Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
One of the things that help us in the determination of cosmological
age, and all scientific endeavors is that most things end up fitting
together pretty well. Atomic decay tends to mesh together with
determination of the age of artifacts. It proved itself on items of
known age. The concept simply works. That's just one example.

Actually, there is an unexplained time drift between atomic
decay and Bristle Cone Pine rings that can be explained if
seconds are getting shorter.

You do know that the length of Days has changed and continues to
change? I sat through a wonderful presentation by a scientist on the
changing length of days that he thinks is possible to prove through
"microgrowth rings" in fossils. You need very well preserved fossils to
look at this, and he presented some pretty compelling evidence, but
stopped short of saying "this is how it is" Scientists - go figure! ;^)


That isn't religion, it fits in with what we do know about physics.

And of course, that is in the present space-time. But using
a localized present space-time standard to obtain an absolute
value for something that existed far outside of that present
localized space-time just doesn't "fit". For all we know, the
first half of the existence of the universe consumed all of
one second of space-time as it existed way back then.

I would never present anything as absolute.


What is the length of time that it takes for one entangled
particle to have an affect the other when they are a million
miles apart?

Darn good question, Cecil. Doesn't seem like there should be any, but
apparently if we know about one, the other is affected too.

- 73 de mike KB3EIA -

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Actually, there is an unexplained time drift between atomic
decay and Bristle Cone Pine rings that can be explained if
seconds are getting shorter.

Assuming the time it takes for the Earth to orbit around the Sun is an
absolute, of course. ;-)


Which of course, it isn't.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Dave wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:

Actually, there is an unexplained time drift between atomic
decay and Bristle Cone Pine rings that can be explained if
seconds are getting shorter.



Assuming the time it takes for the Earth to orbit around the Sun is an
absolute, of course. ;-)

73 de jk



The only thing in Physics that is absolute is: "Nothing is absolute!"

True, but we shouldn't go so far as to infer that 1 Hz might sometimes
have more or less than one cycle in a second - no matter how much
different each second might be from the next.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
True, but we shouldn't go so far as to infer that 1 Hz might sometimes
have more or less than one cycle in a second - no matter how much
different each second might be from the next.

We often infer that a frequency has lessened due to
the red shift which could certainly be a shortening
of a second from the time the light was generated
until now.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Michael Coslo wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:

Actually, there is an unexplained time drift between atomic
decay and Bristle Cone Pine rings that can be explained if
seconds are getting shorter.


Assuming the time it takes for the Earth to orbit around the Sun is an
absolute, of course. ;-)



Which of course, it isn't.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Right. Seemed logical to me to deduce that the number of seconds in a
year might have changed, but to infer from that that the length of the
second has changed seems like quite a leap to me. Given the number of
perturbations in the system, it's more likely the length of our path
around the Sun has changed slightly over time. But hey, I'm no biologist.

jk

Cecil Moore wrote:

We often infer that a frequency has lessened due to
the red shift which could certainly be a shortening
of a second from the time the light was generated
until now.

The phenomenon of red shift is readily observable - that's how it was
discovered. Line spectra from known elements is observed to be
shifted in wavelength down from where it appears in the rest frame.
The cause could be doppler shifting due to relative motion, or some
other reason. If the length of the second were different, then so
would be the speed of light as well as the constant of proportionality
between frequency and wavelength at the source. In fact all kinds of
physics would have to be different. There is certainly a probability
for either case. Whether the probabilities are of the same magnitude
is debatable.

73 de ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
If the length of the second were different, then so would be the speed
of light ...

To see why that is false, refer to Lorentz's
transformation for time at a velocity near
the speed of light. Time can vary all over
the universe while the speed of light remains
constant (at least by definition :-). Since
time is one dimension for the speed of light,
the problem is self-correcting.

If tomorrow's second were 1/2 half of today's
second, nobody would even notice.

If someone used a cesium clock near a black
hole to come up with a "standard" second, it
would be nowhere near the same length of time
as a cesium clock on Earth. Time passes very
slowly near the event horizon of a black hole
but light keeps on trucking at the speed of
light.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

If the length of the second were different, then so would be the speed
of light ...


To see why that is false, refer to Lorentz's
transformation for time at a velocity near
the speed of light. Time can vary all over
the universe while the speed of light remains
constant (at least by definition :-). Since
time is one dimension for the speed of light,
the problem is self-correcting.

If the second were "smaller", then light could obviously no longer
travel 3x10^8 of our meters in one of them. Try not to lose track of
the reference frame, Cecil. (Remember, it's the one in which the red
shift is being measured).

73, jk

Cecil Moore wrote:
If someone used a cesium clock near a black
hole to come up with a "standard" second, it
would be nowhere near the same length of time
as a cesium clock on Earth. Time passes very
slowly near the event horizon of a black hole
but light keeps on trucking at the speed of
light.

Jim

Don't bother. Cecil has his own, very special, form of Relativity.

tom
K0TAR

Jim Kelley wrote:
If the second were "smaller", then light could obviously no longer
travel 3x10^8 of our meters in one of them.

It is the frequency that is red-shifted, not the
velocity. A shorter second results in a lower
frequency. Relativity won't allow the velocity
of light to change but everything else changes
including meters and seconds.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com