Re: Imaginary Space (secular version)
- From: russell@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 8 Aug 2005 09:22:24 -0700
Sue... wrote:
[snip]
> Some spiriting of this thread out of the hands of a fanatical
> religious sect may have confused two different experiments.
You mentioned here only the experiment of hooking two
clocks to the wheels of a car and thereby driving the
engine by the difference in their rates; and that is
the experiment to which I directed my comments. If you
are confused by your own post, that is hardly my problem.
Is there something I can do to make *my* point clearer
to you?
> Both make the same point that *time* comes no less dear than
> mass or energy:
>
> << invariance with respect to time translation gives
> the well known law of conservation of energy>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
>
> Is is profound ?
> Probably not. ;-)
Stop winking and acknowledge a simple point, please:
there is *no* problem with conservation of energy in the
one experiment that you mention in this thread.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Imaginary Space (secular version)
- From: Androcles
- Re: Imaginary Space (secular version)
- References:
- Imaginary Space (secular version)
- From: sue jahn
- Re: Imaginary Space (secular version)
- From: russell
- Re: Imaginary Space (secular version)
- From: Sue...
- Imaginary Space (secular version)
- Prev by Date: Re: Special relativistic equivalence principle
- Next by Date: Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- Previous by thread: Re: Imaginary Space (secular version)
- Next by thread: Re: Imaginary Space (secular version)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|