Cecil Moore wrote in
et:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:aqfuh.4372$O02.4066
*Only* within the frame of reference where the second
was defined which didn't exist for the first 2/3
of the history of the universe.

Actually, the second is defined as a certain exact number of
oscillations of a cesium atom in the same reference frame as the
observer.

The same problem still exists. The cesium atom didn't
exist before the first super nova. How can the time
be calculated between the Big Bang and the first super
nova if cesium didn't exist?

There are other entropic processes that can be calibrated against the
cesium.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Dave Oldridge wrote:
There are other entropic processes that can be calibrated against the
cesium.

Who did that before cesium existed?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote in news:SIxuh.76115$wP1.56143
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
There are other entropic processes that can be calibrated against the
cesium.

Who did that before cesium existed?

Nobody that I know of, but we're getting to the point where we can see
almost that far back.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Nobody that I know of, but we're getting to the point where we can see
almost that far back.

Seems to me all we can see is back to the point where
things are moving away from our relative position at
less than the speed of light. Did you know that the
red shift is quantitized, i.e. not continuous, even
within the same galaxy?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote in news:Fa3vh.76738$wP1.60913
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Nobody that I know of, but we're getting to the point where we can see
almost that far back.

Seems to me all we can see is back to the point where
things are moving away from our relative position at
less than the speed of light. Did you know that the
red shift is quantitized, i.e. not continuous, even
within the same galaxy?

So some people are saying.

And we still get to see parts of the universe that were close to us post-
inflation, though the universe is really too opaque at that distance to see
the really early stuff. But we're nearing the threshold where cesium would
be rare or non-existent. In short, we're SEEING some of those early
supernovae that made it in the first place. Several cosmologists think
that's the cause of the gamma-ray bursts we're experiencing.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Nobody that I know of, but we're getting to the point where we can see
almost that far back.

Seems to me all we can see is back to the point where
things are moving away from our relative position at
less than the speed of light. Did you know that the
red shift is quantitized, i.e. not continuous, even
within the same galaxy?

All parts of any given galaxy are not moving toward or away from us at
the same speed, unless the galaxy is perfectly perpendicular to us.

Is your red-shift issue about the red shift itself, or about the
magnitude of the shift? And if "variable seconds" is the culprit, how
are blue shifted stars accommodated in your model?


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:
All parts of any given galaxy are not moving toward or away from us
at the same speed, unless the galaxy is perfectly perpendicular to us.

True, but consider that the red shift frequencies
are discontinuous, i.e. quantized.

Is your red-shift issue about the red shift itself, or about the
magnitude of the shift? And if "variable seconds" is the culprit, how
are blue shifted stars accommodated in your model?

My issue is that red-shifts are not necessarily
100% Doppler effects.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
All parts of any given galaxy are not moving toward or away from us at
the same speed, unless the galaxy is perfectly perpendicular to us.

True, but consider that the red shift frequencies
are discontinuous, i.e. quantized.

Is your red-shift issue about the red shift itself, or about the
magnitude of the shift? And if "variable seconds" is the culprit, how
are blue shifted stars accommodated in your model?

My issue is that red-shifts are not necessarily
100% Doppler effects.


Of course there is gravitational redshift too, but I don't think that is
what you are referring to.

I think you are trying to say that time is variable (forgive if I err)
This means that the speed of light is also variable if only by relation
to that variable time element

Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is
widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths.

Any effects that alter Doppler at light wavelengths should also be
noticeable at to wavelengths. I have not heard of any such, have you?

This then says that we are not in the "fastest time" zone, because there
are celestial bodies that are blue shifting toward us, or perhaps
not,they are just in a different "time zone"? ;^)

BTW, I erred in my perpendicular statement above. I forgot about
transverse Doppler shift that we would indeed have in a galaxy at right
angles.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:22:38 GMT, Dave Oldridge
wrote:

The same problem still exists. The cesium atom didn't
exist before the first super nova. How can the time
be calculated between the Big Bang and the first super
nova if cesium didn't exist?

There are other entropic processes that can be calibrated against the
cesium.

Hi Dave,

You have been snookered into answering a complaint manufactured (as
usual) from the misapplication of relationships. The resonance of
Cesium is not a function of time. Time is not a function of Cesium's
resonance (the incorrect correlation drawn, to which you are
responding).

There is no dependency between the two. It is our dependency in our
usage of one to measure the other. The sophism above is much like
saying sound did not exist before someone was close enough to hear the
falling tree. The excitation of gas molecules we call sound existed
long before the appearance of the first amoeba, much less apes in
falling trees. Both sound and time are phenomenological terms for
simple and rational physical processes that exist without dependence
on us.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
The resonance of Cesium is not a function of time.

Maybe not, but the frequency of the resonance of
Cesium is a function of time, e.g. cycles/second.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com