Twin Paradox

[Y]

This regards the "Time dilation" experiment called the twin paradox.

If the clocks come back together, shouldn't they (according to
relativity) be perfectly synchronised since they are together again in
the same frame ?

-y

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 04:03:15 -0700 (PDT), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

They should. Good clocks will do it.
For example, the clocks in the tower of Medway,
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway's castle.
They are conditioned to run from ABSOLUTE TIME.

Nasty clocks, those which the Chinese sell to you and me,
they don't follow the Universal Time Law, and they will
even de-synchronize when glued together in the same frame
and locked behind glass doors.

w.

[Big Dog]

No. This is part of the point of the teaching puzzle. It's to illuminate
oversimplified assumptions that people make about what relativity says.

When the two clocks are reunited, they will again tick at the same
rates, but one clock will be behind the other. How they got that way is
the different paths the two clocks took through spacetime to arrive at
the meeting place.

Here the confusion may be about what "synchronization" means and what
relativity says about it.

[Paul B. Andersen]

No.
Their rates will be the same, the accumulated times will not.

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[JT]

Correct that is why NASA and Grail is perfect to investigate time
dilation identical acceleration curves but one travelled further with
a relative higher velocity worth earth and should therefore also show
more time dilation then the other, unfortunatly for the SR supporters
they are both still perfectly in synch.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:33:19 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/28/2012 6:03 AM, Y wrote:
>
> > This regards the "Time dilation" experiment called the twin paradox.
>
> >
>
> > If the clocks come back together, shouldn't they (according to
>
> > relativity) be perfectly synchronised since they are together again in
>
> > the same frame ?
>
>
>
> No. This is part of the point of the teaching puzzle. It's to illuminate
>
> oversimplified assumptions that people make about what relativity says.
>
>
>
> When the two clocks are reunited, they will again tick at the same
>
> rates, but one clock will be behind the other.

Yes.

>How they got that way is
>
> the different paths the two clocks took through spacetime to arrive at
>
> the meeting place.

No the clock that experienced acceleration will accumulate less clock seconds. The reason is that the second for the accelerated clock has longer duration (higher absolute time) than the stay at home clock second.
This is confirmed by the GPS....the GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of cs 133 radiation. This is designed to make the redefined GPS second to contain the same amount of absolte time and thus making the GPS permenently in synch with the Ground clock.

[kenseto]

No the clock that experienced acceleration will accumulated less clock seconds. The reason is that the second for the accelerated clock has longer duration (higher absolute time) than the stay at home clock second.

This is confirmed by the GPS....the GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 more periods of cs 133 radiation. This is designed to make the redefined GPS second to contain the same amount of absolte time and thus making the GPS permenently in synch with the Ground clock.

>
>
>

> -y

[Pete Weber]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 06:33:30 -0500, Big Dog wrote:

> On 8/28/2012 6:03 AM, Y wrote:
>> This regards the "Time dilation" experiment called the twin paradox.
>>
>> If the clocks come back together, shouldn't they (according to
>> relativity) be perfectly synchronised since they are together again in
>> the same frame ?
>
> No. This is part of the point of the teaching puzzle. It's to illuminate
> oversimplified assumptions that people make about what relativity says.

!?

> When the two clocks are reunited, they will again tick at the same
> rates,

So they are in synch after all

> but one clock will be behind the other.

Does not matter, so are all the clocks around the world

> How they got that way is
> the different paths the two clocks took through spacetime to arrive at
> the meeting place.
>
> Here the confusion may be about what "synchronization" means and what
> relativity says about it.

yes, indeed

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/28/12 8/28/12 9:25 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 06:33:30 -0500, Big Dog wrote:
>> When the two clocks are reunited, they will again tick at the same
>> rates,
>
> So they are in synch after all

No. That is not what "in sync" means.


Tom Roberts

[Pete Weber]

Why don't telling then, kept secret?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote (in re the Twin Paradox) in message
news:k1icie$4k7$1...@news.albasani.net

No.
Their rates will be the same, the accumulated times will not.

====================================================

accumulate = integrate.
Andersen is saying the tick count of one clock, integral [dt/dt].dt
does not equal the tick count of the other clock, integral[dtau/dt].dt
but dtau/dt = dt/dt (=1 second per second), the rates are the same.
He added different constants to the integrals, the clocks were not
synchronised to begin with.
Andersen is, as we know, dishonest through and through, as well
as being, as we know, thoroughly stupid through and through.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"JT" wrote in message
news:e0adbbe1-6f2d-47a0...@d13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

On 28 Aug, 14:11, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...@somewhere.no> wrote:
> On 28.08.2012 13:03, Y wrote:
>
> > This regards the "Time dilation" experiment called the twin paradox.
>
> > If the clocks come back together, shouldn't they (according to
> > relativity) be perfectly synchronised since they are together again in
> > the same frame ?
>
> > -y
>
> No.
> Their rates will be the same, the accumulated times will not.
>
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
>
> --
> Paul
>
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

Correct

===================================
BALONEY!

[Uwe Hayek]

First, try to understand what a clock is.

A clock measures the inertial field strength of its frame.
A clock is an inertiameter.
You better get used to it.

Mass creates an inertial field, since the universe is filled with mass,
the universe creates a huge inertial field. Several trillion times
stronger than the Earth's inertial field.

Moving wrt to the universe increases the inertial field strength of a
frame, and when approaching the speed of light, the inertial field
strength becomes infinite, thus making impossible to accelerate further.

Going near a concentrated mass like our sun or a black hole also
increases the inertial field strength of your frame.

Inertia slows down any motion, and thus also your clock motion.

Imagine two adjacent rooms, one with double the inertia of the other.
A clock would run twice as slow in the room with double inertia.

That is all there is to it, Folks.

Uwe Hayek.

[Big Dog]

On 8/28/2012 3:30 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 8/28/2012 1:03 PM, Y wrote:
>> This regards the "Time dilation" experiment called the twin paradox.
>>
>> If the clocks come back together, shouldn't they (according to
>> relativity) be perfectly synchronised since they are together again in
>> the same frame ?
>>
>> -y
>>
>
> First, try to understand what a clock is.
>
> A clock measures the inertial field strength of its frame.

Whatever the FUCK that means.

"Hayek" the high school graduate and "independent research" baboon, do
you have any idea what a field even IS? Do you understand what the words
"field strength" mean?

Given a ping-pong ball with a charge of 38 nC sitting at (1.3 m, -2.4 m,
0.0 m) in a particular reference frame, I can tell you what the electric
field strength is at (1.9 m, 2.0 m, 1.0 m).

Now, given a ping-pong ball of 15 grams sitting at the same location,
suppose you tell me what the value of the inertial field strength is at
(1.9 m, 2.0 m, 1.0 m) in that frame.

Can't do it? That's because you're a FUCKING PRETENDER who wants to make
money from speaking engagements where you utter nice-sounding but
incoherent BABBLE.

[space...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:03:15 AM UTC-7, Y wrote:
> This regards the "Time dilation" experiment called the twin paradox.

Matter can move close to the speed of light.
Only the fast clock will run slower....

Mitchell Raemsch

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Uwe Hayek" wrote in message
news:503d2adf$0$6922$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...

On 8/28/2012 1:03 PM, Y wrote:
> This regards the "Time dilation" experiment called the twin paradox.
>
> If the clocks come back together, shouldn't they (according to
> relativity) be perfectly synchronised since they are together again in
> the same frame ?
>
> -y
>

First, try to understand what a clock is.
A clock measures the inertial field strength of its frame.

==============================================
Second, try to understand what a Uwe Hayek is.
A Uwe Hayek measures the insanity field strength of its idiotic babble
and scores 100% every time.

[rotchm]

Here, your word "synchronised" will be taken to mean "indicate the same value". No, not according to SR. Since their trajectories are different, we cant expect them to reunite with the same ages. In the Twin paradox, there are many asymmetries in the state of the twins. You are supposed to know that.

[Don Stockbauer]

See the wonderful book "E = Einstein" for a wonderful explanation of the Twins paradox, the results of Einstein's brilliant theory, the greatest person to have ever lived.

[Y]

I agree with you Uwe. We are among an elite minority who realise that clocks do not measure time, they gauge inertia. The clocks differ because their mechanisms have been affected by different gravitational forces - due to motion.

Take for example moving a hand forward while on the gravitron. It takes more force to move one's hand with the speed you'd normally do it on still ground. The visual effect is that the G-force of the gravitron "slows" motion. Where motion is an effect of force, the g-force of the gravitron competes with the force of the hand. The same is true for clock hands, whether they are mechanical, analogue, digital or atomic.

If SR predicts the effects that these fields have on moving objects, and the steady beat of a clock is the benchmark, then perhaps it is a successful theory. A successful theory which is poorly communicated. It is poorly communicated because this Einstein's four dimensional spacetime model lacks natural foundation.

What do we call science that gives good maths, but where the theoretical explanation is flakey ?

Take for example an E-matrix. Do we really give credence to Seto's E-matrix even if his IRT were to provide accurate predictions ?

The E-matrix and Spacetime, share this lack of resolution to nature.

-y

[JT]

I agree with you guys, but this also led me to think about what
happens to nuclear bindings outside field that lack inertia, is the
inertia really mainly of gravitational nature or is it elementar
particle density within the heliosphere causing the inertia. What
says that nuclear binding work the same way outside this field, maybe
materials start mimic the process of biological entities leaving in
the deeps taking up to low pressure surface and simply dissolve the
atomic bindings. It is of course hard to tell because it is only
voyager 1 reaching out there, but what about meteorites and asteroids
many of them must be intersolar or do they all work within our
heliosphere. Maybe only crystalline structures can survive out there
in deep space without decay losing electrons from the shells?

All this is way above my head but, what is known about nuclear
bindings outside the heliosphere between the solarsystems?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"JT" wrote in message
news:fe838fd6-e173-48d9...@r14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

On 29 Aug, 11:42, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 August 2012 13:32:32 UTC-7, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> > On 8/28/2012 1:03 PM, Y wrote:
>


I agree with you guys,

========================
Then you are an illogical unthinking lunatic beyond all redemption.
*plonk*

[Alen]

I would be interested to know where you got that
information. I haven't been able to find it myself, because
most accounts don't refer to that particular aspect of
the matter.

Alen

[JT]

I think it started with thinking about angular momentum and rotational
inertia there is no reason for forces acting upon a spinning body
outside an electromagnetic field to have inertia. I have no problem
with centripetal and centrifugal forces for accelerated objects
experience inertia but for objects just rotating in freespace, one
would have to ask why?

There is no rotational restspace as far as i know, it is all related
to either gravitational field or otherwise some electromagnetic rest
state. Why should the spinning object in Stanley Kubriks 2001 create a
virtual gravitational field, what is causing this centripetal
centrifugal force. When do an object not rotate here on earth it is
easy to convey but in free space?

It probably even relate to how clocks behave in a gravitational field.

[JT]

Simply i was just thinking it could be electromagnetic field emanating
from sun holding things together, and that element mass, a result of
(inertia,gravity) from the electromagnetic field of the sun.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/28/2012 10:46 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/28/2012 3:30 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> On 8/28/2012 1:03 PM, Y wrote:
>>> This regards the "Time dilation" experiment called the twin paradox.
>>>
>>> If the clocks come back together, shouldn't they (according to
>>> relativity) be perfectly synchronised since they are together again in
>>> the same frame ?
>>>
>>> -y
>>>
>>
>> First, try to understand what a clock is.
>>
>> A clock measures the inertial field strength of its frame.
>
> Whatever the FUCK that means.

Try to read the words : it is about a field that causes inertia, it can
be stronger or weaker in certain frames, and it is measured by a clock.

>
> "Hayek" the high school graduate and "independent research" baboon, do
> you have any idea what a field even IS?

Yes. but I highly doubt you have. I even doubt you understand English
language.

I directed people to that website to look at an aspect of physics, not
to dig into someone's personal life. Of course you are incapable to look
at the physics, since you show here that you did not understand anything
of it. You had to rely on credentials to come to some silly conclusion.

> Do you understand what the words
> "field strength" mean?

Same answer as above.

> Given a ping-pong ball with a charge of 38 nC sitting at (1.3 m, -2.4 m,
> 0.0 m) in a particular reference frame, I can tell you what the electric
> field strength is at (1.9 m, 2.0 m, 1.0 m).
>
> Now, given a ping-pong ball of 15 grams sitting at the same location,
> suppose you tell me what the value of the inertial field strength is at
> (1.9 m, 2.0 m, 1.0 m) in that frame.
>
> Can't do it?

Textbook parroting ? Yes I could, if I would see any use in it.

> That's because you're a FUCKING PRETENDER who wants to make
> money from speaking engagements where you utter nice-sounding but
> incoherent BABBLE.

For a textbook parrot, it is not understandable. That means that that
you cannot possible understand it.

Let see if you can grasp this : when the inertial field has a gradient,
it is called gravitation.

Note that for a field to have a gradient it has to be stronger on one
side and weaker or the other side...

Or try this one: one flat spacetime does not equal the other : their
inertial field strength can be different.

Instead of shouting "copyright infringement" you better had READ the
pages on inertia in "Gravitation". And do not forget to check the
credentials of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.

Uwe Hayek.

[Y]

Yes..

So do you think that the Earth's gravity is analogous to, or even related to being a counterweight in rotational motion ?

-y

[Big Dog]

On 8/29/2012 7:14 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 8/28/2012 10:46 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 8/28/2012 3:30 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>> On 8/28/2012 1:03 PM, Y wrote:
>>>> This regards the "Time dilation" experiment called the twin paradox.
>>>>
>>>> If the clocks come back together, shouldn't they (according to
>>>> relativity) be perfectly synchronised since they are together again in
>>>> the same frame ?
>>>>
>>>> -y
>>>>
>>>
>>> First, try to understand what a clock is.
>>>
>>> A clock measures the inertial field strength of its frame.
>>
>> Whatever the FUCK that means.
>
> Try to read the words : it is about a field that causes inertia, it can
> be stronger or weaker in certain frames, and it is measured by a clock.
>>
>> "Hayek" the high school graduate and "independent research" baboon, do
>> you have any idea what a field even IS?
>
> Yes. but I highly doubt you have. I even doubt you understand English
> language.

I'm pretty sure you're a fucking bullshitter and you do not know what a
field is.

>
> I directed people to that website to look at an aspect of physics, not
> to dig into someone's personal life.

There was NOTHING I dug into that you did not put ON DISPLAY on YOUR OWN
FUCKING PUBLICATION by your own hand. If you did not mean to put your
personal life on your own publication, then who do you go to to remedy
that, you ass?

> Of course you are incapable to look
> at the physics, since you show here that you did not understand anything
> of it. You had to rely on credentials to come to some silly conclusion.
>
>> Do you understand what the words
>> "field strength" mean?
>
> Same answer as above.

And no, you don't. You're a fucking bullshitter, and you know it.

>
>> Given a ping-pong ball with a charge of 38 nC sitting at (1.3 m, -2.4 m,
>> 0.0 m) in a particular reference frame, I can tell you what the electric
>> field strength is at (1.9 m, 2.0 m, 1.0 m).
>>
>> Now, given a ping-pong ball of 15 grams sitting at the same location,
>> suppose you tell me what the value of the inertial field strength is at
>> (1.9 m, 2.0 m, 1.0 m) in that frame.
>>
>> Can't do it?
>
> Textbook parroting ? Yes I could, if I would see any use in it.

No, you can't.

>
>> That's because you're a FUCKING PRETENDER who wants to make
>> money from speaking engagements where you utter nice-sounding but
>> incoherent BABBLE.
>
> For a textbook parrot, it is not understandable. That means that that
> you cannot possible understand it.
>
> Let see if you can grasp this : when the inertial field has a gradient,
> it is called gravitation.
>
> Note that for a field to have a gradient it has to be stronger on one
> side and weaker or the other side...
>
> Or try this one: one flat spacetime does not equal the other : their
> inertial field strength can be different.
>
> Instead of shouting "copyright infringement" you better had READ the
> pages on inertia in "Gravitation". And do not forget to check the
> credentials of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.

I own that book and have read it twice. You still have copyright
infringing materials on your website, which is a criminal offense.

>
> Uwe Hayek.
>

[Big Dog]

On 8/29/2012 8:50 AM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 7:14 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:

>>>>
>>>> A clock measures the inertial field strength of its frame.
>>>
>>> Whatever the FUCK that means.
>>
>> Try to read the words : it is about a field that causes inertia, it can
>> be stronger or weaker in certain frames, and it is measured by a clock.
>>>
>>> "Hayek" the high school graduate and "independent research" baboon, do
>>> you have any idea what a field even IS?
>>
>> Yes. but I highly doubt you have. I even doubt you understand English
>> language.
>
> I'm pretty sure you're a fucking bullshitter and you do not know what a
> field is.

Check that. I KNOW you're a fucking bullshitter and you do not know what
a field is, or field strength, and you couldn't calculate a field
strength (electrostratic or inertial) if a gun were put to your head.

[Big Dog]

On 8/28/2012 3:30 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:

>

> Moving wrt to the universe increases the inertial field strength of a
> frame, and when approaching the speed of light, the inertial field
> strength becomes infinite, thus making impossible to accelerate further.
>
> Going near a concentrated mass like our sun or a black hole also
> increases the inertial field strength of your frame.
>

> Imagine two adjacent rooms, one with double the inertia of the other.
> A clock would run twice as slow in the room with double inertia.

Your writings above furthermore show that you do not know what a
reference frame is.

So let's tally up.

You do not know know what a field is, you do not know what a field
strength is, you could not calculate the value of a field strength if
you tried, and you do not know what a frame is.

Yet you babble on and on using all of these terms frequently, as though
using terms you do not know the meaning of somehow makes you look smart.
And furthermore, you want people to PAY you to babble on and on using
terms you don't know the meaning of, thinking somehow that there are
people willing to do that, just because you can't think of something
more worthwhile to offer.

[Uwe Hayek]

Now suddenly you accept that there is an inertial field strength ?

And then you immediately show your absolute ignorance again : there is
no way you can calculate your inertial field strength. You cannot even
measure it locally. At least : not yet.
Since inertia influences all (known) laws of physics in the same way,
also known as and formerly called the relativity principle , you cannot
locally measure your absolute inertial field strength.

Perhaps if one knew the exact initial conditions of the universe, and
how much mass is in gravitational (inertial ?) contact with our^B^B^B my
planet, it could be calculated or estimated, like "Gravitation" does,
but they do not explain the estimate in detail.

Think, before you start calculating, they say here.

I do not really care what they say on your planet.

Uwe Hayek.

[Big Dog]

On 8/29/2012 11:16 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 4:18 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 8:50 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 8/29/2012 7:14 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A clock measures the inertial field strength of its frame.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever the FUCK that means.
>>>>
>>>> Try to read the words : it is about a field that causes inertia, it can
>>>> be stronger or weaker in certain frames, and it is measured by a clock.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Hayek" the high school graduate and "independent research" baboon, do
>>>>> you have any idea what a field even IS?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. but I highly doubt you have. I even doubt you understand English
>>>> language.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure you're a fucking bullshitter and you do not know what a
>>> field is.
>>
>> Check that. I KNOW you're a fucking bullshitter and you do not know what
>> a field is, or field strength, and you couldn't calculate a field
>> strength (electrostratic or inertial) if a gun were put to your head.
>
> Now suddenly you accept that there is an inertial field strength ?

I didn't say that. I said you don't know what the words mean AND you
couldn't calculate a value for the words you use if you tried. I said
you are a bullshit flinger and not even a competent bullshit artist, and
you have hopes that people will PAY you to fling bullshit in an
incompetent fashion.

And when you POST YOUR FUCKING PHONE NUMBER on your website that YOU
PROMOTE, you whine that people notice it and are prying into personal
information.

You are a whiny bitch.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/29/2012 5:38 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/28/2012 3:30 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>
>>
>> Moving wrt to the universe increases the inertial field strength of
>> a frame, and when approaching the speed of light, the inertial
>> field strength becomes infinite, thus making impossible to
>> accelerate further.
>>
>> Going near a concentrated mass like our sun or a black hole also
>> increases the inertial field strength of your frame.
>>
>> Imagine two adjacent rooms, one with double the inertia of the
>> other. A clock would run twice as slow in the room with double
>> inertia.
>
> Your writings above furthermore show that you do not know what a
> reference frame is.

My father was a surveyor. He told me stories of the kind of mistakes his
colleagues made. They would measure a distance from some point to a
point with coordinates under question. Then they would measure the same
distance back to the first point, and conclude the coordinates of the
point under question were correct, not realizing that they proved nothing.

Reference frame are reference frames because they undergo the same
inertial field. So of course you can take a second bucket, keep the
water flat in it, and say that this is the reference for zero rotation.
But as you said here yourself, correlation is not causation. Because the
cause is not the second bucket, it is the mass of the universe.
And both buckets react to that.

>
> So let's tally up.


> You do not know know what a field is, you do not know what a field
> strength is, you could not calculate the value of a field strength if
> you tried, and you do not know what a frame is.

I am quite glad that you understood the difference between the clocks
frame and its casing. You missed a chance of holding that against me.

> Yet you babble on and on using all of these terms frequently, as
> though using terms you do not know the meaning of somehow makes you
> look smart.

Because *you* do not know the meaning of these terms, you just read them
somewhere in a textbook. So you are actually blaming yourself.
And you do not even realize it. I really feel sorry for you.

> And furthermore, you want people to PAY you to babble on and on using
> terms you don't know the meaning of, thinking somehow that there are
> people willing to do that, just because you can't think of something
> more worthwhile to offer.

Unification of GR and QM is worthwhile.

But they do not realize that on your planet.

Uwe Hayek.

[Big Dog]

On 8/29/2012 11:40 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 5:38 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 8/28/2012 3:30 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Moving wrt to the universe increases the inertial field strength of
>>> a frame, and when approaching the speed of light, the inertial
>>> field strength becomes infinite, thus making impossible to
>>> accelerate further.
>>>
>>> Going near a concentrated mass like our sun or a black hole also
>>> increases the inertial field strength of your frame.
>>>
>>> Imagine two adjacent rooms, one with double the inertia of the
>>> other. A clock would run twice as slow in the room with double
>>> inertia.
>>
>> Your writings above furthermore show that you do not know what a
>> reference frame is.
>
> My father was a surveyor. He told me stories of the kind of mistakes his
> colleagues made. They would measure a distance from some point to a
> point with coordinates under question. Then they would measure the same
> distance back to the first point, and conclude the coordinates of the
> point under question were correct, not realizing that they proved nothing.

I don't give a flying fuck what mistakes were made by surveyors, as
noted by your father a surveyor.

That has nothing to do with what reference frame is, and the fact that
you really don't know what it means.

>
> Reference frame are reference frames because they undergo the same
> inertial field. So of course you can take a second bucket, keep the
> water flat in it, and say that this is the reference for zero rotation.
> But as you said here yourself, correlation is not causation. Because the
> cause is not the second bucket, it is the mass of the universe.
> And both buckets react to that.
>
>>
>> So let's tally up.
>
>
>> You do not know know what a field is, you do not know what a field
>> strength is, you could not calculate the value of a field strength if
>> you tried, and you do not know what a frame is.
>
> I am quite glad that you understood the difference between the clocks
> frame and its casing. You missed a chance of holding that against me.
>
>> Yet you babble on and on using all of these terms frequently, as
>> though using terms you do not know the meaning of somehow makes you
>> look smart.
>
> Because *you* do not know the meaning of these terms, you just read them
> somewhere in a textbook. So you are actually blaming yourself.
> And you do not even realize it. I really feel sorry for you.

Holy shit. So you are saying that YOU believe you know what the terms
mean and it is the meaning that you have made up for yourself, and that
if physicists have a different meaning that is shared in textbooks and
other communications, then that meaning is irrelevant to you?

That's fine, then. It's called having a private language. It generates
what is called word salad, which is a string of familiar-looking words
but not conveying the meaning that is understood by the audience. If you
want to have your own language, by all means have at it, and others will
hear it as gobbledygook. Most people will not pay to have word salad
tossed for a fee.

>
>> And furthermore, you want people to PAY you to babble on and on using
>> terms you don't know the meaning of, thinking somehow that there are
>> people willing to do that, just because you can't think of something
>> more worthwhile to offer.
>
> Unification of GR and QM is worthwhile.

You do not even know what general relativity means or what quantum
mechanics means. You do not even understand what it would mean to unify
them. All you know is that you've heard other people use those words,
and you'd like some money for using the same words, even though you
don't know what they mean.

[Uwe Hayek]

Think of the following : suppose you are in a room at the center of the
Earth. You are then weightless, and you measure no gravitation at all.
Yet, because of all the mass surrounding you, your clock runs slower
than on the Earths surface. So, there is NO link between gravitation and
clock speed. The link is between mass distribution and clock speed, or
better : between inertial field and inertiameter.

(Why call it inertial field ? Because its main effect is inertia !)


Now expand the Earth's mass to the universe's mass : again, we do not
feel the "gravitation" of the universe, but if we bang our head against
the door, it is the inertia of the universe we have to reckon with. And
the inertial field of the universe slows our clocks, pardon, our
inertiameters several billion times more than the Earth's mass does.

Mass creates inertia, and because mass is usually concentrated in a
ball, because of gravitation, the inertial field has a gradient, and
this gradient manifests itself as gravitation.

There is a force on the test point in the direction of the higher
inertia, objects want to go where inertia is higher. This is the real
cause of gravitation. It is not gravitation causing inertia, it is the
other way around. The same happened with heat theory, at first
scientists were convinced that cold migrated to hot. It was actually the
motion of the atoms that migrates to the non moving, cold, atoms.

Don't tell people on Big Dog's planet that objects have moving atoms.
They might be shocked and react with anger.

> Take for example moving a hand forward while on the gravitron. It
> takes more force to move one's hand with the speed you'd normally do
> it on still ground. The visual effect is that the G-force of the
> gravitron "slows" motion. Where motion is an effect of force, the
> g-force of the gravitron competes with the force of the hand. The
> same is true for clock hands, whether they are mechanical, analogue,
> digital or atomic.
>
> If SR predicts the effects that these fields have on moving objects,
> and the steady beat of a clock is the benchmark, then perhaps it is a
> successful theory. A successful theory which is poorly communicated.
> It is poorly communicated because this Einstein's four dimensional
> spacetime model lacks natural foundation.
>
> What do we call science that gives good maths, but where the
> theoretical explanation is flakey ?

SR ? GR? QM? HUP? :-)

But that has always been.

""It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not understand a
particular point in physics" is, "Can we make a mechanical model of
it:" " - lord Kelvin

I fully agree with Lord Kelvin.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

That is not MY phone number, it is the phone number of a virtual call
center. I can route that phone number to anywhere I or my staff has a
telephone, cell phone, voip phone, smartphone, laptop or a pc

>
> You are a whiny bitch.

And you read everything only half.
No wonder that reflects on your knowledge.

You did not even know that chemistry was based on motion.

Uwe Hayek.

[Big Dog]

On 8/29/2012 12:06 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:

>
> Think of the following : suppose you are in a room at the center of the
> Earth. You are then weightless, and you measure no gravitation at all.
> Yet, because of all the mass surrounding you, your clock runs slower
> than on the Earths surface. So, there is NO link between gravitation and
> clock speed. The link is between mass distribution and clock speed, or
> better : between inertial field and inertiameter.
>

Good God, what a bonehead.

First of all, ask yourself what it MEANS to MEASURE gravitation. Someone
in the Space Shuttle feels weightless because they are in free fall.
Does that weightlessness in the Space Shuttle translate to an absence of
gravity where the Space Shuttle is? If so, then why does it orbit the
Earth? So if weightlessness is not an indicator of an absence of
gravity, then on what basis do you say there is no gravity at the center
of the Earth?

Secondly, the statement is that a clock at the center of the earth runs
SLOWER THAN one on the surface. That is a *relative* statement. It is
not a statement that the one on the surface is running unslowed and the
one in the center is the one that is slowed, nor is it a statement that
the one at the center is running unsped and the one at the surface is
running sped. What it DOES mean is that there is a DIFFERENCE between
the rates of the clocks, which translates to a DIFFERENCE in their
location in a gravitational field. EVEN IF you somehow have convinced
yourself that there is no gravitational field at the center of the
earth, there then CERTAINLY is one at the surface of the earth, and this
ALONE will account for the DIFFERENCE in the rates of the clocks in the
two positions. So your statement that there is NO LINK between
gravitation and clock speed is CLEARLY stupid and ill-considered.

So in four sentences in your paragraph above, you make serious mistakes
in the second and the third sentence. It is a miracle you didn't make a
mistake in the first one, and the fourth is merely babble and isn't
worth comment.

[Big Dog]

On 8/29/2012 12:18 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 6:27 PM, Big Dog wrote:

>>
>> And when you POST YOUR FUCKING PHONE NUMBER on your website that YOU
>> PROMOTE, you whine that people notice it and are prying into personal
>> information.
>
> That is not MY phone number, it is the phone number of a virtual call
> center. I can route that phone number to anywhere I or my staff has a
> telephone, cell phone, voip phone, smartphone, laptop or a pc

Thanks for volunteering more personal information, unasked for. I love
the part about your "staff". Must be those folks in the bar where you
route that phone number while you're there.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/29/2012 6:55 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 11:40 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:

[...]

>> Unification of GR and QM is worthwhile.
>
> You do not even know what general relativity means or what quantum
> mechanics means.
> You do not even understand what it would mean to unify them.

Yet, I unified them.

And you do not have a clue. About GR, Qm, or even basic chemistry.

Not even when it is *explained* to you.
Like people with a map with an arrow "YOU ARE HERE", and they still can
find their way.

> All you know is that you've heard other people use those words, and
> you'd like some money for using the same words, even though you don't
> know what they mean.

I think that is your problem, you read the words without knowing their
meaning, so you think I am doing the same.

Uwe Hayek.

[Big Dog]

On 8/29/2012 12:35 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 6:55 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 11:40 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> [...]
>>> Unification of GR and QM is worthwhile.
>>
>> You do not even know what general relativity means or what quantum
>> mechanics means.
>> You do not even understand what it would mean to unify them.
>
> Yet, I unified them.

Bullshit. You have produced NOTHING except a call to purchase vaporware.

>
> And you do not have a clue. About GR, Qm, or even basic chemistry.
>
> Not even when it is *explained* to you.
> Like people with a map with an arrow "YOU ARE HERE", and they still can
> find their way.
>
>> All you know is that you've heard other people use those words, and
>> you'd like some money for using the same words, even though you don't
>> know what they mean.
>
> I think that is your problem, you read the words without knowing their
> meaning, so you think I am doing the same.

I have consensus. You do not. You claim you do not need consensus to be
right in your understanding of the meaning of words. That's because
you're a fucking idiot. Words are for communication. Their meaning is
arrived at BY consensus by the target community that is communicating to
each other. If you want to have your own meaning for your words and do
not care about consensus, then you do not know what words are for.
Hence, you prize your word salad highly, perhaps because you'd like to
have SOMETHING you can prize.

>
> Uwe Hayek.
>

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/29/2012 7:20 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 12:06 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>
>>
>> Think of the following : suppose you are in a room at the center of the
>> Earth. You are then weightless, and you measure no gravitation at all.
>> Yet, because of all the mass surrounding you, your clock runs slower
>> than on the Earths surface. So, there is NO link between gravitation and
>> clock speed. The link is between mass distribution and clock speed, or
>> better : between inertial field and inertiameter.
>>
>
> Good God, what a bonehead.
>
> First of all, ask yourself what it MEANS to MEASURE gravitation. Someone
> in the Space Shuttle feels weightless because they are in free fall.
> Does that weightlessness in the Space Shuttle translate to an absence of
> gravity where the Space Shuttle is?

This is a case where the gravitation is compensated by the inertial
forces of the rotation.

If you want to understand something, then start looking at the simple
cases where you can clearly distinguish all players.

> If so, then why does it orbit the
> Earth? So if weightlessness is not an indicator of an absence of
> gravity, then on what basis do you say there is no gravity at the center
> of the Earth?

Because at the center of the Earth, you are not in orbit.

> Secondly, the statement is that a clock at the center of the earth runs
> SLOWER THAN one on the surface. That is a *relative* statement. It is
> not a statement that the one on the surface is running unslowed and the
> one in the center is the one that is slowed, nor is it a statement that
> the one at the center is running unsped and the one at the surface is
> running sped.

Go and take your pills, boy.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/29/2012 8:09 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 12:35 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 6:55 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 8/29/2012 11:40 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Unification of GR and QM is worthwhile.
>>>
>>> You do not even know what general relativity means or what quantum
>>> mechanics means.
>>> You do not even understand what it would mean to unify them.
>>
>> Yet, I unified them.
>
> Bullshit. You have produced NOTHING except a call to purchase vaporware.
>
>>
>> And you do not have a clue. About GR, Qm, or even basic chemistry.
>>
>> Not even when it is *explained* to you.
>> Like people with a map with an arrow "YOU ARE HERE", and they still can
>> find their way.
>>
>>> All you know is that you've heard other people use those words, and
>>> you'd like some money for using the same words, even though you don't
>>> know what they mean.
>>
>> I think that is your problem, you read the words without knowing their
>> meaning, so you think I am doing the same.
>
> I have consensus.

We are all laughing here.

> You do not. You claim you do not need consensus to be
> right in your understanding of the meaning of words. That's because
> you're a fucking idiot.

> Words are for communication.

That works, only if there is some intelligence on both sides.

> Their meaning is
> arrived at BY consensus by the target community that is communicating to
> each other. If you want to have your own meaning for your words and do
> not care about consensus, then you do not know what words are for.
> Hence, you prize your word salad highly, perhaps because you'd like to
> have SOMETHING you can prize.

I wonder what you would have said around the 1900's when suddenly words
as "time dilation" and "length contraction" appeared.

GR has inertia written all over it. Even Gravitation on page 543 to 549
confirms that. On these pages, there is a handwritten letter of Einstein
confirming it("glaenzende bestatigung",brilliant confirmation). I am
just using their words.

Are you sure you know what consensus means ?

Uwe Hayek.

[Big Dog]

On 8/29/2012 1:26 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 7:20 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 12:06 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Think of the following : suppose you are in a room at the center of the
>>> Earth. You are then weightless, and you measure no gravitation at all.
>>> Yet, because of all the mass surrounding you, your clock runs slower
>>> than on the Earths surface. So, there is NO link between gravitation and
>>> clock speed. The link is between mass distribution and clock speed, or
>>> better : between inertial field and inertiameter.
>>>
>>
>> Good God, what a bonehead.
>>
>> First of all, ask yourself what it MEANS to MEASURE gravitation. Someone
>> in the Space Shuttle feels weightless because they are in free fall.
>> Does that weightlessness in the Space Shuttle translate to an absence of
>> gravity where the Space Shuttle is?
>
> This is a case where the gravitation is compensated by the inertial
> forces of the rotation.

Same thing is true for a room falling vertically down with no rotation.
Weightlessness in the room. OBVIOUS presence of gravity (otherwise the
room would not be falling). Idiot.

>
> If you want to understand something, then start looking at the simple
> cases where you can clearly distinguish all players.
>
>> If so, then why does it orbit the
>> Earth? So if weightlessness is not an indicator of an absence of
>> gravity, then on what basis do you say there is no gravity at the center
>> of the Earth?
>
> Because at the center of the Earth, you are not in orbit.

And any cases of weightlessness where not in orbit signify absence of
gravity? Idiot.

>
>
>> Secondly, the statement is that a clock at the center of the earth runs
>> SLOWER THAN one on the surface. That is a *relative* statement. It is
>> not a statement that the one on the surface is running unslowed and the
>> one in the center is the one that is slowed, nor is it a statement that
>> the one at the center is running unsped and the one at the surface is
>> running sped.
>
> Go and take your pills, boy.

I get that you cannot tolerate it when it is pointed out that you are
being an uneducated, pretentious ass.

You can correct the uneducated part (oh yes, I know, you don't want to
risk education lest your mind become warped by the process and you can't
help becoming a parrot). I don't think there's much hope for the
pretentious ass part.

[Big Dog]

And if you think you're the only intelligent one, then you'll use words
however you wish. Fine. Have fun with that salad tossing.

>
>> Their meaning is
>> arrived at BY consensus by the target community that is communicating to
>> each other. If you want to have your own meaning for your words and do
>> not care about consensus, then you do not know what words are for.
>> Hence, you prize your word salad highly, perhaps because you'd like to
>> have SOMETHING you can prize.
>
> I wonder what you would have said around the 1900's when suddenly words
> as "time dilation" and "length contraction" appeared.

The meaning of those terms were established by CONSENSUS. Look it up.

>
> GR has inertia written all over it. Even Gravitation on page 543 to 549
> confirms that. On these pages, there is a handwritten letter of Einstein
> confirming it("glaenzende bestatigung",brilliant confirmation). I am
> just using their words.

Oh, I agree that inertia, general relativity, quantum mechanics,
reference frame, are all words used by physicists. You just don't know
what those words mean, as understood by the physicists.

>
> Are you sure you know what consensus means ?

Yup. You're the one that says that words aren't for communication if you
don't believe your audience is intelligent, and you're free to use them
how you want.
Ass.

>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
>
>

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/29/2012 5:25 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> See the wonderful book "E = Einstein" for a wonderful explanation of
> the Twins paradox, the results of Einstein's brilliant theory, the
> greatest person to have ever lived.

But he missed the link between mass and inertia, and chose for a time
line in a time dimension.

We know this because just before his death, he writes a letter of
condolence to the family of his just past away long time friend Besso,
where he states that Besso's life is conserved in the time line.

By choosing time and abandoning inertia, he misses out completely in
understanding QM and uncertainty, as illustrated by him saying : "God
does not play dice", and the irrelevance of his later work, illustrated
by the next quote of Lee Smolin's book :


QUOTE [Lee Smolin, in "The Trouble with Physics" :]
My first job after getting my PhD was in 1979 at the Institute for
Advanced Study, in Princeton. One of my main reasons for taking it was
the hope of making contact with some living legacy of Einstein, who had
died twenty-four years earlier. In this I was disappointed. There was no
trace of his time there, apart from a bust of him in the library. No
student or follower of Einstein could be found. Only a few people who
had known him, like the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, were still
there. My first week there, Dyson, very much the gentleman, came by and
invited me to lunch. After inquiring about my work, he asked if there
was anything he could do to make me more at home in Princeton. I had but
one request. �Could you tell me what Einstein was really like?� I asked.
Dyson replied, �I�m very sorry, but that�s one thing I can�t help you
with.� Surprised, I insisted, �But you came here in 1947 and you were a
colleague of his until he died in 1955.� Dyson explained that he too had
come to the institute hoping to get to know Einstein. So he went to
Einstein�s secretary, Helen Dukas, to make an appointment. The day
before the appointment, he began to worry about not having anything
specific to discuss with the great man, so he got from Ms. Dukas copies
of Einstein�s recent scientific papers. They were all about Einstein�s
efforts to construct a unified-field theory. Reading them that evening,
Dyson decided they were junk. The next morning, he realized that
although he couldn�t face Einstein and tell him his work was junk, he
couldn�t not tell him either. So he skipped the appointment and, he told
me, spent the ensuing eight years before Einstein�s death avoiding him.
UNQUOTE
FROM
Smolin, Lee (2008-02-28). The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String
Theory, The Fall of a Science and What Comes Next (pp. 49-50). ePenguin.
Kindle Edition.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Trouble-With-Physics-ebook/dp/B003WUYP56/


Uwe Hayek.

[Ilja]

Am Dienstag, 28. August 2012 14:04:59 UTC schrieb kenseto:
> No the clock that experienced acceleration will accumulate
> less clock seconds. The reason is that the second for the
> accelerated clock has longer duration (higher absolute time)
> than the stay at home clock second.

Acceleration is irrelevant.

It is simple to design a variant of the twin experiment where
above clocks have identical accelerations: They start together,
after reaching maximal speed the first clock turns back immediately,
the second only much later, but above using the same turning
acceleration. And, once they arrive near Earth, they stop
using the same acceleration.

Thus, the accelerations will be identical, but the clock
difference will be of the same type, the clock which
travels longer shows less time.

[Paul B. Andersen]

He got it from his fantasy.
Note that he only mention SR and the speeds of the spacecrafts.
Of course GR must be used to find the difference in the proper
times of the clocks, and when you look at their trajectories, it
is not obvious which of them will have the greatest proper time.
But I doubt that this was ever measured.

Here are the paths of Grail A (red) and Grail B (blue)
on their journey from the Earth to the Moon.
The journey lasted nearly four months, and they arrived at lunar
orbit (Lunar Orbit Insertion, LOI) with 25 hours difference.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Grailpaths.pdf

(When in lunar orbit the clocks will certainly be
"in perfect sync". They will orbit at the same
altitude above the Moon, 100 to 225 km between them.
They are designed to sync to each other, as this
is a prerequisite for the measurements they are making,
which basically is the variation in the distance
between them to the micrometer precision.)

BTW, you can see what GR predict for the proper time of
clocks in orbit here:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/Satellites.html

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/29/2012 8:56 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 1:26 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 7:20 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 8/29/2012 12:06 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Think of the following : suppose you are in a room at the center of the
>>>> Earth. You are then weightless, and you measure no gravitation at all.
>>>> Yet, because of all the mass surrounding you, your clock runs slower
>>>> than on the Earths surface. So, there is NO link between gravitation
>>>> and
>>>> clock speed. The link is between mass distribution and clock speed, or
>>>> better : between inertial field and inertiameter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good God, what a bonehead.
>>>
>>> First of all, ask yourself what it MEANS to MEASURE gravitation. Someone
>>> in the Space Shuttle feels weightless because they are in free fall.
>>> Does that weightlessness in the Space Shuttle translate to an absence of
>>> gravity where the Space Shuttle is?
>>
>> This is a case where the gravitation is compensated by the inertial
>> forces of the rotation.
>
> Same thing is true for a room falling vertically down with no rotation.

Again, a special case. Try to understand the simple cases before you go
to the complex cases.

> Weightlessness in the room. OBVIOUS presence of gravity (otherwise the
> room would not be falling).

You seem to totally confuse weightlessness and "absence of gravitational
gradient.

Idiot.

It takes one to know one.
So you will never know me.

>
>>
>> If you want to understand something, then start looking at the simple
>> cases where you can clearly distinguish all players.
>>
>>> If so, then why does it orbit the
>>> Earth? So if weightlessness is not an indicator of an absence of
>>> gravity, then on what basis do you say there is no gravity at the center
>>> of the Earth?
>>
>> Because at the center of the Earth, you are not in orbit.
>
> And any cases of weightlessness where not in orbit signify absence of
> gravity? Idiot.

I did not say : any case, I was talking and stating clearly : a room at

the center of the Earth.

Learn to read first, before complimenting your mirror image.

>>
>>
>>> Secondly, the statement is that a clock at the center of the earth runs
>>> SLOWER THAN one on the surface. That is a *relative* statement. It is
>>> not a statement that the one on the surface is running unslowed and the
>>> one in the center is the one that is slowed, nor is it a statement that
>>> the one at the center is running unsped and the one at the surface is
>>> running sped.
>>
>> Go and take your pills, boy.
>
> I get that you cannot tolerate it when it is pointed out that you are
> being an uneducated, pretentious ass.

Who has beaten you to the punch, because you did not even realize they
had punch, or even were the party was organized, or even that they had
parties in those 5 years?

>
> You can correct the uneducated part (oh yes, I know, you don't want to
> risk education lest your mind become warped by the process and you can't
> help becoming a parrot). I don't think there's much hope for the
> pretentious ass part.

Another one of your better o so *scientific* arguments ?

It is pretentious and a sign of hypocrisy to pretend to know more than
you actually know.

You showed me chemical clock not based on motion.


Uwe Hayek.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:k1lr0b$as$1...@news.albasani.net...

===========================================
Hilarious! One ship missed a complete rotation of the Earth and
then some. Which one missed their favourite TV show, Tusseladd,
the red or the blue, and which day of the week was added/lost?
Oh wait... you don't know which day of the week today is. Of course,
GR must be used in your insane aquavit/cocaine/skunk fantasy.
LOH!
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Uwe Hayek]

I do not totally get your question, but if you mean that the
gravitational force and the centrifugal force are the same, then I agree.

In fact this is in GR, as in GR orbits are considered straight lines
through warped space. The orbits have two components : inertia of the
universe, and the gravitation of the orbited object. The fact that they
null eachother is a strong indication that they are from the same
effect. In fact, I can sort of prove it by calculating each others
length contraction. GR does not even make the distinction.

Uwe Hayek.

[Y]

Would you mind please showing us ? Please bear in mind, I'm not
mocking or provoking you in any way. I pretty much in agreement with
what you're saying.

-y

[Y]

Would you say that all gravity is caused by motion ?

-y

[Y]

Big Bog writes quantity minus the quality.

-y

[kenseto]

I don't think so.....the second clock will show less seconds than the first traveling clock. The first clock will accumlated less seconds than the stay at home clock and the second clock will accumulate even less clock seconds than the stay at home clock.

[Uwe Hayek]

I understand that it is all Greek to you. But a Greek salad is very nice.

>>
>>> Their meaning is arrived at BY consensus by the target community
>>> that is communicating to each other. If you want to have your own
>>> meaning for your words and do not care about consensus, then you
>>> do not know what words are for. Hence, you prize your word salad
>>> highly, perhaps because you'd like to have SOMETHING you can
>>> prize.
>>
>> I wonder what you would have said around the 1900's when suddenly
>> words as "time dilation" and "length contraction" appeared.
>
> The meaning of those terms were established by CONSENSUS. Look it
> up.

I knew from the start, that your historical knowledge would be as good
as your scientific one.

I am not going to explain any further, since you are ineducable.

>>
>> GR has inertia written all over it. Even Gravitation on page 543 to
>> 549 confirms that. On these pages, there is a handwritten letter of
>> Einstein confirming it("glaenzende bestatigung",brilliant
>> confirmation). I am just using their words.
>
> Oh, I agree that inertia, general relativity, quantum mechanics,
> reference frame, are all words used by physicists. You just don't
> know what those words mean, as understood by the physicists.

I think you should schtick to your big invention, the motionless
collision. And leave the physics to others, who do have an ability to
understand reason.

>
>>
>> Are you sure you know what consensus means ?
>
> Yup.

I would not be so sure.
Do you know what it takes to have a collision ?

> You're the one that says that words aren't for communication if you
> don't believe your audience is intelligent, and you're free to use
> them how you want.

I think you will never be in my audience.
You are just to prejudiced toward anything.

> Ass.

It would be a good start, if you could find your own.

Uwe Hayek

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/29/2012 12:42 PM, JT wrote:
> On 29 Aug, 11:42, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> On Tuesday, 28 August 2012 13:32:32 UTC-7, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>> On 8/28/2012 1:03 PM, Y wrote:
>>
>>>> This regards the "Time dilation" experiment called the twin paradox.
>>
>>>> If the clocks come back together, shouldn't they (according to
>>
>>>> relativity) be perfectly synchronised since they are together again in
>>
>>>> the same frame ?
>>
>>>> -y
>>
>>> First, try to understand what a clock is.
>>
>>> A clock measures the inertial field strength of its frame.
>>

>>> A clock is an inertiameter.
>>
>>> You better get used to it.
>>
>>> Mass creates an inertial field, since the universe is filled with mass,
>>
>>> the universe creates a huge inertial field. Several trillion times
>>
>>> stronger than the Earth's inertial field.
>>
>>> Moving wrt to the universe increases the inertial field strength of a
>>
>>> frame, and when approaching the speed of light, the inertial field
>>
>>> strength becomes infinite, thus making impossible to accelerate further.
>>
>>> Going near a concentrated mass like our sun or a black hole also
>>
>>> increases the inertial field strength of your frame.
>>
>>> Inertia slows down any motion, and thus also your clock motion.
>>
>>> Imagine two adjacent rooms, one with double the inertia of the other.
>>
>>> A clock would run twice as slow in the room with double inertia.
>>
>>> That is all there is to it, Folks.
>>
>>> Uwe Hayek.
>>
>> I agree with you Uwe. We are among an elite minority who realise that clocks do not measure time, they gauge inertia. The clocks differ because their mechanisms have been affected by different gravitational forces - due to motion.
>>

>> Take for example moving a hand forward while on the gravitron. It takes more force to move one's hand with the speed you'd normally do it on still ground. The visual effect is that the G-force of the gravitron "slows" motion. Where motion is an effect of force, the g-force of the gravitron competes with the force of the hand. The same is true for clock hands, whether they are mechanical, analogue, digital or atomic.
>>
>> If SR predicts the effects that these fields have on moving objects, and the steady beat of a clock is the benchmark, then perhaps it is a successful theory. A successful theory which is poorly communicated. It is poorly communicated because this Einstein's four dimensional spacetime model lacks natural foundation.
>>
>> What do we call science that gives good maths, but where the theoretical explanation is flakey ?
>>

>> Take for example an E-matrix. Do we really give credence to Seto's E-matrix even if his IRT were to provide accurate predictions ?
>>
>> The E-matrix and Spacetime, share this lack of resolution to nature.
>>
>> -y
>

> I agree with you guys, but this also led me to think about what
> happens to nuclear bindings outside field that lack inertia, is the
> inertia really mainly of gravitational nature or is it elementar
> particle density within the heliosphere causing the inertia.


Inertia is caused by mass, and gravitation is its gradient.

The inertia we know is caused by the mass of the universe, a few
trillion parts greater than the earth's inertia.

There is enough inertia in the interstellar space, if you doubted that.

And higher or lower inertia does not matter for the laws of physics,
inertia is the gamma in a frame : locally all the laws of physics stay
the same. If the laws of physics would change under inertial increase or
decrease (gamma< or <) then relativity would be falsified.


For a primer on inertia : http://inertia-notime.com
Read all the links and see all the videos.

Uwe Hayek.


> What
> says that nuclear binding work the same way outside this field, maybe
> materials start mimic the process of biological entities leaving in
> the deeps taking up to low pressure surface and simply dissolve the
> atomic bindings. It is of course hard to tell because it is only
> voyager 1 reaching out there, but what about meteorites and asteroids
> many of them must be intersolar or do they all work within our
> heliosphere. Maybe only crystalline structures can survive out there
> in deep space without decay losing electrons from the shells?
>
> All this is way above my head but, what is known about nuclear
> bindings outside the heliosphere between the solarsystems?
>

[JT]

I think that is bullshit, inertia is mostly local(caused by gravity)
that means a spagetti straw in vacuum at earth will not break at same
RPM as one at ISS, go check it up.

> There is enough inertia in the interstellar space, if you doubted that.

You are a moron, go check it up. Only voyager 1 have travelled into
interstellar space and it did not carry any device to record
inertia(centripetal force)

> And higher or lower inertia does not matter for the laws of physics,
> inertia is the gamma in a frame : locally all the laws of physics stay
> the same. If the laws of physics would change under inertial increase or
> decrease (gamma< or <) then relativity would be falsified.

As i told you know nothing, you think you know but really do not know
shit, inertia is the motion relative the overall EM-field of the local
heliosphere, a spinning disc outside reach of heliosphere will not be
able to create any virtual gravity effect like the dreamed up
visualised in movie 2001, do not get me wrong Stanley Kubrik was a
genius, you just did not understand the movie.

> For a primer on inertia :http://inertia-notime.com
> Read all the links and see all the videos.

Well i put it simply for you, you are simply wrong it is even
doubtfull that nuclear bindings, work the same way outside
heliosphere, probably things not that stable start to decay much
faster. (losing electrons from their shells), that make interstellar
travel a bit troublesome unless you create crystalic ships and
entities travelling them. End of story. Interstellar asteroids
meteorites do not carry any metal structures because they would decay
instantly out there, crystal structures will take it though.

[YBM]

On 31.08.2012 16:14, JT wrote:
> On 31 Aug, 13:14, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> There is enough inertia in the interstellar space, if you doubted that.
>
> You are a moron

What is nice is that you can call Koen Robersscheuten (aka Uwe) a moron
and he can call you a moron too, while both of you to be right (for
once).

[JT]

On 31 Aug, 13:14, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:

Yes inertia is caused by mass and most of the universe lack it, and it
obey to the inverse square law, relative the gravitating object.

> The inertia we know is caused by the mass of the universe, a few
> trillion parts greater than the earth's inertia.

No it is caused by local masses and more importantly the density of
elementar particles travelling between masses, electro dynamics and
fields if you so want.

> There is enough inertia in the interstellar space, if you doubted that.

Stop bullshitting.

> And higher or lower inertia does not matter for the laws of physics,
> inertia is the gamma in a frame : locally all the laws of physics stay
> the same. If the laws of physics would change under inertial increase or
> decrease (gamma< or <) then relativity would be falsified.

Simply you do not understand the physics of the universe you think you
do, but have not clue what going out outside your little world or the
heliosphere. Swim deep into the pool, swim into the surface, or leave
the pool.

>
> For a primer on inertia :http://inertia-notime.com
> Read all the links and see all the videos.

Well why should i read the links they have no idea about what keep
matter together, guesswork of amateurs. No more bullshitting the
inertia is so miniscule outside heliosphere that there is no trouble
reach relativistic velocities and beyond them, relativity is a local
theory.

[JT]

On 31 Aug, 13:14, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:

You are a moron it is quite opposite the elementary particle flow from
objects with mass create the electromagnetic field density responsible
for the inertia a moving object subjected to the gamma is local.

: locally all the laws of physics stay
> the same. If the laws of physics would change under inertial increase or
> decrease (gamma< or <) then relativity would be falsified.

And it is just by logic

[JT]

If you claim these things Uwe you should at least come up with an idea
for the force responsible for this ghost creating inertia on objects
far away from matter, so what is it? I have not heard of it, but maybe
it belongs to standard physics??????????????????????????????

But then again what is really inertia if you claim it solely dependent
to the mass of object then latest book by Wheeler on gravity and
inertia is wrong because they claim inertia has something related to
mass and gravity, and we fucking knew that for the last century. Of
course the inertia change relative the gravitational field, it is just
common sense. Gravity is the force tuggin on spinning objects and it
obey the inverse square law, in deep space gravity is very low the
field EM field weak and things(elementary particles) do not really put
that much stress upon objects rotating or travelling with a velocity.

[Uwe Hayek]

In your case, YBM, nobody even cares about what you are, except maybe
"quantit� n�gligable" ?

At least "JT" has an opinion, he says that "Gravitation" is wrong, and
you even never heard of the Bitch. (pronounce "Gravitation" as Spanish)

Have you figured out the difference between an inertiameter and a
calorimeter yet?

Keep on trying, YBM.

Uwe Hayek.

[JT]

On 31 Aug, 19:51, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 4:20 PM, YBM wrote:
>
> > On 31.08.2012 16:14, JT wrote:
> >> On 31 Aug, 13:14, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >>> There is enough inertia in the interstellar space, if you doubted
> >>> that.
>
> >> You are a moron
>
> > What is nice is that you can call Koen Robersscheuten (aka Uwe) a
> > moron and he can call you a moron too, while both of you to be right
> > (for once).
>
> In your case, YBM, nobody even cares about what you are, except maybe

> "quantité négligable" ?

>
> At least "JT" has an opinion, he says that "Gravitation" is wrong, and
> you even never heard of the Bitch. (pronounce "Gravitation" as Spanish)
>
> Have you figured out the difference between an inertiameter and a
> calorimeter yet?
>
> Keep on trying, YBM.
>
> Uwe Hayek.

I think it is harder to make up the EM-field keeping things together
when we leave it then actually leaving it.