FrankM

The same reason why SI units use "one meter" or "one second" as the starting point. I still have a problem with a standard that is based upon how easy and well it can be measured as compared to whether it is relevant to its intended use. The IUPAP CCU group is well aware that many of their "constants" have no relationship to the physical universe that they are trying to "measure". At the moment we have electronic counter technology that goes several digits beyond our defined reference value for the duration of the second, and the CCU group knows that they are approaching a time when the "second" has to be redefined in relationship to another transition frequency that has a higher cyclic rate. Whether they will try to improve the accuracy of the base "duration" remains a question, but that really accomplishes nothing as it has no relationship to anything they are measuring. Astronomers have already defined a measurement unit that is more suitable for what they are measuring, the AU, so why can't the scientific community define their base units such that they are related to what they are attempting to measure? I do not understand why they hang onto the meter, which is pretty close to a medieval value, and the second, which is purely an astronomical value. It is possible to define a "standard" set of base units, which will include a mutually defined "time duration," that is based upon the H1 wavelength and mathematical constants, and they will have numeric values that are absolutely precise beyond 100+ significant figures. Our current measurement technology cannot reach anywhere near this precision, but it would provide a reference wherein those that develop instruments to use the "standard" units would know exactly how close they were to their numerical values.

Physicists apparently care or they wouldn't have expended considerable effort to find "natural units" that they hope would provide a better "fit" between the mathematics of science and what they know about the physical universe. There is a difference between fundamental constants and "defined constants". The real duration of the SI second is based upon the average ephemeris second (in 1953) and this was then tied to so many transitions of a particular Cesium isotope to give it a stable reference. The duration of the SI second does not have a real relationship to any mathematical or physical science constant except by definition, it is still based upon an astronomical duration. The original meter was supposed to be defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance between the equator and either pole, but the survey was inaccurate. It still has no scientific basis (just vaguely geographic) and it is the same length, but it is now defined in relationship to the SI second. The folks at NIST do not note just how peculiar it is to define a "unit of length" by a time duration. The Swiss Office of Metrology metrology website is quite direct. http://www.metas.ch/en/scales/meter.html Related to the "defined value for the speed of light" is this statement by a Professor at the Univ. of Colorado. http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/c.pdf The ~21 cm wavelength is a real universal physical length, the result of a unique atomic level process. If anything, the meter should be related to that "wave length" rather than viceversa. As noted earlier, there are approx. 4.737963... H1 wavelengths in a meter, and if you multiply that number times the SI speed of light (299792458) you get 1420.4057.... (10^6) H1 wave lengths per second. This puts it right back to the Maxwell suggestion, and it results in the speed of light being defined by using the H1 wavelength as the "standard of length". This results in the "frequency" having the same numeric value as the speed of light, which is very convenient. There remains one problem, the time duration is still the SI second, but it can be defined in relationship to the H1 wavelength and mathematical constants.

It would be better if a "standard" had relevance to what one is trying to accomplish. When the meter was first proposed over 200 years ago, its earthly origins were prompted by commerce and politics of that time. Slightly thereafter, Thomas Young demonstrated that "light" had the property of waves and these waves had specific lengths. It did not occur to scientists of that time that a "unit of measure" akin to a "wavelength" might be more useful in their research into the "nature of the universe". James Maxwell was aware of this in 1873, and I am sure he was not alone. Some 25 years later Max Planck identified that "energy quanta" could be related to the "wavelength" of an emission. Just think how much simpler it would be if a known natural "wavelength" was selected as the scientific "unit of measure", all scientific inquiry would be related to a known universal length. Max Planck and James Maxwell didn't know about the H1 emission and its wavelength, but the scientific establishment today does know this. The group involved with developing "standards" know that the current defintions for the base units are not based upon true physical constants. http://www.iupap.org/commissions/interunion/iu1/u1-2005.pdf Unfortunately, they see nothing wrong with the "meter", which certainly is not based upon a "fundamental physical constant", neither is the SI second.

The URL that pointed to snake sensitivity to earthquake precursors came across on a "forum" that examines precursor phenomena. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6215991.stm One of the phenomena that is being produced by earthquake precursors are in-ground electrical currents, they being produced at or near an epi-center and radiating outward therefrom. My questions is, "have snakes been measured for sensitivity to electric potentials"? These ground huggers are in intimate contact with the earth's surface. Keep in mind that a small current across a high resistance produces a substantial electric potential. They know cows are sensitive to in-ground currents and their "potential" sensitivity has been measured. http://www.cowtime.com.au/technical/QuickNotes/Quick_Note_6_1.pdf I am hoping Mokele could answer the question about snakes.

In 1873, James Clerk Maxwell stated: ["Maxwell quote"]"The most universal standard of length which we could assume would be the wavelength of a particular kind of light... Such a standard would be independent of any changes in the dimensions of the earth, and should be adopted by those who expect their writings to be more permanent than that body." This statement was made during the debate on whether the British should adopt the metric system. Maxwell thought that a "natural" length should be selected as a standard of length. The total metric package was intended to make commercial transactions easier, and the scientific community was encouraged to go along with this purpose by adopting the "values" for scientific inquiry. Had Maxwell been aware of an unseen "light" that illuminates our galaxy, he would have found its wavelength suited scientific inquiry better than the "meter". If one chooses a natural wavelength as a standard of length it results in a interesting numeric result, the numeric value of the frequency of the wavelength becomes the same value as the numeric value of the velocity of the wavelength. If the wavelength of the neutral hydrogen (H1) emission (approx 21 cm) had been chosen as the "universal standard of length (USL)", the frequency would be 1420.4057517667 (10^6) cycles per second, and the scientific value for the speed of light would be 1420.4057517667 (10^6) USLs per second. The wavelength of the H1 emission goes into the meter about 4.737... times. Divide 1420.405.... by that number and you get 299792458 m/sec.

The URL provides a pdf page which illustrates 3 triangle pairs. Most will be familiar with the numeric values in the first pair. The second pair gives the values when rotated to 45 degrees. The third pair illustrates the fundamental basis of the triangle pairs. The vertical leg was chosen to be the fixed value. When the cross product, equation (1), is zero a triangle pair is related. http://vip.ocsnet.net/~ancient/Relationships.pdf How would one best present the process mathematically?

Its a manner of abstract representation. We know that a true physical wavelength will not look like a straight line, but we give it a dimension that can be represented as a straight line. If a 21.106 cm line had been inscribed on the Pioneer 10 plaque, most intelligent species would realize that it is a representation of the wavelength of a particular electromagnetic emission. I see no difference in using a straight line to represent a numeric value for frequency. If you wanted to represent two frequencies as lines with different lengths, one could readily deduce that the harmonics would be the result of adding the two lines together or the difference between the two lines. It would be a graphical method of representing relationships between two frequencies. If I want to use lines to represent the numeric values of wavelengths, I see no reason why I cannot use lines to represent the numeric value of the inverse relationship. The relative "length" of the lines are representative of numeric values, and I see no reason why these "lines" cannot be applied to geometric forms.

The process can be approached from pure mathematics or applied mathematics. There is nothing speculative about it.

The oscillatory phenomena is an inherent aspect of our physical existence. One needs to think in terms of the mathematical and dimensional definitions that have been applied to describe waves and their associated frequency and the common factor that results in their inverse proportionality. When applied to geometric forms, the dimensional elements that are common to their inverse proportionality are mathematically embedded in the geometric relationships. By applying wavelengths and frequencies as the numeric dimensions of polygons, one can mathematically and visually observe the effects of the inverse proportional relationship (IPR). For permitted polygon forms, the resulting wavelength frequency geometric pairs will have two basic results, one a parallel pair and the other an inverted pair. Two basic polygon forms demonstrate the two types of pairs. When you define the lines of an equilateral triangle using a numeric value that represent a wavelength, one can mathematically create another triangle using the IPR that will have numeric dimensions that represent a frequency. Nothing surprising, it is a paired geometric relationship, one equilateral triangle dimensioned as wavelengths and its pair dimensioned as frequencies. When you define the lines of a right triangle (RT) at 45 degrees using a numeric values that represent wavelengths, one can mathematically create another RT using the IPR that will have numeric dimensions that represent a frequency, however, the legs and hypotenuse values have to be "inverted". (swapped?) In the real world there are two types of waves, electromagnetic (EM) and non-electromagnetic. Additionally, the velocity of both types of waves are effected by the permittivity of the material in which they are allowed to propagate. We do not concern ourselves with the permittivity factor until it is necessary to apply the mathematicial concepts to real world problems. I have been examining the geometric relationship process as it relates to EM waves, as we usually apply an accepted permittivity value as a reference to establish "velocity". What is of interest in the 45 degree form is that "time", its duration, becomes a function of the angle.

It seems reasonable that wavelengths or frequencies can be applied as the dimensions of the lines that form a polygon, but not mixed. One would also expect that a mutually equivalent polygon would be created when the inverse of the dimensions expressed as a wavelength (or frequency) is calculated. Has the mathematics of polygon wavelength frequency relationships been developed? What area of mathematics would cover this type of relationship? What search terms would cover the subject?

It is recognized that the speed of light is dependent upon the medium in which it is propagated. The speed of light we use as a reference was measured in a vacuum on the Earth's surface. We also know that light can be bent by gravity, just like light is bent going through other mediums, like glass. Do we know whether light is "slowed" while being bent by gravity or does it just bend while keeping the same speed? I think that violates something. What assurance do we have that the speed of light measured in a vacuum on the Earth's surface is representative of "free space"? I would like to denote "free space" as being well outside of the Sun's heliosphere.

In cavity oscillations, one normally refers to modes not harmonics.

I had read an article about a large microwave cavity but cannot find the dimensions of the room, it isn't available online. http://web.mit.edu/giving/spectrum/spring02/hands-on-learning.html I want to calculate the approximate frequency generated by the cavity and wonder if anyone has the dimensions for Room 26-100? I have heard that amateur radio "microwave" enthusiasts have sometimes turned metal silos into microwave cavities. Microwave is sort of a misnomer as the MIT room cavity could be in the low high frequency range. Does anybody know of other examples of "large" microwave cavities?

[boris_73 well i know that the aztech's used stone to shape stone] It is the Inca walls that have the perfect fit with irregular shapes. If it was simply using stones to shape stones there should be a lot of the same type walls structures elsewhere in the world, but there aren't. It is inconceivable that the Inca's would be the only ones to have done it that way if anyone could just shape them by knocking stones together. You might ask a civil engineer why all stone buildings aren't built that way, since they are demonstrably more durable than using mortar to bind the blocks together.Many of the Inca walls are made of diorite and it is in the same hardness class as granite. You might want to get a couple of pieces just to knock together to see how easy it is to shape one with the other, then with that experience move up to meter sized pieces.

I had read an explanation some time ago, but looking at the image makes me wonder. The original road and construction site area has been carefully smoothed out, that area just above the structure and leading to the road. Power to all the Giza sites must be buried along the main roads. A couple of Khamsins would pretty much obscure any evidence of buried lines, and paths that are not maintained will eventually disappear. Notice the evidence of the old stone "sand fences" that used to protect the area around the pyramids. There are a number of other sites that discuss this building. http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/graphics/root5.html http://www.marsearthconnection.com/satimage.html There are a lot of broken links in the above sites.

A space shot of the whole plateau with the pyramids are available at the following site. Note, the file is about 3.11 MB, so a slow load for modem users. http://mplex.ath.cx/photogallery/pyramids_pan8.jpg

They have been digging up and mapping the workers village along with bakeries and other support areas since 1990. See here, http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~aera/Giza_Pages/Aeragram_Pages/AeraG4_1/FirstYear.html

Quoted from spmicro: "The Great Pyramid is one of the most comprehensively surveyed buildings in the World. Scientists over the centuries have taken thousands of measurements in their quest to find out more about its mysteries." It may be one of the most comprehensively surveyed structures, but it doesn't mean it was done correctly. I tried to understand why various surveyors that measured a specific angle kept coming up with different values. One surveyor recorded different values with different instruments, and I think he gave up in frustration and finally recorded an averaged value. When I was reviewing contemporary surveying techniques, I found the term "deflection of the vertical". It seems those that were responsible for launching ballistics missiles, about 40-50 years ago, found substantial errors in true vertical versus local vertical (local gravity vector). They did know that large mountain chains could effect the vertical but they were unaware that unseen changes in subsurface density, in relatively flat land, could cause major vertical errors. It was found that local changes in surface characteristics could also effect the vertical in varying degrees. Beginning some 30 years ago, surveyors were started being taught that it was necessary to determine the true vertical versus the local gravity vertical for high accuracy work. None of the surveyors of the Great Pyramid were aware the structure itself was causing "out-of-level" measurements, and the error was undetectable by standard surveying techniques. Here is a quote from a professional surveyor, "This is a systematic error that does NOT cancel by balancing foresights and backsights. Ignoring this effect can cause problems for high accuracy work." http://www.profsurv.com/newsArchives/n1-03.htm Although he was discussing land surveying, the foresight/backsight technique is used in all types of surveying. There is no way to determine the magnitude of the errors introduced by the "deflection of the vertical", thus anyone that dogmatically quotes a particular pyramid surveyors values is probably unaware of the old surveying problem.

Found an article that provides some interesting information. I stated in the previous post "it appears measurable changes could occur in earth conductivity as the charge levels change". The following report suggests that the "conductivity" in the induced charge area is substantially different from areas removed from the influence of the induced charge. http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/Radials.pdf "The primary destination of the strike is the induced charge on the ground surrounding the strike point." There was no mention of any attempt to measure the "relative" conductivity in the induced charge area. Just how much is "earth surface conductivity" influenced by the presence or lack of "free electrons" induced by the ionospheric charge and changing overhead atmospheric electrical events? The induced charge can be either positive or negative depending upon the "overhead" charge. The induced charge will be of equal magnitude and the opposite polarity of the overhead charge.

The objects created by lightning in sand are called fulgerites. Fulgerites have also been found in clay soils, but they are not the long hollow type found in sand, more like irregular clumps of vitrified soil. If you have a "point discharge object" it is a more likely candidate for an electrical discharge. If two tall objects are next to each other, the object that has the narrowest area at the top would tend to be the primary target, but it doesn't mean they can't both be zapped somewhere in the process. Some controlled experiments have revealed interesting characteristics relative to lightning. The lightning safety web page, below, notes that when an overhead cloud carrying a charge passes over an area, it induces an opposite charge in the area beneath it. As the cloud moves, the area moves with it. It also suggests that the induced charge area has an excess of mobile charges, making the immediate area under the cloud more conductive. http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/Radials.pdf

Atmospheric physicists have added another parameter that needs to be understood in relationship to earth conductivity. Atmospheric physicists state that the earth surface has a negative charge relative to the ionosphere, which implies there is a concentration of free electrons in the near crustal surface that counteracts the ionospheric positive charge. Just how much do these extra free electrons contribute to earth conductivity in the upper crustal area? It is stated that the magnitude of the surface charge can vary significantly depending upon atmospheric electrical conditions, thus it appears measurable changes could occur in earth conductivity as the charge levels change. Any known studies in this area?

I found additional references to single-wire earth return (SWER) applications. http://www.du.edu/%7Ejcalvert/tel/morse/morse.htm The early telegraphs were DC and they could function at a good distance on 6 vdc. The various articles state that the primary losses in the early telegraphs were in the wire and poor insulators. Need to add a colon to my previous post URL. http://tdworld.com/ar/power_one_wire_enough/ I need geophysic references concerning the earth's near perfect conductivity.

While searching for info on electrical charge distribution at the earth's surface, I identified an application that uses the earth as a near perfect conductor. http//tdworld.com/ar/power_one_wire_enough/ http://www.stonepower.se/Images/SWER.pdf It is a working application that can't be disputed, but I cannot find a geophysics source that identifies the theory for the near perfect conduction. The pdf article notes that the engineers used 0.05 ohms/km at 50 Hz for the design model. All of my reference sources indicates that earth resistance is quite high. Am I missing something, as it seems the earth conduction is different from earth resistance? Any sources for the earth conduction theory?

I have added a figure to illustrate how a triangle can be used to represent "time", MathPerfect04.pdf. I noticed my first attachment (EMTriangle1.pdf) on the forums server has become corrupted and I cannot even view it. MathPerfect04.pdf will be available also at, http://www.vip.ocsnet.net/~ancient/MathPerfect04.pdf The radius of the inner and outer circles essentially represent "time vectors". The outer "hydrogen circle" vector is a value that represents the equivalent to the SI second.The inner vector represents a geometric-mathematically defined "unit of time" (which gives a Larmor frequency in that unit that can be calculated to our current computational limits). The following URL gives a history of how the "second" has been defined. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/time/metrologia-leapsecond.pdf The atomic referenced SI second is an attempt to emulate the 1/86,400th division of one revolution of an earth sized planet that has a perfect rotation. Physical scientists could define a unit of time that is independent upon any planets characteristics, and the concepts presented in Universal.pdf could be the basis for defining the time unit. mathperfect04.pdf

It was mentioned in EMTriangle.pdf that symmetry could be achieved at other angles. I have renamed the attachment as MathPerfect04.pdf, and within it is a small figure that displays the time angles and the resultant "hydrogen" circles. The article is also available at, http://www.vip.ocsnet.net/~ancient/MathPerfect04.pdf mathperfect04.pdf