Jim Kelley wrote:

...
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


Jim:

Name me one instance where anyone has achieved taking a cesium atom to
absolute zero ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

Jim:

I have "walked a spell" with you now ...

What has been written, has been written, it stands ...

Meaningless babble.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

"In the late 19th century luminiferous aether ("light-bearing aether")
was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light.
Later theories including special relativity were formulated without
the aether concept, and today the aether is considered to be a
superseded scientific theory."

No aether.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:
The mistake is the concept that Space is nothing ...

I'm glad you agree. That is exactly the mistake that was
made when scientists falsely assumed that EM waves could
flow through nothing. *Every* wave needs a medium in which
to flow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

"In the late 19th century luminiferous aether ("light-bearing aether")
was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light.
Later theories including special relativity were formulated without
the aether concept, and today the aether is considered to be a
superseded scientific theory."

No aether.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

What is the speed of light that has been red-shifted
to a frequency of zero? to a negative frequency?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect

"If the observer and the source are moving directly away from each other
with velocity v, the observed frequency fo, is different from the
frequency of the source fe, as

fo = sqrt{{1-v/c}/{1+v/c}}xfe

where c, is the speed of light."

From high school algebra, fo is always greater than zero.

Nonsensical question.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

John Smith I wrote:
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?

A modern education perhaps?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Knucklehead Smith wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

...

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.

Name me one instance where anyone has achieved taking a cesium atom to
absolute zero ...

No one has ever stuck a themometer in the sun either but we have a
pretty good idea what it would read if we did.

We have absolutely no reason to expect the Cesium atom to act any
differently in another reference frame, and variety of reasons not to
expect to be able to chill it to 0 degrees Kelvin.

ac6xg

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.

Babbling nonsense.

http://www.bipm.fr/utils/common/pdf/...chure_8_en.pdf

"Unit of time (second)

The unit of time, the second, was at one time considered to be the
fraction 1/86 400 of the mean solar day. The exact definition of
?mean solar day? was left to the astronomers. However measurements
showed that irregularities in the rotation of the Earth made this an
unsatisfactory definition. In order to define the unit of time more
precisely, the 11th CGPM (1960, Resolution 9; CR, 86) adopted a
definition given by the International Astronomical Union based on
the tropical year 1900. Experimental work, however, had already shown
that an atomic standard of time, based on a transition between two
energy levels of an atom or a molecule, could be realized and
reproduced much more accurately. Considering that a very precise
definition of the unit of time is indispensable for science and
technology, the 13th CGPM (1967/68, Resolution 1; CR, 103 and
Metrologia, 1968, 4, 43) replaced the definition of the second by
the following:

The second is 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.

It follows that the hyperfine splitting in the ground state of the
caesium 133 atom is exactly 9 192 631 770 hertz, ?(hfs Cs) = 9192631770 Hz.

At its 1997 meeting the CIPM affirmed that:

This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.
This note was intended to make it clear that the definition of the SI
second is based on a caesium atom unperturbed by black body radiation,
that is, in an environment whose thermodynamic temperature is 0 K.
The frequencies of all primary frequency standards should therefore be
corrected for the shift due to ambient radiation, as stated at the meeting
of the Consultative Committee for Time and Frequency in 1999"

Go argue with the standards people.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:
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?

Are you serious?

Where is your proof cesium didn't exist between the time of the big
bang and the first supernova.

Even if true, the current calendar didn't exist before 1752.

So how could we possibly calculate George Washington's birthday?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

Stupid troll, go back to your bridge ...

JS