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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

You might even be the reincarnation of one of the
Catholic priests who condemned Galileo to house
arrest. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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.

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

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

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

:-)



Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:

...

Cecil:

I feel like a damn idiot, this guy has been at this for sometime (this
is from 2004), bet Richard has been having a laugh, look at the following:

Richard Harrison wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"

I have not seen that question before, but will speculate that Edwin
Hubble deserves the credit as he used "red shift" in the light from
other galaxies to show that they are speeding away from us and our
galaxy. In fact, they are accelerating so that the farther the galaxy is
away from us, the faster it is moving away.

From continuous acceleration, the distant galaxy will eventually reach
the speed of light. Then, light from the distsnt galaxy won`t reach us
because it will tag along with the fast moving galaxy.

There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.

Hubble has also shown that the Doppler effect would shift the frequency
lower as velocity of the retreating thing increases. Shift the frequency
low enough and the wave is no longer described as light but may be
classified as a millimeter radio wave.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

To be accererating, there would have to be a force .

Where would this force be coming from and what pray tell is directing
it?

The speed of light is a constant in all reference frames. If a light
source were to be moving at the speed of light away from an observer,
an impossiblity in itself, the light would still be moving at c towards
the observer.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Regards,
JS