Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Time never changes in our frame of reference. I agree with you. Time never changes in our subjective frame of reference exactly as the center of the universe never changes in the 17th century Catholic Church's frame of reference. Word salad. There is no such thing as a "subjective frame of reference". But our subjective time frame of reference is no more valid than the Catholic Church's subjective space frame of reference was - and maybe even less so. Word salad. There is no such thing as a "subjective frame of reference". You might even be the reincarnation of one of the Catholic priests who condemned Galileo to house arrest. :-) You never tire of bringing up the Catholic Church and Galileo, do you? Sorry, I don't know much about the Church other than they screwed Galileo and you can shake it twice to clean the bore, but shake it thrice and you've sinned some more. Anyway, it appears that either: A. You don't understand what a frame of reference means in physics. or B. You're bored and want to argue for it's own sake. or D. All of the above. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: There is no such thing as a "subjective frame of reference". :-) ![]() Regards, JS |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |