although it's clear that it's sailed by you in the night, i stand on what i
i understand that the difference between my position and the classical
position is subtle... if it wasn't, the thing would've been settled long
Alan M Dunsmuir wrote in message <7$I9rAAcyur3EwYA at moonrake.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <#x0xPPm4#GA.487 at cpmsnbbsa02>, Ken Collins
><KPaulC at email.msn.com> writes
i'm not surprised you "don't bother", but if you quote me, quote in full, or
use something like "[...]".
>>if you care to know, Alan, it was in this way that i came to understand
>>adding or removing pennies to Big Ben's pendulum bob results in the bob's
>>slowing-down, more, or less, rapidly, all other things remaining
>>>>...of course, Big Ben's mechanism must be so powerful that the quickening,
>>or slowing, of rundown (the increasing, or decreasing, of energy
>>'consumption' [there's no such thing as 'time' within physical reality...
>>doesn't matter what Big Ben, or any other 'clock' says]), due to the
>>or removing, pennies, is fairly masked... but it's in-there... just as it
>>was in the Kid's body.
>>Your famous insight remains as [expletive] as ever, Ken.
aw, duns-more, good grief... the 'heavier' a 'mass' a-swingin' in the
breeze, the more work is done on the structure suspending the 'mass'... more
work, more wdb2t... more slowing-down.
or do you 'think' that work is 'free'?
there're c'zillions of such considerations... one for each 'atom' in the
Universe. the thing that rigorously connects everything is the one-way flow
of enerby that is wdb2t... even your resort to explitives :-)
the classical position is =just= a matter of calculation-'convenience' that
artificially defines a non-Existent 'sub-system', and, erroneously, lets
things go at that.
>>It's not a particular property of Big Ben. ANY pendulum works the same
you invoke the ol' classical calculation-'convenience', but neither you nor
anyone else can show me =any= 'pendulum' that works the same way as any
other 'pendulum'... not even the hot new "atomic-fountain 'clocks'" that i
read about, today, in the 7Aug99 issue of _Science News_ ("Fountains of
Time", P. Weiss, p93).
be-cause of the UES-flow, and it's sustaining of their stable' existences,
what've been referred to as 'atoms' are, themselves, pretty-good, but not
one of them is the same.
>>Changing the weight of the bob make absolutely no difference. It's the
>distance from the pivot to the c of g of the pendulum that determines
i stand on what i've posted.
>Your sad little wrd2t is nothing other than a handle to hang what little
>you know of the natural world from. And that's not a great deal.
>>It predicts, describes and explains nothing.
ho-ho ^ (ho-ho).
K. P. Collins