kk9w@pur-ee.UUCP (08/29/83)
The comment was made here that surely I shouldn't suggest that seconds change as a function of time. Suggest, no, but prove, why not? The time rate of change of a second can be denoted dt. By examining the derivative (or time rate of change of seconds) it can be seen that dt/dt = 1, not 90. This shows the time rate of change of seconds is not 0, but some finite constant (the exact value being relative to the unitt system, phase of the moon, alcohol content of the prover's blood, etc.) Thanks for listening. Dave Andersen pur-ee!kk9w
els@CSvax:Pucc-H:pur-phy.UUCP (08/29/83)
Ha!Ha!Ha! That WAS meant as a joke wasn't it???? Anyone who has had more than three days of calculus can tell that that dt/dt stuff is just silly! After all dx/dx = 1, does that mean that every time I move through some distance, my distance scale changes??? That only happens at the end of the day when I head for home. This is just a form of circular reasoning (You know, that old stuff about using something to define itself!). The issue of how the flow of time changes is a very complex one. To talk knowledgably about it, one should have at least been exposed to some Special Relativity. In fact, this issue probably contains a semi-infinite number of PhD theses in the realm of General Relativity. els[Eric Strobel] pur-ee!pur-phy!els