home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26 / NN_1992_26.iso / spool / sci / physics / 18435 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-11-08  |  1.4 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!ramsay
  2. From: ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
  3. Newsgroups: sci.physics
  4. Subject: Re: Some physics questions
  5. Date: 8 Nov 1992 21:49:47 GMT
  6. Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
  7. Lines: 19
  8. Distribution: na
  9. Message-ID: <1dk21rINN5e6@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
  10. References: <6NOV199215292345@csa1.lbl.gov> <1dhv1tINNrnh@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> <1992Nov8.174608.24504@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
  11. NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
  12.  
  13. In article <1992Nov8.174608.24504@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
  14. pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
  15. [Scenario deleted.]
  16. >Given these circumstances, which parameter would you prefer to say had
  17. >changed, light speed, bar length, or clock frequency?  Or would you
  18. >prefer to say that there was no basis for choosing among these?
  19.  
  20. I once went to a talk by someone who had worked on especially accurate
  21. measures of time, and he remarked that it was conceivable that we
  22. could end up at some point in the future with more than one measure of
  23. "time", if there were two ways of measuring it which were both
  24. reasonably consistent with ordinary timepieces, and both
  25. self-consistent to a greater precision than previously available, but
  26. not consistent with each other. I would agree that it is conceivable
  27. that one would have two measures of time, neither one with a greater
  28. claim to being "time", although it seems unlikely.
  29.  
  30. Keith Ramsay
  31. ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca
  32.