From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce@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