![]() |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
Dave wrote:
... This medium supports EM radiation from deep space to the local earth. What do you choose to call it? Dave: You have arrived! Is not a rose by any other name ... ? Warmest regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote in news:SIxuh.76115$wP1.56143
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net: Dave Oldridge wrote: There are other entropic processes that can be calibrated against the cesium. Who did that before cesium existed? Nobody that I know of, but we're getting to the point where we can see almost that far back. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 |
Antennas led astray
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Nobody that I know of, but we're getting to the point where we can see almost that far back. Seems to me all we can see is back to the point where things are moving away from our relative position at less than the speed of light. Did you know that the red shift is quantitized, i.e. not continuous, even within the same galaxy? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:22:38 GMT, Dave Oldridge
wrote: 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? There are other entropic processes that can be calibrated against the cesium. Hi Dave, You have been snookered into answering a complaint manufactured (as usual) from the misapplication of relationships. The resonance of Cesium is not a function of time. Time is not a function of Cesium's resonance (the incorrect correlation drawn, to which you are responding). There is no dependency between the two. It is our dependency in our usage of one to measure the other. The sophism above is much like saying sound did not exist before someone was close enough to hear the falling tree. The excitation of gas molecules we call sound existed long before the appearance of the first amoeba, much less apes in falling trees. Both sound and time are phenomenological terms for simple and rational physical processes that exist without dependence on us. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote:
The resonance of Cesium is not a function of time. Maybe not, but the frequency of the resonance of Cesium is a function of time, e.g. cycles/second. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote: The resonance of Cesium is not a function of time. Maybe not, but the frequency of the resonance of Cesium is a function of time, e.g. cycles/second. Cecil: I for one think it has already been shown, we simply do not understand time. Given that is correct, how can we possibly know if the "vibration" of cesium is a function of it--heck, maybe if we ever achieve in stopping the vibs of cesium, time will stop? grin The problem here is in construction of a "true ruler" to measure with .... of course, we always have our "units" ... Regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:45:19 -0800, John Smith I
wrote: we simply do not understand we possibly know we ever achieve we always have Brett, For someone with faux anonymity, you certainly work to drape yourself in marginal pluralism. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote:
... Brett, For someone with faux anonymity, you certainly work to drape yourself in marginal pluralism. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard: It is safe to call me John, I can guarantee you--that is my REAL first name (well, Johnathan)--Smith is my "pen name." I have used other "pen names" in the past ... (appears as if you have been "one of my fans in the past"--though I don't remember you using your correct name there, perhaps IRC?) As to the latter, I have been "draped" in worse ... Regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
I for one think it has already been shown, we simply do not understand time. Given that is correct, how can we possibly know if the "vibration" of cesium is a function of it--heck, maybe if we ever achieve in stopping the vibs of cesium, time will stop? grin It's pretty obvious that frequency is a function of time. Velocity is a function of time. Time is also a function of velocity. Velocity is a function of length. Length is also a function of velocity. Go figger. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com