John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
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?

Pop that cesium atom with a hp pp laser and see if those vibs don't
stray a bit ...

Regards,
JS

a hp pp laser is not part of the mechanism used to measure cesium
vibrations so your comment is irrelevant.

Dave N

wrote:

...
Yeah, so what?

Time is a function of the frame of reference.

Doesn't everyone with at least a half-ass education know that these
days?



Oh. Whatever was I thinking?

Then you accept 1.1111 Mhz may not be the same for "the aliens?" And, a
cesium atom may NOT tell us anything about time at all? (just like the
ruler tell us NOTHING about our size?)

Strange ...

Regards,
JS

David G. Nagel wrote:

...
a hp pp laser is not part of the mechanism used to measure cesium
vibrations so your comment is irrelevant.

Dave N

No, not irrelevant--but, perhaps a poor example, but still, it should
serve ...

If the darn cesium atom won't vibrate consistently at the same freq, you
are asking me to base beliefs on it? look-of-shock-and-awe!

If something as simple as a high power pin-point laser can affect it ...

Regards,
JS

Jim Kelley wrote:
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.

Please don't blame the messenger. If we could locate
an atomic clock at the center of gravity of the Big
Bang, we might have an absolute reference point -
(assuming that point is not moving. :-)

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. :-)

But, Jim, that other reference frame may be yesterday
on Earth. A second today may be shorter than a second
was yesterday. I can prove that seconds are getting
shorter. It takes me many more seconds to run 100
yards than it once did.

I'm pretty sure that first second after the Big
Bang wasn't anywhere near the length of a second now.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Isn't assuming that Earth time is an absolute reference
a lot like assuming that the Earth is the center of
the universe?

Yeah, but I didn't say anything about Earth time or an absolute
reference.

I was agreeing with you and expanding a bit.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
The speed of the Earth relative to what?

Relative to the center of gravity of the Big Bang.

But since the second is defined in the inertial frame of the Earth, it
doesn't matter.

How long was a second before the Earth existed? Seems
to me that assuming the age of the universe can be
calculated in Earth seconds is just as bad as assuming
the Earth is the center of the universe. Similar
Earth-centric arguments can be made for both concepts.

BTW, you do know the second at sea level is different than the second
on top of a mountain due to gravity?

So how is it possible to calculate the age of the
universe in Earth seconds? Are we talking sea level
seconds or what? Are Black Holes the same age as the
universe?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Isn't assuming that Earth time is an absolute reference
a lot like assuming that the Earth is the center of
the universe?

Yeah, but I didn't say anything about Earth time or an absolute
reference.

I was agreeing with you and expanding a bit.

Cecil:

I am glad you responded here, I had missed a very good thing in Jims'
text--absolute reference.

I like "Absolute Time Reference" much, much better than "Universal
Time-Frame."

Regards,
JS

wrote:
Time is a function of the frame of reference.

Doesn't everyone with at least a half-ass education know that these
days?

What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe
is 12.5 billion years?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
The speed of the Earth relative to what?

Relative to the center of gravity of the Big Bang.

But since the second is defined in the inertial frame of the Earth, it
doesn't matter.

How long was a second before the Earth existed? Seems
to me that assuming the age of the universe can be
calculated in Earth seconds is just as bad as assuming
the Earth is the center of the universe. Similar
Earth-centric arguments can be made for both concepts.

BTW, you do know the second at sea level is different than the second
on top of a mountain due to gravity?

So how is it possible to calculate the age of the
universe in Earth seconds? Are we talking sea level
seconds or what? Are Black Holes the same age as the
universe?

Cecil:

Whoa! Where did you get your bottle of red pills at? Mine ain't THAT GOOD!

Warmest regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Isn't assuming that Earth time is an absolute reference
a lot like assuming that the Earth is the center of
the universe?

Yeah, but I didn't say anything about Earth time or an absolute
reference.

I was agreeing with you and expanding a bit.

OK.

I have a bit of a hair trigger when babblers are present.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.