Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
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. Since there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference or absolute velocity, your point is meaningless. Time is defined with a velocity of zero relative to the Earth, not Mars, the Crab Nebula, nor the center of the universe. The standard is a measurement standard, not some revelation into the meaning of life and everything. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
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. You really need to try and get your head around relativity. And understand that what you are worried about doesn't matter a whit. However, this will likely degenerate into one of your famous "Cecil against the world" ****ing matches as usual. tom K0TAR |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|