On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Pascal J. Bourguignon < [email protected]> wrote:
> David Barbour <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Apr 14, 2013 9:46 AM, "Tristan Slominski" < > > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> A mechanic is a poor example because frame of reference is almost > > irrelevant in Newtonian view of physics. > > > > The vast majority of information processing technologies allow you to > > place, with fair precision, every bit in the aether at any given > > instant. The so-called "Newtonian" view will serve more precisely and > > accurately than dubious metaphors to light cones. > > What are you talking about??? > I don't know how to answer that without repeating myself, and in this case it's a written conversation. Do you have a more specific question? Hmm. At a guess, I'll provide an answer that might or might not be to the real question you intended: The air-quotes around "Newtonian" are because (if we step back in context a bit) the context is Tristan is claiming that any knowledge of synchronization is somehow 'privileged'. (Despite the fact nearly all our technology relies on this knowledge, and it's readily available at a glance, and does not depend on Newtonian anything.) And I've seen Grace Hopper's video on nanoseconds before. If you carry a piece of wire of the right length, it isn't difficult to say where light carrying information will be after a few nanoseconds. :D
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
