Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

Go argue with the standards people.


I have no argument with the standards people. My
argument is with the people who take present
day seconds and lay them end-to-end back to the
Big Bang to ascertain the age of the universe.
Today's second may be the first time the second
has ever had that particular value. The first
second was likely many magnitudes longer than
the present day second.

Have you ever heard of the fine structure constant? You had best check
into it and how it can be verified from a distance, a very very long
distance.

tom
K0TAR

Tom Ring wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

Go argue with the standards people.



I have no argument with the standards people. My
argument is with the people who take present
day seconds and lay them end-to-end back to the
Big Bang to ascertain the age of the universe.
Today's second may be the first time the second
has ever had that particular value. The first
second was likely many magnitudes longer than
the present day second.


Have you ever heard of the fine structure constant? You had best check
into it and how it can be verified from a distance, a very very long
distance.

tom
K0TAR

f=ma
e=mc^2

You guys are probably in agreement to this point.

Now the killer

S=(Ac^3)/(4hG)


Where did it go..... :-)

While I do not fully understand great physics, the subject can show the
great penalties of staying confined to a certain way of thinking.

Christopher Cox wrote:

While I do not fully understand great physics, the subject can show the
great penalties of staying confined to a certain way of thinking.

Truth. However, staying confined to the realm of fact usually carries
with it only the smallest of penalties. I'm not sure the foregoing
discussion stayed as strictly confined.

73, ac6xg