"Pyriform" wrote in message ...
No Way wrote:
I know I shouldn't reply... but I am apparently having a weak
moment...

On 9 Jul 2004 06:35:50 -0700, (Donald G. Shead)
wrote:
where the time chosen is usually a _unit_ of time;
such as a second, a minute or an hour, and could even be a couple of
weeks, a month, a year; even a light year.

Light year?

This is Shead. He has trouble with units.

Well, I agree he's a crack pot, but he's got a point about something.
The unit system we use is more or less arbitrary, subject to our
perceptions. Where is the real basis for using separate units for
distance and time, anyway? If we arbitrarily (as we have done for
millenia) define unit system so that c = 1 (the unit system many
modern theoretical physicists work with..and oh, in addition, they
will have h-bar = 1, too), without any units, then we have a system
where space is on equal footing with time (and, in fact, relativity
demands that in, er, relativistic situations (id est, when the speed
of the things we are interested in is comparable to c) they be put on
equal footing). Presumably, we will be able to come to a better
understanding of the nature when we have finally understood the unity
of space-time.....

Anyway, that reminds me of the joke I heard once--"A light year is
defined as 1/3 of a regular year."

Best wishes,

Andrew