Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH
...

Richard:

Really?

Yes, really.

Perhaps my understanding of Einsteins theory is incorrect, or I am
attempting to add a relative quality to it?

Einstein has nothing to do with it nor does the rotation of the Earth.

"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined
as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest
at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero)."

Where Einstein comes in is that the cesium atom has to be at rest in
your reference frame.

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Only in comic books and movies.

snip rest

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH
...

Richard:

Really?

Yes, really.

Perhaps my understanding of Einsteins theory is incorrect, or I am
attempting to add a relative quality to it?

Einstein has nothing to do with it nor does the rotation of the Earth.

"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined
as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest
at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero)."

Where Einstein comes in is that the cesium atom has to be at rest in
your reference frame.

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Only in comic books and movies.

snip rest


Actually, I was so flabbergasted I failed to even give you a reason why
I would find holes immediately in your statement, to begin:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

"While scientists cannot fully achieve a state of “zero” heat energy in
a substance, they have made great advancements in achieving temperatures
ever closer to absolute zero (where matter exhibits odd quantum
effects). In 1994, the NIST achieved a record cold temperature of 700 nK
(billionths of a kelvin). In 2003, researchers at MIT eclipsed this with
a new record of 450 pK (0.45 nK)."

Some "kooks" in the scientific community are even brazen enough to
speculate that if we achieve such temps in matter, it will disappear!
Well, return to the ether from which it was torn ...

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined
as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest
at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero)."


Now, I do constantly worry about my understanding of such things; and,
if they are in error will seek to "update" them. But, the example you
just gave me is about the weakest and most worrisome I have seen ...

What example?

Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

Start with:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:

...
Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

Start with:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html


I am saying:

Yes, I believe someone would search for "solid ground" to base
measurements on. Again, yes, I believe that is about the best we can
find in an un-perfect world ...

No, I don't think that is any better than basing it on my goldfish, and
he/she is unpredictable (quantum effects perhaps.) But still, if all
which availed itself to me were my goldfish--I'd be damn temped to start
basing measurements on his/her activity!

At least your argument(s) cause one to think ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH
...

Richard:

Really?

Yes, really.

Perhaps my understanding of Einsteins theory is incorrect, or I am
attempting to add a relative quality to it?

Einstein has nothing to do with it nor does the rotation of the Earth.

"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined
as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest
at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero)."

Where Einstein comes in is that the cesium atom has to be at rest in
your reference frame.

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Only in comic books and movies.

snip rest


Actually, I was so flabbergasted I failed to even give you a reason why
I would find holes immediately in your statement, to begin:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

"While scientists cannot fully achieve a state of ?zero? heat energy in
a substance, they have made great advancements in achieving temperatures
ever closer to absolute zero (where matter exhibits odd quantum
effects). In 1994, the NIST achieved a record cold temperature of 700 nK
(billionths of a kelvin). In 2003, researchers at MIT eclipsed this with
a new record of 450 pK (0.45 nK)."

I don't suppose it ever occured to you that a practical hardware
implementation would correct for the actual temperature?

snip nonsense

Since you seem to like wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

Hmmm, looks like they got their definition for the second the same
place I did.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:

...
I don't suppose it ever occured to you that a practical hardware
implementation would correct for the actual temperature?

snip nonsense

Since you seem to like wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

Hmmm, looks like they got their definition for the second the same
place I did.


Now, perhaps we hit the real crux of this matter. You say "practical
hardware implementation", I say "guess!"

Warmest regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

Start with:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html


I am saying:

Yes, I believe someone would search for "solid ground" to base
measurements on. Again, yes, I believe that is about the best we can
find in an un-perfect world ...

No, I don't think that is any better than basing it on my goldfish, and
he/she is unpredictable (quantum effects perhaps.) But still, if all
which availed itself to me were my goldfish--I'd be damn temped to start
basing measurements on his/her activity!

At least your argument(s) cause one to think ...

I made no arguments.

I stated facts that can be verified by reading the links.

If you were to read them you might stop babbling nonsense about goldfish
and "solid ground".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
I made no arguments.

I stated facts that can be verified by reading the links.

If you were to read them you might stop babbling nonsense about goldfish
and "solid ground".


Oh. I thought that would have been clear from the way our "discussion"
was going.

Non sequitur.

Show me a "Universal Time Frame" and you show me proof of all this
(well, you at least show me something I can test all this against);
don't show me this and I have MAJOR doubts ...

There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Read the links provided.

Your posts are word salad.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.