John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
I made no arguments.

I stated facts that can be verified by reading the links.

If you were to read them you might stop babbling nonsense about goldfish
and "solid ground".


Oh. I thought that would have been clear from the way our "discussion"
was going.

Non sequitur.

Show me a "Universal Time Frame" and you show me proof of all this
(well, you at least show me something I can test all this against);
don't show me this and I have MAJOR doubts ...

There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Read the links provided.

Your posts are word salad.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

John Smith I wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased
electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium. Aliens
watching first runs of 50s soap operas ("The Secret Storm" in this
case) would undoubtedly have naming problems. This is not a technical
problem; it is a cultural one.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Again, I may have misunderstood "Old Al" along then!

If that cesium atom no longer obeys your "10,214,000,000,000,000
oscillations"--"LAW", then perhaps 1,111,100 cps no longer obeys the
"cps law" either. And, indeed, 1.1111 Mhz is no longer what we see at
all!!!

Of course, the above must be wrong. ET did manage to call home and
apparently there were able to agree on the same freq. (sure would have
liked to have taken a look at "Ole ETs'" watch ...)

Warmest regards,
JS
I think that astronomers have made sufficient spectroscopic observations
and measurements to firmly establish that physical phenomina are
constant across the universe. Other dimensions may have different
measurements but they are constant in this one.

Dave N

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
I don't suppose it ever occured to you that a practical hardware
implementation would correct for the actual temperature?

snip nonsense

Since you seem to like wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

Hmmm, looks like they got their definition for the second the same
place I did.


Now, perhaps we hit the real crux of this matter. You say "practical
hardware implementation", I say "guess!"

Warmest regards,
JS


The "SECOND" is an arbitrary measurement of duration. It has been
defined with reference to specific measurements of a particular isotope
of CESIUM under specific conditions. That those specific conditions may
or may not be obtainable utilizing present technology is of no moment.
Adjustments to the best obtainable results are made all the time in
other areas. For instance the GRAM, the METER and the DEGREE. All these
units are defined and approximated in real life. The only place where
you can obtain absolutes is in conversion factors: 1 inch equals 2.54
centimeters, 1 degree Celsius (and it's derivatives: centigrade and
kelvin) equal 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The degree Fahrenheit is
determined by measuring the lowest temperature liquid water can reach
and the boiling point of the same water.
The upshot of all this is that everything in modern science is based on
these and many other values. They all seem to work. At least until you
get into quantum mechanics, which is another thread.

Dave N

John Smith I wrote:
I am saying:

Yes, I believe someone would search for "solid ground" to base
measurements on. Again, yes, I believe that is about the best we can
find in an un-perfect world ...

No, I don't think that is any better than basing it on my goldfish, and
he/she is unpredictable (quantum effects perhaps.) But still, if all
which availed itself to me were my goldfish--I'd be damn temped to start
basing measurements on his/her activity!

At least your argument(s) cause one to think ...

You might look into finding a way for that activity to occur
spontaneously as well.

ac6xg

John Smith I wrote:
In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Through no fault of its own. Seconds may be a different
length in that far-far-away place. After all, the length
of a second is relative to velocity so cycles/second are
also relative, i.e. there is more than one way to accomplish
a red shift. 1. changing cycles divided by fixed seconds.
2. Fixed cycles divided by changing cycles. 3. changing
cycles divided by changing seconds.

Now, like that told Virgina O'Hanlon about Santa Claus--if the NEW YORK
TIMES said it, it must be true--or, perhaps the editor was mistaken?; I
must admit--if Einstein said it, it must be true! half-smirk

Einstein also said, "God doesn't roll dice." One of the
quantum physicists responded, "Not only does God roll
dice, but he rolls them in the dark." :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased
electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium.

What happens to its frequency of oscillation compared
to a stationary observer as it approaches the speed of
light?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
Where Einstein comes in is that the cesium atom has to be at rest in
your reference frame.

If the cesium atom is at rest on Earth, the Catholic
Church was right after all. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
Are you saying you don't believe that is the definition of the second
since 1967 or that you don't understand the definition?

The definition is relative, not absolute. If the
relative speed of the earth is changing, then the
length of a second is also changing and we would
have no way of knowing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
There is no such thing as a "Universal Time Frame".

Isn't assuming that Earth time is an absolute reference
a lot like assuming that the Earth is the center of
the universe?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

The definition is relative, not absolute.

It's as absolute as anything we have. Name something absolute we
could have used instead, Cecil.

If the
relative speed of the earth is changing, then the
length of a second is also changing and we would
have no way of knowing.

Not to worry. Any relativistic motion on our part will only effect
the clocks in the other reference frames. And we can't even
communicate with any of those people. :-)

ac6xg