Re: Time for a photon.

Dear Henry Haapalainen:

"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e0uoh0$3b5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
kirjoitti
viestissd news:1wlYf.12610$kT4.8861@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Henry Haapalainen:

I don't think that I am or even want to be dear to you.

You don't have to like me. You don't have to respond to me. If
you can't handle positive criticism, you shouldn't be posting to
a public newsgroup.

But you have a
problem, which makes it impossible to discuss with
you: You cannot write. When I write something, there
is my name below showing the other readers
what I have said.

I supply your post to which I replied:
<QUOTE>
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
kirjoitti
viestissd news:Dv_Xf.12404$kT4.2648@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear DaveL:

"DaveL" <Top Poster Extraordinaire> wrote in message
news:afCdncS-h4vTva3ZRVn-uA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Time dilation is only good for one thing. Sci-fi.

SciFi or not, "reality" or not, it agrees with experiment.
Nothing else attempted in the last 100 years does.

David A. Smith

A11
In relativity theory, time has been made a varying quantity like
weight and
distance. This assumption is still unsupported by any research
result.
Relativity theory's most enthusiastic supporters believe that
there should
be a mass of evidence - but there is none. There are only
misunderstandings
of how an atomic clock operates (the effect of acceleration), and
misunderstandings of what objective research demands. In many
cases,
attempts have been made to use the theory to prove itself.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen
<END QUOTE>

See how your newsreader added the symbol ">" in front of what I
wrote? This is what differentiates what you write, from what was
previously written. Now your ignorance is cured. I also signed
my reply with my name.

I don't want anybody to think that I have written
something that is yours.

Fine. It is now even clear to you.

So let me add the material back in that you decided not to reply
to (using your odd requirement to put your name *after* the
quote, rather than before):
A11
In relativity theory, time has been made a varying
quantity like weight and distance.
[Henry Haapalainen]

Yes. One can measure time/duration, and it is clearly
independent of both space and mass, being limited (in the
laboratory) by neither.
[David A. Smith]

This assumption is still unsupported by any research
result.
[Henry Haapalainen]

Just several hundred years worth of experimental results. What
problems are you seeing with measuring the duration of a day, a
lunar eclipse, or anything else?
[David A. Smith]

Relativity theory's most enthusiastic supporters
believe that there should be a mass of evidence -
but there is none.
[Henry Haapalainen]

Empty words. And canned at that.
[David A. Smith]

There are only misunderstandings
of how an atomic clock operates (the effect of
acceleration),
[Henry Haapalainen]

Like stationary at the top and bottom of a tower? Newton doesn't
have it accelerating if its velocity isn't changing... are you
worrying about the very 24 rotation of the clock?
[David A. Smith]

and
misunderstandings of what objective research
demands.
[Henry Haapalainen]

I think you are looking into a mirror here.
[David A. Smith]

In many cases,
attempts have been made to use the theory to
prove itself.
[Henry Haapalainen]

Or in your case, to use only words, appeals to "common sense",
and no facts at all to disprove anything you personally find
uncomfortable? How original...

I found a new word today:
"mumpsimus," - a person who persists in a mistaken expression or
belief

Science is about testing one's theories. You haven't supplied
any facts, any testable predictions. Are you proposing science,
or "a mistaken expression or belief"?

David A. Smith


.

Relevant Pages