they are speeding away from us and our
galaxy. In fact, they are accelerating so that the farther the galaxy is
away from us, the faster it is moving away.

From continuous acceleration, the distant galaxy will eventually reach
the speed of light. Then, light from the distsnt galaxy won`t reach us
because it will tag along with the fast moving galaxy.

There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.

Hubble has also shown that the Doppler effect would shift the frequency
lower as velocity of the retreating thing increases. Shift the frequency
low enough and the wave is no longer described as light but may be
classified as a millimeter radio wave.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

To be accererating, there would have to be a force .

Where would this force be coming from and what pray tell is directing
it?

The speed of light is a constant in all reference frames. If a light
source were to be moving at the speed of light away from an observer,
an impossiblity in itself, the light would still be moving at c towards
the observer.

The part about force is badly worded, I admit.

However, are you saying the speed of light is not constant in all
reference frames?

If so, you are a damn idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.