iPhone time vs. Mac time
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Nick Naym on 15 Jul 2010 13:42 In article tkettler-B1F0F7.13331115072010(a)news.eternal-september.org, Thomas R. Kettler at tkettler(a)blownfuse.net wrote on 7/15/10 1:33 PM: .... .... > > You're wrong. The 10 minute difference was due to relativistic effects > since everyone knows that moving clocks run slow. You _are_ kidding, aren't you? -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3)
From: Tom Harrington on 15 Jul 2010 13:51 In article <C864C0AA.60F95%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > In article tkettler-B1F0F7.13331115072010(a)news.eternal-september.org, Thomas > R. Kettler at tkettler(a)blownfuse.net wrote on 7/15/10 1:33 PM: > > ... > ... > > > > > You're wrong. The 10 minute difference was due to relativistic effects > > since everyone knows that moving clocks run slow. > > You _are_ kidding, aren't you? Man, once upon a time people would just assume such an over the top comment on Usenet was a joke. -- Tom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/
From: Thomas R. Kettler on 15 Jul 2010 13:53 In article <C864C0AA.60F95%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > In article tkettler-B1F0F7.13331115072010(a)news.eternal-september.org, Thomas > R. Kettler at tkettler(a)blownfuse.net wrote on 7/15/10 1:33 PM: > > ... > ... > > > > > You're wrong. The 10 minute difference was due to relativistic effects > > since everyone knows that moving clocks run slow. > > You _are_ kidding, aren't you? Of course. The relativistic effects do exist but are two small to be observable for speeds humans have ever experience. Even for a speed of 0.8 * speed of light, clocks would just run 40% slower. -- Remove blown from email address to reply.
From: Nick Naym on 15 Jul 2010 14:05 In article tph-F00F20.11511815072010(a)localhost, Tom Harrington at tph(a)pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net wrote on 7/15/10 1:51 PM: > In article <C864C0AA.60F95%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > >> In article tkettler-B1F0F7.13331115072010(a)news.eternal-september.org, Thomas >> R. Kettler at tkettler(a)blownfuse.net wrote on 7/15/10 1:33 PM: >> >> ... >> ... >> >>> >>> You're wrong. The 10 minute difference was due to relativistic effects >>> since everyone knows that moving clocks run slow. >> >> You _are_ kidding, aren't you? > > Man, once upon a time people would just assume such an over the top > comment on Usenet was a joke. "Once upon a time," yes. But based on what some folks have posted here, ya never know. -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3)
From: Nick Naym on 15 Jul 2010 14:08
In article tkettler-6421AD.13533115072010(a)news.eternal-september.org, Thomas R. Kettler at tkettler(a)blownfuse.net wrote on 7/15/10 1:53 PM: > In article <C864C0AA.60F95%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > >> In article tkettler-B1F0F7.13331115072010(a)news.eternal-september.org, Thomas >> R. Kettler at tkettler(a)blownfuse.net wrote on 7/15/10 1:33 PM: >> >> ... >> ... >> >>> >>> You're wrong. The 10 minute difference was due to relativistic effects >>> since everyone knows that moving clocks run slow. >> >> You _are_ kidding, aren't you? > > Of course. The relativistic effects do exist but are two small to be > observable for speeds humans have ever experience. Even for a speed of > 0.8 * speed of light, clocks would just run 40% slower. You remember how to calculate time dilation!...I see your college tuition wasn't wasted on you. ;) -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3) |