hi Mike,
actually i wasn't referring to your point
of contention with Dr. Dick's paper, i was
referring to Bud's referance. but i do
appreciate your interest.
i also struggle with the math in Dr.
Dick's paper. i have a decent mathematical
grounding but i do not have easy access to
text books, ect. to refer too in the
effort.
your discourse on atomic decay reminds me
of a discussion a student had with my
physics 101 professor years ago. the
professor was refuting some Biblical
concept through logic involving carbon 14
dating. the student responded to the idea
by stating that it is possible that there
is unrecognized variability in atomic
decay. the professor's response was that
he didn't think that was likely.
i'm not sure i follow your statement that
the concept of absolute time may be
relative. it would seem a rather arbitrary
choice to assign some referance to time as
an absolute one. but i suppose that would be the best we could do with respect to how we view time.
regards tim

• Hi Tim: a comment! - doctordick - August 3, 2003 - 18:38 UTC
  • hello Dr. Dick - sagefr0g - August 4, 2003 - 01:10 UTC
• Oh, I forgot Bud existed, since he never answered me - kantolfir2 - August 3, 2003 - 20:33 UTC
  • hi Mike - sagefr0g - August 4, 2003 - 02:05 UTC
    • i ting dat kina avoids de point - carefuluniverse - August 4, 2003 - 05:09 UTC
      • well - sagefr0g - August 4, 2003 - 16:54 UTC