Never say absolute on sci.physics.relativity !
Hayek
Do *NOT* say
accelerations are /absolute/...
but say :
accelerations are _relative_ wrt to the average mass distribution of the
universe...
Do *NOT* say
rotations are /absolute/...
but say :
rotations are _relative_ wrt to the average mass distribution of the
universe...
D*rk is getting a wee bit older and we would not like to get sued for
causing him a heart attack or stroke by the use of this very improper word.
Uwe Hayek.
--
Power corrupts, and relativity corrupts absolutely.
-- Den Uwe
Tom Roberts
> Do *NOT* say
> accelerations are /absolute/...
> but say :
> accelerations are _relative_ wrt to the average mass distribution of the
> universe...
>
> Do *NOT* say
> rotations are /absolute/...
> but say :
> rotations are _relative_ wrt to the average mass distribution of the
> universe...
Neither one of those is true in relativity. In SR and GR, both
accelerations and rotations are always relative to the set of
locally-inertial frames. Relativity does NOT obey Mach's principle, and
the set of locally-inertial frames at a given point need not be related
to any sort of "average mass distribution of the universe".
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:b1PNk.5414$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Hayek wrote:
>> Do *NOT* say
>> accelerations are /absolute/...
>> but say :
>> accelerations are _relative_ wrt to the average mass distribution of the
>> universe...
>>
>> Do *NOT* say
>> rotations are /absolute/...
>> but say :
>> rotations are _relative_ wrt to the average mass distribution of the
>> universe...
>
> Neither one of those is true in relativity.
That doesn't matter. Relativity is bullshit.
Hayek
> Hayek wrote:
>> Do *NOT* say
>> accelerations are /absolute/...
>> but say :
>> accelerations are _relative_ wrt to the average mass distribution of
>> the universe...
>>
>> Do *NOT* say
>> rotations are /absolute/...
>> but say :
>> rotations are _relative_ wrt to the average mass distribution of the
>> universe...
>
> Neither one of those is true in relativity.
> In SR and GR, both
> accelerations and rotations are always relative to the set of
> locally-inertial frames.
> Relativity does NOT obey Mach's principle,
GR does. As the majority of the GR experts agreed in Tubbingen.
This is of course a lame authoritative argument, but they must have a
reason, worth exploring.
> and
> the set of locally-inertial frames at a given point need not be related
> to any sort of "average mass distribution of the universe".
These frames follow their geodesics in GR, and in order to calculate
them, you need all the gravitating mass around the test point.
And a clock is an inertiameter, so it just measures the inertial
component of the total gravitational field in the test point.
And in the definition of flat space, you use the surrounding mass
distribution, you set limits on them. Then you use that mass
distribution to make your frames move inertially.
Maybe a lot of our discussions stem from our different goals, for me
that is understanding nature, for others this may well be checking that
relativity is consistent, or even that it can be used as a calculating tool.
Maybe it suffices to some people what time will do under a set of
circumstances, for me it is important to know what time is.
And this avoids very troubling "results" in GR, when a zone of low
inertia, touches a zone of high inertia, in some heavy gravitational
construct, those with less purer insight will think they can travel into
the past. While those who really understand nature will just travel from
a zone with low inertia to a zone with high inertia, and avoid being
caught up in a science fiction novel.
Which I thoroughly regret, but that is another story.
Uwe Hayek.
Dirk Van de moortel
4907b31f$0$193$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl
> Do *NOT* say
that you never heard of an electromagnetic field:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NeverHeard.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=electromagnetic+field
Dirk Vdm
Ken S. Tucker
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>
> 4907b31f$0$193$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl
>
> > Do *NOT* say
>
> that you never heard of an electromagnetic field:
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NeverHeard.html
> http://www.google.com/search?q=electromagnetic+field
>
> Dirk Vdm
Lorentz Force vanishes in GR, read the memo
we sent you in 1916, maybe at the bottom of
your Inbox. We recommend you update.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> In SR and GR, both accelerations and rotations are always relative to
>> the set of locally-inertial frames.
>> Relativity does NOT obey Mach's principle,
>
> GR does.
Not for any of the common statements of Mach's principle (there are many
that differ slightly). For instance, in GR the mass of an object is NOT
due to its interaction with all the rest of the universe (mass is
intrinsic in GR). Or for instance, the set of locally-inertial frames at
a given point is NOT wholly determined by the distribution of matter in
the universe (boundary conditions also are important).
>> and the set of locally-inertial frames at a given point need not be
>> related to any sort of "average mass distribution of the universe".
>
> These frames follow their geodesics in GR, and in order to calculate
> them, you need all the gravitating mass around the test point.
Yes. But that is not Mach's principle. More is involved than just "all
the gravitating mass around the test point".
> [... much nonsense]
Tom Roberts
Hayek
That's an old one, and it's a very poor defense.
It is actually one of Einstein's very early thought experiments.
Electromagnetism is not static.
You either have a wave, and electromagnetism.
Or you have a static electric field, or a static magnetic field.
But there is no "electromagnetic" field.
Smolin writes that Einstein was so successful, because he wanted purity
in his thinking and theories. I think that is an excellent strategy.
So, D*rk, when are YOU going to unify GR and quantum mechanics ?
Uwe Hayek.
--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in Belgi隴 naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.
Hayek
> Hayek wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> In SR and GR, both accelerations and rotations are always relative to
>>> the set of locally-inertial frames. Relativity does NOT obey Mach's
>>> principle,
>>
>> GR does.
>
> Not for any of the common statements of Mach's principle (there are many
> that differ slightly). For instance, in GR the mass of an object is NOT
> due to its interaction with all the rest of the universe (mass is
> intrinsic in GR).
You still confuse "mass" and "inertia".
eric gisse
wrote:
>Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Hayek wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> In SR and GR, both accelerations and rotations are always relative to
>>>> the set of locally-inertial frames. Relativity does NOT obey Mach's
>>>> principle,
>>>
>>> GR does.
>>
>> Not for any of the common statements of Mach's principle (there are many
>> that differ slightly). For instance, in GR the mass of an object is NOT
>> due to its interaction with all the rest of the universe (mass is
>> intrinsic in GR).
>
>You still confuse "mass" and "inertia".
>
>Uwe Hayek.
Equivalence principle. Look it up.
Hayek
You are still confusing "intelligence" and yourself.
Dono
>
>
> You still confuse "mass" and "inertia".
>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
Principle of Equivalence, dumbass.
The Eotvos experiment, asshole.
Hayek
Right, and what do YOU make of it ?
What is YOUR interpretation ?
Dono
> Dono wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 11:49 pm, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >> You still confuse "mass" and "inertia".
>
> >> Uwe Hayek.
>
> > Principle of Equivalence, dumbass.
> > The Eotvos experiment, asshole.
>
> Right, and what do YOU make of it ?
> What is YOUR interpretation ?
>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
That you are a denying imbecile. This is not an interpretation, this
is a fact.
Hayek
Would you mind the language ?
What does Eotvos prove ?
That there is an equivalence between gravitating mass and inertial mass.
You, and they other very impolite people, think that inertia is a
property of mass.
I SAY : inertia is just as gravity, a property of the surrounding
inertial field.
Inertia is ALWAYS the same as the gravitational field, so this is
actually ANOTHER PROPERTY of the SAME FIELD.
My Interpretation : A lump of gravitating mass creates an inertial
field, if this field has a gradient, then we call this gradient gravity.
Your (swearing) interpretation : inertia is a property of mass.
You do not explain where it comes from and you do not explain how mass
knows how to vary it, if gravitation becomes stronger. (or lesser)
Dono
>
> You do not explain where it comes from
No one knows , old fart.
This doesn't mean that you get a pass at denying that relativity is
correct, old ignorant imbecile.
You have been at it for years, you could have used all this time in
getting an education.
Hayek
> On Oct 30, 7:48 am, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> You do not explain where it comes from
>
> No one knows
I do.
> , old fart.
Did you learn to talk like that at school, or at home ?
> This doesn't mean that you get a pass at denying that relativity is
> correct, old ignorant imbecile.
> You have been at it for years, you could have used all this time in
> getting
> an education.
Which you obviously lack, in reasoning *and* upbringing.
And your so called "Physics education" sounds more like "indoctrination".
Uwe Hayek.
Dono
> Dono wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 7:48 am, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> You do not explain where it comes from
>
> > No one knows
>
> I do.
>
You are a delusional old fart.
No one takes you seriously, goat.
> > This doesn't mean that you get a pass at denying that relativity is
> > correct, old ignorant imbecile.
> > You have been at it for years, you could have used all this time in
> > getting an education.
>
>
> And your so called "Physics education" sounds more like "indoctrination".
>
> Uwe Hayek.
The classical crackpot argument, "science=indoctrination" :-)
Hayek
I could teach you something, but I resist the urge.
It is not my task to teach sociopath vermin like you anything,
I prefer you to stay ignorant, more in line with your manners.
Dono
>
> >> And your so called "Physics education" sounds more like "indoctrination".
>
> >> Uwe Hayek.
>
> > The classical crackpot argument, "science=indoctrination" :-)
>
> I could teach you something, but I resist the urge.
>
>
> Uwe Hayek.
In order to teach me, you need to know. But you are an ignorant old
fart, so you can't teach.
Hayek
I think that nobody ever succeeded in teaching you anything,
judging by your manners.
Uwe Hayek.
YBM
AFAIK you've never said anything here but repeating again and
again "a clock is an inertiameter", which means nothing without
giving a physical meaning to the words you use (you know, it's
about providing some math about what "clock" or "inertia" means,
with some kind of predictive value).
This is quite boring. Why don't you consider spending the next
few years saying another insignificant sentence, for instance
"a telephone is a dark bird on my head" (or any other meaningless
sentence, at your choice) ?
Dono
>
> - Show quoted text -
No,no. He's saying "a telephone is a dark bird IN my head" :-)
Dirk Van de moortel
490a33fe$0$18555$426a...@news.free.fr
Or something like "HIV does not cause AIDS"
Dirk Vdm
YBM
:-)
Hayek
> Hayek a écrit :
>> Dono wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 1:37 pm, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> And your so called "Physics education" sounds more like
>>>>>> "indoctrination".
>>>>>> Uwe Hayek.
>>>>> The classical crackpot argument, "science=indoctrination" :-)
>>>> I could teach you something, but I resist the urge.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Uwe Hayek.
>>>
>>> In order to teach me, you need to know. But you are an ignorant old
>>> fart, so you can't teach.
>>
>> I think that nobody ever succeeded in teaching you anything,
>> judging by your manners.
>
> AFAIK you've never said anything here but repeating again and
> again "a clock is an inertiameter", which means nothing without
> giving a physical meaning to the words you use (you know, it's
> about providing some math about what "clock" or "inertia" means,
> with some kind of predictive value).
I give an interpretation of tne formalism, YBM, and that does not
require a new formalism.
That is your trouble YBM. You calculate and calculate, and in the end
you know nothing. Just like the string theorists. Good at calculating,
but not quite good in knowing what their doing.
I just found out that in "When Einstein completed General Relativity in
1917, he was initially disappointed with the theory in that it did not
explain inertia, which Einstein hoped that it would."
Yep, the inertia went missing... But where did it go ?
Same thing happened to Schrodinger, he thought his equation would yield
deterministic results. They did not.
So, if the people who wrote the equations knew barely what they were
doing, how can anyone else claim they do ?
Einstein had a model of space and time in his mind, based on his thought
experiments. They are quite easy to grasp. Then he teamed up with
Grossman, and tried to cast this into tensor form. At the end he
succeeded with some help from Hilbert.
Some parts of GR seem to work, and since inertia is a real phenomenon,
inertia must be in GR, but where ? Einstein thought he included it, but
lost it.
Now you know what a clock does, in a gravitational field, so this field
must have some properties other than just gravitational attraction. It
slows down clocks. And any other motion too.
What slows down motion ? That is inertia..
How would you measure inertia ? By accelerating something back and
forth, and registering the time inbetween the accelerations. That is
exactly what a clock does.
Why does the earth function as a clock ? Because inertia makes it turn !
What would happen if the earth-clock experienced time dilation ? The
earth has to rotate slower...by what mechanism this could be
accomplished ? Increase the inertia, it seems like the mass of the Earth
increases, and since momentum is conserved, the Earth slows down.
Relativity just teaches me that it is impossible, so far, to measure the
strength of the inertial field you are in. All your clocks suffer from
the same inertia. Hence the meaning of relativity : you can only, again
so far, compare inertia (your clock reading) with another inertia in
another frame. In a frame ALL the physical processes undergo the same
inertia, so you cannot measure it locally.
>
> This is quite boring.
I find it exciting. It leads to unification of GR and QM.
This has been called the holy grail of physics.
It leads to understanding of uncertainty and QM weirdness.
> Why don't you consider spending the next
> few years saying another insignificant sentence, for instance
> "a telephone is a dark bird on my head" (or any other meaningless
> sentence, at your choice) ?
One day you will understand its significance, and I am sure you will be
bragging to others that you had discussions with me on usenet.
Maybe even claiming that you were the first to understand the
significance..
I find it strange, and it never stops wondering me, how totally unable
people are to reason for themselves, and even to accept views that are
logically explained to them. It takes authority to make them accept views.
It is not only that they are unable to find the way themselves, but also
to find their way with a map, and then even with a map with a large
arrow - you are here, and with the route to follow dotted out.
It is in the details, you have to understand Mach's Principle, to grasp
some details of GR, and SR. Then I carefully studied every way we derive
time from, and found them all working on inertia.
Then I looked at the Equivalence principle, and what Eotvosch does tell
us. It leaves room open for interpretation. And since GR says
gravitation influences clocks, and since gravitation and inertia are
equivalent...and since clocks work on inertia, take the earth, for
instance, and then I drew the conclusion.
A clock is an inertiameter.
Einstein's missing inertia, was hidden in his faulty notion of time.
One does not read time on a clock, but inertia.
And now you can claim all you want, that an approach to physics should
be more mathematical, but then I bounce back the question : how come I
found this out first, and by using intuition, by trying to find out what
the formula's mean, and with working with those physical models in my mind.
If "shut up and calculate" is the preferred method, how come I have
beaten them to it ?
Because of course, calculating is no method whatsoever, the barren
results of String theory show us that. After 100 years of calculating,
none of the calculators can't say what a clock is, what time is, and how
to explain the quantum weirdness.
And your counterarguments are, Hayek is a crackpot, so what he says
can't be right. While in fact, you should go looking to try to falsify
my interpretation, and find a clock that does not work on inertia.
And if you do not find one, say, maybe it is not such a bad idea.
Uwe Hayek.
Hayek
"HIV does not even exist".
"
EPE: By 1984 Gallo had already spent more than a decade researching
retroviruses and cancer. He was one of the many virologists caught up in
President Nixon's decade of war against cancer. In the mid 1970s Gallo
claimed to have discovered the first human retrovirus in patients with
leukaemia. He claimed his data proved the existence of a retrovirus
which he called HL23V.(11,21) Now, just like he would later do for HIV,
Gallo used antibody reactions to "prove" which proteins in the cultures
were viral proteins. And not long afterwards others claimed to have
found the same antibodies in many people who did not have leukaemia.
However, a few years after that these same antibodies were shown to
occur naturally and be directed against many substances that had nothing
to do with retroviruses.(22,23) Then it was realised that HL23V was a
big mistake. There was no HL23V retrovirus. So the Gallo data turned out
to be an embarrassment and HL23V is now extinct. What’s interesting for
us though is that the evidence used to claim proof of the existence of
HL23V is the same kind of evidence said to prove the existence of HIV.
In fact the evidence for HL23V was better than HIV.
"
http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html
and
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm
Con-man discovers leukemia virus that does not exist.
Same Con-man discovers aids virus that does not exist.
Con-man does not get Nobel Prize for fake discovery, that goes to two
French that did not discover anything, but claim that their non
discovery got stolen by Con man.
No time machine needed, we ARE in the middle ages.
Uwe Hayek.
Dirk Van de moortel
> YBM wrote:
>> Hayek a écrit :
>>> Dono wrote:
>>>> On Oct 30, 1:37 pm, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>> And your so called "Physics education" sounds more like
>>>>>>> "indoctrination".
>>>>>>> Uwe Hayek.
>>>>>> The classical crackpot argument, "science=indoctrination" :-)
>>>>> I could teach you something, but I resist the urge.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Uwe Hayek.
>>>>
>>>> In order to teach me, you need to know. But you are an ignorant old
>>>> fart, so you can't teach.
>>>
>>> I think that nobody ever succeeded in teaching you anything,
>>> judging by your manners.
>>
>> AFAIK you've never said anything here but repeating again and
>> again "a clock is an inertiameter", which means nothing without
>> giving a physical meaning to the words you use (you know, it's
>> about providing some math about what "clock" or "inertia" means,
>> with some kind of predictive value).
>
> I give an interpretation of tne formalism, YBM, and that does not
> require a new formalism.
[snip whatever]
"One day you will understand its significance..."
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ClockInertiameter.html
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ClockInertiameter.html
Thanks for taking the snapshot.
I really appreciate it.
Uwe Hayek.
>
> Dirk Vdm
--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een
Dirk Van de moortel
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
>> "One day you will understand its significance..."
>
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ClockInertiameter.html
>
> Thanks for taking the snapshot.
>
> I really appreciate it.
Yes, one day we will understand what you are doing in Androcles'
and Seto's company.
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> 490b6d2b$0$185$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> "One day you will understand its significance..."
>>
>>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ClockInertiameter.html
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for taking the snapshot.
>>
>> I really appreciate it.
>
> Yes, one day we will understand what you are doing in Androcles'
> and Seto's company.
Who's we ?
Maybe your Nanny will, but for you I still have doubts.
Anyway, I took a local copy of the page, just in case you were ever
tempted to remove it.
Start reading this, and learn a bit about interpretation of formalism.
QUOTE
The Blind Men and the Quantum: Adding Vision to the Quantum World
John G. Cramer
Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Washington
Seattle, Washington, 98195
1st Hal Clement Memorial Lecture
Boskone 41, Boston, MA, February 15, 2004
[.....]
The Role of an Interpretation
The interpretation of a formalism should:
* Provide links between the mathematical symbols of the formalism
and elements of the physical world;
* Neutralize the paradoxes; all of them;
* Provide tools for visualization or for speculation and extension.
* It should not have its own sub-formalism!
* It should not make its own testable predictions,
(but it may be falsifiable, if it is found to be
inconsistent with the formalism and experiment)!
UNQUOTE
Your Fumble !
Zielig.
Uwe Hayek.
YBM
Fine ! It's very intresting to see you write how you consider math to be
only about "to calculate", proving so how illiterate you are by ignoring
that math have a meaning.
For instance you could have a look on the *mathematical* definition of
Einstain's synchronization procedure, which is probably what all of you,
cranks of s.r.p. have in common in ignoring or misunderstanding it. This
is a pure mathematical definition of what to be synchronized means, and
it leads directly to the conventionality of simultaneity. There is a
lot of papers on this subjet you've never read, even if you pretend to
be interested by the way physics define and use time.
> Uwe Hayek.
Too bad that you will be known as an asshole for eternity under a faked
name (a name also famous as an asshole for other reason anyway, see :
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/3413.aspx ).
Why don't you want to be famous (as an asshole) under your own name ?
Why are you hidding under a stupid pseudonym like Androcles or Wilson ?
YBM
not at all : you can say something relevant without math, as Cramer did
on Quantum Mechanics. By the way, every word from Cramer shows that he
masters very well the math of QM.
This does not mean that a random asshole, like you, who say something
without math on, say, SR and GR, says anything relevant about it.
Dirk Van de moortel
> Hayek a écrit :
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
>>> "One day you will understand its significance..."
>>
>>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ClockInertiameter.html
>>
>>
>> Thanks for taking the snapshot.
>>
>> I really appreciate it.
>
> Fine ! It's very intresting to see you write how you consider math to be
> only about "to calculate", proving so how illiterate you are by ignoring
> that math have a meaning.
>
> For instance you could have a look on the *mathematical* definition of
> Einstein's synchronization procedure
what could he possible do with *that*, if he can't even
grok the definition of time? :-)
> which is probably what all of you,
> cranks of s.r.p. have in common in ignoring or misunderstanding it. This
> is a pure mathematical definition of what to be synchronized means, and
> it leads directly to the conventionality of simultaneity. There is a
> lot of papers on this subjet you've never read, even if you pretend to
> be interested by the way physics define and use time.
>
>> Uwe Hayek.
>
> Too bad that you will be known as an asshole for eternity under a faked
> name (a name also famous as an asshole for other reason anyway, see :
> http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/3413.aspx ).
>
> Why don't you want to be famous (as an asshole) under your own name ?
> Why are you hidding under a stupid pseudonym like Androcles or Wilson ?
Herbert Van Hoof is the name.
He'll say something about his grandmother and about his superhero
Dingle. Watch him - but don't believe him :-)
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
YBM, D*rkie placed the words of Cramer on his fumblesite.
>
> This does not mean that a random asshole, like you, who say something
> without math on, say, SR and GR, says anything relevant about it.
You can't even follow a normal conversation, as you just proved here.
Imagine it getting more complicated.
Uwe Hayek.
YBM
Here is a sample of a normal conversation in Hayek's sense :
- Is a clock an inertiameter ?
- Yes a clock is an inertiameter !
- Which clocks are inertiameters ?
- All clock are inertiameters.
- You mean that a "clock" in an inertiameter, right ?
- No, I mean that a clock in an "inertiameter" ?
- Ok, so a clock is an inertiameter, isn't it ?
- Yes.
Hayek
I do not ignore that. You are avoiding the meaning, because you just do
not know the meaning.
> For instance you could have a look on the *mathematical* definition of
> Einstain's synchronization procedure, which is probably what all of you,
> cranks of s.r.p. have in common in ignoring or misunderstanding it. This
> is a pure mathematical definition of what to be synchronized means, and
> it leads directly to the conventionality of simultaneity. There is a
> lot of papers on this subjet you've never read, even if you pretend to
> be interested by the way physics define and use time.
And none of them you understood. If you had understood them, you too
would now what time was, and what a clock was.
But you can't even understand it when someone else discovered it, and
you just have to follow directions.
Except for the swearing, I never seen anything in your posts that
indicated knowledge of any kind.
You claimed that my interpretation could not be falsified.
I explained that you just had to find a mechanism that measures time by
not using inertia.
You could not even grasp what I said.
YBM, except for cursing, you really stink in everything else.
Uwe Hayek.
YBM
> I explained that you just had to find a mechanism that measures time by
> not using inertia.
>
> You could not even grasp what I said.
Nobody could, you'd have first to define :
- time
- inertia
Hayek
Come on, YBM.
Time is, according to Einstein, what you read on a clock.
That is the definition you should agree with, if you claim to posses any
knowledge of relativity.
Inertia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The vis insita, or innate force of matter is a power of resisting,
by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavors to preserve in its
present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in
a right line.
In common usage, however, people may also use the term "inertia" to
refer to an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which
is quantified by its mass), and sometimes its momentum, depending on
context (e.g. "this object has a lot of inertia"). The term "inertia" is
more properly understood as a shorthand for "the principle of inertia"
as described by Newton in Newton's First Law of Motion which, expressed
simply, says: "An object that is not subject to any outside forces moves
at a constant velocity, covering equal distances in equal times along a
straight-line path." In even simpler terms, inertia means "A body in
motion tends to remain in motion, a body at rest tends to remain at
rest." On the surface of the Earth the nature of inertia is often masked
by the effects of friction which brings moving objects to rest
relatively quickly unless they are coasting on wheels, well lubricated,
or perhaps falling or going downhill (and thus being accelerated by
gravity). This is what misled classical theorists such as Aristotle who
believed objects moved only so long as force was being applied to them.[1]
"
So now we can agree on inertia, in the low level limit of GR.
Then, one question to you :
Do you believe in Mach's Principle, or do you claim that Wheeler,
Thorne, Misner, are Crackpots too ?
Then read the pages I scanned from their book...
http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp543.html
Uwe Hayek.
YBM
Tsss... don't pretend others said what you say.
Ok, let's translate the meaningless : "A clock is an inertiameter"
from the definitions :
"What a clock show is the measure of the resistance of an object to
a change of its velocity"
Sorry, but this is jus as meaningless as it was before : in front
of of me I can see different clocks, all pre-synchronized, they all
agree. I can see, as well, some objects (a duck, a plate, two clocks,
a computer mouse and a stone). All of them have a specific way to
resit to a change o movement. As far as I can see clocks don't care.
Hayek
I am trying to explain to you the foundations on which I build my claim.
These foundations are solid, so please consider reading them.
>
> Ok, let's translate the meaningless : "A clock is an inertiameter"
> from the definitions :
>
> "What a clock show is the measure of the resistance of an object to
> a change of its velocity"
Not so bad, but for clarity, you might add "at the test point".
This still not makes sense to you, since you think inertia is a
constant, and intrinsic to the object.
It is the same as trying to explain to someone the usefullness of a
voltmeter in a world were all the volt-potentials would be the same.
There would not be nothing to measure.
But inertia is NOT constant, and it is external to the objects.
And this is recognized by the greatest physicists, specialized in the GR
field, so if you do not accept their views, YOU are the crackpot.
Here is the link again, try to extend your attention span.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp543.html
>
> Sorry, but this is jus as meaningless as it was before : in front
> of of me I can see different clocks, all pre-synchronized, they all
> agree. I can see, as well, some objects (a duck, a plate, two clocks,
> a computer mouse and a stone). All of them have a specific way to
> resit to a change o movement. As far as I can see clocks don't care.
>
Will you be so kind to first answer my question, and read the pages I
scanned ?
Maybe then I can explain it further and maybe it will become clear.
And if it becomes clear I invite you to drill a real hole in it, not the
futile and ignorant attempt you just produced. You really sound like a
crackpot, so far.
Uwe Hayek.
Dono
> Hayek a écrit :
>
>
>
> > YBM wrote:
> >> Hayek a écrit :
> >>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>>> 490b6d2b$0$185$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl
> >>>>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> >>>> [snip]
>
> >>>>>> "One day you will understand its significance..."
>
>
> >>>>> Thanks for taking the snapshot.
>
> >>>>> I really appreciate it.
>
> >>>> Yes, one day we will understand what you are doing in Androcles'
> >>>> and Seto's company.
>
> >>> Who's we ?
> >>> Maybe your Nanny will, but for you I still have doubts.
>
> >>> Anyway, I took a local copy of the page, just in case you were ever
> >>> tempted to remove it.
>
> >>> Start reading this, and learn a bit about interpretation of formalism.
>
This is not from Uwe Hayek, this is straight from Eugene Ionesco.