Author 
Message 
GSS science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



Tom Roberts wrote:
Quote:  GSS wrote:
....
In Cs atomic clock, the main oscillator is electronically locked to the
ground state hyperfine transition resonance of Cs133 atom and
9192631770 cycles of this resonance are used to define one second of
time. This transition resonance frequency is electronically divided
down and used in a feed back control circuit (servoloop) to keep a
quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 MHz which is the
actual output of the clock. Kindly clarify whether in your opinion, the
Relativity corrections are applied to these atomic clocks in,
(a) Adjusting the hyperfine transition resonance of Cs133 atoms?
(b) Adjusting the servoloop feed back control circuitary?
(c) Adjusting the output of the clock by some other means?
(d) Adjusting the digital output readings of the clock during data
processing?
This is not my opinion, this is my _knowledge_ based on reading
documents about the GPS: In the GPS satellites the digital divider is
modified from its standard value so that the output of the clock
corresponds to GPS time in the ECI frame, as long as the clock is in its
designated orbit.

Kindly clarify whether "the digital divider is modified from its
standard value" *manually* before the launch of the satellite or
*remotely* through command signals from the ground? What is the minimum
step (or resolution) of this *modification* to the digital divider.
Kindly do give the reference to the source of your information.
GSS 

Back to top 


dda1 science forum Guru
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



GSS  s**t ForBrains Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:
Quote: 
Kindly clarify whether "the digital divider is modified from its
standard value" *manually* before the launch of the satellite or
*remotely* through command signals from the ground? What is the minimum
step (or resolution) of this *modification* to the digital divider.
Kindly do give the reference to the source of your information.
GSS

Kindly f*** off, cretinoid Gurcharn Sandhu. 

Back to top 


Tim Golden science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 176

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:13 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



GSS wrote:
Quote:  I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference

I think the 'at par' portion of this definition is weak. If time were
at par with the spatial dimensions then the 4D model would not need to
discriminate so strongly. A quick look at the mathematics of the 4D
models exposes how far off par time is with the spatial dimensions. The
threads discussing time are many on sci.physics. I find the most
compelling argument to be that of clock construction. Time is not
directly measurable as the other dimensions are, as with a ruler or
tape measure or rod. When a clock is created that claims to be an
accurate timepiece it is invariably a piece of geometrical equipment
subject to its environment. The same is true of a ruler, but the
measurement is more direct on the spatial dimensions.
I have an alternate context that allows time to exist at par with space
via a more robust mathematical structure. The polysign numbers
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html
expose a congruence between onesigned numbers and time. Dimensionality
is intimately tied to sign and for a n signed number system its
dimension is n1. In other words these onesigned numbers are zero
dimensional. This allows them to be placed in the same structure as the
spatial dimensions without any graphical measure. The usual point
definition of zero dimensional has slightly more in the polysign
domain. In P1 we see the arrow of time and the notion of Now. As Janice
Joplin said
" It's all the same fucking day man."
So time as P1 is very close to nonexistence yet P1 allows arithmetic
operations:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/OneSigned.html
The paradoxical nature of onesigned numbers is admitted. That their
paradoxical nature exactly matches the paradox of time yields
congruence.
Furthermore the natural progression:
P1, P2, P3, ...
has a natural breakpoint beyond P3, where the law
 A B  =  A  B 
breaks. An algebraic product and sum are defined that exist in any
whole dimension that obey the associative, distributive, and
commutative laws of fields in any dimension just as they work in the
reals. Yet under the product the higher dimensions (P4+) misbehave in
terms of the usual geometric distance. The lower three (P1, P2, P3) are
congruent with spacetime. Even if the progression continues the support
for spacetime remains. This suggests that the topology
0D + 1D + 2D ...
or
P1 + P2 + P3 ...
is the appropriate topology for physics rather than
1D + 1D + 1D + 1D .
The higher sign spaces are new and exotic. They are algebraically
similar to the reals so that a general equation like
z1 z2 ( z3 + z4z2) = z1z2z3 + z1z2z2z4
is true in any whole dimension. This is an arithmetic system whose
geometry is directly implied by the sign identity
Sum over s from 1 to n ( s x ) = 0 .
where s is a sign and x is a magnitude.
Attacks on the polysign system and the spacetime topology are welcomed.
I believe they will hold up. The trouble is that to understand them one
has to let go of the reals and allow them to be generated as P2. As a
benefit P3 are the complex numbers which are built with the same rules
as P2 (the reals) just with n up one.
Tim


Back to top 


PD science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



GSS wrote:
Quote:  Mike wrote:
GSS wrote:
I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
already accepted by the international scientific community. For
detailed presentation of this notion, kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/time_measure.htm
GSS
You write:
"However, due to the over bearing dominance of mathematics during the
20th century, some Mathematicians have started propagating the idea of
equivalence of the dimensions of length (L) and time (T). "
Right from the start you exhibit a misunderstanding of the subject. I
did not read the rest that is. Nobody has ever proposed the
",,,equivalence of the dimensions of length (L) and time (T). "
There are many scientists here in these discussion forums, who insist
on advocating the use of so called natural units in Physics whereby
G=c=h=1. Do you want their names?

The dimensions of length and time have opposite sign in the signature
of the metric, and this distinguishes the two. Other than that, there
is no reason to insist that the units of distance and time must be
different. In fact, doing so requires the use of a painful conversion
constant to calculate physically invariant quantitites.
Quote: 
Instead, space and time are treated in modern physics in the context of
a 4D continuum, what is called spacetime or spacetime.
It is OK to use the notion of a 4D continuum as long as you use it in
mathematical modeling.

A mathematical model is nothing more than a shorthand version of a
descriptive explanation of how nature behaves, with the crucial
advantage that it allows you to make quantitative predictions that can
be compared with actual experimental measurements. If the mathematical
version of a model consistently matches with experimental measurements,
this lends credence to the accuracy of the longhand version of the
model. If you insist on hanging on to a longhand version of a model
whose mathematical version has known problems matching up with
measurements, simply because the longhand version seems more intuitive,
this is a symptom of wearing blinders.
Furthermore, hanging onto a longhand description because it feels
intuitive and simply dispensing with the mathematical version entirely
as an unnecessary burden accomplishes nothing but the emasculation and
defanging of the model. It is free from the burden of confrontation
with measurement, but it also loses all predictive power, and hence
becomes useless as a model. One simply cannot divorce a longhand
description from its quantitative shorthand description  it's like
cutting off half a baby because you don't like the way that half looks.
PD


Back to top 


PD science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



GSS wrote:
Quote:  Bill Hobba wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150448853.540343.65660@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L).
That is how we model time. Physically time is what a clock reads where
clock is not even given an exact precise definition. If you want to go
further than that post on a philosophy forum. As to what a philosopher
thinks of it see
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As
questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this clock."
Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying. They
are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient, not
necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the only
possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'
The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames
Experimentally refuted by for example experiments with atomic clocks on
planes.
Bill
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!!

That's ok, that's what the Lorentz transforms are for, to correct for
that nastly little reality.
Quote:  On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.

But that voids the warranty of UTC or TAI, which says that clocks will
only stay in UTC sychronization if they are at rest with respect to
each other. So you have two choices:
a) Only use UTC and TAI for clocks that are at rest with respect to
each other
b) Force the resynchronization of all other clocks to UTC periodically,
and in between synchronizations the clocks will steadily desynchronize.
You seem to think we have a choice in how time works, and that we can
dictate it, rather than us just trying to figure out how it works.
PD 

Back to top 


GSS science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:51 am Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:  In article <1150634182.861414.53880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
You mean like a *proper* *Time*, perhaps with a *proper* *distance* to
go with it?

Yes, I mean the UTC or TAI are measures of proper time in ICRF or
through out the solar system. And the 'meter' is a measure of proper
distance in ICRF.
GSS 

Back to top 


Phineas T Puddleduck science forum Guru
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:00 am Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



In article <1150854683.472826.274570@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:  Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1150634182.861414.53880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
You mean like a *proper* *Time*, perhaps with a *proper* *distance* to
go with it?
Yes, I mean the UTC or TAI are measures of proper time in ICRF or
through out the solar system. And the 'meter' is a measure of proper
distance in ICRF.
GSS
So you have no idea what proper time and proper distance actually are? 
And you're refuting relativity?

The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses." 

Back to top 


dda1 science forum Guru
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:03 am Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



FuckedInTheAss Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:
Quote:  Yes, I mean the UTC or TAI are measures of proper time in ICRF or
through out the solar system. And the 'meter' is a measure of proper
distance in ICRF.
GSS

Dirk, quikly, this is a Monumental Immortal Fumble.
Listen , Gurcharn, didn't your mama tell you to take your cock out of
your mouth when you talk? 

Back to top 


T Wake science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:34 am Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150854683.472826.274570@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote: 
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1150634182.861414.53880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
You mean like a *proper* *Time*, perhaps with a *proper* *distance* to
go with it?
Yes, I mean the UTC or TAI are measures of proper time in ICRF or
through out the solar system. And the 'meter' is a measure of proper
distance in ICRF.
GSS

Hmm. You are posting from Google, yet seem incapable of using it (or even
Wiki at a push) to do a background check before you post. Interesting. 

Back to top 


GSS science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:52 am Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:  In article <1150854683.472826.274570@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1150634182.861414.53880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
You mean like a *proper* *Time*, perhaps with a *proper* *distance* to
go with it?
Yes, I mean the UTC or TAI are measures of proper time in ICRF or
through out the solar system. And the 'meter' is a measure of proper
distance in ICRF.
GSS
So you have no idea what proper time and proper distance actually are?
And you're refuting relativity?

As per SR the 'proper' time in any particular reference frame K is the
time measured by a clock which is at rest in K.
I have already pointed out in this discussion forum that in SR it has
been assumed that speed of light in vacuum will be constant c in all
inertial frames K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative uniform motion. This
assumption has been built into the invariance of spacetime interval,
dS^2 = (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 +(dz)^2 (ct)^2 ..... In frame K
= (dx')^2 + (dy')^2 +(dz')^2 (ct')^2 ......In frame K1
= (dx'')^2 + (dy'')^2 +(dz'')^2 (ct'')^2 ...In frame K2
As a consequence of this assumption the measure of time and distance
becomes relative and different in each of the frames K, K1, K2 etc. in
accordance with Lorentz transformations.
However, within our solar system, if we use just one common reference
system K in which the speed of light c is a constant and the measure
of time and distance is absolute then there is no problem of clock
synchronization. In this regard kindly refer to the Twoway Satellite
Time Transfer Technique which ensures global synchronization of clocks
within one nanosecond accuracy.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/twoway.html
http://www.bipm.fr/en/scientific/tai/tai.html
Within the solar system, there may be an infinitely large number of
particles/objects in relative motion (e.g. trains, aircraft,
satellites, planets etc.) with which we could attach reference frames
K1, K2, K3 etc. But the measure of time t is still required to be the
same common measures (like UTC) as applicable in K.
Since the measure of time t is the same in reference frames K, K1, K2,
K3 etc. with in the solar system, this measure of time t obviously
constitutes 'proper' time for all these reference frames.
The precise problem is here. SR requires the measure of time in
reference frames K1, K2 etc to be different t', t'' etc. As such SR
implies that even if you synchronize two clocks at a common location
(frame K) with any required precision, they will no longer remain
synchronized when any one of them is shifted to a different reference
frame K1, K2 etc. in relative motion. It is the notion of t', t'' etc.
which is the root cause of the notion of 'proper' time being different
in different reference frames.
The very fact that for all reference frames K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative
motion within our solar system, the measure of time in actual practice
is the same absolute measure t (UTC or TAI), it shows that the speed of
light is not constrained to be the same value in all reference frames
K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative motion within K. Hence in actual practice,
with the adoption of one common standard of time within the solar
system, the SR is already rendered null and void within our solar
system.
GSS 

Back to top 


Phineas T Puddleduck science forum Guru
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



In article <1150977169.671029.208600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:  Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1150854683.472826.274570@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1150634182.861414.53880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
You mean like a *proper* *Time*, perhaps with a *proper* *distance* to
go with it?
Yes, I mean the UTC or TAI are measures of proper time in ICRF or
through out the solar system. And the 'meter' is a measure of proper
distance in ICRF.
GSS
So you have no idea what proper time and proper distance actually are?
And you're refuting relativity?
As per SR the 'proper' time in any particular reference frame K is the
time measured by a clock which is at rest in K.

So you went and looked it up  rather then further reveal your
stupidity !!

The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses." 

Back to top 


dda1 science forum Guru
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



Gurcharn Sandhu the AssFucked Physicist Wannabee wrote:
Quote:  The very fact that for all reference frames K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative
motion within our solar system, the measure of time in actual practice
is the same absolute measure t (UTC or TAI), it shows that the speed of
light is not constrained to be the same value in all reference frames
K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative motion within K. Hence in actual practice,
with the adoption of one common standard of time within the solar
system, the SR is already rendered null and void within our solar
system.
Note that I didn't snipe you this time , ShitHead. The above quote is 
an Immortal Fumble.
Now, put the piece of s**t back in your mouth and scrarm. 

Back to top 


GSS science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:  In article <1150977169.671029.208600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1150854683.472826.274570@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1150634182.861414.53880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
You mean like a *proper* *Time*, perhaps with a *proper* *distance* to
go with it?
Yes, I mean the UTC or TAI are measures of proper time in ICRF or
through out the solar system. And the 'meter' is a measure of proper
distance in ICRF.
GSS
So you have no idea what proper time and proper distance actually are?
And you're refuting relativity?
As per SR the 'proper' time in any particular reference frame K is the
time measured by a clock which is at rest in K.
So you went and looked it up  rather then further reveal your
stupidity !!

Well, I have only written 'As per SR ...'
You did not read the complete argument. Kindly read it now carefully.
I have already pointed out in this discussion forum that in SR it has
been assumed that speed of light in vacuum will be constant c in all
inertial frames K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative uniform motion. This
assumption has been built into the invariance of spacetime interval,
dS^2 = (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 +(dz)^2 (ct)^2 ..... In frame K
= (dx')^2 + (dy')^2 +(dz')^2 (ct')^2 ......In frame K1
= (dx'')^2 + (dy'')^2 +(dz'')^2 (ct'')^2 ...In frame K2
As a consequence of this assumption the measure of time and distance
becomes relative and different in each of the frames K, K1, K2 etc. in
accordance with Lorentz transformations.
However, within our solar system, if we use just one common reference
system K in which the speed of light c is a constant and the measure
of time and distance is absolute then there is no problem of clock
synchronization. In this regard kindly refer to the Twoway Satellite
Time Transfer Technique which ensures global synchronization of clocks
within one nanosecond accuracy.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/twoway.html
http://www.bipm.fr/en/scientific/tai/tai.html
Within the solar system, there may be an infinitely large number of
particles/objects in relative motion (e.g. trains, aircraft,
satellites, planets etc.) with which we could attach reference frames
K1, K2, K3 etc. But the measure of time t is still required to be the
same common measures (like UTC) as applicable in K.
Since the measure of time t is the same in reference frames K, K1, K2,
K3 etc. with in the solar system, this measure of time t obviously
constitutes 'proper' time for all these reference frames.
The precise problem is here. SR requires the measure of time in
reference frames K1, K2 etc to be different t', t'' etc. As such SR
implies that even if you synchronize two clocks at a common location
(frame K) with any required precision, they will no longer remain
synchronized when any one of them is shifted to a different reference
frame K1, K2 etc. in relative motion. It is the notion of t', t'' etc.
which is the root cause of the notion of 'proper' time being different
in different reference frames.
The very fact that for all reference frames K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative
motion within our solar system, the measure of time in actual practice
is the same absolute measure t (UTC or TAI), it shows that the speed of
light is not constrained to be the same value in all reference frames
K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative motion within K. Hence in actual practice,
with the adoption of one common standard of time within the solar
system, the SR is already rendered null and void within our solar
system.
GSS 

Back to top 


Phineas T Puddleduck science forum Guru
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



In article <1150996469.525084.153260@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:  So you went and looked it up  rather then further reveal your
stupidity !!
Well, I have only written 'As per SR ...'
You did not read the complete argument. Kindly read it now carefully.

So you admit you had no clue of proper time and distance before this,
and still you try and refute relativity.

The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses." 

Back to top 


GSS science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:  In article <1150996469.525084.153260@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
So you went and looked it up  rather then further reveal your
stupidity !!
Well, I have only written 'As per SR ...'
You did not read the complete argument. Kindly read it now carefully.
So you admit you had no clue of proper time and distance before this,
and still you try and refute relativity.

No, You are getting it wrong  perhaps intentionally.
GSS 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:16 am  All times are GMT

