John Smith I wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH
...

Richard:

Really?

Yes, really.

Perhaps my understanding of Einsteins theory is incorrect, or I am
attempting to add a relative quality to it?

Einstein has nothing to do with it nor does the rotation of the Earth.

"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined
as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest
at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero)."

Where Einstein comes in is that the cesium atom has to be at rest in
your reference frame.

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Only in comic books and movies.

snip rest

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

...
"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined
as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest
at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero)."


Now, I do constantly worry about my understanding of such things; and,
if they are in error will seek to "update" them. But, the example you
just gave me is about the weakest and most worrisome I have seen ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined
as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest
at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero)."


Now, I do constantly worry about my understanding of such things; and,
if they are in error will seek to "update" them. But, the example you
just gave me is about the weakest and most worrisome I have seen ...

What example?

Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

Start with:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

...
Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

Start with:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html


I am saying:

Yes, I believe someone would search for "solid ground" to base
measurements on. Again, yes, I believe that is about the best we can
find in an un-perfect world ...

No, I don't think that is any better than basing it on my goldfish, and
he/she is unpredictable (quantum effects perhaps.) But still, if all
which availed itself to me were my goldfish--I'd be damn temped to start
basing measurements on his/her activity!

At least your argument(s) cause one to think ...

Warmest regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

Start with:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html


I am saying:

Yes, I believe someone would search for "solid ground" to base
measurements on. Again, yes, I believe that is about the best we can
find in an un-perfect world ...

No, I don't think that is any better than basing it on my goldfish, and
he/she is unpredictable (quantum effects perhaps.) But still, if all
which availed itself to me were my goldfish--I'd be damn temped to start
basing measurements on his/her activity!

At least your argument(s) cause one to think ...

I made no arguments.

I stated facts that can be verified by reading the links.

If you were to read them you might stop babbling nonsense about goldfish
and "solid ground".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

...
I made no arguments.

I stated facts that can be verified by reading the links.

If you were to read them you might stop babbling nonsense about goldfish
and "solid ground".


Oh. I thought that would have been clear from the way our "discussion"
was going.

Show me a "Universal Time Frame" and you show me proof of all this
(well, you at least show me something I can test all this against);
don't show me this and I have MAJOR doubts ...

Warmest regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
I made no arguments.

I stated facts that can be verified by reading the links.

If you were to read them you might stop babbling nonsense about goldfish
and "solid ground".


Oh. I thought that would have been clear from the way our "discussion"
was going.

Non sequitur.

Show me a "Universal Time Frame" and you show me proof of all this
(well, you at least show me something I can test all this against);
don't show me this and I have MAJOR doubts ...

There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Read the links provided.

Your posts are word salad.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

John Smith I wrote:
I am saying:

Yes, I believe someone would search for "solid ground" to base
measurements on. Again, yes, I believe that is about the best we can
find in an un-perfect world ...

No, I don't think that is any better than basing it on my goldfish, and
he/she is unpredictable (quantum effects perhaps.) But still, if all
which availed itself to me were my goldfish--I'd be damn temped to start
basing measurements on his/her activity!

At least your argument(s) cause one to think ...

You might look into finding a way for that activity to occur
spontaneously as well.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

...
You might look into finding a way for that activity to occur
spontaneously as well.

ac6xg




I am almost certain you posed that as a smart A$$ statement; however, I
have considered that ...

What you just stated, the bible does indeed state, on a few different
references (and NO, I DON'T know the bible scripture and verse--I am
Catholic grin I drink AND smoke.) One such reference goes to making
the point that all the names of the people to be "saved" are already
listed in the book of life ...

I think of this, like this, our universe is nothing more than a "burnt
cd", and we are just a translation of the data existing on that cd.
Much like watching a movie on cd ... who knows, maybe God enjoys this
movie ... just no accounting for taste.

Now I don't put a lot of probability in such--but hey, maybe you are
right ...

Regards,
JS

wrote:
Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

The definition is relative, not absolute. 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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com