wrote:
And since the frame of reference is a defined thing and not a physical
reality, it doesn't matter if the Earth continues to exist or not either.
You seem to have a lot of difficulty with this concept.

A frame of reference based on 1/86400 of one rotation
of the Earth which is only 1/3 as old as the universe?
A frame of reference based on the oscillation frequency
of Cesium when Cesium didn't even exist before the first
super nova? I'm not having difficult with the concept.
I'm just wondering why anyone would accept such a
flawed concept. The 17th Century Catholic Church's frame
of reference was earth-centric. So is our time frame of
reference. Both are equally valid.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

And since the frame of reference is a defined thing and not a physical
reality, it doesn't matter if the Earth continues to exist or not either.
You seem to have a lot of difficulty with this concept.


A frame of reference based on 1/86400 of one rotation
of the Earth which is only 1/3 as old as the universe?
A frame of reference based on the oscillation frequency
of Cesium when Cesium didn't even exist before the first
super nova? I'm not having difficult with the concept.
I'm just wondering why anyone would accept such a
flawed concept. The 17th Century Catholic Church's frame
of reference was earth-centric. So is our time frame of
reference. Both are equally valid.

The two are entirely different.

Name a place in the universe where the Cesium atom transitions at a
different frequency in that reference frame than it does in our
reference frame, provide the underlying physics to explain it, and
then prove it.

One wonders how you can continue to compare proponents of Eistein's
theories to the 16th century Catholic church and expect to be taken
seriously.

Thanks,

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

...
Name a place in the universe where the Cesium atom transitions at a
different frequency in that reference frame than it does in our
reference frame, provide the underlying physics to explain it, and then
prove it.

One wonders how you can continue to compare proponents of Eistein's
theories to the 16th century Catholic church and expect to be taken
seriously.

Thanks,

73, ac6xg


Jim:

Name me one instance where anyone has achieved taking a cesium atom to
absolute zero ...

Regards,
JS

Knucklehead Smith wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

...

Name a place in the universe where the Cesium atom transitions at a
different frequency in that reference frame than it does in our
reference frame, provide the underlying physics to explain it, and
then prove it.

Name me one instance where anyone has achieved taking a cesium atom to
absolute zero ...

No one has ever stuck a themometer in the sun either but we have a
pretty good idea what it would read if we did.

We have absolutely no reason to expect the Cesium atom to act any
differently in another reference frame, and variety of reasons not to
expect to be able to chill it to 0 degrees Kelvin.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

...

Jim:

Have you read about the quantum phenomenon(s) which begin when you even
start getting close to absolute zero? I can just imagine attempting
logical measurements ...

Warmest regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

...

Jim:

Have you read about the quantum phenomenon(s) which begin when you even
start getting close to absolute zero? I can just imagine attempting
logical measurements ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Jim:

This gives a "glimpse" of what I mean, the above was vague ...

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/phy99194.htm

Regards,
JS

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:56:01 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:
Have you read about the quantum phenomenon(s) which begin when you even
start getting close to absolute zero?

An example of the conflict between show and tell. Surprisingly you
offer to neither show, nor tell what happens... which leaves us with
your statement:

I can just imagine attempting
logical measurements ...

Luckily, those who practice the trade have skipped the part of
imagining and just accomplish it instead.

This gives a "glimpse" of what I mean, the above was vague ...

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/phy99194.htm

Given the reference (a painfully pretentious website with as much
armchair theory offered as in this thread), you must have misspelled
vogue.

The forced argument (a strawman at that) of motion ceasing went out
with fringe topped surries. Now THAT (motion? what motion?) is vague
in the extreme given there are a considerable number of dynamics that
occur at the 0°K atomic scale. Are we suppose that electrons in their
orbits at 1°µK will collapse into the nucleus (permenantly frozen into
inaction) with the final chilling tweak? What a larf!

These akademik arguments only need the added stipulation that you have
to exhibit an absolute zero beer cooler that will hold the temperature
throughout the Super Bowl.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
We have absolutely no reason to expect the Cesium atom to act any
differently in another reference frame, ...

On the contrary, we have every reason to believe it
acted differently before the first super nova. Things
that don't exist generally act differently from things
that do exist.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:04:43 GMT, Cecil Moore not
un-misexpurgated:

Things
that don't exist generally act differently from things
that do exist.

The solution to the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction that failed
making it into another Texan's speech this week. I suppose it got
transliterated into a proposal:
The dead need a better health care system.

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:00:07 -0800, Jim Kelley
quoting Brett:

Name me one instance where anyone has achieved taking a cesium atom to
absolute zero ...

Two Nobel prizes were won for doing this with Rubidium. Some may
recall that I already cited that as the other frequency standard
element (although rarely used as it is inferior to Cesium).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC