Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Are you talking about displacement when you refer to physical
dimension?

I'm talking about the space dilation equation.

x' = (x + vt)/SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2)

Quoting George Gamow: "It was Einstein who first
realized that Lorentz transformations actually
correspond to physical reality ..."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

John Smith wrote:
What say you?

Virtually everyone is in mutual agreement that there
was no such thing as time before the "time" of the
Big Bang. :-)

Note that time is so ingrained in our language that
it is impossible to talk about a "time" before time.
T=0 occurred "immediately after" the Big Bang. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
John Smith wrote:
What say you?

Virtually everyone is in mutual agreement that there
was no such thing as time before the "time" of the
Big Bang. :-)

Note that time is so ingrained in our language that
it is impossible to talk about a "time" before time.
T=0 occurred "immediately after" the Big Bang. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


Time existed before the BB, there was just nothing against which to index
it.
It's like when you're waiting as your Mrs. tries on clothes or shoes. Time
stretches
to infinity, it's a relativity thing.(G)

Harold
KD5SAK

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:

This page contains instructions on how to construct a cheap and simple
device to detect the ether.


Consider that the galactic red shift might be caused
by the expansion of the ether and not by movement of
the galaxies.

Most current thought is that the expansion of the ether might be
caused by the movement of (expansion of the space between) the galaxies.

73 ac6xg

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Most current thought is that the expansion of the ether might be caused
by the movement of (expansion of the space between) the galaxies.

Space and ether are likely exactly the same thing.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

John Smith wrote:

I suspect you of being a rather "Doppler Fellow!"


Consider that the mere expansion of empty space itself
would cause a red shift possibly unrelated to the
Doppler effect.


Hopefully you're not considering that we can observe objects move away
from us at apparently high speed without observing a doppler red shift
- at least in part.

73, ac6xg

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Anonymous pseudonym wrote:

If you wish to prove time to me, or anyone else for that matter, you
have but to show me or propose a demonstration/experiment where it can
be seen and measured. However, and remember this well, the
demonstration/experiment you propose MUST NOT reference movement and/or
distance--as that is what I am admitting are the only possible things
our clocks CAN measure.

If time did not exist, how old would you be when you read this, and
how old would you have been when I wrote it?

73, ac6xg

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Hopefully you're not considering that we can observe objects move away
from us at apparently high speed without observing a doppler red shift -
at least in part.

The red-shifted background radiation is not
necessarily a Doppler effect.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Hopefully you're not considering that we can observe objects move away
from us at apparently high speed without observing a doppler red shift
- at least in part.


The red-shifted background radiation is not
necessarily a Doppler effect.

The background radiation might not even be from the Big Bang,
necessarily. But like the doppler red shift, it's the best
scientifically supported explanation at the moment.

73, ac6xg

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

kd5sak wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
John Smith wrote:
What say you?
Virtually everyone is in mutual agreement that there
was no such thing as time before the "time" of the
Big Bang. :-)

Note that time is so ingrained in our language that
it is impossible to talk about a "time" before time.
T=0 occurred "immediately after" the Big Bang. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


Time existed before the BB, there was just nothing against which to index
it.
It's like when you're waiting as your Mrs. tries on clothes or shoes. Time
stretches
to infinity, it's a relativity thing.(G)

Harold
KD5SAK



Everything real has an affect and produces one or more effect. In the
universe you propose, with ONLY time, what do these "look like?"

Oh, that's right, there would be NOTHING to effect! So NO affect, so NO
time! DUH! But, a tree DOES make a noise, even if nothing is there to
'enjoy' it... And, other things are effected by the trees affect of
falling...

Now if you claim time IS God, perhaps...

JS