Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH
...

Richard:

Really?

Yes, really.

Perhaps my understanding of Einsteins theory is incorrect, or I am
attempting to add a relative quality to it?

Einstein has nothing to do with it nor does the rotation of the Earth.

"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined
as 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. This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest
at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero)."

Where Einstein comes in is that the cesium atom has to be at rest in
your reference frame.

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Only in comic books and movies.

snip rest

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH
...

Richard:

Really?

Yes, really.

Perhaps my understanding of Einsteins theory is incorrect, or I am
attempting to add a relative quality to it?

Einstein has nothing to do with it nor does the rotation of the Earth.

"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined
as 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. This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest
at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero)."

Where Einstein comes in is that the cesium atom has to be at rest in
your reference frame.

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Only in comic books and movies.

snip rest


Actually, I was so flabbergasted I failed to even give you a reason why
I would find holes immediately in your statement, to begin:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

"While scientists cannot fully achieve a state of “zero” heat energy in
a substance, they have made great advancements in achieving temperatures
ever closer to absolute zero (where matter exhibits odd quantum
effects). In 1994, the NIST achieved a record cold temperature of 700 nK
(billionths of a kelvin). In 2003, researchers at MIT eclipsed this with
a new record of 450 pK (0.45 nK)."

Some "kooks" in the scientific community are even brazen enough to
speculate that if we achieve such temps in matter, it will disappear!
Well, return to the ether from which it was torn ...

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined
as 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. This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest
at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero)."


Now, I do constantly worry about my understanding of such things; and,
if they are in error will seek to "update" them. But, the example you
just gave me is about the weakest and most worrisome I have seen ...

What example?

Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

Start with:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:

...
Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

Start with:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html


I am saying:

Yes, I believe someone would search for "solid ground" to base
measurements on. Again, yes, I believe that is about the best we can
find in an un-perfect world ...

No, I don't think that is any better than basing it on my goldfish, and
he/she is unpredictable (quantum effects perhaps.) But still, if all
which availed itself to me were my goldfish--I'd be damn temped to start
basing measurements on his/her activity!

At least your argument(s) cause one to think ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH
...

Richard:

Really?

Yes, really.

Perhaps my understanding of Einsteins theory is incorrect, or I am
attempting to add a relative quality to it?

Einstein has nothing to do with it nor does the rotation of the Earth.

"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined
as 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. This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest
at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero)."

Where Einstein comes in is that the cesium atom has to be at rest in
your reference frame.

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Only in comic books and movies.

snip rest


Actually, I was so flabbergasted I failed to even give you a reason why
I would find holes immediately in your statement, to begin:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

"While scientists cannot fully achieve a state of ?zero? heat energy in
a substance, they have made great advancements in achieving temperatures
ever closer to absolute zero (where matter exhibits odd quantum
effects). In 1994, the NIST achieved a record cold temperature of 700 nK
(billionths of a kelvin). In 2003, researchers at MIT eclipsed this with
a new record of 450 pK (0.45 nK)."

I don't suppose it ever occured to you that a practical hardware
implementation would correct for the actual temperature?

snip nonsense

Since you seem to like wikipedia:

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

Hmmm, looks like they got their definition for the second the same
place I did.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:

...
I don't suppose it ever occured to you that a practical hardware
implementation would correct for the actual temperature?

snip nonsense

Since you seem to like wikipedia:

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

Hmmm, looks like they got their definition for the second the same
place I did.


Now, perhaps we hit the real crux of this matter. You say "practical
hardware implementation", I say "guess!"

Warmest regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

Start with:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html


I am saying:

Yes, I believe someone would search for "solid ground" to base
measurements on. Again, yes, I believe that is about the best we can
find in an un-perfect world ...

No, I don't think that is any better than basing it on my goldfish, and
he/she is unpredictable (quantum effects perhaps.) But still, if all
which availed itself to me were my goldfish--I'd be damn temped to start
basing measurements on his/her activity!

At least your argument(s) cause one to think ...

I made no arguments.

I stated facts that can be verified by reading the links.

If you were to read them you might stop babbling nonsense about goldfish
and "solid ground".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
I made no arguments.

I stated facts that can be verified by reading the links.

If you were to read them you might stop babbling nonsense about goldfish
and "solid ground".


Oh. I thought that would have been clear from the way our "discussion"
was going.

Non sequitur.

Show me a "Universal Time Frame" and you show me proof of all this
(well, you at least show me something I can test all this against);
don't show me this and I have MAJOR doubts ...

There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Read the links provided.

Your posts are word salad.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
I don't suppose it ever occured to you that a practical hardware
implementation would correct for the actual temperature?

snip nonsense

Since you seem to like wikipedia:

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

Hmmm, looks like they got their definition for the second the same
place I did.


Now, perhaps we hit the real crux of this matter. You say "practical
hardware implementation", I say "guess!"

You babble a lot.

Read the links.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased
electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium. Aliens
watching first runs of 50s soap operas ("The Secret Storm" in this
case) would undoubtedly have naming problems. This is not a technical
problem; it is a cultural one.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Again, I may have misunderstood "Old Al" along then!

If that cesium atom no longer obeys your "10,214,000,000,000,000
oscillations"--"LAW", then perhaps 1,111,100 cps no longer obeys the
"cps law" either. And, indeed, 1.1111 Mhz is no longer what we see at
all!!!

Of course, the above must be wrong. ET did manage to call home and
apparently there were able to agree on the same freq. (sure would have
liked to have taken a look at "Ole ETs'" watch ...)

Warmest regards,
JS
I think that astronomers have made sufficient spectroscopic observations
and measurements to firmly establish that physical phenomina are
constant across the universe. Other dimensions may have different
measurements but they are constant in this one.

Dave N

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
I don't suppose it ever occured to you that a practical hardware
implementation would correct for the actual temperature?

snip nonsense

Since you seem to like wikipedia:

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

Hmmm, looks like they got their definition for the second the same
place I did.


Now, perhaps we hit the real crux of this matter. You say "practical
hardware implementation", I say "guess!"

Warmest regards,
JS


The "SECOND" is an arbitrary measurement of duration. It has been
defined with reference to specific measurements of a particular isotope
of CESIUM under specific conditions. That those specific conditions may
or may not be obtainable utilizing present technology is of no moment.
Adjustments to the best obtainable results are made all the time in
other areas. For instance the GRAM, the METER and the DEGREE. All these
units are defined and approximated in real life. The only place where
you can obtain absolutes is in conversion factors: 1 inch equals 2.54
centimeters, 1 degree Celsius (and it's derivatives: centigrade and
kelvin) equal 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The degree Fahrenheit is
determined by measuring the lowest temperature liquid water can reach
and the boiling point of the same water.
The upshot of all this is that everything in modern science is based on
these and many other values. They all seem to work. At least until you
get into quantum mechanics, which is another thread.

Dave N

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
I am saying:

Yes, I believe someone would search for "solid ground" to base
measurements on. Again, yes, I believe that is about the best we can
find in an un-perfect world ...

No, I don't think that is any better than basing it on my goldfish, and
he/she is unpredictable (quantum effects perhaps.) But still, if all
which availed itself to me were my goldfish--I'd be damn temped to start
basing measurements on his/her activity!

At least your argument(s) cause one to think ...

You might look into finding a way for that activity to occur
spontaneously as well.

ac6xg

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Through no fault of its own. Seconds may be a different
length in that far-far-away place. After all, the length
of a second is relative to velocity so cycles/second are
also relative, i.e. there is more than one way to accomplish
a red shift. 1. changing cycles divided by fixed seconds.
2. Fixed cycles divided by changing cycles. 3. changing
cycles divided by changing seconds.

Now, like that told Virgina O'Hanlon about Santa Claus--if the NEW YORK
TIMES said it, it must be true--or, perhaps the editor was mistaken?; I
must admit--if Einstein said it, it must be true! half-smirk

Einstein also said, "God doesn't roll dice." One of the
quantum physicists responded, "Not only does God roll
dice, but he rolls them in the dark." :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Antennas led astray
 

Richard Clark wrote:
If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased
electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium.

What happens to its frequency of oscillation compared
to a stationary observer as it approaches the speed of
light?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:
Where Einstein comes in is that the cesium atom has to be at rest in
your reference frame.

If the cesium atom is at rest on Earth, the Catholic
Church was right after all. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:
Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

The definition is relative, not absolute. If the
relative speed of the earth is changing, then the
length of a second is also changing and we would
have no way of knowing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:
There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Isn't assuming that Earth time is an absolute reference
a lot like assuming that the Earth is the center of
the universe?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

The definition is relative, not absolute.

It's as absolute as anything we have. Name something absolute we
could have used instead, Cecil.

If the
relative speed of the earth is changing, then the
length of a second is also changing and we would
have no way of knowing.

Not to worry. Any relativistic motion on our part will only effect
the clocks in the other reference frames. And we can't even
communicate with any of those people. :-)

ac6xg

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Isn't assuming that Earth time is an absolute reference
a lot like assuming that the Earth is the center of
the universe?

Yeah, but I didn't say anything about Earth time or an absolute
reference.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

The definition is relative, not absolute. If the
relative speed of the earth is changing, then the
length of a second is also changing and we would
have no way of knowing.

The speed of the Earth relative to what?

But since the second is defined in the inertial frame of the Earth, it
doesn't matter.

Why do you think GPS satellites correct for their velocity and gravity
relative to the geoid?

BTW, you do know the second at sea level is different than the second
on top of a mountain due to gravity?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased
electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium.

What happens to its frequency of oscillation compared
to a stationary observer as it approaches the speed of
light?

Pop that cesium atom with a hp pp laser and see if those vibs don't
stray a bit ...

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

...
You might look into finding a way for that activity to occur
spontaneously as well.

ac6xg




I am almost certain you posed that as a smart A$$ statement; however, I
have considered that ...

What you just stated, the bible does indeed state, on a few different
references (and NO, I DON'T know the bible scripture and verse--I am
Catholic grin I drink AND smoke.) One such reference goes to making
the point that all the names of the people to be "saved" are already
listed in the book of life ...

I think of this, like this, our universe is nothing more than a "burnt
cd", and we are just a translation of the data existing on that cd.
Much like watching a movie on cd ... who knows, maybe God enjoys this
movie ... just no accounting for taste.

Now I don't put a lot of probability in such--but hey, maybe you are
right ...

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Einstein also said, "God doesn't roll dice." One of the
quantum physicists responded, "Not only does God roll
dice, but he rolls them in the dark." :-)
[said by the "Unknown Physicist", no doubt]

Just gotta love those theoretical physicists :)

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:


...

OK. Let's cut to the chase. You can't even prove how tall you are to
me, no chit!

What the heck would you measure your height with, a ruler, some fraction
of the earths circumference? Ever see "The Matrix?" Which pill did you
swallow, the green one or the red one?

Regards,
JS

What in holy hell are you babbling about?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:


What in holy hell are you babbling about?


Jim:

Let me apologize, I thought our discussion would take another road, I
was much too short ...

Please, take a look at this and perhaps you will get a "glimpse" of what
I see as the seat of this matter:

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/time/r...elativity.html

You should now be able to google for other, more relevant data ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:


What in holy hell are you babbling about?


Jim:

Let me apologize, I thought our discussion would take another road, I
was much too short ...

Please, take a look at this and perhaps you will get a "glimpse" of what
I see as the seat of this matter:

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/time/r...elativity.html

You should now be able to google for other, more relevant data ...

Yeah, so what?

Time is a function of the frame of reference.

Doesn't everyone with at least a half-ass education know that these
days?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased
electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium.

What happens to its frequency of oscillation compared
to a stationary observer as it approaches the speed of
light?

Pop that cesium atom with a hp pp laser and see if those vibs don't
stray a bit ...

Regards,
JS

a hp pp laser is not part of the mechanism used to measure cesium
vibrations so your comment is irrelevant.

Dave N

Antennas led astray
 

Antennas led astray
 

David G. Nagel wrote:

...
a hp pp laser is not part of the mechanism used to measure cesium
vibrations so your comment is irrelevant.

Dave N

No, not irrelevant--but, perhaps a poor example, but still, it should
serve ...

If the darn cesium atom won't vibrate consistently at the same freq, you
are asking me to base beliefs on it? look-of-shock-and-awe!

If something as simple as a high power pin-point laser can affect it ...

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
The definition is relative, not absolute.

It's as absolute as anything we have. Name something absolute we could
have used instead, Cecil.

Please don't blame the messenger. If we could locate
an atomic clock at the center of gravity of the Big
Bang, we might have an absolute reference point -
(assuming that point is not moving. :-)

If the
relative speed of the earth is changing, then the
length of a second is also changing and we would
have no way of knowing.

Not to worry. Any relativistic motion on our part will only effect the
clocks in the other reference frames. And we can't even communicate
with any of those people. :-)

But, Jim, that other reference frame may be yesterday
on Earth. A second today may be shorter than a second
was yesterday. I can prove that seconds are getting
shorter. It takes me many more seconds to run 100
yards than it once did.

I'm pretty sure that first second after the Big
Bang wasn't anywhere near the length of a second now.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Isn't assuming that Earth time is an absolute reference
a lot like assuming that the Earth is the center of
the universe?

Yeah, but I didn't say anything about Earth time or an absolute
reference.

I was agreeing with you and expanding a bit.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:
The speed of the Earth relative to what?

Relative to the center of gravity of the Big Bang.

But since the second is defined in the inertial frame of the Earth, it
doesn't matter.

How long was a second before the Earth existed? Seems
to me that assuming the age of the universe can be
calculated in Earth seconds is just as bad as assuming
the Earth is the center of the universe. Similar
Earth-centric arguments can be made for both concepts.

BTW, you do know the second at sea level is different than the second
on top of a mountain due to gravity?

So how is it possible to calculate the age of the
universe in Earth seconds? Are we talking sea level
seconds or what? Are Black Holes the same age as the
universe?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Isn't assuming that Earth time is an absolute reference
a lot like assuming that the Earth is the center of
the universe?

Yeah, but I didn't say anything about Earth time or an absolute
reference.

I was agreeing with you and expanding a bit.

Cecil:

I am glad you responded here, I had missed a very good thing in Jims'
text--absolute reference.

I like "Absolute Time Reference" much, much better than "Universal
Time-Frame."

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:
Time is a function of the frame of reference.

Doesn't everyone with at least a half-ass education know that these
days?

What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe
is 12.5 billion years?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
The speed of the Earth relative to what?

Relative to the center of gravity of the Big Bang.

But since the second is defined in the inertial frame of the Earth, it
doesn't matter.

How long was a second before the Earth existed? Seems
to me that assuming the age of the universe can be
calculated in Earth seconds is just as bad as assuming
the Earth is the center of the universe. Similar
Earth-centric arguments can be made for both concepts.

BTW, you do know the second at sea level is different than the second
on top of a mountain due to gravity?

So how is it possible to calculate the age of the
universe in Earth seconds? Are we talking sea level
seconds or what? Are Black Holes the same age as the
universe?

Cecil:

Whoa! Where did you get your bottle of red pills at? Mine ain't THAT GOOD!

Warmest regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Isn't assuming that Earth time is an absolute reference
a lot like assuming that the Earth is the center of
the universe?

Yeah, but I didn't say anything about Earth time or an absolute
reference.

I was agreeing with you and expanding a bit.

OK.

I have a bit of a hair trigger when babblers are present.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.