Re: How many main religious Festivities are there?
From: Tom Potter (tdp_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 12/19/04
- Next message: Tom Potter: "Re: nuclei role in thermodynamics/energy transport?"
- Previous message: Tom Potter: "Re: Did Bush Provoke 9/11 Attack?"
- In reply to: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How many main religious Festivities are there?"
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How many main religious Festivities are there?"
- Reply: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How many main religious Festivities are there?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 20:33:03 +0800
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:fHYwd.1413$ry.191@fed1read01...
> Dear Tom Potter:
>
> "Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:32j0crF3mog3oU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
> > message news:5IXwd.1409$ry.513@fed1read01...
> >> Dear Tom Potter:
> >>
> >> "Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:32itbbF3l5evaU1@individual.net...
> >> ...
> >> > As I demonstrate in my tutorial,
> >> > mass is expressed most fundamentally as a time.
> >> >
> >> > time(mass) = mass * G / C^3
> >>
> >> Too bad G is only known (or repeatable) to 6 or 7 sig figs. Doesn't
> >> seem
> >> very usable.
> >
> > "G" can be ANY number you like
> > as all it does is differentiate between
> > bodies percieved to be fixed in media (Time/space)
> > and bodies percieved to be varying in media.
>
> It depends strongly on being able to measure it, to establish a value. As
> was done with c. G varies "wildly" with each measurement. We can
> duplicate masses to 10 or more sig figs now, and going from your proposed
> definition, we lose that.
>
> > Here is some of what my tutorial has to say on the subject,
> > including how to set up a mass standard
> > making "G" a defined constant, like "C".
>
> Why don't you simply post a link?
>
> I believe that G will turn out to be a parochial value, and not a
> fundamental constant applicable to the entire Universe, for all time, at
> one value. Dirac is dead on, in this case. IMHO. To ensconce it in some
> arbitary declaration, that makes science NOT all it can be, is a mistake.
>
> Besides, who'd polish the "lump" in Paris?
As I point out in my physics tutorial,
the best mass standard would be:
1. To set the Earth's mass to some convenient, simple, constant.
( It would be handy to set the Earths mass
to an even harmonic of the metric mass.)
2. To reference all other masses to the Earth's mass,
in terms of powers of ten.
Once you set the Earth's mass to a constant,
this automatically sets the value of "G" to a constant.
"G", like "C" is a useless constant.
"C" is just a number used to
differentiate between time periods and time intervals,
and to express time intervals in terms of some kings body parts.
"G" is just a number used to differentiate
between bodies PERCEIVED to be varying in media (Time/space),
from bodies PERCEIVED to be fixed in media,
-- Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
- Next message: Tom Potter: "Re: nuclei role in thermodynamics/energy transport?"
- Previous message: Tom Potter: "Re: Did Bush Provoke 9/11 Attack?"
- In reply to: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How many main religious Festivities are there?"
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How many main religious Festivities are there?"
- Reply: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How many main religious Festivities are there?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|