Cecil Moore wrote:

...
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.

Cecil:

In our present use and construct of time, absolutely.

I have a bit easier "time" of "seeing" things "shorten" as velocity
increases, my feeble brain strives for even that. (waves shorten as
they are emitted by objects with velocity ...)

Still, I wonder ... and I know, that with a buck still won't even buy
you a decent cup of coffee.

Warmest regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Both time and length are also variables as a function of gravity. So, the only
thing we know is really that we don't know what we think we know ?????

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:07:53 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

It is safe to call me John, I can guarantee you--that is my REAL first
name (well, Johnathan)--Smith is my "pen name."

Sure Brett,

You have no one to vouchsafe you. The problem with "anonymity" is
that you can neither substantiate what is real, nor repel what is
falsely applied - can you? (Attempts at either lack authenticity.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Sure Brett,

You have no one to vouchsafe you. The problem with "anonymity" is
that you can neither substantiate what is real, nor repel what is
falsely applied - can you? (Attempts at either lack authenticity.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Well then, Brett it is ...

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote in news:Fa3vh.76738$wP1.60913
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

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?

So some people are saying.

And we still get to see parts of the universe that were close to us post-
inflation, though the universe is really too opaque at that distance to see
the really early stuff. But we're nearing the threshold where cesium would
be rare or non-existent. In short, we're SEEING some of those early
supernovae that made it in the first place. Several cosmologists think
that's the cause of the gamma-ray bursts we're experiencing.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
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

Yes, time is about as much related to the vibration of a cesium atom as it
is to the pendulum im my grandfather clock.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:40:26 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote:

Yes, time is about as much related to the vibration of a cesium atom as it
is to the pendulum im my grandfather clock.

Hi Jimmie,

How very true. There is quite a bit of fluff about cesium. So much
so that you've hit the nail on the head with the pendulum.

Dare we anticipate those who will crow that there was no time before
the pendulum swung? Or that if one swung on the moon, this
demonstrates proof positive how time varies? FEH! The pendulum does
not make time, nor does time push the pendulum. There is no
causality.

No, Time is dependant on sand! Before the pendulum there was the sand
clock - aka Hour Glass. The ancients long ago recognized that if they
didn't keep turning the hour glass, that the end of time would come
(in eastern philosophy this was transmuted into the towers of Hanoi).
This, in fact, was the origin of the honorable office of the clock
watcher - his mission was to turn the glass before time fully ran out.
Of course, over time (an irony), this noble occupation became
prostituted through mechanization, and the office holder of clock
watcher became an object of scorn and ridicule. RIP

Some may argue that sand has no causal relationship with time at all,
but they are sadly mistaken. Simple observation will reveal that if
you cleaned your carpets last week, they need cleaning again of all
the sand (dust, dirt) that has descended into their fibers.

Run your finger along any bookshelf to witness this vivid proof. Sand.
Anyone who lives with a wife who keeps bookshelves (bric-a-brac,
picture frames, your shack) so clean of sand can agree that their life
is condemned to a timeless purgatory.

Look at any beach, the sand was once a mountain and a mountain it will
become again (dunes are the modeling software). Naturally you won't
be around long enough to watch all the sand do this, as this hour
glass measures a different period. The proof of this observation is
found with those who go to the shore for vacation, and at its end look
plaintively across the beach and wonder:
"Where has all my vacation time gone?"

If there had been no sand, there would have been no summer vacation at
the shore. Sand's causal tie to time is absolute and irrefutable.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Why is it always some weird, out of the way atom they play with
instead of a main-line, every day used sort of critter?

Krypton. . . Cesium . . . What ever. Why not Oxygen? Carbon?
Even good ol Iron??

Another thing, as it was explained to me, first the electrons are
ghosts to begin with which pop in and out of existence at a whim.
Second, if I had the nucleus of an atom in my hand, and it was the
size of a medium orange, the closest electron would be some where
around 38 miles away. . . `Lots of "Nothing" in between. So, when you
get down to 0 Kelvin, that's where all the shaking around stops, well,
it slows down enough to stop the harmonic vibration, but it also seems
to me that the electrons quit popping in and out of existence then
too. Hence the lack of unbalanced vibration of the missing, counter
balancing electrons. (Much like missing a tire weight at 70 mph on
the freeway or so I would believe.) SO if everything settles down at
0 "K" and starts working properly, why is it so damn hard to achieve?
It seems to me that everything would try to achieve the balancing
point, . . Equilibrium; Being that matter abhors a vacuum to begin
with. There has GOT to be an antagonist stirring the pot somewhere
from behind the scenes!! . . . Gravity?


On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:00:07 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

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

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:41:06 -0800, Fred Ferrely wrote:

Krypton. . . Cesium . . . What ever. Why not Oxygen? Carbon?
Even good ol Iron??

Hi Fred,

Couldn't afford it.

Another thing, as it was explained to me, first the electrons are
ghosts to begin with which pop in and out of existence at a whim.

That was some explanation. It raises one of two questions. Did you
understand it? Or did the explainer?

it also seems
to me that the electrons quit popping in and out of existence then
too.

This would seem to pin a no to each question above.

SO if everything settles down at
0 "K" and starts working properly, why is it so damn hard to achieve?

Does a 2 year-old ever settle down? Short of their already being
asleep, why is that so hard to get them to bed?

It seems to me that everything would try to achieve the balancing
point, . . Equilibrium; Being that matter abhors a vacuum to begin
with. There has GOT to be an antagonist stirring the pot somewhere
from behind the scenes!! . . . Gravity?

People do a fairly good job of gumming up the works. Heisenberg
introduced us to the notion that when we bother to look, everything
changes. A pyramid balanced on its point is in an equilibrium, but
that is not the same as it being in its lowest energy state, also an
equilibrium. Not all equals are equal (credit George Orwell).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:

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.

And you know what they say about figures.....
Judging from the plot at
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
it's pretty obvious that for the last 200 years the global average
temperature has been a function of the number of pirates.

:-)

ac6xg