Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
It's pretty obvious that frequency is a function of time.
Velocity is a function of time. Time is also a function
of velocity. Velocity is a function of length. Length is
also a function of velocity. Go figger.

Cecil:

In our present use and construct of time, absolutely.

I have a bit easier "time" of "seeing" things "shorten" as velocity
increases, my feeble brain strives for even that. (waves shorten as
they are emitted by objects with velocity ...)

Still, I wonder ... and I know, that with a buck still won't even buy
you a decent cup of coffee.

Warmest regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

I for one think it has already been shown, we simply do not understand
time. Given that is correct, how can we possibly know if the
"vibration" of cesium is a function of it--heck, maybe if we ever
achieve in stopping the vibs of cesium, time will stop? grin


It's pretty obvious that frequency is a function of time.
Velocity is a function of time. Time is also a function
of velocity. Velocity is a function of length. Length is
also a function of velocity. Go figger.

Both time and length are also variables as a function of gravity. So, the only
thing we know is really that we don't know what we think we know ?????

Antennas led astray
 

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:07:53 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

It is safe to call me John, I can guarantee you--that is my REAL first
name (well, Johnathan)--Smith is my "pen name."

Sure Brett,

You have no one to vouchsafe you. The problem with "anonymity" is
that you can neither substantiate what is real, nor repel what is
falsely applied - can you? (Attempts at either lack authenticity.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Antennas led astray
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Sure Brett,

You have no one to vouchsafe you. The problem with "anonymity" is
that you can neither substantiate what is real, nor repel what is
falsely applied - can you? (Attempts at either lack authenticity.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Well then, Brett it is ...

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:Fa3vh.76738$wP1.60913
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Nobody that I know of, but we're getting to the point where we can see
almost that far back.

Seems to me all we can see is back to the point where
things are moving away from our relative position at
less than the speed of light. Did you know that the
red shift is quantitized, i.e. not continuous, even
within the same galaxy?

So some people are saying.

And we still get to see parts of the universe that were close to us post-
inflation, though the universe is really too opaque at that distance to see
the really early stuff. But we're nearing the threshold where cesium would
be rare or non-existent. In short, we're SEEING some of those early
supernovae that made it in the first place. Several cosmologists think
that's the cause of the gamma-ray bursts we're experiencing.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Antennas led astray
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:22:38 GMT, Dave Oldridge
wrote:

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.

Hi Dave,

You have been snookered into answering a complaint manufactured (as
usual) from the misapplication of relationships. The resonance of
Cesium is not a function of time. Time is not a function of Cesium's
resonance (the incorrect correlation drawn, to which you are
responding).

There is no dependency between the two. It is our dependency in our
usage of one to measure the other. The sophism above is much like
saying sound did not exist before someone was close enough to hear the
falling tree. The excitation of gas molecules we call sound existed
long before the appearance of the first amoeba, much less apes in
falling trees. Both sound and time are phenomenological terms for
simple and rational physical processes that exist without dependence
on us.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, time is about as much related to the vibration of a cesium atom as it
is to the pendulum im my grandfather clock.

Antennas led astray
 

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:40:26 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote:

Yes, time is about as much related to the vibration of a cesium atom as it
is to the pendulum im my grandfather clock.

Hi Jimmie,

How very true. There is quite a bit of fluff about cesium. So much
so that you've hit the nail on the head with the pendulum.

Dare we anticipate those who will crow that there was no time before
the pendulum swung? Or that if one swung on the moon, this
demonstrates proof positive how time varies? FEH! The pendulum does
not make time, nor does time push the pendulum. There is no
causality.

No, Time is dependant on sand! Before the pendulum there was the sand
clock - aka Hour Glass. The ancients long ago recognized that if they
didn't keep turning the hour glass, that the end of time would come
(in eastern philosophy this was transmuted into the towers of Hanoi).
This, in fact, was the origin of the honorable office of the clock
watcher - his mission was to turn the glass before time fully ran out.
Of course, over time (an irony), this noble occupation became
prostituted through mechanization, and the office holder of clock
watcher became an object of scorn and ridicule. RIP

Some may argue that sand has no causal relationship with time at all,
but they are sadly mistaken. Simple observation will reveal that if
you cleaned your carpets last week, they need cleaning again of all
the sand (dust, dirt) that has descended into their fibers.

Run your finger along any bookshelf to witness this vivid proof. Sand.
Anyone who lives with a wife who keeps bookshelves (bric-a-brac,
picture frames, your shack) so clean of sand can agree that their life
is condemned to a timeless purgatory.

Look at any beach, the sand was once a mountain and a mountain it will
become again (dunes are the modeling software). Naturally you won't
be around long enough to watch all the sand do this, as this hour
glass measures a different period. The proof of this observation is
found with those who go to the shore for vacation, and at its end look
plaintively across the beach and wonder:
"Where has all my vacation time gone?"

If there had been no sand, there would have been no summer vacation at
the shore. Sand's causal tie to time is absolute and irrefutable.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Antennas/lead ashtray
 

Why is it always some weird, out of the way atom they play with
instead of a main-line, every day used sort of critter?

Krypton. . . Cesium . . . What ever. Why not Oxygen? Carbon?
Even good ol Iron??

Another thing, as it was explained to me, first the electrons are
ghosts to begin with which pop in and out of existence at a whim.
Second, if I had the nucleus of an atom in my hand, and it was the
size of a medium orange, the closest electron would be some where
around 38 miles away. . . `Lots of "Nothing" in between. So, when you
get down to 0 Kelvin, that's where all the shaking around stops, well,
it slows down enough to stop the harmonic vibration, but it also seems
to me that the electrons quit popping in and out of existence then
too. Hence the lack of unbalanced vibration of the missing, counter
balancing electrons. (Much like missing a tire weight at 70 mph on
the freeway or so I would believe.) SO if everything settles down at
0 "K" and starts working properly, why is it so damn hard to achieve?
It seems to me that everything would try to achieve the balancing
point, . . Equilibrium; Being that matter abhors a vacuum to begin
with. There has GOT to be an antagonist stirring the pot somewhere
from behind the scenes!! . . . Gravity?


On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:00:07 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

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/lead ashtray
 

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:41:06 -0800, Fred Ferrely wrote:

Krypton. . . Cesium . . . What ever. Why not Oxygen? Carbon?
Even good ol Iron??

Hi Fred,

Couldn't afford it.

Another thing, as it was explained to me, first the electrons are
ghosts to begin with which pop in and out of existence at a whim.

That was some explanation. It raises one of two questions. Did you
understand it? Or did the explainer?

it also seems
to me that the electrons quit popping in and out of existence then
too.

This would seem to pin a no to each question above.

SO if everything settles down at
0 "K" and starts working properly, why is it so damn hard to achieve?

Does a 2 year-old ever settle down? Short of their already being
asleep, why is that so hard to get them to bed?

It seems to me that everything would try to achieve the balancing
point, . . Equilibrium; Being that matter abhors a vacuum to begin
with. There has GOT to be an antagonist stirring the pot somewhere
from behind the scenes!! . . . Gravity?

People do a fairly good job of gumming up the works. Heisenberg
introduced us to the notion that when we bother to look, everything
changes. A pyramid balanced on its point is in an equilibrium, but
that is not the same as it being in its lowest energy state, also an
equilibrium. Not all equals are equal (credit George Orwell).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

It's pretty obvious that frequency is a function of time.
Velocity is a function of time. Time is also a function
of velocity. Velocity is a function of length. Length is
also a function of velocity. Go figger.

And you know what they say about figures.....
Judging from the plot at
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
it's pretty obvious that for the last 200 years the global average
temperature has been a function of the number of pirates.

:-)

ac6xg

Antennas/lead ashtray
 

Fred Ferrely wrote in message
...
Why is it always some weird, out of the way atom they play with
instead of a main-line, every day used sort of critter?

Krypton. . . Cesium . . . What ever. Why not Oxygen? Carbon?
Even good ol Iron??

Yeah! What ever happened to the good ol' days, when you could make things
you needed out of a rock?

Antennas led astray
 

Tom Ring wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

Go argue with the standards people.



I have no argument with the standards people. My
argument is with the people who take present
day seconds and lay them end-to-end back to the
Big Bang to ascertain the age of the universe.
Today's second may be the first time the second
has ever had that particular value. The first
second was likely many magnitudes longer than
the present day second.


Have you ever heard of the fine structure constant? You had best check
into it and how it can be verified from a distance, a very very long
distance.

tom
K0TAR

f=ma
e=mc^2

You guys are probably in agreement to this point.

Now the killer

S=(Ac^3)/(4hG)


Where did it go..... :-)

While I do not fully understand great physics, the subject can show the
great penalties of staying confined to a certain way of thinking.

Antennas led astray
 

Christopher Cox wrote:

While I do not fully understand great physics, the subject can show the
great penalties of staying confined to a certain way of thinking.

Truth. However, staying confined to the realm of fact usually carries
with it only the smallest of penalties. I'm not sure the foregoing
discussion stayed as strictly confined.

73, ac6xg

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

Jimmie D wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:22:38 GMT, Dave Oldridge
wrote:

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.
Hi Dave,

You have been snookered into answering a complaint manufactured (as
usual) from the misapplication of relationships. The resonance of
Cesium is not a function of time. Time is not a function of Cesium's
resonance (the incorrect correlation drawn, to which you are
responding).

There is no dependency between the two. It is our dependency in our
usage of one to measure the other. The sophism above is much like
saying sound did not exist before someone was close enough to hear the
falling tree. The excitation of gas molecules we call sound existed
long before the appearance of the first amoeba, much less apes in
falling trees. Both sound and time are phenomenological terms for
simple and rational physical processes that exist without dependence
on us.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, time is about as much related to the vibration of a cesium atom as it
is to the pendulum im my grandfather clock.

Time is related to nothing. Time *is*. Sorry Cecil - I read the book
too and it didn't do much for me. That fellow wants to throw away
everything for little - perhaps we should call his methods S'macco razor?

The cesium standard is defined as "in the absence of external
influences. Not a thing at all there that is strange. The meter, that
most arbitrary of measurements, had a standard, the Platinum-Iridium
metre that must be measured at the temperature of melting ice. Measure
it at 1200 degrees, and you'll get a different result.

Nobody denies the existence of the meter.

Oh, heres a good one. Today, the official measurement of the meter is
1,650,763.73 times the wavelength of the emission of Krypton-86 atoms in
a vacuum.

Since we usually don't have that lying around the house, they tied it
to time and the speed of light.

This tells us that the meter is the length of the path traveled by
light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 second. for us
dilettantes, although official measurements must still use the other mode.

So what's all this crap that Coslo's spouting?

Simply this:

It's all arbitrary

Nothing stays the same - Things change because of external forces,
Everything changes - If we were Doppler shifted, items that were along
with us for the ride would be the same.

Those weird elements were chosen by conditions at the limits of our
measurement abilities at the time we settled upon them.

That the elements change under different conditions doesn't negate their
use at the proper conditions.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
The cesium standard is defined as "in the absence of external
influences.

The Catholic Church said the same thing in the
16th century. Paraphrasing them: In the absence
of external influences, the Earth is the center
of the universe. That's true to this very day.
Take away all the external influences and the
Earth is indeed the center of the universe.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

The cesium standard is defined as "in the absence of external influences.


The Catholic Church said the same thing in the
16th century. Paraphrasing them: In the absence
of external influences, the Earth is the center
of the universe. That's true to this very day.
Take away all the external influences and the
Earth is indeed the center of the universe.

Yes, the Catholic Church felt that the Sun was not at the center of
the universe. What an old fashioned notion. :-)

ac6xg

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
The cesium standard is defined as "in the absence of external influences.

The Catholic Church said the same thing in the
16th century. Paraphrasing them: In the absence
of external influences, the Earth is the center
of the universe. That's true to this very day.
Take away all the external influences and the
Earth is indeed the center of the universe.


I didn't know that the Catholic church even knew about atomic clocks at
that time, Cecil! Something new to learn every day. 8^)

You slippery sloped from an atomic clock to ancient religion on me.

"in the absence of incontrovertible proof to the contrary, the world
was created in the fall of 4004 B.C." ;^)


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.

To say that all things have been discovered is naive hubris though. I'm
still waiting for evidence of proton decay, without it the Big Bang has
a Big Problem. But it doesn't make sense to throw everything we do know
away because of that one issue - at least until something better comes
along that fits with what we do know.

Let's drop away from cosmology for a moment..


Take say, number 14 bare wire, and make a dipole for some arbitrary
frequency. at some arbitrary height.

Raise the antenna and lower the antenna. Do the antenna characteristics
stay the same?

Substitute insulated number 14 wire for the bare wire at the same
length. Do the characteristics stay the same?


Of course not. The differences are easily measurable, or at least
easily modelable.

That isn't religion, it fits in with what we do know about physics.
That VF changes depending on the insulating material doesn't mean that
the original characteristics are null and void. Just means they have
changed in a manner that is predictable, and for which cause is known.

No Papal Bull required! ;^)


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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.

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.

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?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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!"

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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 -

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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 -

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

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

Cesium clocks at sea level, on a mountain top, and
in an airplane all measure different lengths of the
second. Are you saying the speed of light is different
at those three locations?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.


Quantum mechanics does however:


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._stoplight.htm

On a more humble level, Light changes speed as it passes through
different mediums, such as water.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:26:48 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:

On a more humble level, Light changes speed as it passes through
different mediums, such as water.

WOW!

According to Cecileo, does this mean that time slows down (speeds up?)
TOO? Does the Vatican know about this?

Must be why bath time is resisted by so many children.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

Richard Clark wrote:
According to Cecileo, does this mean that time slows down ...

It means that light travels at the speed of light,
no matter what. One thing had to be nailed down
and Einstein chose the speed of light.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:40:10 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
According to Cecileo, does this mean that time slows down ...

It means that light travels at the speed of light,
no matter what. One thing had to be nailed down
and Einstein chose the speed of light.

So Einstein is responsible for both setting the speed of light AND
time slowing down?

Is this a case of Einstein is all and Cecileo is his prophet? No
wonder the Vatican is turning the screws. Take two excedrin and write
us again in the morning if your thumbs don't hurt.

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

Richard Clark wrote:
So Einstein is responsible for both setting the speed of light AND
time slowing down?

In a way, the answer is "yes". If the length of a second
is inviolate, then the speed-of-light is not a constant
since those are contradictory concepts.

A system of physics could have been based on an "absolute
objective second" of time, but it results in a total package
with a lot of problems as yet unsolved. An absolute velocity
of light in a vacuum seems to solve a lot of those problems
but results in length being a variable and time being a
variable while length and time are the dimensions of velocity.

Personally, I think everything is a variable and therefore,
there are no constants, except of course, for your constant
kibitzing. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:07:02 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
So Einstein is responsible for both setting the speed of light AND
time slowing down?

In a way, the answer is "yes".

And now that he has been dead for 50 years, is it safe to say years
given he was responsible for the speed of light AND time slowing down?

Was in it fact a moment ago that he died? Or should that be an Æon?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
So Einstein is responsible for both setting the speed of light AND
time slowing down?
In a way, the answer is "yes".

And now that he has been dead for 50 years, is it safe to say years
given he was responsible for the speed of light AND time slowing down?

I addressed that very point in the part that you
deleted. So I must ask: What was your ulterior
motive in those deliberate deletions? Are you
unwilling (or incapable) of discussing the
actual subject of this "thread gone astray"?

Is this akin to your assertion that the reflection
from a piece of anti-reflective coating of glass
is brighter than the surface of the sun?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:27:48 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

So Einstein is responsible for both setting the speed of light AND
time slowing down?
In a way, the answer is "yes".

And now that he has been dead for 50 years, is it safe to say years
given he was responsible for the speed of light AND time slowing down?

I addressed that very point in the part that you
deleted.

Hmm, research reveals nothing of your having said anything about
Einstein's death. Nothing about his being responsible for the speed
of light, and certainly nothing about his being responsible for
slowing time down.

Instead of making bland exclamations, can you actually offer us facts
that Einstein is responsible for both setting the speed of light AND
time slowing down? This God-like quality that you have invested in
him and then taken some of it away with the equivocation of
In a way, the answer is "yes".
doesn't really say anything does it?

The world waits in wonder at your assertion of Einstein's ability to
set the speed of light and time - especially when it had been
investigated and quantified by many earlier workers, notably Michelson
and Morely.

Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
 

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:40:45 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

The world waits in wonder at your assertion of Einstein's ability to
set the speed of light and time - especially when it had been
investigated and quantified by many earlier workers, notably Michelson
and Morely.

Hi All,

Well it stands to reason there is nothing to be said in this regard

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:40:10 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
One thing had to be nailed down and Einstein chose the speed of light.

as Einstein was never responsible for any such thing.

Fact of the matter was previous to Michelson and Morely's work, a
Scottish fellow by the name of Maxwell had already DEFINED the speed
of light. Michelson and Morely merely confirmed it in the absence of
a disturbing Æther. Their confirmation merely extended the
experimental resolution of a quantity already known.

Instead, Einstein took Maxwell's DEFINED speed of light, and observed
that it would be constant in any Inertial Frame of Reference. This
means that the same beam of light (whose source or origin is
immaterial) is measured in a fixed frame (nonsense of course, but this
is Einstein's thought experiment), it will be equally determined by a
moving frame.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC