| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
January 25th 07, 04:03 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
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? Cecil: Whoa! Where did you get your bottle of red pills at? Mine ain't THAT GOOD! Warmest regards, JS |
|
#3
January 25th 07, 05:15 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#4
January 25th 07, 05:42 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
Antennas led astray
|
|
#5
January 25th 07, 01:58 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
What we do is confuse time with movement. Take away movement and you take away our time ... From: "The End of Time", by Barbour? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
|
#6
January 25th 07, 05:25 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
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." Babble. 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. Utter nonsense. Time on Earth hasn't been based on the spinning of the Earth for 40 years. You are about 300 years behind the times. Take away movement and you take away our time ... Utter nonsense. 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. Babbling word salad. Just think about it from "time to time" (or, as you are moving about grin) ... no reply is necessary. Regards, JS Welcome to the 17th century. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
|
#7
January 25th 07, 05:42 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
Antennas led astray
|
|
#8
January 25th 07, 06:15 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... Utter nonsense. Time on Earth hasn't been based on the spinning of the Earth for 40 years. You are about 300 years behind the times. Take away movement and you take away our time ... Utter nonsense. ... Jim: No man is an island, and no cesium atom is an island either. Word salad. The spinning of this earth is directly related to the vibration of the cesium atom. Nonsense. The exact same laws of math and physics which control the vibrating of that cesium atom control the spinning of this earth. Nope. Sheer logic is all which is necessary to know that ... Wrong. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
|
#9
January 25th 07, 06:33 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
Antennas led astray
wrote:
John Smith I wrote: wrote: ... Utter nonsense. Time on Earth hasn't been based on the spinning of the Earth for 40 years. You are about 300 years behind the times. Take away movement and you take away our time ... Utter nonsense. ... Jim: No man is an island, and no cesium atom is an island either. Word salad. The spinning of this earth is directly related to the vibration of the cesium atom. Nonsense. The exact same laws of math and physics which control the vibrating of that cesium atom control the spinning of this earth. Nope. Sheer logic is all which is necessary to know that ... Wrong. Jim: On the above, we must agree to disagree .. Regards, JS |
|
#10
January 25th 07, 01:52 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ABOUT - External "Roof-Top" FM Antennas for Better FM Radio Listening | Shortwave | |||
| F/A New Motorola VHF portable antennas (Motorola Branded!!) | Swap | |||
| F/A New Motorola VHF portable antennas (Motorola Branded!!) | Swap | |||
| Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna | |||
| Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Shortwave | |||
Hybrid Mode
