Posted on 06/18/2009 8:48:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
According to your post, TT is defined from TAI in terms of the SI second and therefore goes back to editor-surveyor’s post #27.
It also says that they are directly related in a fixed relationship. You can't change one independently of the other.
"TT is related to International Atomic Time (TAI) through the definition that TAI corresponds to 1.0003725 TT. This means that TT runs permanently 32.184 seconds ahead of TAI, but behind UTC"
Anything that varies in one time reference has to vary proportionally in the other.
Yep, that's a relationship that's true by definition and goes back to editor-surveyor's post #27.
"TT is related to International Atomic Time (TAI) through the definition that TAI corresponds to 1.0003725 TT. This means that TT runs permanently 32.184 seconds ahead of TAI, but behind UTC"
"Anything that varies in one time reference has to vary proportionally in the other."
Here's the part you cut out: "...which moves further ahead of TT each time a leap second is introduced."
Okay. I'm not sure why that's significant, but how does that explain how you can end up with nuclear decay being variable in one time reference but constant in the other when the time references are not variable with respect to each other?
Because TT, TAI and the SI second are all defined in terms of atomic time. They are not variable with respect to each other but are fixed 'by definition'.
That was the point of editor-surveyor's post #27.
So there is no “dynamic time” standard for “terrestrial day”.
It was your claim that 'terrestrial day' was a physical constant, not mine. As we learned from your own posts, it is a 'defined constant' in terms of atomic time only. It is not a physical constant in physical terms (dynamic time), it is variable.
This is why it was not ambiguous of me to ask you for specifics.
Are any of the time reference terms (year, half-live, Yom) involved in this debate defined anywhere in terms of “dynamic time”, or other than the same “atomic time” that nuclear decay rates are measured in?
AFAIK, they are all defined in atomic terms, which is the point of editor-surveyor's post #27.
Okay. If all the terms are defined in atomic time, what was the point of the post with regard to the issues at hand?
I don't think you had one.
More likely you just didn't think.
More likely, you had no point as none has been presented.
None you'll acknowldge.
I remember you silly arguments and having to invent fictitional forces to make your argument. Your fictitional forces are NOT in the Einstein equations. You can post all you want.
Oh, we certainly wouldn't want to go and do something like that, lol.
What is the scientific evidence for dark matter, by the way, ColdWater?
“A study done in 2005 by Dr. Jon D. Miller of Northwestern University, an expert in the public understanding of science and technology,[13] found that one adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth.[14]”
I didn’t realize till now how large your group is!
400 years of advancing science has indisputably disproved the geocentric view and proved the heliocentric, or sun-centered view. Which goes to show that it is entirely possible to be surrounded by beliefs and views which are-—however popular and/or long they’ve been around-—completely false.
http://www.manitounaturalhistory.com/dean/den/Den4.html
More from the last:
For instance, if we still subscribed to the old geocentric, or earth-centered view of the universe, we could not get to the moon or other planets, no matter how powerful our rockets...because the mathmatics, as developed under the geocentric view, would not be accurate enough to accomplish the task. It would be akin to asking a marksman to hit a mile-away bullseye with a misaligned gun sight...and where each shot knocked the sight again out of alignment such that there could never be enough adjustment to get it right.
"Newton proved Kepler’s equations, what on earth are you talking about?"
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), was one of the best early astronomers and a very capable mathematician. Kepler stated that he built his astronomy from 'the hypotheses of Copernicus, the observations of Tycho Brahe and the magnetical science of William Gilbert'.
His published works, in Latin, included his 1596 'Precursor of Cosmographic Dissertations', his 1609 'New Aetiological Astronomy', his 1611 'Dioptrics', his 1619 'The Harmonies of the World' and his 1618-21 'Epitome of Copernican Astronomy'. His 1627 'Rudolphine Tables' allowed the positions of planets to be computed and gave some important predictions, making Kepler the foremost astronomer of his time. His optics work was also useful.
However, here we consider Kepler's theory for explaining his astronomy - a weak theory entirely disproved by Newton.
http://www.new-science-theory.com/johannes-kepler.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.