|
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
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. Please Google "relativity" and "Lorentz transforms" for the technical facts as presented by Einstein. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: One thing had to be nailed down and Einstein chose the speed of light. 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. I never said or implied that Einstein "DEFINED the speed of light", only that he "nailed it down" in his equations as the one universal constant - while all other parameters are subject to relativity effects. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:52:38 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: I never said or implied that Einstein "DEFINED the speed of light", only that he "nailed it down" in his equations as the one universal constant - while all other parameters are subject to relativity effects. Let's face it, you never really say anything in the end. We can see this in the guff like that above. "nailed it down," now there's a charming non-sequitur. Maxwell preceded him by decades with the definition of the speed of light - Einstein certainly nailed nothing there. Maxwell's equations are nothing if not universally applicable, Einstein didn't add anything that pounded any nail there either. And to hail-Mary it with while all other parameters are subject to relativity effects. contradicts Einstein explicitly in that he taught that "all laws of physics are the same within all inertial frames of reference." Einstein did not exclude anything. |
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: One thing had to be nailed down and Einstein chose the speed of light. 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. I never said or implied that Einstein "DEFINED the speed of light", only that he "nailed it down" in his equations as the one universal constant - while all other parameters are subject to relativity effects. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com permittivity of free space, permeability of free space, radian... -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote:
Let's face it, you never really say anything in the end. We can see this in the guff like that above. "nailed it down," now there's a charming non-sequitur. Maxwell preceded him by decades with the definition of the speed of light - Einstein certainly nailed nothing there. Einstein was the first to nail down the speed of light in free space as an absolute in his relativity equations. You can verify that fact by Googling "relativity". -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 03:29:38 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: You can verify that fact by Googling "relativity". Sounds like Xerox logic. Appeal to the authority of Google pretty much puts Einstein into the garbage can like a moldy rind. |
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote:
It was Lorentz that described time dilation (using the speed of light) in 1887 and formalized in 1899, and it was Poincaré who introduced this math in 1905, not Einstein. It was Einstein who first recognized that the Lorentz transforms actually applied to reality and were not just another useful set of purely mathematical transforms. If Lorentz and Poincare had recognized that fact, they would have gotten credit for the theory of relativity but guess who got the credit? Hint: The guy who nailed down the speed of light as an absolute in his relativity equations. Nowhere have I ever read that the mathematicians, Lorentz or Poincare, ever suspected that the speed of light in a vacuum was a fixed absolute. That concept was left to a physicist. he "nailed it down" in his equations is an slur on Maxwell, Lamor, Lorentz, and Poincaré's contributions that predate Einstein by decades. No slur intended or implied so it must be a mistaken inference on your part. You obviously jumped to a wrong conclusion and do not understand what I meant by "nailed it down". If everything is relative, then nothing is fixed. By declaring the speed of light in a vacuum to be a fixed absolute, Einstein nailed down the cornerstone of his theory. Relativity needed a reference nailed down. Einstein nailed down the speed of light as that reference. In my context, "set it in concrete" would be synonym for "nailed it down". I do believe the speed of light in a vacuum is set in concrete within the theory of relativity. You are walking around a vacant lot and find a rope. You want to experiment with waves using the rope. You "nail down" one end of the rope and apply energy at the other end. Are you slurring the inventors and/or manufacturers of the rope? Please explain how. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:12:24 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: -Sigh- Special relativity cowboy rope tricks snipped.... You are walking around a vacant lot and find a rope. You want to experiment with waves using the rope. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Whip your rope twice and you are forgiven, whip your rope more and you are sinning. |
Thread gone astray was Antennas led astray
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... 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. Please Google "relativity" and "Lorentz transforms" for the technical facts as presented by Einstein. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Einstien contribution was that he made the connection between matter and energy. The fact that the speed of light appeared to be constant regardless of the observers reference was already fairly well established before Einstien began his work. He just proposed a possible explanation |
The Awesome Razor
73 Yuri da BUm da father of Razors QST April 1972 |
The Awesome Razor
"Christopher Cox" wrote in message ... 73 Yuri da BUm da father of Razors QST April 1972 What about it? BUm |
The Awesome Razor
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
"Christopher Cox" wrote in message ... 73 Yuri da BUm da father of Razors QST April 1972 What about it? BUm Apr-72 Fundamental Raser Principles Pg56 Whoop's swapped a 's' with the 'z'... :-) I believe Wes had the right idea though. |
The Awesome Razor
"Christopher Cox" wrote in message ... Yuri Blanarovich wrote: "Christopher Cox" wrote in message ... 73 Yuri da BUm da father of Razors QST April 1972 What about it? BUm Apr-72 Fundamental Raser Principles Pg56 Whoop's swapped a 's' with the 'z'... :-) I believe Wes had the right idea though. ...and "e" for "o" - seems that was April fool's take on Laser - Raser. Are you challenging my fatherhood of Razors? :-) Razor Beam applies to optimized Quad - Yagi elementary antenna design, not to be confused with Overback's "Quagi" - where he replaced reflector and driven element in a particular Yagi design. I have series of designs from 3 el. quad to 10 el. Razors. Razor was named after being so sharp, cutting through the pileups and shaving the bands clean, jus' one chapter in my fooling with antennas. 73 Yuri, K3BU, VE3BMV still da father of da Razor Beam |
The Awesome Razor
..and "e" for "o" - seems that was April fool's take on Laser - Raser. It absolutely is! Are you challenging my fatherhood of Razors? :-) I absolutely was! Razor Beam applies to optimized Quad - Yagi elementary antenna design, not to be confused with Overback's "Quagi" - where he replaced reflector and driven element in a particular Yagi design. I have series of designs from 3 el. quad to 10 el. Razors. Razor was named after being so sharp, cutting through the pileups and shaving the bands clean, jus' one chapter in my fooling with antennas. And there is/was my confusion. You were referring to a valid antenna design where I thought you were joking around. Sorry. But being interested in quad endfire arrays, I will read of your work with great interest. Regards, Chris |
The Awesome Razor
Razor Beam applies to optimized Quad - Yagi elementary antenna design, not to be confused with Overback's "Quagi" - where he replaced reflector and driven element in a particular Yagi design. I have series of designs from 3 el. quad to 10 el. Razors. Razor was named after being so sharp, cutting through the pileups and shaving the bands clean, jus' one chapter in my fooling with antennas. And there is/was my confusion. You were referring to a valid antenna design where I thought you were joking around. Sorry. But being interested in quad endfire arrays, I will read of your work with great interest. Regards, Chris Hi Chris, Based on my hardware 2m modeling, my and others conclusion is that going over 5 elements, quad array does not provide more gain per boomlength than Yagi. This is why I tried to come up with design that would provide maximum gain per boom length, 50 ohm impedance and clean pattern - Quad/Yagi combination. My conclusion then was that one quad element before and after driven (cell) element and rest should be Yagis. Now I am playing with dual polarization designs, where quad elements are only "dumb" enough to not know which polarization they are at. By switching or phasing driven element one can take advantage of that property. That, combined with new SDR and DSP radios is opening up whole new area. 73 Yuri, K3BU |
The Awesome Razor
snip
Yagi. snip. That, combined with new SDR and DSP radios is opening up whole new area. 73 Yuri, K3BU- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What is this 'whole new area do you see opening up' have with respect to antennas and how is it connected to polarization ? Myself, I anticipate some movement to more compact forms of arrays to meet WIFI trends , erther way antenna interest is sure to increase in the next decade. Art |
The Awesome Razor
"art" wrote in message ups.com... snip Yagi. snip. That, combined with new SDR and DSP radios is opening up whole new area. 73 Yuri, K3BU- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What is this 'whole new area do you see opening up' have with respect to antennas and how is it connected to polarization ? With two antennas and dual SDR receiver you can already swing the pattern from the antennas in the software. Using dual polarization you can minimize the efects of fading and take advantage of some noise canceling in DSP - software. Even now you can see the signals before you can hear them. Myself, I anticipate some movement to more compact forms of arrays to meet WIFI trends , erther way antenna interest is sure to increase in the next decade. Art Good for you! 73 Yuri |
The Awesome Razor
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:41:38 -0500, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote: Razor Beam applies to optimized Quad - Yagi elementary antenna design, not to be confused with Overback's "Quagi" - where he replaced reflector and driven element in a particular Yagi design. I have series of designs from 3 el. quad to 10 el. Razors. Razor was named after being so sharp, cutting through the pileups and shaving the bands clean, jus' one chapter in my fooling with antennas. And there is/was my confusion. You were referring to a valid antenna design where I thought you were joking around. Now I am playing with dual polarization designs, where quad elements are only "dumb" enough to not know which polarization they are at. Hey Yuri, Will a Razor work better if it is looking out over an infinite salt marsh with 3000 miles of ocean on the horizon, or a sand-soil forested area? Just curious. Assume 40 meters or maybe 80 meters and lots of height. Rick K2XT |
The Awesome Razor
Hey Yuri, Will a Razor work better if it is looking out over an infinite salt marsh with 3000 miles of ocean on the horizon, or a sand-soil forested area? Just curious. Assume 40 meters or maybe 80 meters and lots of height. Rick K2XT Anything works better over salt marsh or water. Vertical polarization takes more advantage of the "salty" effect. 73 Yuri |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
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? All parts of any given galaxy are not moving toward or away from us at the same speed, unless the galaxy is perfectly perpendicular to us. Is your red-shift issue about the red shift itself, or about the magnitude of the shift? And if "variable seconds" is the culprit, how are blue shifted stars accommodated in your model? - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Antennas led astray
Michael Coslo wrote:
All parts of any given galaxy are not moving toward or away from us at the same speed, unless the galaxy is perfectly perpendicular to us. True, but consider that the red shift frequencies are discontinuous, i.e. quantized. Is your red-shift issue about the red shift itself, or about the magnitude of the shift? And if "variable seconds" is the culprit, how are blue shifted stars accommodated in your model? My issue is that red-shifts are not necessarily 100% Doppler effects. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: All parts of any given galaxy are not moving toward or away from us at the same speed, unless the galaxy is perfectly perpendicular to us. True, but consider that the red shift frequencies are discontinuous, i.e. quantized. Is your red-shift issue about the red shift itself, or about the magnitude of the shift? And if "variable seconds" is the culprit, how are blue shifted stars accommodated in your model? My issue is that red-shifts are not necessarily 100% Doppler effects. Of course there is gravitational redshift too, but I don't think that is what you are referring to. I think you are trying to say that time is variable (forgive if I err) This means that the speed of light is also variable if only by relation to that variable time element Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths. Any effects that alter Doppler at light wavelengths should also be noticeable at to wavelengths. I have not heard of any such, have you? This then says that we are not in the "fastest time" zone, because there are celestial bodies that are blue shifting toward us, or perhaps not,they are just in a different "time zone"? ;^) BTW, I erred in my perpendicular statement above. I forgot about transverse Doppler shift that we would indeed have in a galaxy at right angles. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Antennas led astray
Michael Coslo wrote:
Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths. The question is: Are all frequency shifts in the universe caused by Doppler effects? I say no. I say some frequency shifts are relativity effects. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths. The question is: Are all frequency shifts in the universe caused by Doppler effects? I say no. I say some frequency shifts are relativity effects. Which is the gravitational redshift. Or do you propose another type too? - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths. The question is: Are all frequency shifts in the universe caused by Doppler effects? I say no. I say some frequency shifts are relativity effects. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com The doppler shift of EM frequency is a relativistic effect, so you got that sorta right. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Michael Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: All parts of any given galaxy are not moving toward or away from us at the same speed, unless the galaxy is perfectly perpendicular to us. True, but consider that the red shift frequencies are discontinuous, i.e. quantized. Is your red-shift issue about the red shift itself, or about the magnitude of the shift? And if "variable seconds" is the culprit, how are blue shifted stars accommodated in your model? My issue is that red-shifts are not necessarily 100% Doppler effects. Of course there is gravitational redshift too, but I don't think that is what you are referring to. I think you are trying to say that time is variable (forgive if I err) This means that the speed of light is also variable if only by relation to that variable time element Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths. Any effects that alter Doppler at light wavelengths should also be noticeable at to wavelengths. I have not heard of any such, have you? This then says that we are not in the "fastest time" zone, because there are celestial bodies that are blue shifting toward us, or perhaps not,they are just in a different "time zone"? ;^) BTW, I erred in my perpendicular statement above. I forgot about transverse Doppler shift that we would indeed have in a galaxy at right angles. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - There is an interesting (hypothetical) effect - and maybe this is what Cecil is talking about. Two systems; A and B, we're A. System B is moving away from us at relativistic velocity. Sodium yellow light from system B's street lights looks red from where we're standing in system A. Lets say we can also measure the atomic transition frequency of the sodium atoms in system B's street lights and discover that it resonates at a lower frequency compared to our reference frame. [Note that if the velocity between the two systems is indeed relativistic, then visible light will be shifted down into the infrared. Also note that if we could observe the diaphram of a car horn as it approached us, we would see that its frequncy of oscillation visually would be higher than its doppler shifted audible frequency.] If we assume that sodium behaves the same way everywhere in the universe (which we usually do) and it transitions at universally the same frequency everywhere, measured with respect to its own reference frame, then there must be a difference in the length of the unit time between the two reference frames in order to explain the apparent observed frequency difference. We usually assume the Doppler effect is linear with velocity, but temporal effects are assumed to increase very non-linearly as the speed of light is approached. So at modest velocities the apparent shift would be all doppler, but at relativistic velocities the temporal aspect would become more significant. I believe this is one explanation for the apparent 'acceleration' effect, where you look far enough out and things appear to be accelerating away from us, not just moving away. 73, ac6xg |
Antennas led astray
Correction: The car horn diaphram would of course be oscillating at a frequency lower than the audible frequency when the car is approaching. Jim Kelley wrote: There is an interesting (hypothetical) effect - and maybe this is what Cecil is talking about. Two systems; A and B, we're A. System B is moving away from us at relativistic velocity. Sodium yellow light from system B's street lights looks red from where we're standing in system A. Lets say we can also measure the atomic transition frequency of the sodium atoms in system B's street lights and discover that it resonates at a lower frequency compared to our reference frame. [Note that if the velocity between the two systems is indeed relativistic, then visible light will be shifted down into the infrared. Also note that if we could observe the diaphram of a car horn as it approached us, we would see that its frequncy of oscillation visually would be higher than its doppler shifted audible frequency.] If we assume that sodium behaves the same way everywhere in the universe (which we usually do) and it transitions at universally the same frequency everywhere, measured with respect to its own reference frame, then there must be a difference in the length of the unit time between the two reference frames in order to explain the apparent observed frequency difference. We usually assume the Doppler effect is linear with velocity, but temporal effects are assumed to increase very non-linearly as the speed of light is approached. So at modest velocities the apparent shift would be all doppler, but at relativistic velocities the temporal aspect would become more significant. I believe this is one explanation for the apparent 'acceleration' effect, where you look far enough out and things appear to be accelerating away from us, not just moving away. 73, ac6xg |
Antennas led astray
Michael Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths. The question is: Are all frequency shifts in the universe caused by Doppler effects? I say no. I say some frequency shifts are relativity effects. Which is the gravitational redshift. Or do you propose another type too? The "expanding" space between two galaxies could be a relativity effect and the shorter second due to relativity effects naturally results in a lower measured frequency. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
wrote:
The doppler shift of EM frequency is a relativistic effect, so you got that sorta right. The doppler red shift is thought to be because galaxies are receding from each other. If a rope stretched between those galaxies doesn't break with time, what would that imply about the recession? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Jim Kelley wrote:
So at modest velocities the apparent shift would be all doppler, but at relativistic velocities the temporal aspect would become more significant. I believe this is one explanation for the apparent 'acceleration' effect, where you look far enough out and things appear to be accelerating away from us, not just moving away. What if we and everything around us are still traveling near the speed of light compared to the center of the Big Bang? What if our velocity compared to the center of the Big Bang is actually decreasing. Decreasing velocity implies decreasing mass, increasing standard unit lengths, and decreasing standard units of time all of which might fool our measurements of today. The Big Bang may have happened 12.5 billion years ago based on the length of our present seconds, but measured using the center of the Big Bang as the time frame reference, how long since the Big Bang? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote: The Big Bang may have happened 12.5 billion years ago based on the length of our present seconds, but measured using the center of the Big Bang as the time frame reference, how long since the Big Bang? How about this: If the length of the unit time changed by a factor of two then the age of the universe, using the new metric, would differ from the old by a factor of two. Same amount of time, but a different number of units of time. 73 ac6xg |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: The doppler shift of EM frequency is a relativistic effect, so you got that sorta right. The doppler red shift is thought to be because galaxies are receding from each other. If a rope stretched between those galaxies doesn't break with time, what would that imply about the recession? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com The sound of one hand clapping. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Jim Kelley wrote:
How about this: If the length of the unit time changed by a factor of two then the age of the universe, using the new metric, would differ from the old by a factor of two. Same amount of time, but a different number of units of time. Because of the effects of gravity and velocity upon time, the first "second" was probably many magnitudes longer than our reference second of today. And not only does the length of a time unit change over time, it also changes with position. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Jim Kelley wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: All parts of any given galaxy are not moving toward or away from us at the same speed, unless the galaxy is perfectly perpendicular to us. True, but consider that the red shift frequencies are discontinuous, i.e. quantized. Is your red-shift issue about the red shift itself, or about the magnitude of the shift? And if "variable seconds" is the culprit, how are blue shifted stars accommodated in your model? My issue is that red-shifts are not necessarily 100% Doppler effects. Of course there is gravitational redshift too, but I don't think that is what you are referring to. I think you are trying to say that time is variable (forgive if I err) This means that the speed of light is also variable if only by relation to that variable time element Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths. Any effects that alter Doppler at light wavelengths should also be noticeable at to wavelengths. I have not heard of any such, have you? This then says that we are not in the "fastest time" zone, because there are celestial bodies that are blue shifting toward us, or perhaps not,they are just in a different "time zone"? ;^) BTW, I erred in my perpendicular statement above. I forgot about transverse Doppler shift that we would indeed have in a galaxy at right angles. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - There is an interesting (hypothetical) effect - and maybe this is what Cecil is talking about. Two systems; A and B, we're A. System B is moving away from us at relativistic velocity. Sodium yellow light from system B's street lights looks red from where we're standing in system A. Lets say we can also measure the atomic transition frequency of the sodium atoms in system B's street lights and discover that it resonates at a lower frequency compared to our reference frame. [Note that if the velocity between the two systems is indeed relativistic, then visible light will be shifted down into the infrared. Also note that if we could observe the diaphram of a car horn as it approached us, we would see that its frequncy of oscillation visually would be higher than its doppler shifted audible frequency.] Here I become confused. It sounds as if you are saying that the oscillation frequency of the "object" would be higher than the frequency than the Doppler shifted frequency on approach. That sounds like the reverse of the Doppler effect. If we assume that sodium behaves the same way everywhere in the universe (which we usually do) and it transitions at universally the same frequency everywhere, measured with respect to its own reference frame, then there must be a difference in the length of the unit time between the two reference frames in order to explain the apparent observed frequency difference. We usually assume the Doppler effect is linear with velocity, but temporal effects are assumed to increase very non-linearly as the speed of light is approached. So at modest velocities the apparent shift would be all doppler, but at relativistic velocities the temporal aspect would become more significant. I believe this is one explanation for the apparent 'acceleration' effect, where you look far enough out and things appear to be accelerating away from us, not just moving away. Possibly. Cecil will eventually let us know. I'm still not completely sure. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Antennas led astray
Jim Kelley wrote:
Correction: The car horn diaphram would of course be oscillating at a frequency lower than the audible frequency when the car is approaching. Okay, Jim. Disregard my followup then. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths. The question is: Are all frequency shifts in the universe caused by Doppler effects? I say no. I say some frequency shifts are relativity effects. Which is the gravitational redshift. Or do you propose another type too? The "expanding" space between two galaxies could be a relativity effect and the shorter second due to relativity effects naturally results in a lower measured frequency. Could be. My questions alway revolve around just what - or why - the effect is. The great thing about Doppler is that it works on so many scales. We should be able to perform experiments that will go a long way toward determining if such an effect exists. What I see however is that there are no great anomalies with the present model. That doesn't make it right, but it does mean it pretty much fits. Relativity also works at speeds lower and more local than across the universe, Astronauts and their craft who orbit the earth are "younger" than they would have been if they stayed on Earth. We use accelerators that act consistently with relativity. We probably should see some of what you are thinking of. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
Because of the effects of gravity and velocity upon time, the first "second" was probably many magnitudes longer than our reference second of today. Such effects would likely have been significant during the first microsecond or so after the big bang. It was a very big bang, apparently. 73, ac6xg |
Antennas led astray
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:29:28 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote: Because of the effects of gravity and velocity upon time, the first "second" was probably many magnitudes longer than our reference second of today. Such effects would likely have been significant during the first microsecond or so after the big bang. It was a very big bang, apparently. This discussion of "time" (something a human observer could only appreciate in a current inertial frame) conjures up the conundrum an amoeba might have in puzzling out whether to stir or shake a martini. Bartender to the one-cell protoplasm: "Vodka or Gin?" Amoeba: "Can you inform me as to the relativistic implications?" Bartender: "You can't bruise Vodka." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antennas led astray
Richard Clark wrote: This discussion of "time" (something a human observer could only appreciate in a current inertial frame) conjures up the conundrum an amoeba might have in puzzling out whether to stir or shake a martini. Bartender to the one-cell protoplasm: "Vodka or Gin?" Amoeba: "Can you inform me as to the relativistic implications?" Bartender: "You can't bruise Vodka." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Personally, I liken it to debating whether or not the fairies on the head of the pin are actually dancing. 73 (singular), ac6xg |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com