Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
My Main Argument Is That I COULDA Been Too Brilliant ....:)

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Michael W. Pearson on July 18, 2002 23:26:15 UTC

I asked this two months ago:

(Quoting from your cited link criticizing
Dr. Dick's post somewhere
and my responses revised):

Patrick Reany wrote:
"Clock time is ALL that modern physics cares about. ...Most physicists today accept this ...It is still perfectly fine to adopt some notion of absolute, unmeasurable time in one's program of research, but probably few physicists will adopt this program. But you're free to pursue it. "

Cosmological decay would be measurable if we knew its rules.

"Since every single electromagnetic scattering cross-section or decay rate has a rate fixed by the same coupling electromagnetic constant, any device that measures those things, constitutes a clock."

As Yanniru points out at
"We are going at and beyond the speed of light relative to some distant parts of the universe."

Then, Bruce, would "frames of reference" times be slightly inconvenient under those conditions?
Clearly, Dr. Dick's trying to approach a big question which maybe you will be able to advance.


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins