Infinite vs. instant
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Simple and direct proof that the theoretical science of AGW is fraud and the product of the host of charlatans led by J Hansen includingno discusion Wormley
Next: COSMIC BULLET FIRED BY EXPLODING STAR
From: GogoJF on 27 May 2010 19:14 On May 27, 5:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/27/10 9:52 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > Which is faster Planck time or c? > > Why are you trying compare a time interval with speed? You're the relativist. I'm just trying to understand why relativists do this.
From: BURT on 27 May 2010 19:29 On May 27, 4:14 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 27, 5:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 5/27/10 9:52 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > > Which is faster Planck time or c? > > > Why are you trying compare a time interval with speed? > > You're the relativist. I'm just trying to understand why relativists > do this. There are sizes of infinities of instant. An expanded infinity is a larger infinity of instants and to pass through them time is slower. Mitch Raemsch
From: Sam Wormley on 27 May 2010 23:58 On 5/27/10 9:24 AM, bert wrote: > On May 26, 1:38 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Embrace this resource, keeping in mind that it is also infested >> with plenty of cranks, crackpots, trolls and other loonies. You must >> sort the wheat from the chaff, but it is worth it. >> >> -Sam- > > Infinity ?? My "Time lapse theory" proves there is no instant action > in the universe. Inertia sees to it TreBert As I was saying to Gogo, one has sort the wheat from the chaff.
From: PD on 28 May 2010 09:36 On May 27, 6:07 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 27, 5:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 5/27/10 9:52 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > > Which is faster Planck time or c? > > > Why are you trying compare a time interval with speed? > > You are one who believes in mixing your lengths and your times > inextricably- with relativity- your explanation of length contraction > and time dilation is essentially comparisons of speeds and time > intervals, are they not? Well, not really. There's a rather famous parable about this, talking about surveyors who measure all N-S distances in meters and all E-W distances in feet as had been done from time immemorial. And there is much fuss among them about why anyone would ever mixing E-W distances with N-S distances, when it's obvious they are different. And yet there is a quantity that appears to be valuable, which is "distance as the crow flies", and to do that you have to mix N-S and E-W distances, and the formula for calculating DATCF always involves that conversion factor from meters to feet or vice versa. There is much teeth gnashing about the physical significance of that conversion factor and why it should have the value it does. Then one day, there is another surveyor that shows up, and he has the same rules about N-S and E-W distances, but he uses the North Star as the bearing for north, while the others he meets have been using magnetic compasses as the bearing for north. So, between two points, the new surveyor gets all the N-S and E-W distances differently than what the other surveyors do, but oddly enough, the DATCF appears to be the same result. Think about this for a couple days. There is much to be learned from this parable. PD
From: BURT on 28 May 2010 14:53
On May 27, 4:14 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 27, 5:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 5/27/10 9:52 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > > Which is faster Planck time or c? > > > Why are you trying compare a time interval with speed? > > You're the relativist. I'm just trying to understand why relativists > do this. If time slows down it must slow down from a fastest point. In this sense there is a fastest clock. This is time for light. It comes from gravity and is faster than matters clock. Light's clock is ahead of matter's because it is faster. Mitch Raemsch |