Speed of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 31 Dec 2009 05:28 On 30 Dec, 23:54, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d5f88bd1-1462-43bc-87d5-4fe81af4ae37(a)34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com... > > > Again, any sensible person can see the legitimacy of this > > interpretation. The fact that you sling insults again just proves that > > you're a stubborn fool. > > No .. it shows that I was dealing with one That description would be half-right.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 1 Jan 2010 17:52 On Dec 28 2009, 1:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:7c5de113-b2fb-4654-85e0-7d921368b3c8(a)a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > >> earth? How about one second per second? When you speak of a rate you must provide a ratio, yes? I believe these units are adequate. The independent variable... Is independence a misnomer? If everything is connected then yes, it is a misnomer. Still, it has been an effective tool so long as you can set up the experiment. Down at some level this ability to set up conditions fails. Independence fails, and repeatability falters. At some points in time even a Galilean experiment such as rolling a ball down an incline will fail, such as during an earthquake. These inabilities to control the experiment cannot be denied. What are the full consequences of this? I'm not really sure, perhaps there are some... LHC vooh-dooh anyone???? - Tim > > > Know thy enemy. > > What enemy? I'm pretty sure I am my worst enemy. > > > =====================================================\ > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Later_activity_and_... > > > ======================================================/ > > Do you think LET is an enemy? And how is that link relevant .. silly > question, of course its not. > > Now Sue copy and pastest the same old collection of quotes as always in the > hope they are relevant to the thread and to make herself look knowledgeable > > [snip em]
From: Inertial on 1 Jan 2010 17:54 "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttpppggg(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:eeb80815-f182-4d98-88fc-8c4dce783915(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 28 2009, 1:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:7c5de113-b2fb-4654-85e0-7d921368b3c8(a)a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on >> >> earth? > > How about one second per second? That's a tautology that says nothing > When you speak of a rate you must provide a ratio, yes? > I believe these units are adequate. Nope .. they say nothing > The independent variable... > Is independence a misnomer? > If everything is connected then yes, it is a misnomer. > Still, it has been an effective tool so long as you can set up the > experiment. What experiment? > Down at some level this ability to set up conditions fails. > Independence fails, and repeatability falters. > > At some points in time even a Galilean experiment such as rolling a > ball down an incline will fail, such as during an earthquake. These > inabilities to control the experiment cannot be denied. What are the > full consequences of this? I'm not really sure, perhaps there are > some... LHC vooh-dooh anyone???? That's why experiments are always under controlled conditions, and a full error analysis is done.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 2 Jan 2010 08:53 On Jan 1, 5:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:eeb80815-f182-4d98-88fc-8c4dce783915(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > > > On Dec 28 2009, 1:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >>news:7c5de113-b2fb-4654-85e0-7d921368b3c8(a)a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > >> >> earth? > > > How about one second per second? > > That's a tautology that says nothing > > > When you speak of a rate you must provide a ratio, yes? > > I believe these units are adequate. > > Nope .. they say nothing > Well, then, don't you have to declare the question invalid? - Tim > > The independent variable... > > Is independence a misnomer? > > If everything is connected then yes, it is a misnomer. > > Still, it has been an effective tool so long as you can set up the > > experiment. > > What experiment? > > > Down at some level this ability to set up conditions fails. > > Independence fails, and repeatability falters. > > > At some points in time even a Galilean experiment such as rolling a > > ball down an incline will fail, such as during an earthquake. These > > inabilities to control the experiment cannot be denied. What are the > > full consequences of this? I'm not really sure, perhaps there are > > some... LHC vooh-dooh anyone???? > > That's why experiments are always under controlled conditions, and a full > error analysis is done.
From: Inertial on 2 Jan 2010 16:50
"Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttpppggg(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:964ee5d2-b7ef-4cac-81d7-373366981422(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 1, 5:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >> messagenews:eeb80815-f182-4d98-88fc-8c4dce783915(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Dec 28 2009, 1:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> >>news:7c5de113-b2fb-4654-85e0-7d921368b3c8(a)a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances >> >> >> on >> >> >> earth? >> >> > How about one second per second? >> >> That's a tautology that says nothing >> >> > When you speak of a rate you must provide a ratio, yes? >> > I believe these units are adequate. >> >> Nope .. they say nothing >> > > Well, then, don't you have to declare the question invalid? I already had earlier |