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:
If the length of the second were different, then so would be the speed
of light ...

To see why that is false, refer to Lorentz's
transformation for time at a velocity near
the speed of light. Time can vary all over
the universe while the speed of light remains
constant (at least by definition :-). Since
time is one dimension for the speed of light,
the problem is self-correcting.

If tomorrow's second were 1/2 half of today's
second, nobody would even notice.

If someone used a cesium clock near a black
hole to come up with a "standard" second, it
would be nowhere near the same length of time
as a cesium clock on Earth. Time passes very
slowly near the event horizon of a black hole
but light keeps on trucking at the speed of
light.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
If the length of the second were different, then so would be the speed
of light ...

Cesium clocks at sea level, on a mountain top, and
in an airplane all measure different lengths of the
second. Are you saying the speed of light is different
at those three locations?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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