Re: probably a dumb question, but.......

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>

Hi,

This was not posted to the Tesla list.

It did not seem on-topic.

Cheers,

         Terry


At 09:07 PM 1/22/2003 -0700, Richard W. wrote:
>jlb
>
>All "things" would imply mass. Time has no mass. Matter can niether be
>created nor destroyed. Therefore more time can't mean more mass. To quantify
>time with mass would mean to impose a limit to the amount of time within the
>universe. Also, if it did have mass then it may be part of the missing mass
>necessary to prove the universe has enough mass to collapse upon itself.
>That mass hasn't been found as yet as far as I know.
>
>Rick W.
>SLC
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:33 AM
>Subject: probably a dumb question, but.......
>
>
> > Original poster: "james brady by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>"
><james_brady10-at-hotmail-dot-com>
> >
> > Well, this is probably a dumb question, but I want to ask it anyway:
> >
> > If all things have a resonant frequency, the earth, light, etc, does that
> > mean that time has a frequency?
> >
> >
> > jlb
> >
> >
> >