New subject: [roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE aWIKIArticle--]

30 Sep 2003

...
 From: Daniel Ehrenberg
&lt;littledanehren(a)yahoo.com&gt;
Reply-To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org&gt;
To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org&gt;
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce(a)hotmail.com: --A Request RE 
aWIKIArticle--]
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:25:50 -0700 (PDT)

  Dear Mr. Wales,

 You've sold us both short! :-) (<--please note
 smiley, Mr. Poor!) You have assumed that you could > not have anything  helpful
to say about the physics > of this situation, so you have also 
assumed that
 > it cannot be simply explained if one tries hard
 > enough!
 > [large snip]
...
   -----RR-----

Forgive me if I'm being naive, but I thought there
were no absolute time frames, and if any time frames
existed, then they must be relative for the reasons of
special relativity. This would mean that, while if one
person is comparing his atomic clock to another
person's clock that's on a space ship they would get
different results, internally, the clocks have a
constant rate.
LDan

PS. This sounds like a typical crackpot theory steming
from a fundimental misunderstanding of a science. I
think we should drop this because, even if it is
correct (which it isn't), it is still not for
Wikipedia until he gets through the Establisment and
writes a scientific paper on it. 
Regarding your PS, I was not presenting any sort of
theory. (And the fact that you thought I was does not
do wonders for your credibility.)

Regarding your opening paragraph, you seem to be merely
repeating what I said. (Except that I said nothing about
any "absolute time frames.")

-----RR-----

_________________________________________________________________
Instant message with integrated webcam using MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now 
FREE!  http://msnmessenger-download.com

Re: [WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE aWIKIArticle--]