John Smith I wrote:
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."

No surprise there.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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.

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.

wrote:

...
Meaningless babble.


Jim:

Yer a darn hard case ...

chuckle
Regards,
JS

wrote:

...
Exactly what most people think it means.


Jim:

Too bad really, most people are wrong ...

Regards,
JS

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.

wrote:

...
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:

One last try, then I give up. It is much worse than that, as you are
all ready assuming that time exists. Most of us fall error to this. It
certainly seems to exist because how else would we get to our
appointments on "time."

What we do is confuse time with movement. Certainly you can see that
our earth time is based solely on movement, the spinning of the earth.
Indeed, we cannot "measure time" if we don't see something moving. Even
your watch depends on movement, either the watch spring driving spinning
gears, or the movement of electrons in its tiny oscillator.

Take away movement and you take away our time ...

But, there could be a "real time." A time which does not depend upon
movement. Indeed, there is good indication that it may exist. As, the
big bang would have needed time to have happened in (or, something akin
to it.) Otherwise, the big bang IS time and time is only movement. I
know, at first it appears rather a circular argument--takes a bit of
getting used to.

Just think about it from "time to time" (or, as you are moving about
grin) ... no reply is necessary.

Regards,
JS

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

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

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