|
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
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 ... Meaningless babble. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
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? Exactly what most people think it means. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
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? Shrug. One defines a standard and works with the standard. If you want to define a standard unit of time called the glorksnopes, be my guest. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:14:29 -0800, John Smith I
wrote: 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 ... What, a poor example? GIGO. 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! Your belief system makes an unwarranted presumption - THAT is the basis of poor belief, not the atom's resonance. If something as simple as a high power pin-point laser can affect it ... Another presumption. Perhaps true, useful, but it doesn't invalidate the simple mechanics. Failure is easy to achieve - it is celebrated in a speech before Congress every year. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Antennas led astray
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe is 12.5 billion years? Exactly what most people think it means. Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times longer than they are now. What would most people think then? Using a relative time standard that obeys the rules of relativity to assert the absolute age of the universe seems really strange to me. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
wrote:
One defines a standard and works with the standard. The point is that our "standard" second changes with velocity and we have no idea what our velocity is or was or will be. We are defining our average velocity as a constant without any evidence whatsoever to support that definition. That's no different from defining our average position as the center of the universe. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com