|
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
... to a frequency of zero? to a negative frequency? Negative frequency? Wouldn't you just see a phase reversal and a "climb" in frequency in reverse phasing? Perhaps I miss something? Regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message et... Dave Oldridge wrote: Cecil Moore wrote in news:aqfuh.4372$O02.4066 *Only* within the frame of reference where the second was defined which didn't exist for the first 2/3 of the history of the universe. Actually, the second is defined as a certain exact number of oscillations of a cesium atom in the same reference frame as the observer. 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? -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Units of measurement are totally arbitrary, what they are measuring isnt. It is irrelevant how long a second is as long as everyone agrees. Time has nothing to do with the existance of cesium. The origonal basis for the second was the roatation of the earth but that is not constant so it was redefined I believe in the 60s, seems like I remember hearing about it in HS. |
Antennas led astray
Jimmie D wrote:
... Units of measurement are totally arbitrary, what they are measuring isnt. It is irrelevant how long a second is as long as everyone agrees. Time has nothing to do with the existance of cesium. The origonal basis for the second was the roatation of the earth but that is not constant so it was redefined I believe in the 60s, seems like I remember hearing about it in HS. Jimmie: There is much common sense in what you state. However, I see us at a point where no more real advances in knowledge can be made until we do have an understanding of what these arbitrary units ARE measuring--at present, all we really understand are our units ... Regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
Jimmie D wrote:
Units of measurement are totally arbitrary, what they are measuring isnt. So a standard unit of measurement can change value daily in an unknown fashion and still yield non-arbirtary results? -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Antennas led astray
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... Jimmie D wrote: ... Units of measurement are totally arbitrary, what they are measuring isnt. It is irrelevant how long a second is as long as everyone agrees. Time has nothing to do with the existance of cesium. The origonal basis for the second was the roatation of the earth but that is not constant so it was redefined I believe in the 60s, seems like I remember hearing about it in HS. Jimmie: There is much common sense in what you state. However, I see us at a point where no more real advances in knowledge can be made until we do have an understanding of what these arbitrary units ARE measuring--at present, all we really understand are our units ... Regards, JS There are a lot of things about the universe we really dont understand, time and gravity are just two. Our understanding of time is just a theory like gravity but so far all we think we know about it seems to work. I dont worry much about falling up when I get out of bed in the morning. Arguing about it is as fruitless as telling someone why an arbitrailly thrown together pile of metal isnt a breakthrough in antenna design. Where do you start?? Jimmie Jimmie |
Antennas led astray
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message et... Jimmie D wrote: Units of measurement are totally arbitrary, what they are measuring isnt. So a standard unit of measurement can change value daily in an unknown fashion and still yield non-arbirtary results? -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Theorectically yes, practically no. But this is just something you came up with and has nothing to do with what I said.. My total message was not so long that it needed to be snipped , it is obvious why you did. If you just want to argue and do so by taking what somone says out of context please put me on your kill file . |
Antennas led astray
Jimmie D wrote:
... There are a lot of things about the universe we really dont understand, time and gravity are just two. Our understanding of time is just a theory like gravity but so far all we think we know about it seems to work. I dont worry much about falling up when I get out of bed in the morning. Arguing about it is as fruitless as telling someone why an arbitrailly thrown together pile of metal isnt a breakthrough in antenna design. Where do you start?? Jimmie Jimmie Jimmie: Don't kill the messenger. I am at a loss to any REAL answers, as you are. But when you ask, "Where do you start?" Haven't we already started when at least we can describe the problem and starting talking and thinking about it? I don't even claim to be "smart enough" to solve all this (at least I am not that stupid grin), however, I would like to be standing next to the man who can ... if I can help him, I would! CERN now has the equipment to help ... Warmest regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... wrote: Light is an electromagnetic effect and does not require a medium. So you are not up on the latest scientific knowledge? EM waves cannot flow in absolute nothing, i.e. outside of our universe. The "empty" space in our universe is *NOT* empty and indeed does posses a structure. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp The mistake is the concept that Space is nothing not that the space is or could be empty. Not a concept that is easy to explain. |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: And since the frame of reference is a defined thing and not a physical reality, it doesn't matter if the Earth continues to exist or not either. You seem to have a lot of difficulty with this concept. A frame of reference based on 1/86400 of one rotation of the Earth which is only 1/3 as old as the universe? A frame of reference based on the oscillation frequency of Cesium when Cesium didn't even exist before the first super nova? I'm not having difficult with the concept. I'm just wondering why anyone would accept such a flawed concept. The 17th Century Catholic Church's frame of reference was earth-centric. So is our time frame of reference. Both are equally valid. The two are entirely different. 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. One wonders how you can continue to compare proponents of Eistein's theories to the 16th century Catholic church and expect to be taken seriously. Thanks, 73, ac6xg |
Antennas led astray
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... Cecil Moore wrote: ... to a frequency of zero? to a negative frequency? Negative frequency? Wouldn't you just see a phase reversal and a "climb" in frequency in reverse phasing? Perhaps I miss something? Regards, JS No oproblem with 0 frequency or 0 energy being released from a particle traveling at the speed of light relative to that partcle.Negative frequency? all our current laws of physics have just been trashed if we can do that. |
Antennas led astray
Jimmie D wrote:
My total message was not so long that it needed to be snipped , it is obvious why you did. If you just want to argue and do so by taking what somone says out of context please put me on your kill file . It is obvious that honoring netnews guidelines requires snipping the part of the message to which I am not replying. Have you read the netnews guidelines? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Jimmie D wrote:
The mistake is the concept that Space is nothing ... I'm glad you agree. That is exactly the mistake that was made when scientists falsely assumed that EM waves could flow through nothing. *Every* wave needs a medium in which to flow. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Jimmie D wrote:
... No oproblem with 0 frequency or 0 energy being released from a particle traveling at the speed of light relative to that partcle.Negative frequency? all our current laws of physics have just been trashed if we can do that. Jimmie: Yanno, Cecil is like that, just when you think you have a handle on things--HE chucks a monkey wrench in it! If you are traveling away from me, at the speed of light, and you are transmitting to me--wouldn't you be "stretching" that rf wave "flat." In effect, what I see is a DC signal (well, actually I don't see anything.) Owing to the doppler effect? Now, if you exceed that speed of light, what happens to that rf you are emitting? I'll have to think on that one a bit ... Warmest regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
Jimmie D wrote:
No problem with 0 frequency or 0 energy being released from a particle traveling at the speed of light relative to that partcle.Negative frequency? all our current laws of physics have just been trashed if we can do that. Not at all. Assume two planets are traveling in opposite directions away from a reference point in space. With respect to that reference point, each is traveling at 3/4 the speed of light in opposite directions. Calculate the red shift from one planet to the other and one comes up with a negative frequency. We are likely to discover some day that gravity is a function of the relative velocity of the Earth through the ether. At least that's what my alien buddies say. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
Now, if you exceed that speed of light, what happens to that rf you are emitting? I'll have to think on that one a bit ... Consider that the relative velocity between you two could exceed the speed of light without either one of you actually exceeding the speed of light referenced to a point midway between you, which is thought to be impossible except, of course, at warp 1.1 on Star Trek. Tom Paris actually managed 10^10 times the speed of light but it had severe side-effects. (He was forced to mate with Captain Janeway) :-(. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
... Jimmie: Yanno, Cecil is like that, just when you think you have a handle on things--HE chucks a monkey wrench in it! If you are traveling away from me, at the speed of light, and you are transmitting to me--wouldn't you be "stretching" that rf wave "flat." In effect, what I see is a DC signal (well, actually I don't see anything.) Owing to the doppler effect? Now, if you exceed that speed of light, what happens to that rf you are emitting? I'll have to think on that one a bit ... Warmest regards, JS Yanno, an analogy has stuck me. If I know what speed waves travel in water and I stand on the shore of a lake and have a boat, making waves, travel away from me, I should be able to see the first case. Then, when the boat exceeds that speed, I should also be able to see the results ... Trouble right now is, I don't know the speed of waves in water and I don't have a boat. To tell you the truth, can't even remember what the waves looked like when I have had past opportunities ... Regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote: Jimmie D wrote: Units of measurement are totally arbitrary, what they are measuring isnt. So a standard unit of measurement can change value daily in an unknown fashion and still yield non-arbirtary results? You'd have to be able to demonstrate that relativistic effects single out particular units of measurement to the exclusion of others without having an effect on the observed phenomena and all within the same reference frame before being able to substantiate any claim that the result of a particular measurement is arbitrary. Can you demonstrate that? jk |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
Trouble right now is, I don't know the speed of waves in water and I don't have a boat. To tell you the truth, can't even remember what the waves looked like when I have had past opportunities ... Assume you remember WWII. An Atlantic City newscaster once reported that a Marine had been sucked under the boardwalk by a big Wave. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote: Now, if you exceed that speed of light, what happens to that rf you are emitting? I'll have to think on that one a bit ... Consider that the relative velocity between you two could exceed the speed of light without either one of you actually exceeding the speed of light referenced to a point midway between you, which is thought to be impossible except, of course, at warp 1.1 on Star Trek. Tom Paris actually managed 10^10 times the speed of light but it had severe side-effects. (He was forced to mate with Captain Janeway) :-(. Cecil: Exactly, we COULD exceed the speed of light and greater, in relationship to each other! And, then the behavior of the rf, transmitted between us, could be observed at greater than light speeds. NOW. Don't knock Capt. Janeway--I kinda like strong women :) Warmest regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
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. One wonders how you can continue to compare proponents of Eistein's theories to the 16th century Catholic church and expect to be taken seriously. Thanks, 73, ac6xg Jim: Name me one instance where anyone has achieved taking a cesium atom to absolute zero ... Regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... Jim: I have "walked a spell" with you now ... What has been written, has been written, it stands ... Meaningless babble. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Light is an electromagnetic effect and does not require a medium. So you are not up on the latest scientific knowledge? EM waves cannot flow in absolute nothing, i.e. outside of our universe. The "empty" space in our universe is *NOT* empty and indeed does posses a structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether "In the late 19th century luminiferous aether ("light-bearing aether") was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light. Later theories including special relativity were formulated without the aether concept, and today the aether is considered to be a superseded scientific theory." No aether. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jimmie D wrote: The mistake is the concept that Space is nothing ... I'm glad you agree. That is exactly the mistake that was made when scientists falsely assumed that EM waves could flow through nothing. *Every* wave needs a medium in which to flow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether "In the late 19th century luminiferous aether ("light-bearing aether") was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light. Later theories including special relativity were formulated without the aether concept, and today the aether is considered to be a superseded scientific theory." No aether. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: However, are you saying the speed of light is not constant in all reference frames? What is the speed of light that has been red-shifted to a frequency of zero? to a negative frequency? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect "If the observer and the source are moving directly away from each other with velocity v, the observed frequency fo, is different from the frequency of the source fe, as fo = sqrt{{1-v/c}/{1+v/c}}xfe where c, is the speed of light." From high school algebra, fo is always greater than zero. Nonsensical question. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: ... to a frequency of zero? to a negative frequency? Negative frequency? Wouldn't you just see a phase reversal and a "climb" in frequency in reverse phasing? Perhaps I miss something? A modern education perhaps? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas/lead ashtray
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 |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: And since the frame of reference is a defined thing and not a physical reality, it doesn't matter if the Earth continues to exist or not either. You seem to have a lot of difficulty with this concept. A frame of reference based on 1/86400 of one rotation of the Earth which is only 1/3 as old as the universe? A frame of reference based on the oscillation frequency of Cesium when Cesium didn't even exist before the first super nova? I'm not having difficult with the concept. I'm just wondering why anyone would accept such a flawed concept. The 17th Century Catholic Church's frame of reference was earth-centric. So is our time frame of reference. Both are equally valid. Babbling nonsense. http://www.bipm.fr/utils/common/pdf/...chure_8_en.pdf "Unit of time (second) The unit of time, the second, was at one time considered to be the fraction 1/86 400 of the mean solar day. The exact definition of ?mean solar day? was left to the astronomers. However measurements showed that irregularities in the rotation of the Earth made this an unsatisfactory definition. In order to define the unit of time more precisely, the 11th CGPM (1960, Resolution 9; CR, 86) adopted a definition given by the International Astronomical Union based on the tropical year 1900. Experimental work, however, had already shown that an atomic standard of time, based on a transition between two energy levels of an atom or a molecule, could be realized and reproduced much more accurately. Considering that a very precise definition of the unit of time is indispensable for science and technology, the 13th CGPM (1967/68, Resolution 1; CR, 103 and Metrologia, 1968, 4, 43) replaced the definition of the second by the following: The second is 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. It follows that the hyperfine splitting in the ground state of the caesium 133 atom is exactly 9 192 631 770 hertz, ?(hfs Cs) = 9192631770 Hz. At its 1997 meeting the CIPM affirmed that: This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K. This note was intended to make it clear that the definition of the SI second is based on a caesium atom unperturbed by black body radiation, that is, in an environment whose thermodynamic temperature is 0 K. The frequencies of all primary frequency standards should therefore be corrected for the shift due to ambient radiation, as stated at the meeting of the Consultative Committee for Time and Frequency in 1999" Go argue with the standards people. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote: Cecil Moore wrote in news:aqfuh.4372$O02.4066 *Only* within the frame of reference where the second was defined which didn't exist for the first 2/3 of the history of the universe. Actually, the second is defined as a certain exact number of oscillations of a cesium atom in the same reference frame as the observer. 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? Are you serious? Where is your proof cesium didn't exist between the time of the big bang and the first supernova. Even if true, the current calendar didn't exist before 1752. So how could we possibly calculate George Washington's birthday? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas/lead ashtray
Jim Kelley wrote:
... Jim: Have you read about the quantum phenomenon(s) which begin when you even start getting close to absolute zero? I can just imagine attempting logical measurements ... Warmest regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: Stupid troll, go back to your bridge ... Ignorant, babbling twit, get an education. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote in
et: Dave Oldridge wrote: Cecil Moore wrote in news:aqfuh.4372$O02.4066 *Only* within the frame of reference where the second was defined which didn't exist for the first 2/3 of the history of the universe. Actually, the second is defined as a certain exact number of oscillations of a cesium atom in the same reference frame as the observer. 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. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 |
Antennas/lead ashtray
John Smith I wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: ... Jim: Have you read about the quantum phenomenon(s) which begin when you even start getting close to absolute zero? I can just imagine attempting logical measurements ... Warmest regards, JS Jim: This gives a "glimpse" of what I mean, the above was vague ... http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/phy99194.htm Regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
Jim Kelley wrote:
The two are entirely different. No, they are both earth-centric concepts invented by man. That makes them alike, not different. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Jim Kelley wrote:
You'd have to be able to demonstrate that relativistic effects single out particular units of measurement to the exclusion of others without having an effect on the observed phenomena and all within the same reference frame before being able to substantiate any claim that the result of a particular measurement is arbitrary. Can you demonstrate that? Relativistic effects certainly single out measurements of time - also length in the direction of velocity. It has been demonstrated numerous times that the velocity of a clock affects the length of its second. What is the velocity of the cesium clock on Earth? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote: No, they are both earth-centric concepts invented by man. That makes them alike, not different. Sort of blurs the line between the plausible and the absurd, Cecil. The fact that two things might share a particular trait does not eliminate their differences. jk |
Antennas led astray
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com