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.

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?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

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

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.