If Dr. Dick agrees that Relative time can be very useful, and agrees the only thing absolute about relative time and clocks is that they are Absolutely (ie. ONLY) Relatitional to the frames of reference in which they are employed,
then what's the fuss about? Does Dr. Stafford agree to all that? If not, why not?

Sincerely,
Mike Pearson

• Relational, not 'Relatitional'....sorry (repeat previous post ) - kantolfir2 - July 20, 2002 - 21:45 UTC
• Define time first!! - doctordick - July 22, 2002 - 18:14 UTC
  • Time is "sequential change marked in chosen increments" - kantolfir2 - July 22, 2002 - 21:15 UTC
    • Your story rings true... my BS detector is NOT ringing so far - kantolfir2 - July 25, 2002 - 03:18 UTC
      • Thank YOU! - doctordick - July 25, 2002 - 17:51 UTC
      • Mike Whittier is another Mike pearson - yanniru - July 25, 2002 - 20:34 UTC
        • Whittier is Mike's middle name, but no "Mike Whittier" posted - carefuluniverse - July 26, 2002 - 01:49 UTC
          • Why the need for many names? - yanniru - July 28, 2002 - 13:03 UTC
            • Why have 3/5 of your posts been offensive drivel? - kantolfir2 - July 28, 2002 - 16:53 UTC
              • It's my lack of respect - yanniru - July 29, 2002 - 14:32 UTC
                • I don't think even you know what you mean - kantolfir2 - July 29, 2002 - 16:58 UTC