Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ISO8601] The best on Time Zones

Expand Messages
  • hjwoudenberg@aol.com
    In a message dated 6/5/2006 4:44:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time, david.settle@db.com writes: see that they have still not managed to move away from a strictly
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 6/5/2006 4:44:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time, david.settle@... writes:
      see that they have still not managed to move away from a strictly Newtonian view of time: "1.1.1 ... at any given moment it is the same time in UTC everywhere on Earth ..."

      In fact, for systems in relative motion (among other things) this is only approximately true.
      I understand that time is relative, time and space are bent by the force of gravity.
      When I look up into the sky see the light the star Arcturus, it is of 38 years ago.  So today it might not exist.  Is it wrong for me to say their is Arcturus, the sun rose when really the earth turns.
       
      Can you explain mo0re what you think is right and wrong?
       
      hjw
       
    • Tex Texin
      ummm, if it isn t relevant to 8601, do we need to discuss what I presume was intended as a light hearted response to the admiration expressed for the w3c note?
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        ummm, if it isn't relevant to 8601, do we need to discuss what I presume was intended as a light hearted response to the admiration expressed for the w3c note?


        From: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ISO8601@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hjwoudenberg@...
        Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 2:27 PM
        To: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [ISO8601] The best on Time Zones

        In a message dated 6/5/2006 4:44:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time, david.settle@... writes:
        see that they have still not managed to move away from a strictly Newtonian view of time: "1.1.1 ... at any given moment it is the same time in UTC everywhere on Earth ..."

        In fact, for systems in relative motion (among other things) this is only approximately true.
        I understand that time is relative, time and space are bent by the force of gravity.
        When I look up into the sky see the light the star Arcturus, it is of 38 years ago.  So today it might not exist.  Is it wrong for me to say their is Arcturus, the sun rose when really the earth turns.
         
        Can you explain mo0re what you think is right and wrong?
         
        hjw
         
      • hjwoudenberg@aol.com
        In a message dated 6/5/2006 4:37:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tex@yahoo-inc.com writes: ummm, if it isn t relevant to 8601, do we need to discuss what I
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 6/5/2006 4:37:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tex@... writes:
          ummm, if it isn't relevant to 8601, do we need to discuss what I presume was intended as a light hearted response to the admiration expressed for the w3c note?
          I failed to realize the this is not a serious discussion group.
           
          hjw
        • Tex Texin
          hjw says: I failed to realize the this is not a serious discussion group. So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do realize this is a
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
             hjw says:
             I failed to realize the this is not a serious discussion group.
             
             
            So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do realize this is a serious discussion group.
             
            Good I agree.
            The other comment is that the topics are 8601 related.
             
            tex
          • hjwoudenberg@aol.com
            In a message dated 6/5/2006 7:39:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tex@yahoo-inc.com writes: So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 6/5/2006 7:39:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tex@... writes:
              So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do realize this is a serious discussion group.
              However, other seems to think differently.
               
              hjw
            • Tex Texin
              OK, I am confused about your point of view. But the discussion is likely boring for the list. Feel free to write me privately. Otherwise let s drop it. tex In
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 5, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                OK, I am confused about your point of view. But the discussion is likely boring for the list.
                Feel free to write me privately. Otherwise let's drop it.
                tex
                 

                In a message dated 6/5/2006 7:39:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tex@... writes:
                So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do realize this is a serious discussion group. 
                 
                However, other seems to think differently.
                 
                hjw
                .
              • Ted Lyngmo
                ... Not at all actually :-) Cheers, Ted
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 6, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Tex Texin wrote:
                  > OK, I am confused about your point of view.
                  > But the discussion is likely boring for the list.

                  Not at all actually :-)

                  Cheers,
                  Ted

                  > Feel free to write me privately. Otherwise let's drop it.
                  > tex
                  >
                  >
                  > In a message dated 6/5/2006 7:39:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
                  > tex@... writes:
                  >
                  > So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do
                  > realize this is a serious discussion group.
                  >
                  >
                  > However, other seems to think differently.
                  >
                  > hjw
                  > .
                  >
                • piebaldconsult
                  ... realize ... Serious or not, it s a discussion concerning ISO 8601. So W3C s support of ISO 8601 is on-topic, but relativity probably isn t.
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jun 6, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do
                    realize
                    > this is a serious discussion group.
                    >
                    > Good I agree.
                    > The other comment is that the topics are 8601 related.

                    Serious or not, it's a discussion concerning ISO 8601. So W3C's support
                    of ISO 8601 is on-topic, but relativity probably isn't.
                  • Tex Texin
                    yes, that was my intended sentiment. _____ From: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ISO8601@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of piebaldconsult Sent: Tuesday, June 06,
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 6, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      yes, that was my intended sentiment.


                      From: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ISO8601@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of piebaldconsult
                      Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9:41 AM
                      To: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [ISO8601] Re: relativity

                      > So if I eliminate the double negative, you are saying that you do

                      realize
                      > this is a serious discussion group.
                      >
                      > Good I
                      agree.
                      > The other comment is that the topics are 8601
                      related.

                      Serious or not, it's a discussion concerning ISO 8601. So W3C's support
                      of ISO 8601 is on-topic, but relativity probably isn't.

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.