|
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
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? Exactly what most people think it means. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... 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? Oh. Whatever was I thinking? Then you accept 1.1111 Mhz may not be the same for "the aliens?" And, a cesium atom may NOT tell us anything about time at all? (just like the ruler tell us NOTHING about our size?) Strange ... Meaningless babble. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
|
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? Shrug. One defines a standard and works with the standard. If you want to define a standard unit of time called the glorksnopes, be my guest. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:14:29 -0800, John Smith I
wrote: 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 ... What, a poor example? GIGO. 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! Your belief system makes an unwarranted presumption - THAT is the basis of poor belief, not the atom's resonance. If something as simple as a high power pin-point laser can affect it ... Another presumption. Perhaps true, useful, but it doesn't invalidate the simple mechanics. Failure is easy to achieve - it is celebrated in a speech before Congress every year. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antennas led astray
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe is 12.5 billion years? Exactly what most people think it means. Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times longer than they are now. What would most people think then? Using a relative time standard that obeys the rules of relativity to assert the absolute age of the universe seems really strange to me. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
wrote:
One defines a standard and works with the standard. The point is that our "standard" second changes with velocity and we have no idea what our velocity is or was or will be. We are defining our average velocity as a constant without any evidence whatsoever to support that definition. That's no different from defining our average position as the center of the universe. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
What we do is confuse time with movement. Take away movement and you take away our time ... From: "The End of Time", by Barbour? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote: 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. The point is that you have to compare clocks in different reference frames to know it. The second remains the same in each frame of reference. Since everything we perceive is perceived with respect to our own reference frame, we really need only concern ourselves with our own reference frame. But you can still worry about the other ones if you really want to. ;-) 73, Jim AC6XG |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe is 12.5 billion years? Exactly what most people think it means. Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times longer than they are now. What would most people think then? Since that would change the defined conditions for the unit of time, the number would probably change. But, since we couldn't live that close to a black hole, the point is moot. If we lived on Mars, the unit of time would be different too because the defined conditions for the standard would have changed. So if we ever colonize Mars, how do we keep Earth and Mars clocks in sync? Simple, we define a set of standard conditions that applies to every place. Any place that doesn't have those standard conditions gets a correction, just like GPS satellites do. The second becomes whatever it is defined to be. Using a relative time standard that obeys the rules of relativity to assert the absolute age of the universe seems really strange to me. Your're playing semantic games Cecil. All measurments of everything are relative to some standard which is pretty arbitrary and doesn't matter as long as everyone uses the same standard. The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular property of cesium on a defined Earth. Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is. Use a different standard, you get a different answer. So what? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote:
... Richard: You probably won't believe this, but I believe if I place a glass of water in my microwave and nuke it, I affect the vibration plane of the water molecules in there!!! Warmest regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
wrote in message ... Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe is 12.5 billion years? Exactly what most people think it means. Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times longer than they are now. What would most people think then? Since that would change the defined conditions for the unit of time, the number would probably change. But, since we couldn't live that close to a black hole, the point is moot. If we lived on Mars, the unit of time would be different too because the defined conditions for the standard would have changed. So if we ever colonize Mars, how do we keep Earth and Mars clocks in sync? Simple, we define a set of standard conditions that applies to every place. Any place that doesn't have those standard conditions gets a correction, just like GPS satellites do. The second becomes whatever it is defined to be. Using a relative time standard that obeys the rules of relativity to assert the absolute age of the universe seems really strange to me. Your're playing semantic games Cecil. All measurments of everything are relative to some standard which is pretty arbitrary and doesn't matter as long as everyone uses the same standard. The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular property of cesium on a defined Earth. Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is. Use a different standard, you get a different answer. So what? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
wrote in message ... Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe is 12.5 billion years? Exactly what most people think it means. Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times longer than they are now. What would most people think then? Since that would change the defined conditions for the unit of time, the number would probably change. But, since we couldn't live that close to a black hole, the point is moot. If we lived on Mars, the unit of time would be different too because the defined conditions for the standard would have changed. So if we ever colonize Mars, how do we keep Earth and Mars clocks in sync? Simple, we define a set of standard conditions that applies to every place. Any place that doesn't have those standard conditions gets a correction, just like GPS satellites do. The second becomes whatever it is defined to be. Using a relative time standard that obeys the rules of relativity to assert the absolute age of the universe seems really strange to me. Your're playing semantic games Cecil. All measurments of everything are relative to some standard which is pretty arbitrary and doesn't matter as long as everyone uses the same standard. The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular property of cesium on a defined Earth. Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is. Use a different standard, you get a different answer. So what? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... Shrug. One defines a standard and works with the standard. If you want to define a standard unit of time called the glorksnopes, be my guest. Jim: One last try, then I give up. It is much worse than that, as you are all ready assuming that time exists. Most of us fall error to this. It certainly seems to exist because how else would we get to our appointments on "time." Babble. What we do is confuse time with movement. Certainly you can see that our earth time is based solely on movement, the spinning of the earth. Indeed, we cannot "measure time" if we don't see something moving. Even your watch depends on movement, either the watch spring driving spinning gears, or the movement of electrons in its tiny oscillator. Utter nonsense. Time on Earth hasn't been based on the spinning of the Earth for 40 years. You are about 300 years behind the times. Take away movement and you take away our time ... Utter nonsense. But, there could be a "real time." A time which does not depend upon movement. Indeed, there is good indication that it may exist. As, the big bang would have needed time to have happened in (or, something akin to it.) Otherwise, the big bang IS time and time is only movement. I know, at first it appears rather a circular argument--takes a bit of getting used to. Babbling word salad. Just think about it from "time to time" (or, as you are moving about grin) ... no reply is necessary. Regards, JS Welcome to the 17th century. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: One defines a standard and works with the standard. The point is that our "standard" second changes with velocity and we have no idea what our velocity is or was or will be. We are defining our average velocity as a constant without any evidence whatsoever to support that definition. That's no different from defining our average position as the center of the universe. Since there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference or absolute velocity, your point is meaningless. Time is defined with a velocity of zero relative to the Earth, not Mars, the Crab Nebula, nor the center of the universe. The standard is a measurement standard, not some revelation into the meaning of life and everything. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
wrote in message ... Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe is 12.5 billion years? Exactly what most people think it means. Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times longer than they are now. What would most people think then? Since that would change the defined conditions for the unit of time, the number would probably change. But, since we couldn't live that close to a black hole, the point is moot. Most of the points in theorectical physics are moot. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
Jimmie D wrote:
... Most of the points in theorectical physics are moot. Jimmie: True, VERY true. Indeed, before Einstein that same fact was true--but still, good some men ignored that and continued ... Regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:15:28 -0800, John Smith I
wrote: You probably won't believe this, but I believe if I place a glass of water in my microwave and nuke it, I affect the vibration plane of the water molecules in there!!! Sounds like the warm beginnings of a new religion if it didn't burn your feet while out for a stroll. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antennas led astray
Jim Kelley wrote:
Since everything we perceive is perceived with respect to our own reference frame, we really need only concern ourselves with our own reference frame. That was the same argument used by Catholic Church when they put Galileo under house arrest for the rest of his life. Galileo talked about space. We are talking about space-time - not much difference. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:45:29 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote: Wow! From Hero to Zero in 12 minutes and 33 seconds. Who woulda thunk that my observation of time would have been the driving motivation to correspondence in this thread? Jimmie, you could have waited the obligatory 12 days, 33 hours and 54 thousand seconds to discover there are no facts to be had that 1. Contradict ordinary-as-mud modeling; 2. Reveal theories that would astonish the multitudes; 3. Offer a revelation of how statics can perform what dynamics do daily. And certainly 4. No evidence of the comprehension that statics are a mathematical fiction. Life does not allow them, and they are completely unknown outside of a book or a classroom. This forecast still has ten days to run out, but history has born that it will foretell with absolute accuracy. Take it to the bank. Art cannot even explain how he obtained a 50 Ohm non-reactive feed into his five assorted wires, non of which could have possible supported a fifth of that value (and jacked up with so much reactance as to reject all power). This last observation has stood the test of time quite well. It may find itself in the hall of records. And to wrap this all into another thread NOT about antennas (just as this thread never was), and more about personalities (which was all that this thread started out to be) of the violin: "Time Is" from "It's a Beautiful Day" by the LaFlammes -Whew- 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... Utter nonsense. Time on Earth hasn't been based on the spinning of the Earth for 40 years. You are about 300 years behind the times. Take away movement and you take away our time ... Utter nonsense. ... Jim: No man is an island, and no cesium atom is an island either. Word salad. The spinning of this earth is directly related to the vibration of the cesium atom. Nonsense. The exact same laws of math and physics which control the vibrating of that cesium atom control the spinning of this earth. Nope. Sheer logic is all which is necessary to know that ... Wrong. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular property of cesium on a defined Earth. Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is. Use a different standard, you get a different answer. So what? Jim: No one can dispute your, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" argument. That isn't my argument. Anyone would be fool to throw away our present theories, equations, etc. Nonsense. Theories are constantly changed as better data is obtained. Newtonian physics is good enough for designing bumper jacks but not GPS systems. However, your argument of, "I am only worried about what happens in my backyard" would halt progress and advancement towards the real and correct understanding of these things. That isn't my argument. But hey, if what we have right now is working, "Use it!" is my motto ... Warmest regards, JS -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
wrote:
John Smith I wrote: wrote: ... Utter nonsense. Time on Earth hasn't been based on the spinning of the Earth for 40 years. You are about 300 years behind the times. Take away movement and you take away our time ... Utter nonsense. ... Jim: No man is an island, and no cesium atom is an island either. Word salad. The spinning of this earth is directly related to the vibration of the cesium atom. Nonsense. The exact same laws of math and physics which control the vibrating of that cesium atom control the spinning of this earth. Nope. Sheer logic is all which is necessary to know that ... Wrong. Jim: On the above, we must agree to disagree .. Regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:45:29 -0800, Richard Clark wrote: Wow! From Hero to Zero in 12 minutes and 33 seconds. Who woulda thunk that my observation of time would have been the driving motivation to correspondence in this thread? Jimmie, you could have waited the obligatory 12 days, 33 hours and 54 thousand seconds to discover there are no facts to be had that 1. Contradict ordinary-as-mud modeling; 2. Reveal theories that would astonish the multitudes; 3. Offer a revelation of how statics can perform what dynamics do daily. And certainly 4. No evidence of the comprehension that statics are a mathematical fiction. Life does not allow them, and they are completely unknown outside of a book or a classroom. This forecast still has ten days to run out, but history has born that it will foretell with absolute accuracy. Take it to the bank. Art cannot even explain how he obtained a 50 Ohm non-reactive feed into his five assorted wires, non of which could have possible supported a fifth of that value (and jacked up with so much reactance as to reject all power). This last observation has stood the test of time quite well. It may find itself in the hall of records. And to wrap this all into another thread NOT about antennas (just as this thread never was), and more about personalities (which was all that this thread started out to be) of the violin: "Time Is" from "It's a Beautiful Day" by the LaFlammes -Whew- 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC The subject line is most appropriate |
Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote:
... And to wrap this all into another thread NOT about antennas (just as this thread never was), and more about personalities (which was all that this thread started out to be) of the violin: "Time Is" from "It's a Beautiful Day" by the LaFlammes -Whew- 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard: That is the worst statement I have EVER heard you make. Time is a MAJOR factor in antenna calculations. If you wish to decide what is on topic and NOT on topic, how about corrosion limiters? Nylon rope? (yes, used by some as guys!) Ground conduction enhancers? (salts) Trees? (yes, used by some as masts) The antenna as art? (yes, some have to please their neighbors) Trenching equipment? (yes, some go overboard on the ground establishing wires) Bumper jacks? (yes, some use these to hoist up their collapsible masts) Etc., etc. Your interests about antennas like in a purely physical realm using established methods, both practical and computational--some of ours don't. Why your interests should over-ride others is a bit perplexing to me ... Regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is. Use a different standard, you get a different answer. So what? So why strive for more and more accuracy in the absolute age of the universe if the time standard is arbitrary? *ALL* units of measurement are arbitrary. Once a standard is set, that's (if you are sane) what you use. By that convoluted logic: The dollar is an arbitrary unit so why strive for accuracy in your paycheck? The inch is an arbitrary unit so why should the carpenter strive for accuracy in matching the new door to your old door frame? Miles per hour are based on two arbitrary units so why should the cop give you a ticket for doing 90 in a 35 MPH zone? The liter is an arbitrary unit so why should the maker strive to ensure there is 2 liters of soda in a 2 liter bottle? But, I know you are just playing word games here. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:41:56 -0800, John Smith I
wrote: That is the worst statement I have EVER heard you make. You actually HEARD it? Therein might lie your problem. Time is a MAJOR factor in antenna calculations. Of course, when I first used ELNEC, it took forever to model some designs that takes EZNEC forever now (infinities being relative and all). Some of these time dialogues underway now exhibit Zeno's web-enhanced paradox: No one gives a **** before you are halfway through the thread. I only look at every third post at most; so for me, dialog has simultaneously jumped into the future while becoming retrograde (moving backward in quality - time is money). The upshot is that I get to hi-grade the nonsense, and peel the banality one layer at a time for its comic content: If you wish to decide what is on topic and NOT on topic, how about corrosion limiters? Been there. Nylon rope? (yes, used by some as guys!) Been there. Ground conduction enhancers? (salts) Been there. Trees? (yes, used by some as masts) Been there. The antenna as art? (yes, some have to please their neighbors) Been there. Trenching equipment? (yes, some go overboard on the ground establishing wires) Been there. Bumper jacks? (yes, some use these to hoist up their collapsible masts) Etc., etc. Well, I haven't touched on that perhaps, but the list is hardly exhaustive - is it? Your interests about antennas like in a purely physical realm using established methods, both practical and computational--some of ours don't. This would make more sense with a predicate... then again, maybe not. Why your interests should over-ride others is a bit perplexing to me ... Then you should invest some time in the archives given the number of hits on topics you consider to be foreign to me having "talked" about. Your list reveals very little reading on your part. That is in scope, not currency (I've been here some 12 or 11 years now). As already offered (you didn't hear that either?), yours is a cultural problem, not a technical one. Now, seriously, you don't REALLY think that I would limit my correspondence to just ONE topic - do you? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
That was the same argument used by Catholic Church when they put Galileo under house arrest for the rest of his life. That might have been clever the first 5 or 10 times you trotted it out. How about this one: To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you feel it is more useful to make measurements using standards from another reference frame, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so. The Journal of Irreproducible Results awaits! :-) 73, ac6xg |
Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote:
... 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard: I accept those 3's, and right back at ya, I have no bone to pick with you--well, maybe your attraction to Shakespeare! LOL Your advice, while rather cryptic, assists and amuses me ... thanks! Warmest regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... *ALL* units of measurement are arbitrary. Once a standard is set, that's (if you are sane) what you use. By that convoluted logic: The dollar is an arbitrary unit so why strive for accuracy in your paycheck? The inch is an arbitrary unit so why should the carpenter strive for accuracy in matching the new door to your old door frame? Miles per hour are based on two arbitrary units so why should the cop give you a ticket for doing 90 in a 35 MPH zone? The liter is an arbitrary unit so why should the maker strive to ensure there is 2 liters of soda in a 2 liter bottle? But, I know you are just playing word games here. Sir: You SERIOUSLY miss the point. You mean the point where I won't subscribe to arm waving philosophy and insist on science? All you named there are an invention of man and man allows himself to be governed by them ... (some don't, ever hear about income tax evasion and prisons?) Babble. The laws of mathematics, physics and the sciences exist in an absolute form, somewhere ... Utter nonsense. All units are human constructs. There is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference, or much of anything else absolute except the value of pi. There is no absolute quanta of time, length, mass, flux density, energy, power, angular measure, force, or speed. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: If you feel it is more useful to make measurements using standards from another reference frame, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so. You missed the point, Jim. Calculating the age of the universe, ever and ever more accurately, with a standard that may be continuously changing is technical insanity. The point you're missing is that the standard isn't changing with respect to the frame in which the observations are made. We're accurately measuring what we're observing in our reference frame - unless of course you're prepared to prove otherwise. 73, Jim AC6XG |
Antennas led astray
wrote:
The dollar is an arbitrary unit so why strive for accuracy in your paycheck? How much did an ounce of gold cost in dollars one year after the first super nova? That is the point that you are missing. But, I know you are just playing word games here. Nope, you completely missed the point. Our seconds are just as arbitrary as our dollars. Our dollars didn't exist one year after the first super nova and neither did our seconds. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com