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
Bringing Tim's Note Up Top

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Whittier on August 3, 2003 07:27:25 UTC

Hi Tim,
I brought this up top. A link to your note is in this reply.
My point of contention with Dr. Dick's paper, unlike that of others, does not dispute his
physics arguments. I was interested in exploring
the topic he raised. However, he is not a good
conversationalist with me...not even close.
If I cannot do the math right now, there is no step two with him unless one has some secret "in" as anonymous Harv had.
The "when" observation you mentioned is interesting. I will consider it further.
Yet my point in other posts, some of which were apparently removed, was that "absolute time" can be a time parameter whose "absoluteness" is drawn from its RELATION to the matter in question.

As you "reminded" me at
"consider one of the principles upon which
relativity is founded. the one that states
that the speed of light in free space has
the same value for all observers,
regardless of their state of motion.

But what if we are not talking about "observers" but other contexts? (If I explain this badly this time, it is partly because when I strove to explain it well, it disappeared from the archives. What's up with that? )
Time as we measure it has been based upon Earth and Sun...then it went to a counting of atomic decay rate as its pace-keeper. We assume, perhaps rightly, that atomic decay is a properly universal standard.
When the famous time old astronaut travel model is told, wherein someone travelling at near light speed does not age nearly as much as his people back on Earth during 40 years
it depends on an idea that less decay of the man's atomic integrity occurs. This points to the atomic decay as the gold standard which determines light's properties.
In fact, we should call THAT a form of absolute time.
However, since our experience is limited, what if
atomic decay is variable based upon something
we will not discover for a long time? 1) Yes, we may dispense with that mystery for now. 2) The possibility illustrates that absolute time is relative -- it is a baseline parameter subject to further discoveries. Thanks

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 1994-2024 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