Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 25th 07, 08:44 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 666
Default Antennas led astray

Cecil Moore wrote:
That was the same argument used by Catholic Church
when they put Galileo under house arrest for the rest
of his life.


That might have been clever the first 5 or 10 times you trotted it
out. How about this one: To a man with a hammer, everything looks
like a nail.

If you feel it is more useful to make measurements using standards
from another reference frame, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to
do so. The Journal of Irreproducible Results awaits! :-)

73, ac6xg





  #2   Report Post  
Old January 25th 07, 11:44 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,614
Default Antennas led astray

Jim Kelley wrote:
If you feel it is more useful to make measurements using standards from
another reference frame, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.


You missed the point, Jim. Calculating the age of the
universe, ever and ever more accurately, with a standard
that may be continuously changing is technical insanity.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 25th 07, 11:34 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 666
Default Antennas led astray



Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

If you feel it is more useful to make measurements using standards
from another reference frame, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to
do so.



You missed the point, Jim. Calculating the age of the
universe, ever and ever more accurately, with a standard
that may be continuously changing is technical insanity.


The point you're missing is that the standard isn't changing with
respect to the frame in which the observations are made. We're
accurately measuring what we're observing in our reference frame -
unless of course you're prepared to prove otherwise.

73, Jim AC6XG

  #4   Report Post  
Old January 26th 07, 12:23 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,614
Default Antennas led astray

Jim Kelley wrote:
The point you're missing is that the standard isn't changing with
respect to the frame in which the observations are made.


The standard is not changing with respect to a subjective
frame of reference but it is changing with respect to an
objective frame of reference? What is wrong with this
picture? Ignorance of the objective frame of reference
is no excuse, IMO.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
  #5   Report Post  
Old January 26th 07, 12:36 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 666
Default Antennas led astray

Cecil Moore wrote:
The standard is not changing with respect to a subjective
frame of reference but it is changing with respect to an
objective frame of reference? What is wrong with this
picture?


Skewed perspective of the artist.

73 de ac6xg



  #6   Report Post  
Old January 26th 07, 12:15 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,898
Default Antennas led astray

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
If you feel it is more useful to make measurements using standards from
another reference frame, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.


You missed the point, Jim. Calculating the age of the
universe, ever and ever more accurately, with a standard
that may be continuously changing is technical insanity.


You missed the point Cecil.

Time never changes in our frame of reference.

The second is always 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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #9   Report Post  
Old January 26th 07, 04:23 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,614
Default Antennas led astray

wrote:
There is no such thing as a "subjective frame of reference".


:-)
--
73, Cecil
http://www.w5dxp.com
  #10   Report Post  
Old January 26th 07, 04:34 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default Antennas led astray

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
There is no such thing as a "subjective frame of reference".


:-)




Regards,
JS


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ABOUT - External "Roof-Top" FM Antennas for Better FM Radio Listening RHF Shortwave 1 January 10th 07 05:27 PM
F/A New Motorola VHF portable antennas (Motorola Branded!!) Andy Swap 1 May 26th 04 09:22 PM
F/A New Motorola VHF portable antennas (Motorola Branded!!) Andy Swap 0 May 18th 04 10:14 PM
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? lbbs Antenna 16 December 13th 03 03:01 PM
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? lbbs Shortwave 16 December 13th 03 03:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017