|
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. |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
Richard Clark wrote: ... If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium. Aliens watching first runs of 50s soap operas ("The Secret Storm" in this case) would undoubtedly have naming problems. This is not a technical problem; it is a cultural one. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Again, I may have misunderstood "Old Al" along then! If that cesium atom no longer obeys your "10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations"--"LAW", then perhaps 1,111,100 cps no longer obeys the "cps law" either. And, indeed, 1.1111 Mhz is no longer what we see at all!!! Of course, the above must be wrong. ET did manage to call home and apparently there were able to agree on the same freq. (sure would have liked to have taken a look at "Ole ETs'" watch ...) Warmest regards, JS I think that astronomers have made sufficient spectroscopic observations and measurements to firmly establish that physical phenomina are constant across the universe. Other dimensions may have different measurements but they are constant in this one. Dave N |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
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 The "SECOND" is an arbitrary measurement of duration. It has been defined with reference to specific measurements of a particular isotope of CESIUM under specific conditions. That those specific conditions may or may not be obtainable utilizing present technology is of no moment. Adjustments to the best obtainable results are made all the time in other areas. For instance the GRAM, the METER and the DEGREE. All these units are defined and approximated in real life. The only place where you can obtain absolutes is in conversion factors: 1 inch equals 2.54 centimeters, 1 degree Celsius (and it's derivatives: centigrade and kelvin) equal 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The degree Fahrenheit is determined by measuring the lowest temperature liquid water can reach and the boiling point of the same water. The upshot of all this is that everything in modern science is based on these and many other values. They all seem to work. At least until you get into quantum mechanics, which is another thread. Dave N |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote: 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 ... You might look into finding a way for that activity to occur spontaneously as well. ac6xg |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
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! Through no fault of its own. Seconds may be a different length in that far-far-away place. After all, the length of a second is relative to velocity so cycles/second are also relative, i.e. there is more than one way to accomplish a red shift. 1. changing cycles divided by fixed seconds. 2. Fixed cycles divided by changing cycles. 3. changing cycles divided by changing seconds. Now, like that told Virgina O'Hanlon about Santa Claus--if the NEW YORK TIMES said it, it must be true--or, perhaps the editor was mistaken?; I must admit--if Einstein said it, it must be true! half-smirk Einstein also said, "God doesn't roll dice." One of the quantum physicists responded, "Not only does God roll dice, but he rolls them in the dark." :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote:
If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium. What happens to its frequency of oscillation compared to a stationary observer as it approaches the speed of light? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
The definition is relative, not absolute. It's as absolute as anything we have. Name something absolute we could have used instead, Cecil. If the relative speed of the earth is changing, then the length of a second is also changing and we would have no way of knowing. 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. :-) ac6xg |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com