Cecil Moore wrote:
But it sure does make your "entirely different"
assertion false, doesn't it? :-)

Nope. A false statement cannot not 'make' an assertion false. I
swear to god you'd argue with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.

jk

wrote:
No aether.

Nobody said anything about aether. The medium through
which EM waves flow is space which indeed does have
a structure. Space is definitely not nothing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
We have absolutely no reason to expect the Cesium atom to act any
differently in another reference frame, ...

On the contrary, we have every reason to believe it
acted differently before the first super nova. Things
that don't exist generally act differently from things
that do exist.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
Go argue with the standards people.

I have no argument with the standards people. My
argument is with the people who take present
day seconds and lay them end-to-end back to the
Big Bang to ascertain the age of the universe.
Today's second may be the first time the second
has ever had that particular value. The first
second was likely many magnitudes longer than
the present day second.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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

Are you kidding? Iron is the heaviest element possible
before the first supernova.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Dave Oldridge wrote:
There are other entropic processes that can be calibrated against the
cesium.

Who did that before cesium existed?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
No, they are both earth-centric concepts invented
by man. That makes them alike, not different.

Sort of blurs the line between the plausible and the absurd, Cecil. The
fact that two things might share a particular trait does not eliminate
their differences.

But it sure does make your "entirely different"
assertion false, doesn't it? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

Go argue with the standards people.


I have no argument with the standards people. My
argument is with the people who take present
day seconds and lay them end-to-end back to the
Big Bang to ascertain the age of the universe.
Today's second may be the first time the second
has ever had that particular value. The first
second was likely many magnitudes longer than
the present day second.

B as in B, S as in S.

tom
K0TAR

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
No aether.

Nobody said anything about aether. The medium through
which EM waves flow is space which indeed does have
a structure. Space is definitely not nothing.

I showed you my references, now you show me yours.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

Go argue with the standards people.


I have no argument with the standards people. My
argument is with the people who take present
day seconds and lay them end-to-end back to the
Big Bang to ascertain the age of the universe.
Today's second may be the first time the second
has ever had that particular value. The first
second was likely many magnitudes longer than
the present day second.

Have you ever heard of the fine structure constant? You had best check
into it and how it can be verified from a distance, a very very long
distance.

tom
K0TAR