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

Tue Sep 30 19:28:14 UTC 2003

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