Knowledge and responsibility

Jim Blair wrote:
Jim Blair wrote:


??? Life is linear.


"Varney" wrote in message

Bzzt. Try again.


We all age exactly one day each 24 hours.

Nope.

I myself age slightly less than a day in one of your 24 hour periods
since I live in Colorado and a higher altitude than you do in wis.


jeb:


A plot of
your age vs time is as linear as it gets with no scatter in the data:
correlation coefficient = 1.000.

It is a trivial exercise to show that we do not all age in a linear
fashion with respect to one another.
Hell... one can even prove that one does not age uniformly with oneself.


I don't understand your point. Are you speaking of "subjective age"? As

in

a stressful time "ages" one faster than a relaxed time? As in "life in
Colorado is less stressful than in Wisconsin?" Or you don't have the
stress of watching so many of your football team's games decided in the
final second like us Packer fans? ;-)

Are you trying to introduce relativity theory and Lorentz time

dialation?

Being at a higher altitude, your velocity from the earth's rotation is
greater?

I was also referring to a relativistic effect of the gravitational field
of the earth and is quite distinct from relativistic time dilation of
relative motion.

T = T0 (1-(2GM)/(Rc^2))^(-1/2)

Read up on the experiment performed by Hafele and Keating.
Considering that one is not a point particle, one could argue that
different parts of the body age at different rates in the earth's
gravitational field.


Hi,

1- As a practical matter this effecct is of little consequence.

True... but you stated that "Life is Linear. [...] We all age exactly
one day each 24 hours.

This is not "exactly" correct.

For an
average lifespan of 75 years, what will be the difference in milliseconds
between A who lives on top of mt. Everest and flys a jet plane daily, and B
who lives at sea level and does not ever leave the ground? And what is the
percent gain by A?

That is an exercise left to the alert reader.

2. And is there a difference in the time of each as they experience time? I
mean it is time which slows, not the rate that a person ages.

What is the difference? And if there is, that invalidate your original
premise already.

Don't both A
and B age still exactly one day each 24 hours as they experience that 24
hours?

Now you have narrowed down the definition a bit to be more precise.
However, my feet still experience a different aging rate with respect to
my head... so is it still exactly one day?
We are not perfect frames of reference. :-)

If my point 2 is valid, the correlation between age and time remains 1.000.
If not, it is 0.99....9.

But your original statement was not valid.
"We all age exactly one day each 24 hours."

Does not imply the distinction you reached above, and in fact as written
would imply a absolute frame of reference to measure us "all", which is
physically impossible in a relativistic universe.

And I leave it to you to determine how many 9's in
the correlation between time and the age of someone who travels between the
Dead Sea and the top of Mt. Everest every day.

I already have. What number did you get?

I am willing to bet that there will be a flurry of "you are wrong" posts

from the ignorant. I am also willing to bet that someone will take time

to argue why my argument is correct.


If so, I didn't see them on sci.econ.

Well, I found out a long time ago that the best way to keep the people
from arguing is to predict that they will argue.
It works surprisingly well until they realize that was my intention...
but then they know that I know that... and... well.....

Drat.... relativity is so much simpler that that type of
reverse-reverse-reversed psychology anyhow. :-)

But in economics, if data and a
theory match to a correlation of better than about 0.6 it is considered to
be a confirmation of the theory.

Well... there is physics.... the rest is stamp collecting.

Like in cosmology where the rule is "10 =
100" ;-)

"Varney" wrote in message
...
Jim Blair wrote:
Jim Blair wrote:


??? Life is linear.

.....
We all age exactly one day each 24 hours.


Varney:

Nope....

This is not "exactly" correct.

Hi,

OK, I rephrase the claim: we all age approximately one day each 24 hours.
Close enough for government work ;-)


Varney::

I am also willing to bet that someone will take time

to argue why my argument is correct.



jeb:

If so, I didn't see them on sci.econ.

But in economics, if data and a
theory match to a correlation of better than about 0.6 it is considered
to
be a confirmation of the theory.

Well... there is physics.... the rest is stamp collecting.

I suspected that you were not posting from sci.econ. There have been few
intelligent exchanges on that newsgroup in the last year.

But one more comment on "Great Generals". If winning wars is more important
that winning battles, the evaluation of which generals were "great" will be
different. I cited Sam Houston who lost all of his battles except for the
decisive one which won the war. And last night the History Channel had a 2
hour program about Hannibal the Carthaginian general. He took elephants
over the Alps and won eveery battle he fought with the Romans in Italy. He
was often outnumbered 2 to 1 (and most what is known about him is from Roman
sources!). But Carthage still lost the war and was eventually destroyed by
Rome.

One of his subordinates told him (correctly as it turned out) that he knew
how to win battles but not how to win a war.



,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair ) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834