 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2005relativity and time
why isn't time conserved? > why isn't time conserved? What does that mean? Bob Kolker > > why isn't time conserved? > > What does that mean? > > Bob Kolker Isn't that getting a bit philosophical, Bob? Patrick Dear reany: >> > why isn't time conserved? >> >> What does that mean? > > Isn't that getting a bit philosophical, Bob? Why do you let what I said bother you? Might as well add psychoanalysis too... David A. Smith > Dear reany: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why do you let what I said bother you? Might as well add psychoanalysis > too... Who said anything about bothering me? I just thought that I'd point out that you hypocrites talk philosophy all the time and adamantly claim that you don't! Patrick Dear reany: >> Dear reany: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Who said anything about bothering me? You brought it up. And I was defending your non-response too... I didn't bend your nose, you did it. > I just thought that I'd point out > that you hypocrites talk philosophy all the time and > adamantly claim that you don't! I suggest you slyly include something other than *only* philosphy, such that sci.physics.research might allow it to be posted. Once in a while... include some mathematics. Occasionally discuss something other than the moral equivalent of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" And I'm not saying that you don't already do this. I am saying that the thread into which I interjected, *on your behalf*, had devolved into such inanities. David A. Smith > Dear reany: [snip] > > I just thought that I'd point out > > that you hypocrites talk philosophy all the time and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > include some mathematics. Occasionally discuss something other than the > moral equivalent of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" The "angels on the pin" thing is precisely what I am NOT interested in! > And I'm not saying that you don't already do this. I am saying that the > thread into which I interjected, *on your behalf*, I did note it and appreciate it, thank you. > had devolved into such > inanities. > > David A. Smith No more inane than the one-millionth presentation of the twins paradox, which the NG must be approaching any day now? If we can just get people who don't undernstand the foundation to physics to finally "get it," then maybe they will finally "get" the asymmetry of the twins (so-called) paradox. The most important point is that it does matter whether there really is an ether or not. All that matters is to invent a theory that works. I have kept up on the ever increasing bickering in this NG (about 70% of total words posted) and I must say that the "angels on the pin" thing would be a relief from it. Patrick Dear reany: ... >> had devolved into such >> inanities. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > then maybe they will finally "get" the asymmetry of the twins > (so-called) paradox. That is what *this* newsgroup is about, Patrick. This is about dealing with those that "don't get it", or "won't get it". The word ".relativity" limits the scope of discussion to what attracts both old and new moths. > The most important point is that it does matter whether there really is > an ether or not. All that matters is to invent a theory that works. And once invented, to pass that knowledge on to each new generation. Once invented, it does not instill itself into the genetic code. The theory is a model, and must be challenged. But more than that we need to not require the wheel be constantly reinvented. Entropy pulls at the knowledge that is disseminated. What we get here, are those that couldn't hear all of it. Either by ego, classroom noise, or some other cause... the information was garbled. > I have kept up on the ever increasing bickering in this NG (about 70% > of total words posted) and I must say that the "angels on the pin" > thing would be a relief from it. Skip over it. You have a logical filter... use it. But you most certainly don't need to add to it. I try not to... David A. Smith David Smith: There is yet another reason why people come to this ng. They spent their previous life pursuing another profession, and now retired, wish to better explore and understand their constant mistress, called science. And more specifically, relativity. Relativity and I have been fooling around together for 45 years; I can hardly wait for the consummation. It is devoutly to be wished. Dear Daniel Weston: > David Smith: There is yet another reason why people come to this ng. > They spent their previous life pursuing another profession, and now > retired, wish to better explore and understand their constant mistress, > called science. And more specifically, relativity. Relativity and I > have been fooling around together for 45 years; I can hardly wait for > the consummation. It is devoutly to be wished. It's coming! :>) Hah! David A. Smith > Dear reany: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That is what *this* newsgroup is about, Patrick. This is about dealing > with those that "don't get it", or "won't get it". And I AM trying do accomplish that! I'm just approaching it my way. It couldn't be any worse than what's being tried here. > The word ".relativity" > limits the scope of discussion to what attracts both old and new moths. Correction | \/ > > The most important point is that it doesn't matter whether there really is > > an ether or not. All that matters is to invent a theory that works. > > And once invented, to pass that knowledge on to each new generation. This isn't the right place to do it. It only sets up a war-like posturing. > Once > invented, it does not instill itself into the genetic code. The theory is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Either by ego, classroom noise, or some other cause... the information was > garbled. David, if there is one thing I've learned after posting here for eleven years, there is no such thing as an antirelativist with an open mind. If there were, they be agnosti-relativists. Patrick Dear reany: >> Dear reany: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > approaching it my way. It couldn't be any worse > than what's being tried here. This is a value judgement. What is being done is handling about 6 valid questions from newbies per month. While keeping the "buttons" pushed on the varous cranks, kooks, and trolls, to keep them from spreading onto other newsgroups for attention. >> The word ".relativity" >> limits the scope of discussion to what attracts both [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > This isn't the right place to do it. It only sets up a war-like > posturing. What is life? Does every teacher you have ever had have the same style? I know that working in the private sector, NO two bosses are the same, and conflict is part of life. Science is *about* challenging foundations. And the sooner people get inured to "friction" the sooner they can contribute. >> Once >> invented, it does not instill itself into the genetic code. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > years, there is no such thing as an antirelativist with an open mind. > If there were, they be agnosti-relativists. I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself. I came here with the strong belief that c was changing with time. I have learned *here*, what I could not elsewhere. My further questions were refused by MadSci, and I was directed to usenet. There may be another place to go for answers, but without paying tuition, I don't know where that would be. You? I think you are painting the entire communication-set with the brush of just a few posters. I don't think that invoking philosophy (I'm trying not to denegrate here, OK?) is going to interest the newbie. And I'm really sure that the "professional antirelativists" aren't going to care, because they make money by attracting paying customers (and collecting valid email addresses). And those few that come here for abuse (or be abusive, remembering Louis S.) will not be swayed. So that leaves those few (2 per month, say) that what to know "why?". Open minds do come here. But you and Daniel are just talking past each other. David A. Smith > Dear reany: > > <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message [snip] > Science is *about* challenging foundations. trust me, I challenge foundations! > And the sooner people get > inured to "friction" the sooner they can contribute. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself. I came here with the > strong belief that c was changing with time. It does change with time, so GR says, in a nonzero gravity field or in an accelerated reference frame. > I have learned *here*, what I > could not elsewhere. My further questions were refused by MadSci, and I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > just a few posters. I don't think that invoking philosophy (I'm trying not > to denegrate here, OK?) is going to interest the newbie. Of course, but that's their ignorance showing! > And I'm really > sure that the "professional antirelativists" aren't going to care, because [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > David A. Smith Mostly I just post for the record anyway. But some people do publish my posts on their websites, so that's nice. That Daniel doesn't listen to me doesn't surprise me nor concern me whatsoever. I'm not trying to change his mind. Pointless to try. He makes a good foil though. Patrick Dear reany: ... >> > David, if there is one thing I've learned after posting >> > here for eleven years, there is no such thing as an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It does change with time, so GR says, in a nonzero > gravity field Not time, but with radius. And only compared to some other radius. > or in an accelerated reference frame. c cannot be measured to be anything but c. And from aeon to aeon, E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2. c will always be seen to be c. Inferences over some non-local path may result in some other value, but local measurements always yield c. David A. Smith > What we get here are those that couldn't hear all of it. > Either by ego, classroom noise, or some other cause... > the information was garbled. I'm sorry, what was that again? I missed part of it... =[ d >> What we get here are those that couldn't hear all of it. >> Either by ego, classroom noise, or some other cause... >> the information was garbled. > > I'm sorry, what was that again? I missed part of it... ;>) David A. Smith > why isn't time conserved? For the same reason oil wasn't 50 years ago. We think we'll never run out. Sue... I think the best way is to put the battery out of you watch. Then you conserve it. > why isn't time conserved? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.