Re: Explaining Time Dilation
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 11/10/04
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:44:33 GMT
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:I_ikd.31040$K7.29770@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc2dde17.0411091256.4417fb87@posting.google.com...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<l4yjd.25124$K7.11973@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:cc2dde17.0411071153.18e1388f@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:<Ulbjd.21030$K7.17843@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:cc2dde17.0411060849.51f1934f@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > Below is an excerpt from my essay, "The Time And Motion
> > > > > > Relationship",copyright 1996, tyropress@yahoo.com. All comments
> are
> > > > > > welcome.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CHAPTER TWO
> > > > > > Common Notions Of Varying Time Rates
> > > > > > Part One
> > SNIP
> > > > >
> > > > > > We cannot get beyond Dr.
> > > > > > Einstein's premise of time-space interdependence because it
bonds
> time
> > > > > > and space as partners absolutely and forever.
> > > > >
> > > > > True.
> > > > >
> > > > > > This has had the
> > > > > > effect, evidently, of creating a "blind alley" by discouraging
any
> > > > > > in-depth consideration of the idea that there may be more
> relevance to
> > > > > > time other than our usual under-standing of it as simply the
> Siamese
> > > > > > twin of space and not much else than that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Examples would be nice.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I gave the example just above that: "...time-space
> > > > interdependence...bonds time and space as partners absolutely and
> > > > forever." Get it?: Siamese twins? My point is that we ascribe no
> > > > more relevance to time than that, so I have no example to show any
> > > > higher relavance than that, but if you do, you're welcome to post it
> > > > here.
> > >
> > > You said 'This has had the effect, evidently, of creating a "blind
> alley"'.
> > > Examples of how it had created a blind alley would be nice - the use
of
> the
> > > word 'evidently' normally implies the existence of evidence.
> > > >
> > > >
>
> I find myself with a few minutes to spare so I can give a few comments
> myself rather than rely of what Stephen said.
>
> > The evidence of the blind alley is the fact that we think of time as
> > no more than being interdependent with space. I show through logical
> > deduction in my "The Separation Of Time And Space" post that it is
> > not. So far all must agree with me as no one has made a logical
> > argument against it.
>
> I might if you post the gist your argument and indicate the experimental
> predictions it makes at variance with current theories and how your
> predictions are in better accord with the evidence. I have not seen any
of
> that of sort of thing from you - all I see in a lot of semantic hot air
like
> 'It is a task too difficult for us because we are unable to reasonably
> extend the con-cept of ordinary space far enough to reconcile in our
> inquiring minds how it could be that empty space can "do", "act", or
> "perform", any physical act.' which shows you do not understand relativity
> at all. Relativity does not say space 'performs' any physical act - it
says
> space has certain properties such that free particles move according to
the
> principle of maximal time. It is no more saying space 'performs a
physical
> act' than Newtons first law claims space performs a physical act or the
fact
> that x2 + y2 + z2 is invariant in Euclidian geometry is claiming Euclidian
> space is performing a physical act. As I have said many times previously
> all such statements indicate is your inability to reason. Again I repeat
my
> position - unless you have experimental consequences of your ideas (other
> than semantics that indicate you do not know what relativity is saying)
> differing form current theories and your predictions are in better
agreement
> with the evidence then you are simply, to put it bluntly, and using the
> colloquial, wanking yourself.
>
> > We have been stuck in the blind alley of
> > time-space interdependence with no way to go with it other than in the
> > fictitious place called the "space-time continuum".
>
> In what way is it any more fictitious than any other concept used in
physics
> such as an inertial frame or the principle of least action?
>
> > Many scientists
> > have come to believe and expound upon it as if it were a real place,
> > even though Einstein himself cautioned us against doing that.
>
> References please.
>
> > Many
> > lemmings now speak of s-t as a real place and not just a math
> > construct.
>
> They speak of it as no more real than any other concept. It is you that
> wishes to divide concepts into the category of 'math construct' and
> presumably 'non math construct'. I have not seen any standard text or
know
> of any peer reviewed paper that makes such a distinction. I have however
> seen similar used in the writings of the crank brigade - of course they
> never define exactly what makes F=MA not a math ocnstruct (presumably they
> agree with Newtonian physics) and G = T a math construct. I hypothesize
the
> answer is the level of complexity of the math - they can comprehend mass
and
> acceleration but a curvature tensor and a stress energy tensor is beyond
> them - so they reject what they do not understand as a mere 'math
> construct'. Of course that is only a hypothesis.
>
> > They argue that it is so a real place and anyone who
> > believes it is not is wrong.
>
> References please where they argue it is any more or less real than the
> concept of say force.
>
> > The problem with the s-t continuum is
> > that it ends where Relativity ends and can go no further to explain
> > reality so long as we insist that time and space are interdependent.
>
> I suspect the problem is you do not understand it so you that retreats
into
> a fantasy world where you imagine all these things I have asked you to
> provide references for.
>
> >
> > SNIP
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, thanks, I know perfectly well and even better than you what
energy
> > > > is. Math constructs are no more reality than is time dilation.
> > >
> > > If you reject Noethers theorm then you do not know what energy is.
All
> > > philosophical mumbo jumbo like 'Math constructs are no more reality
than
> is
> > > time dilation.'
> >
> >
> > There is nothing philosophical about that statement. It is based on
> > deductive logic and since you disagree with it you should state your
> > logical basis for your disagreent. Saying it don't make it so,
> > y'know.
>
> Really? - then tell me, without referring to philosophy, what 'reality'
is.
>
> >
> >
> > > show is the ignorance of the poster.
> > > Basically it shows an
> > > inability to reason.
> >
> > That will be shown when you post a successful logical deductive
> > argument to the contrary. Til then, it shows who the ignorant one is.
>
> Here we have the 'when will you stop beating you wife' argument in full
> force. Tom Gee says 'Math constructs are no more reality than is time
> dilation.' and I need to refute it and it will stand as valid until I do.
> But just like in the beating your wife argument he needs to show the terms
> he is talking about exist in the first place ie he needs carefully define
> 'math construct' and 'reality'. In a previous post he defined math
> ocnstruct as 'a math construct is an inductive proof in which its premises
> may or may not be true, and so any conclusions could also be false.'
> Induction has a couple of meanings in science - one is the mathematical
> meaning where you show if something is true for N and it is true for N+1
> then it must be true for all N - that is known as the principle of
> mathematical induction. Of course if the premises you work with are not
> true then the conclusion may not be true. However science does not deal
> with truths only with the propositions of theories - so if that is what he
> means by induction all he is saying is that the conclusion may not be
true -
> big deal - science already accepts that its theories and its predictions
may
> not be true - that is what experiments are for. And GR and SR are
> experimentally verified. Or perhaps he means induction in the sense of
> forming generalizations from specifies and those generalizations may also
be
> false. Again - big deal - science does not claim its theories are true
> merely that they are in accord with experiment - which both SR and GR are.
> Thus we see that at least one part of his claim matches the wife beating
> example perfectly - it is a straw man ie an non existent issue. I will
let
> Tom examine the other assumption of his statement - exactly what 'reality'
> is - that should be good for a laugh.
>
> >
> > > People who carry on about that are never able to
> > > actually say when a theory ceases being a math contract
> >
> >
> > What?!? A math "contract"? Did you choke on the word "construct"?
>
> Of course not. I know intelligence is in short supply in that brain of
> yours but try showing some will you?
>
> >
> >
> > > and actually is a
> > > valid theory eg what makes the definition of energy via Noethers
theorem
> a
> > > math construct yet Newton's laws not - despite the fact Newton's laws
> have a
> > > number of logical problems that Noethers theorem does not.
> >
> >
> > I don't know offhand but I would venture to say that laws supercede
> > theorems almost any day.
>
> You don't know offhand but you would say laws supercede theorems would
you?
> And you claim you understand relativity and science so well you can prove
it
> is all nonsense? I see we are dealing with a mental giant. A law is a
> general statement about nature that is assumed true eg free particles
follow
> the law of maximal time. A theorem is a statement of the form if such and
> such is true then such and such follows. What Noethers theorem says,
> loosely, is that for every symmetry of a lagrangian there exists a
conserved
> quantity. By definition energy is defined as the conserved quantity
> associated with time translation ie if the lagrangian is invariant to time
> translation the assumed conserved quantity is called energy. Its logical
> purpose is to satisfy the existence issue of a definition ie we define
> energy as the conserved quantity associated with time translation so we
know
> it actually exists.
>
> >
> >
> > > Basically they
> > > decide what is a math construct and what is not based purely on if the
> like
> > > a theory or not.
> >
> >
> > No, not so. a math construct is an inductive argument which uses
> > premises which could or could not be true. Thus it's conclusion can
> > also be wrong.
>
> That is what experiment is for - to determine if a prediction of a theory
is
> in accord with observation or not. Science is not concerned if a theory
is
> 'right' or 'wrong' only if it is in accord with experiment or not. And
both
> GR and SR are in accord with experiment so are valid theories. Does that
> make them correct in the sense it is 'right'? No - other theories eg LET
> and GLET are also in accord with experiment so they are valid theories as
> well. Do not like the idea that that science can not tell the differences
> between theories providing they are also in accord with experiment? - then
> learn to live with it or accept science is not for you and take up some
> other endeavor.
>
> >
> >
> > > Of course the poster will reply I am the one unable to
> > > reason and other such drivel.
> >
> >
> > But it is you who has issued such drivel....
>
> As I expected.
>
> >
> >
> > > In a situation like that all I can say is
> > > people have read what I have had to say, what you have had to say and
> can
> > > form their own opinion. Having engaged this poster before I have no
> doubt I
> > > will have to reply similarly later so I will call the previous (1).
> > >
> > > > Both
> > > > are descriptions of phenomenal effects for which we have no better
> > > > experience. Thus, they come from Theoretical Physics, where for
many,
> > > > theories prevail against hard empirical evidence.
> > >
> > > Please point to me the experiments either SR or the consequences of
> > > definition of energy via Noethers theorem is in conflict with? Can
not
> do
> > > that? - then it is hot air.
> > >
> > > >
> > I did not say they were in conflict with any experiments. Where did
> > you get that idea?
>
> If you have any other concern, other than logical consistency, then you
are
> not doing science. The fact you are posting on a science forum indicates
> you want to discuss science. If that is not your aim go elsewhere -
> philosophy.debate might be more to your liking.
>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > SNIP
> > > > They sound strange to you because you are experiencing really hard
> > > > knee-jerk reactions against change.
> > >
> > > They sound strange because they are rubbish. 'The inextricable rise
of
> the
> > > collective superluminal unconscious produced by global internet
> coalescence
> > > in the spiritual plane contrasted against religious fervor is the next
> > > awakening mankind will experience.' - Bill Hobba mediations of
internet
> > > cranks. Anyone can string words together and claim they make sense
when
> all
> > > they are is a jumble of rubbish. To explain your ideas carefully
> logically
> > > and coherently is another matter.
> >
> >
> > Not any of my posts or statements can be likened to that. My
> > observation regarding your knee-jerk reactions are based on the solid
> > science of psychology 101, basic as that is.
>
> Yea right - as I have said - people have ........ - wait a minute I have
> already called this (1) in a previous post so rather than waste my time
> repeating it (1). I have already spend longer than the few minutes I had
> spare - but that is the way with cranks - they are so silly you do not
know
> where to stop.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you speaking for them as if you can read their minds?
> > >
> > > And you are not?
> > >
> >
> > No, I'm not, but you are.
>
> So you are sure they can not imagine 4d space and other constructs of
> advanced math? Beyond any doubt you know that do you?
>
> >
> >
> > > > It is not
> > > > possible for the human mind to imagine such a thing and anyone who
> > > > says they can does not understand the full meaning of the statement.
> > > > There were some who claimed to understand and agree with Einstein's
> > > > static universe posits and calculations, but they were liars or,
> > > > worse, dopes.
> > >
> > > Reference please.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > SNIP
> > > > Do you mean to say that I am reading more into what has been said
> > > > about space "curving", "folding", and "dilating"?
> > >
> > > I am saying you do not understand it. I claim further you do not
> understand
> > > the basics of science and apply some knee jerk reaction to theories
you
> do
> > > not like and call them 'math constructs' rather than expend the
> intellectual
> > > effort required.
> >
> >
> > Again, saying it don't make it so. You must offer support for all of
> > your claims. It is impossible for me or anyone else to have written
> > all that I have written without a basic understanding of science, so,
> > obviously, you're wrong.
>
> (1).
>
> >
> > >
> > > > If so, I disagree,
> > > > as I have added nothing to what you and I have read about the
subject.
> > > > For you to claim that, you must submit an example or a reference
> > > > which contradicts my statement. Saying something don't just make it
> > > > so, you know. Can you deny the meanings and definitions of the
words
> > > > themselves? I think not.
> > >
> > > You stated, in typical philosophical mumbo jumbo style 'It is a task
too
> > > difficult for us because we are unable to reasonably extend the
con-cept
> of
> > > ordinary space far enough to reconcile in our inquiring minds how it
> could
> > > be that empty space can "do", "act", or "perform", any physical act.'
> GR
> > > does not claim empty space performs any physical act.
> >
> > Wrong! GR makes a lot of wild claims. Here is another tidbit from my
> > essay regarding Einstein's space-time continuum:
> >
> > "To explain how an object is forced to follow curved space, Einstein
> > used an example of a rocket ship parked on the surface of the earth,
> > where, in our own 4d space, the rocket is sta-tionary in relation to
> > the earth and so it does not appear to be accelerating. To most of
> > us, it would appear to be attracted toward the center of the earth.
> > At the same time, however, in Einstein's parallel 4d curved space-time
> > continuum, the same rocket is moving along its world line somehow
> > accelerating in time (?), apparently, through the curved space
> > produced by the massive object planet Earth, and its acceleration is
> > seemingly provided, somehow, by a new and mysterious "force" of
> > time.26
> > For an object to continually accelerate in space means that its
> > velocity changes con-stantly as time passes. Either its speed or its
> > direction, or both, must always be changing. To continually accelerate
> > in time, however, necessarily requires continual changes in the rate
> > of the passage of time for an object. There is no way for that to
> > happen unless time is a property of matter, and for the passage of
> > time for an object in space to vary constantly, the object must be in
> > a condition or a situation which causes its speed (not its direction)
> > to be continuously changing, either increasing or decreasing.
> > Einstein's rocketship, however, is not doing that while parked on
> > earth, as its speed then is constant with the earth's speed."
>
> Where did you get that from? - some crank site no doubt. Relativity makes
> no claim to anything 'accelerating in time'. It claims free particls
follow
> the principle of maximal time which implies they move along geodesics in
> space-time. What geodesics in space-time means is carefully defined in
the
> theory.
>
> >
> >
> > > It assumes the
> > > principle of maximal time (it follows from SR and the principle of
> > > equivalence) and shows because of that particles must follow
geodesics.
> >
> >
> > Oh, yeah? And why must they follow, and with what weird and
> > mysterious power can they do that?
>
> The same weird and mysterious power that makes a free particle move at
> constant velocity unless acted on by a force - you know Newton's first
law -
> or is that just a 'math construct' too?
>
> >
> >
> > > The
> > > principle in fact is a generalization of the same principle in SR
which
> is a
> > > generalization of the free particle lagrangian in classical physics
> which
> > > follows from the PLA which is implied by the rules of QM. Thus GR, at
> rock
> > > bottom, is based on exactly the same fundamental principles as any
other
> > > area of science and forms an interconnected whole with it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > Talk about gobbledegook!! Do you or anyone else know what you're
> > saying?
>
> Anyone that has learnt the basics of GR, SR, the langrangian formation of
> classical mechanics, and QM, ie physics beyond kiddy level, knows what it
> means -basically anyone that has read the Feynman Lectures on Physics, QED
> the Strange Story of Light and Matter, and Landau - Mechanics. But why
> should that worry you? - they are only math constructs so what relevance
> could they have to physics?
>
> >
> >
> > SNIP
> > > The physics of the principles GR is based upon force these ideas onto
> us -
> > > GR is the logical consequence of the strong principle of equivalence
and
> > > general invariance. Both principles have strong experimental support.
> > >
> >
> > No, you are mistaken. GR is not a work based on logical deduction.
>
> Your writings and the quote you gave above where relativity is explained
as
> 'in Einstein's parallel 4d curved space-time continuum, the same rocket is
> moving along its world line somehow accelerating in time' indicates
neither
> you or your references have any idea what they are on about. If you
> disagree all I can say is (1).
>
> > There can be other explanations than GR - Newton for one
>
> Newton can not explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
>
> > and my model, for two.
>
> Highly doubtful. But just in case mind positing your explanation of the
> precession of the perihelion of Mercury?
>
> >
> >
> > > > They can imagine all they
> > > > want to, fine, but whatever they come to believe in is their choice.
> > >
> > > Please point you the errors in logic in the following -
> > >
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/sample_chapters/ciufolini/chapter2.pdf.
> > > Other than the stated assumptions, all of which have experimental
> support,
> > > just what other assumptions are made? Spell it out instead of simply
> > > stating it is 'imagination'.
> >
> >
> > Does my excerpt above qualify enough for you as a "spelling out"?
>
> No - it qualifies as an extract from a source that has about the same clue
> of what GR and SR is on about as you do - namely none.
>
> > >
> >
> > > > There are no poor scientists being forced by research to believe in
> > > > everything their experiments infer.
> > >
> > > Of course not - it is done by scientific integrity and the checks and
> > > balances of the modern scientific enterprise such as the use of peer
> > > reviewed journals.
> > >
> > > >
> > The integrity of some in the scientific world is often found lacking,
> > I'm sorry to say. Most people agree that even Einstein fudged on his
> > static universe calculations because he wanted oh so badly to have a
> > static universe.
>
> He fudged nothing - he made an assumption he later regretted - that is not
> fudging. Fudging is giving a reference like you did above that indicates
> neither you nor the person who wrote the tripe knows what they are talking
> about.
>
> > We are all corruptible and the sooner you learn that
> > the sooner you can be a scientist. Til then, you are just another who
> > has failed to learn the lessons of history and who is destined to
> > experience them again.
>
> (1).
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > Absolute space is defined as ".physical space independent of
> > > > > > whatever occupies it."
> > > > >
> > > > > No one has ever been able to detect it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Detect what?
> > >
> > > Precisely - it is philosophical waffling.
> >
> >
> > No, to say that time is what clocks say is waffling. The definition
> > stands unless you can logically argue that it is false.
>
> Correct - the definition of time as what clocks read does stand until you
> can demonstrate it is false ie it leads to false predictions.
>
> >
> >
> > > BTW that is you own private
> > > definition - yet you use language to imply it is generally accepted in
> > > physics.
> > >
> > > >
> > No, I did not make it up. I read it in a well-accepted publication.
> > What is your definition of absolute space and where did you get it
> > from?
>
> Then you can point me to the sources. Absolute space is not a term
> generally used in physics. Basically I have only seen it used by cranks
and
> crackpots. Maybe it was used sometime in the 19th century - it sure as
hell
> has not been used in the scientific literature much beyond that ie in
modern
> literature.
I have discovered it is an archaic term used by Newton. Newton thought he
needed to assume the existence of absolute space and of absolute motion "For
it may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and
motion of others may be referred." . . . Newton envisaged absolute space as
an absolute order of "places"; this order of places is a "primary" system to
which motion ultimately can be referred. It is obviously an archaic concept
as I have only been able to find philosophy sources that reference it - it
has been purged from modern physics. This is obviously the appeal it has to
cranks - firstly is has the philosophical bent they seem to like and
secondly because it was believed by a genuine great physicist, Newton, it
lends an air of legitimacy to their rantings. Of course there is a reason I
was only able to find philosophical references to it (other than a reference
it was an idea of Newton's) - it now well known even classical mechanics
does not require it - all it requires is the POR, the PLA and the Galilean
transformations. Even though I have spent too long replying to this fool at
least some good come of it - I learnt a bit of the history of science - or
at least it refreshed my memory - I seem to recall reading about it is the
writings of Russell etc. It is referenced as a concept of Newton in Ohanian
and Ruffini but no detail is given.
Thanks
Bill
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > Of course, time passes and matter moves, but
> > > > > > can we really bestow to physical space the capacity to actually
> "do"
> > > > > > something?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not? Are you going to tell me it is more appealing for nature
> to
> > > single
> > > > > out a specific geometry rather than it be a dynamical? Because
that
> is
> > > the
> > > > > real basis of GR - No prior geometry.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Appealing" is not a term I would use in scientific discussions.
> > >
> > > Yet you use terms like 'Math constructs' and try to imply that has
some
> kind
> > > of objectivity other than what appeals to you.
> > >
> > > >
> > It connotes full objectivity except for those who refuse to see and
> > really understand what math is and what it is not.
>
> (1).
>
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > SNIP
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then read the references I have given. It is a theory about
symmetry -
> see
> > > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com. You
> have
> > > already been given this link yet obviously did not read it.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > Then go and read the entire library. You will see at the end that I
> > am correct and that you are incorrect. And SR is a theory about
> > relative motion, everyone knows that, why don't you?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Bill, I have learned about Relativity and freed myself of its
> > > > misconceptions.
> > >
> > > I do not think you have. (1).
> > >
> > > > I do not believe philosophy is any more relevant to
> > > > science than say, metaphysics or Theoretical Physics.
> > >
> > > Your harping on ill defined concepts like 'math construct' suggest
> > > otherwise.
> > >
> >
> > I think it is now evident that you do not know the meaning of "math
> > construct" except that you think it is ii-defined. I urge to go read
> > the library to find out what the term means.
>
> I did a quick internet search - it bought back nothing of relevance. If
it
> is an actual term used in physics then you should be able to give me a
> reference. Got one?
>
> >
> >
> > SNIP
> > > > You must learn to argue
> > > > on your own, not by references to entire books (I could refer to the
> > > > Central Libraries and beat you at your own game) which cover totally
> > > > unrelated subjects which you apparently cannot distinguish from the
> > > > current discussion subjects.
> > >
> > > So we have the posters real beef. I do not like GR, but do not know
the
> > > technicalities, so I want to keep the dissuasion loose and not be
pinned
> > > down on specifics.
> >
> >
> > You have described yourself perfectly. Thank you.
>
> (1).
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Only those who are capable of making
> > > > reasonable and specific debate arguments should post here.
> > >
> > > Then why do you continue to post.? Of course you will probably resent
> this
> > > characterization. Naturally I have nothing to resent about your
> > > characterization of me as not being 'capable of making reasonable and
> > > specific debate arguments' - of course not - to which all I can say is
> (1).
> > >
> > >
> > Why? Because I believe all of arguments are well-supported by
> > deductive reasoning and that I make specific arguments to support my
> > claims.
>
> No - because your arguments are a load of crap and choker full of
> misconceptions. In the final analysis I can never get someone to accept
> what they say is crap - all I can do is (1).
>
> > Also, I post here for posterity and to protect my
> > intellectual property which is copyrighted, and also to shake up
> > people who think they know it all but really don't.
>
> How - by maintaining your own private language and defintions like 'math
> construct'?
>
> > Mostly, thought,
> > I post here because I think I am correct in my ideas and I want others
> > to feel the relief from some of the wild claims of science for the
> > existence of fantasy worlds proposed by Theoretical Physicists.
> > TomGee 110904
>
> (1).
>
> Bill
>
>
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
