Cecil Moore wrote:
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?

Yeah, but I didn't say anything about Earth time or an absolute
reference.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

The speed of the Earth relative to what?

But since the second is defined in the inertial frame of the Earth, it
doesn't matter.

Why do you think GPS satellites correct for their velocity and gravity
relative to the geoid?

BTW, you do know the second at sea level is different than the second
on top of a mountain due to gravity?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:
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?

Pop that cesium atom with a hp pp laser and see if those vibs don't
stray a bit ...

Regards,
JS

Jim Kelley wrote:

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

ac6xg




I am almost certain you posed that as a smart A$$ statement; however, I
have considered that ...

What you just stated, the bible does indeed state, on a few different
references (and NO, I DON'T know the bible scripture and verse--I am
Catholic grin I drink AND smoke.) One such reference goes to making
the point that all the names of the people to be "saved" are already
listed in the book of life ...

I think of this, like this, our universe is nothing more than a "burnt
cd", and we are just a translation of the data existing on that cd.
Much like watching a movie on cd ... who knows, maybe God enjoys this
movie ... just no accounting for taste.

Now I don't put a lot of probability in such--but hey, maybe you are
right ...

Regards,
JS

wrote:


...

OK. Let's cut to the chase. You can't even prove how tall you are to
me, no chit!

What the heck would you measure your height with, a ruler, some fraction
of the earths circumference? Ever see "The Matrix?" Which pill did you
swallow, the green one or the red one?

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:

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." :-)
[said by the "Unknown Physicist", no doubt]

Just gotta love those theoretical physicists

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:


...

OK. Let's cut to the chase. You can't even prove how tall you are to
me, no chit!

What the heck would you measure your height with, a ruler, some fraction
of the earths circumference? Ever see "The Matrix?" Which pill did you
swallow, the green one or the red one?

Regards,
JS

What in holy hell are you babbling about?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

...
What in holy hell are you babbling about?


Sir:

When you figure that out, we will again have something to "chat on"
about ...

Regards,
JS

wrote:


What in holy hell are you babbling about?


Jim:

Let me apologize, I thought our discussion would take another road, I
was much too short ...

Please, take a look at this and perhaps you will get a "glimpse" of what
I see as the seat of this matter:

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/time/r...elativity.html

You should now be able to google for other, more relevant data ...

Warmest regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:


What in holy hell are you babbling about?


Jim:

Let me apologize, I thought our discussion would take another road, I
was much too short ...

Please, take a look at this and perhaps you will get a "glimpse" of what
I see as the seat of this matter:

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/time/r...elativity.html

You should now be able to google for other, more relevant data ...

Yeah, so what?

Time is a function of the frame of reference.

Doesn't everyone with at least a half-ass education know that these
days?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.