Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
to a frequency of zero? to a negative frequency?

Negative frequency?

Wouldn't you just see a phase reversal and a "climb" in frequency in
reverse phasing? Perhaps I miss something?

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:
Light is an electromagnetic effect and does not require a medium.

So you are not up on the latest scientific knowledge?
EM waves cannot flow in absolute nothing, i.e. outside
of our universe. The "empty" space in our universe
is *NOT* empty and indeed does posses a structure.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Antennas led astray
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:aqfuh.4372$O02.4066
*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 same problem still exists. The cesium atom didn't
exist before the first super nova. How can the time
be calculated between the Big Bang and the first super
nova if cesium didn't exist?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
Units of measurement are totally arbitrary, what they are measuring isnt. It
is irrelevant how long a second is as long as everyone agrees. Time has
nothing to do with the existance of cesium. The origonal basis for the
second was the roatation of the earth but that is not constant so it was
redefined I believe in the 60s, seems like I remember hearing about it in
HS.

Antennas led astray
 

Jimmie D wrote:

...
Units of measurement are totally arbitrary, what they are measuring isnt. It
is irrelevant how long a second is as long as everyone agrees. Time has
nothing to do with the existance of cesium. The origonal basis for the
second was the roatation of the earth but that is not constant so it was
redefined I believe in the 60s, seems like I remember hearing about it in
HS.



Jimmie:

There is much common sense in what you state.

However, I see us at a point where no more real advances in knowledge
can be made until we do have an understanding of what these arbitrary
units ARE measuring--at present, all we really understand are our units ...

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

Jimmie D wrote:
Units of measurement are totally arbitrary, what they are measuring isnt.

So a standard unit of measurement can change value
daily in an unknown fashion and still yield non-arbirtary
results?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Antennas led astray
 

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Jimmie D wrote:

...
Units of measurement are totally arbitrary, what they are measuring isnt.
It is irrelevant how long a second is as long as everyone agrees. Time
has nothing to do with the existance of cesium. The origonal basis for
the second was the roatation of the earth but that is not constant so it
was redefined I believe in the 60s, seems like I remember hearing about
it in HS.

Jimmie:

There is much common sense in what you state.

However, I see us at a point where no more real advances in knowledge can
be made until we do have an understanding of what these arbitrary units
ARE measuring--at present, all we really understand are our units ...

Regards,
JS

There are a lot of things about the universe we really dont understand, time
and gravity are just two. Our understanding of time is just a theory like
gravity but so far all we think we know about it seems to work. I dont worry
much about falling up when I get out of bed in the morning. Arguing about it
is as fruitless as telling someone why an arbitrailly thrown together pile
of metal isnt a breakthrough in antenna design. Where do you start??

Jimmie

Jimmie

Antennas led astray
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Jimmie D wrote:
Units of measurement are totally arbitrary, what they are measuring isnt.

So a standard unit of measurement can change value
daily in an unknown fashion and still yield non-arbirtary
results?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Theorectically yes, practically no. But this is just something you came up
with and has nothing to do with what I said.. My total message was not so
long that it needed to be snipped , it is obvious why you did. If you just
want to argue and do so by taking what somone says out of context please put
me on your kill file .

Antennas led astray
 

Jimmie D wrote:

...
There are a lot of things about the universe we really dont understand, time
and gravity are just two. Our understanding of time is just a theory like
gravity but so far all we think we know about it seems to work. I dont worry
much about falling up when I get out of bed in the morning. Arguing about it
is as fruitless as telling someone why an arbitrailly thrown together pile
of metal isnt a breakthrough in antenna design. Where do you start??

Jimmie

Jimmie



Jimmie:

Don't kill the messenger. I am at a loss to any REAL answers, as you
are. But when you ask, "Where do you start?" Haven't we already
started when at least we can describe the problem and starting talking
and thinking about it?

I don't even claim to be "smart enough" to solve all this (at least I am
not that stupid grin), however, I would like to be standing next to
the man who can ... if I can help him, I would!

CERN now has the equipment to help ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
wrote:
Light is an electromagnetic effect and does not require a medium.

So you are not up on the latest scientific knowledge?
EM waves cannot flow in absolute nothing, i.e. outside
of our universe. The "empty" space in our universe
is *NOT* empty and indeed does posses a structure.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

The mistake is the concept that Space is nothing not that the space is or
could be empty. Not a concept that is easy to explain.

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

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.


A frame of reference based on 1/86400 of one rotation
of the Earth which is only 1/3 as old as the universe?
A frame of reference based on the oscillation frequency
of Cesium when Cesium didn't even exist before the first
super nova? I'm not having difficult with the concept.
I'm just wondering why anyone would accept such a
flawed concept. The 17th Century Catholic Church's frame
of reference was earth-centric. So is our time frame of
reference. Both are equally valid.

The two are entirely different.

Name a place in the universe where the Cesium atom transitions at a
different frequency in that reference frame than it does in our
reference frame, provide the underlying physics to explain it, and
then prove it.

One wonders how you can continue to compare proponents of Eistein's
theories to the 16th century Catholic church and expect to be taken
seriously.

Thanks,

73, ac6xg