Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
The cesium standard is defined as "in the absence of external influences.

The Catholic Church said the same thing in the
16th century. Paraphrasing them: In the absence
of external influences, the Earth is the center
of the universe. That's true to this very day.
Take away all the external influences and the
Earth is indeed the center of the universe.


I didn't know that the Catholic church even knew about atomic clocks at
that time, Cecil! Something new to learn every day. 8^)

You slippery sloped from an atomic clock to ancient religion on me.

"in the absence of incontrovertible proof to the contrary, the world
was created in the fall of 4004 B.C." ;^)


One of the things that help us in the determination of cosmological
age, and all scientific endeavors is that most things end up fitting
together pretty well. Atomic decay tends to mesh together with
determination of the age of artifacts. It proved itself on items of
known age. The concept simply works. That's just one example.

To say that all things have been discovered is naive hubris though. I'm
still waiting for evidence of proton decay, without it the Big Bang has
a Big Problem. But it doesn't make sense to throw everything we do know
away because of that one issue - at least until something better comes
along that fits with what we do know.

Let's drop away from cosmology for a moment..


Take say, number 14 bare wire, and make a dipole for some arbitrary
frequency. at some arbitrary height.

Raise the antenna and lower the antenna. Do the antenna characteristics
stay the same?

Substitute insulated number 14 wire for the bare wire at the same
length. Do the characteristics stay the same?


Of course not. The differences are easily measurable, or at least
easily modelable.

That isn't religion, it fits in with what we do know about physics.
That VF changes depending on the insulating material doesn't mean that
the original characteristics are null and void. Just means they have
changed in a manner that is predictable, and for which cause is known.

No Papal Bull required! ;^)


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:
One of the things that help us in the determination of cosmological
age, and all scientific endeavors is that most things end up fitting
together pretty well. Atomic decay tends to mesh together with
determination of the age of artifacts. It proved itself on items of
known age. The concept simply works. That's just one example.

Actually, there is an unexplained time drift between atomic
decay and Bristle Cone Pine rings that can be explained if
seconds are getting shorter.

That isn't religion, it fits in with what we do know about physics.

And of course, that is in the present space-time. But using
a localized present space-time standard to obtain an absolute
value for something that existed far outside of that present
localized space-time just doesn't "fit". For all we know, the
first half of the existence of the universe consumed all of
one second of space-time as it existed way back then.

What is the length of time that it takes for one entangled
particle to have an affect the other when they are a million
miles apart?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Actually, there is an unexplained time drift between atomic
decay and Bristle Cone Pine rings that can be explained if
seconds are getting shorter.

Assuming the time it takes for the Earth to orbit around the Sun is an
absolute, of course. ;-)

73 de jk

Jim Kelley wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:

Actually, there is an unexplained time drift between atomic
decay and Bristle Cone Pine rings that can be explained if
seconds are getting shorter.


Assuming the time it takes for the Earth to orbit around the Sun is an
absolute, of course. ;-)

73 de jk



The only thing in Physics that is absolute is: "Nothing is absolute!"

Dave wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:

Actually, there is an unexplained time drift between atomic
decay and Bristle Cone Pine rings that can be explained if
seconds are getting shorter.



Assuming the time it takes for the Earth to orbit around the Sun is an
absolute, of course. ;-)

73 de jk



The only thing in Physics that is absolute is: "Nothing is absolute!"

True, but we shouldn't go so far as to infer that 1 Hz might sometimes
have more or less than one cycle in a second - no matter how much
different each second might be from the next.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
True, but we shouldn't go so far as to infer that 1 Hz might sometimes
have more or less than one cycle in a second - no matter how much
different each second might be from the next.

We often infer that a frequency has lessened due to
the red shift which could certainly be a shortening
of a second from the time the light was generated
until now.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

We often infer that a frequency has lessened due to
the red shift which could certainly be a shortening
of a second from the time the light was generated
until now.

The phenomenon of red shift is readily observable - that's how it was
discovered. Line spectra from known elements is observed to be
shifted in wavelength down from where it appears in the rest frame.
The cause could be doppler shifting due to relative motion, or some
other reason. If the length of the second were different, then so
would be the speed of light as well as the constant of proportionality
between frequency and wavelength at the source. In fact all kinds of
physics would have to be different. There is certainly a probability
for either case. Whether the probabilities are of the same magnitude
is debatable.

73 de ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Actually, there is an unexplained time drift between atomic
decay and Bristle Cone Pine rings that can be explained if
seconds are getting shorter.

Assuming the time it takes for the Earth to orbit around the Sun is an
absolute, of course. ;-)


Which of course, it isn't.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:

Actually, there is an unexplained time drift between atomic
decay and Bristle Cone Pine rings that can be explained if
seconds are getting shorter.


Assuming the time it takes for the Earth to orbit around the Sun is an
absolute, of course. ;-)



Which of course, it isn't.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Right. Seemed logical to me to deduce that the number of seconds in a
year might have changed, but to infer from that that the length of the
second has changed seems like quite a leap to me. Given the number of
perturbations in the system, it's more likely the length of our path
around the Sun has changed slightly over time. But hey, I'm no biologist.

jk

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
One of the things that help us in the determination of cosmological
age, and all scientific endeavors is that most things end up fitting
together pretty well. Atomic decay tends to mesh together with
determination of the age of artifacts. It proved itself on items of
known age. The concept simply works. That's just one example.

Actually, there is an unexplained time drift between atomic
decay and Bristle Cone Pine rings that can be explained if
seconds are getting shorter.

You do know that the length of Days has changed and continues to
change? I sat through a wonderful presentation by a scientist on the
changing length of days that he thinks is possible to prove through
"microgrowth rings" in fossils. You need very well preserved fossils to
look at this, and he presented some pretty compelling evidence, but
stopped short of saying "this is how it is" Scientists - go figure! ;^)


That isn't religion, it fits in with what we do know about physics.

And of course, that is in the present space-time. But using
a localized present space-time standard to obtain an absolute
value for something that existed far outside of that present
localized space-time just doesn't "fit". For all we know, the
first half of the existence of the universe consumed all of
one second of space-time as it existed way back then.

I would never present anything as absolute.


What is the length of time that it takes for one entangled
particle to have an affect the other when they are a million
miles apart?

Darn good question, Cecil. Doesn't seem like there should be any, but
apparently if we know about one, the other is affected too.

- 73 de mike KB3EIA -