Retraction : "The end of Relativity" & Ambiguity in Experiment
Hayek
I made a big mistake in the (first) experiment,
in thinking that adding mass to a disc, while keeping
rotational energy he same, would result in a different
angular velocity if the disc had a different mass
distribution. That is not the case, and my experiment is
therefore worthless. The error had even almost nothing
to do with relativity, except then for adding the
(relativistic) mass.
I apologize to everybody, and hope that you understand
it was a well meant.
I will take Dirks warning more seriously and promise to
do 'the equations' first.
Damned, is i so hard to measure increase or decrease of
inertia around you ? Because that is the key problem.
At least, I hope I contributed in making that clear, and
who knows, it might bring someone on an idea that really
works and that does just this...
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
zoef
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3DF32906...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
>
> I made a big mistake in the (first) experiment,
> in thinking that adding mass to a disc, while keeping
> rotational energy he same, would result in a different
> angular velocity if the disc had a different mass
> distribution. That is not the case, and my experiment is
> therefore worthless.
Maybe, I should repost my cancelled reply in be.politics (about someone
being a moron ... :-)
http://www.sciencefirst.com/pdf/40-330.pdf
zoef
Jem
> Damned, is i[t] so hard to measure increase or decrease of
> inertia around you ? Because that is the key problem.
Can you imagine a world without inertia? How would it differ from ours?
Hayek
Jem wrote:
Quantum Mechanics !
But at the lowest level.
> Can you imagine a world without inertia? How would
it differ from ours?
I try to imagine that a lot.
I start with little inertia.
Two small objects in rectilinear motion would no longer
pass eachother but be attracted to eachother, since
their inertia would be lower than their mutual
gravitation. Maybe this just scales the behaviour of big
masses likes planets down to small objects like balls or
even atoms, if inertia is small enough. Maybe if there
is no inertia the orbital of a single hydrogen atom is
as big as a universe.
But for the moment that is not my problem...
I want a device that can measure if the inertial field
you are in, increases or decreases. It can't be that hard...
Hayek
zoef wrote:
>>I made a big mistake in the (first) experiment,
>>in thinking that adding mass to a disc, while keeping
>>rotational energy he same, would result in a different
>>angular velocity if the disc had a different mass
>>distribution. That is not the case, and my experiment is
>>therefore worthless.
>>
>
> Maybe, I should repost my cancelled reply in be.politics (about someone
> being a moron ... :-)
>
> http://www.sciencefirst.com/pdf/40-330.pdf
Admit it, it had you fooled too...
I will keep trying. The problem seems so simple...
Arfur Dogfrey
The "inertia field?" Not sure what that is. However if you
want a device that can measure relativistic inertia increase
in an object in an inertial frame but measure it in the frame
of the object then SR dooms that from the start.
Arf!
Arfur
> Hayek.
Jem
> > >
> Jem wrote:
> >
> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:3DF32906...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
> > >Damned, is i[t] so hard to measure increase or decrease of
> > >inertia around you ? Because that is the key problem.
> > Can you imagine a world without inertia? How would it differ from ours?
> I try to imagine that a lot.
> I start with little inertia.
Suppose you start with a little less inertia - say none. Would motion (i.e. the
basis for time) necessarily be eliminated? If not then you should conclude
(assuming you see value in logical reasoning) that time is not the result of
inertia.
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Jem wrote:
>
> > Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> > news:3DF32906...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >
> >>Damned, is i[t] so hard to measure increase or decrease of
> >>inertia around you ? Because that is the key problem.
> >>
> >
> > Can you imagine a world without inertia? How would it differ from
ours?
>
>
> Quantum Mechanics !
> But at the lowest level.
>
>
>
> > Can you imagine a world without inertia? How would
> it differ from ours?
>
> I try to imagine that a lot.
> I start with little inertia.
>
> Two small objects in rectilinear motion would no longer
> pass eachother but be attracted to eachother, since
> their inertia would be lower than their mutual
> gravitation. Maybe this just scales the behaviour of big
> masses likes planets down to small objects like balls or
> even atoms, if inertia is small enough. Maybe if there
> is no inertia the orbital of a single hydrogen atom is
> as big as a universe.
>
> But for the moment that is not my problem...
You're lucky, because it was horsemanure.
> I want a device that can measure if the inertial field
> you are in, increases or decreases. It can't be that hard...
Don't jump frames.
Franz Heymann
Hayek
Jem wrote:
> Suppose you start with a little less inertia - say none.
> Would motion (i.e. the basis for time) necessarily
> be eliminated?
If there are only two moving particles in an empty
universe, they would be unable to pursue rectilinear
motion. Their gravitational attraction would, whatever
the distance they where separated immediately, put them
to next to eachother. Of course, you can also reason
that the particles time would run at infinite speed, so
things would compensate. But rectilinar motion would not
be possible, so the laws of physics would definitely
look different.
And there is the Wheeler-Dewitt Equation. It is GR in an
empty universe : time drops completely out of the
equation. In Mach's Principle there is no inertia in an
empty universe. Do you see the parallel ?
GR says "time" was in one point at the Big Bang.
MP says inertia was in one point at the Big Bang.
See the connection between "time" and inertia and see
what makes the most sense for you !
> If not then you should conclude (assuming you see value
> in logical reasoning) that time is not the result
> of inertia.
Maybe I should correct a few details.
Time is result of motion.
Motion can be controlled by inertia,
but it can also be controlled by temperature,
for chemical reactions, for instance.
That makes your refrigerator a 'time' machine.
As it works on exactly the same principle as
'relativistic' inertial motion braking. That's why you
can travel into the future by getting frozen ( if they
ever perfect protection for our tissues against lower
temeratures). Your food keeps frsh because you stop the
motion of its molecules, so you also stop its time. And
see : its works ! It stay's fresh. It works in exactly
the same way as if you had 'a real' relativistic fridge.
But if the physics, the stopping of motion, are the same
, and the effects are the same, the conservation of your
food, then it is the same thing. No
need for dragging in an all powerfull 'mythical' time,
that is clearly unable to penetrate your fridge and
spoil your food.
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
> You're lucky, because it was horsemanure.
Well, how would matter behave in an Empty Universe
according to you Franz ?
>
>>I want a device that can measure if the inertial field
>>you are in, increases or decreases. It can't be that hard...
>>
>
> Don't jump frames.
Yes, mother.
Hayek
Arfur Dogfrey wrote:
> Hayek:
>>But for the moment that is not my problem...
>>I want a device that can measure if the inertial field
>>you are in, increases or decreases. It can't be that hard...
>>
>>
>
> The "inertia field?" Not sure what that is. However if you
> want a device that can measure relativistic inertia increase
> in an object in an inertial frame but measure it in the frame
> of the object then SR dooms that from the start.
Not quite. If we assume physics and not magic, there is
a reason for length contraction. How does a rod knows
how and how much to contract ? It is measuring the
inertial increase somehow. I know how a clock does its
retardation : with simple inertia increase. At least
that's a physical reason.
I proposed two more experiments in my post "the end of
relativity". I am much less sure of their outcome, but I
think they are worth a try.
I beg for your opinion....
> Arf!
Griaauw!
> Arfur
Felinur.
Hayek & 5 cats.
Jem
> Jem wrote:
> > [...] If not then you should conclude (assuming you see value
> > in logical reasoning) that time is not the result
> > of inertia.
> Maybe I should correct a few details.
> Time is result of motion.
> Motion can be controlled by inertia,
> but it can also be controlled by temperature,
> for chemical reactions, for instance.
Thanks for clearing that up. I should alert you though that there's an imposter
on this ng who's claiming to be Hayek and is saying things like "Inertia causes
the illusion of time", "A clock is an inertiameter" and "Of course it once
started by realising that time does not exist, that inertia must cause it". I
hope you're able to stop the culprit before he/she does irreparable damage to
your credibility.
Hayek
Jem wrote:
I repeat my original post :
"
In short :
- time does not exist as a dimension,
it does not exist at all,
it is an illusion of our senses.
- The universe has only one moment of time : the now.
- The illusion of time created by motion.
- the rate of this motion is set by inertia.
- inertia is set by all the surrounding gravitating
masses, as in Mach's principle.
"
The relativistic 'time' is entirely controlled by
inertia. That caused me to neglect the other ways of
slowing down 'time'. This is sci.physics.relativity.
It was hard for me too.
I saw you could make physics work without time.
Then I found an argument against it, and my mind kept
lapsing into 'time' mode again, then I saw the flaw in
that argument, and this continued for more than 6
months. I did not dare to read another (physics) book,
afraid that it might disturb the insight. I got used to
it, and kept finding arguments for the nonexistence of
time. In the mean time the evidence got overwhelming.
Take our twin astronaut. If he really travelled slower
throught the fourth dimension, he would disappear from
sight. The Earth would be 20 years along and he would
be only 16 years along. He would return to the Earth
after 16 years and no age difference would be noted. The
reality is that he does not travel at al through the
fourth dimension. His molecules just slow down, just
like a fridge does for food. He stays like his twin
brother on Earth in the same now.
puppe...@hotmail.com
> I made a big mistake in the (first) experiment,
Important lesson from computer science: The code checkers
are not there to find your mistakes. It is your job to
find your own mistakes.
Or, to put it another way: If it's your night to cook,
you have to eat what you cook.
Socks
Hayek
puppe...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:<3DF32906...@nospam.xs4all.nl>...
>
>
>> I made a big mistake in the (first) experiment,
>>
> [snipperoo]
>
> Important lesson from computer science: The code checkers
> are not there to find your mistakes. It is your
> job to find your own mistakes.
Well I did.
I should have put in the numbers first,
I only did that to prove Arfur wrong.
Nobody found the real mistake, I did that myself,
counterarguments where mostly "Einstein is right, you
cannot beat relativity, the local observer cannot know"
I pride myself to be a good programmer.
Getting a bit old fashioned maybe, since I started at
age 14 on a 128 byte machine. But I do Java and I do
know what I am talking about.
As an example : this thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3C4DC232.8080004%40nospam.xs4all.nl&rnum=6
The final answer was :
"
Hayek,
Respect is due. Note only were your suggestions
accurate but you
have altered my opinion of applets comnpletely. Thank-you.
BR,
Al
"
I am a long way of earning that respect here. You cannot
produce code here and immediately check if it is right.
BTW : I would love 64 bit Java with an AMD Opteron and
load 11 gigabyte of jpgs into memory. I parse 5 megs of
text in Java in 200 millisecs on a 700 mhz machine.
>
> Or, to put it another way: If it's your night to cook,
> you have to eat what you cook.
You should taste my North-Sea mussels with Dill & Parsley.
Or my Garlic-parsley prawns.
Stephen Speicher
:)
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jem
> In short :
>
> - time does not exist as a dimension,
>
> it does not exist at all,
> it is an illusion of our senses.
When it comes to describing the world, I'm not sure there's a significant
difference between "it is" and "it is an illusion of our senses".
> - The universe has only one moment of time : the now.
>
> - The illusion of time created by motion.
Can I assume that by "motion" you mean - changes in the relative placement of
objects between "the now" that was and "the now" that is?
> - the rate of this motion is set by inertia.
Please define "rate of motion" (no fair using the illusion of time).
> - inertia is set by all the surrounding gravitating
> masses, as in Mach's principle.
> "
>
> The relativistic 'time' is entirely controlled by
> inertia. That caused me to neglect the other ways of
> slowing down 'time'. This is sci.physics.relativity.
>
> It was hard for me too.
> I saw you could make physics work without time.
> Then I found an argument against it, and my mind kept
> lapsing into 'time' mode again, then I saw the flaw in
> that argument, and this continued for more than 6
> months. I did not dare to read another (physics) book,
> afraid that it might disturb the insight. I got used to
> it, and kept finding arguments for the nonexistence of
> time. In the mean time the evidence got overwhelming.
>
> Take our twin astronaut. If he really travelled slower
> throught the fourth dimension, he would disappear from
> sight. The Earth would be 20 years along and he would
> be only 16 years along. He would return to the Earth
> after 16 years and no age difference would be noted. The
> reality is that he does not travel at al through the
> fourth dimension. His molecules just slow down, just
> like a fridge does for food. He stays like his twin
> brother on Earth in the same now.
What do you have against "time", Hayek? We live in a world in which there are
changes, all of which appear to be differences in the relative positions of
things. To fully describe those changes we need something more than the concept
of distance and we call that something "time". Eliminating it would
unnecessarily limit our ability to describe "change".
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
>
> > You're lucky, because it was horsemanure.
>
>
> Well, how would matter behave in an Empty Universe
> according to you Franz ?
>
>
> >
> >>I want a device that can measure if the inertial field
> >>you are in, increases or decreases. It can't be that hard...
> >>
> >
> > Don't jump frames.
>
>
> Yes, mother.
If you would be so good as to restore context, I might consider
whether to reply or not.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Arfur Dogfrey wrote:
>
> > Hayek:
> >>But for the moment that is not my problem...
> >>I want a device that can measure if the inertial field
> >>you are in, increases or decreases. It can't be that hard...
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The "inertia field?" Not sure what that is. However if you
> > want a device that can measure relativistic inertia increase
> > in an object in an inertial frame but measure it in the frame
>
> > of the object then SR dooms that from the start.
>
>
> Not quite. If we assume physics and not magic, there is
> a reason for length contraction.
> How does a rod knows
> how and how much to contract ?
In its own frame of reference, the rod does not contract.
> It is measuring the
> inertial increase somehow. I know how a clock does its
> retardation : with simple inertia increase. At least
> that's a physical reason.
In its own frame of reference, the clock counts proper time.
[...]
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
>
> puppe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:<3DF32906...@nospam.xs4all.nl>...
> >
>
> >
> >> I made a big mistake in the (first) experiment,
> >>
> > [snipperoo]
> >
> > Important lesson from computer science: The code checkers
> > are not there to find your mistakes. It is your
> > job to find your own mistakes.
>
>
> Well I did.
> I should have put in the numbers first,
> I only did that to prove Arfur wrong.
> Nobody found the real mistake, I did that myself,
> counterarguments where mostly "Einstein is right, you
> cannot beat relativity, the local observer cannot know"
>
>
> I pride myself to be a good programmer.
> Getting a bit old fashioned maybe, since I started at
> age 14 on a 128 byte machine. But I do Java and I do
> know what I am talking about.
>
Now go and learn some physics as well, and you might be kitted up to
post here.
[...]
Franz Heymann
Hayek
Jem wrote:
> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3DF5F8E5...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
>
>
> Can I assume that by "motion" you mean - changes in the
> relative placement of objects between "the now" that
> was and "the now" that is?
If you do not understand it, consider not moving
anything. Then look for time.
>> - the rate of this motion is set by inertia.
>>
>
> Please define "rate of motion" (no fair using the
illusion
> of time).
Take my rotating disc example .
As its inertial mass increases it is also slowing down,
since no energy is added. This slowdown is in perfect
accord with 'time dilation'.
>
>
>> - inertia is set by all the surrounding gravitating
masses, as in Mach's principle.
>> "
>>
>
> What do you have against "time", Hayek? We live in a
world in which there are
> changes, all of which appear to be differences in the
relative positions of
> things. To fully describe those changes we need
something more than the concept
> of distance and we call that something "time".
Eliminating it would
> unnecessarily limit our ability to describe "change".
You are missing the point here.
Our 'time' measurement is very usefull to us.
We made equations that link all kinds of rate of
motions, an example is temperature and chemical reaction
times, to describe and predict what goes on around us.
We keep using that.
It is only if you want to understand what 'time' really
is, that you have to go into this deep water.
It is only when you want to know : what are we measuring ?
String theorists found out that time existed before the
Big Bang. They start their Mathematical odyssee with the
notion of a time dimension.
A dimension that stops when at 0 degrees Kelvin ? Or in
any material that does not react chemically ?
There is only one conclusion : 'time' does not exist,
and we should be carefull to make predictions
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
>> masses, as in Mach's principle. "
>>
>
> What do you have against "time", Hayek? We live in a
> world in which there are changes, all of which appear
> to be differences in the relative positions of
> things. To fully describe those changes we need
something
> more than the concept of distance and we call that
> something "time". Eliminating it would
unnecessarily
> limit our ability to describe "change".
You are missing the point here.
Our 'time' measurement is very usefull to us.
We made equations that link all kinds of rate of
motions, an example is temperature and chemical reaction
times, to describe and predict what goes on around us.
We keep using that.
It is only if you want to understand what 'time' really
is, that you have to go into this deep water.
It is only when you want to know : what are we measuring ?
String theorists found out that time existed before the
Big Bang. They start their Mathematical odyssee with the
notion of a time dimension.
A dimension that stops when at 0 degrees Kelvin ? Or in
any material that does not react chemically ?
There is only one conclusion : 'time' does not exist,
and we should be carefull to make mathematical
predictions based on a time dimension.
Replace 'time' in GR with 'inertia' and it works as
well, even better. That's why I keep stressing the
importance of Mach's Principle. It all fits in physics,
but not in the minds of the participants of this forum
.... :-)
I actually start to like this time thing... It is "the
Earth moves" of our 'times'. I thought that everybody
would go -slap on the head, why didn't I see this- when
you tell them a clock is an inertiameter. They don't,
and that proves how little real understanding there is
of physics. And it makes my findings all the more worth.
I checked the web on 'inertiameter' some two month ago,
I was surprised that there were *NO* references then.
I started posting about this December 5th. In my
original post I used inertia-meter. To make it clear.
Most people never even got there. Uncle Al stopped
reading after the first line. That shows how small he
really is. And quantum interference is what you
absolutely do not want to happen when doing an Eotvosch
experiment. Unless you do *not* want to find
Equivalence. But then it would tell you nothing about
equivalence. Just that it is not there at the quantum
level. And because there is no inertia nor gravity at
the quantum level. Eotvosch tests gravity versus
inertia. Can you believe it, a guy setting up this
experiment to test inertia and not knowing the link with
time ? Not knowing that inertia, therefore 'time', stops
at the quantum level ?
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
> If you would be so good as to restore context, I might consider
> whether to reply or not.
Hayek:
[universe without inertia]
Two small objects in rectilinear motion would no longer
pass eachother but be attracted to eachother, since
their inertia would be lower than their mutual
gravitation. Maybe this just scales the behaviour of big
masses likes planets down to small objects like balls or
even atoms, if inertia is small enough. Maybe if there
is no inertia the orbital of a single hydrogen atom is
as big as a universe.
But for the moment that is not my problem...
Franz:
You're lucky, because it was horsemanure.
Hayek:
Well, how would matter behave in an Empty Universe
according to you Franz ?
Franz:
If you would be so good as to restore context, I might
consider whether to reply or not.
......
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
> Ooh, you clever man!!!
> Now go and learn some physics as well, and you might be kitted up to
> post here.
Where can I learn what time is ?
Or is this a DIY thing :-)
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
> Ooh, you clever man!!!
> Now go and learn some physics as well, and you might be kitted up to
> post here.
A few moments later it dawned to me what you meant...
"Go to our physics church and learn our mantras and
prayers, so you can pray together with us..."
Now I got it...
Thanks, but I am not a religious man.
Jem
> Jem wrote:
> > Can I assume that by "motion" you mean - changes in the
> > relative placement of objects between "the now" that
> > was and "the now" that is?
> If you do not understand it, consider not moving
> anything. Then look for time.
> > Please define "rate of motion" (no fair using the
> > illusion of time).
> Take my rotating disc example .
> As its inertial mass increases it is also slowing down,
> since no energy is added. This slowdown is in perfect
> accord with 'time dilation'.
Do you really consider the above to be definitions? Is this what you'd put
in your dictionary?
> > What do you have against "time", Hayek? We live in a
> world in which there are
> > changes, all of which appear to be differences in the
> relative positions of
> > things. To fully describe those changes we need
> something more than the concept
> > of distance and we call that something "time".
> Eliminating it would
> > unnecessarily limit our ability to describe "change".
> You are missing the point here.
> Our 'time' measurement is very usefull to us.
> We made equations that link all kinds of rate of
> motions, an example is temperature and chemical reaction
> times, to describe and predict what goes on around us.
> We keep using that.
I'm missing the point? And that point would be that on the one hand "time
doesn't exist", but on the other hand "time is very useful to us"?
I'll tell you Hayek, I thought you might have some interesting ideas to
explore here, but Ifind myself unable to adapt to your brand of logic.
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
>
> > If you would be so good as to restore context, I might consider
> > whether to reply or not.
>
>
>
> Hayek:
>
> [universe without inertia]
>
> Two small objects in rectilinear motion would no longer
> pass eachother but be attracted to eachother, since
> their inertia would be lower than their mutual
> gravitation. Maybe this just scales the behaviour of big
> masses likes planets down to small objects like balls or
> even atoms, if inertia is small enough. Maybe if there
> is no inertia the orbital of a single hydrogen atom is
> as big as a universe.
>
> But for the moment that is not my problem...
>
> Franz:
> You're lucky, because it was horsemanure.
>
>
> Hayek:
> Well, how would matter behave in an Empty Universe
> according to you Franz ?
What matter? I thought you said an empty universe.
However, if you meant to say "empty except for two pieces of matter",
the answer is that there is no experience on which to build a theory
for such an eventuality, and pure ratiocination is incapable of
providing answers to questions in physics.
Physics is about the Universe as we find it, not about some "what if"
situation, so your question is essentially sterile, except in some ng
other than ones devoted to physics.
>
> Franz:
> If you would be so good as to restore context, I might
> consider whether to reply or not.
>
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
>
> > Ooh, you clever man!!!
> > Now go and learn some physics as well, and you might be kitted up
to
> > post here.
>
>
> Where can I learn what time is ?
> Or is this a DIY thing :-)
>
Hayek, you are still surreptitiously snipping context.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
>
> > Ooh, you clever man!!!
> > Now go and learn some physics as well, and you might be kitted up
to
> > post here.
>
>
> A few moments later it dawned to me what you meant...
>
> "Go to our physics church and learn our mantras and
> prayers, so you can pray together with us..."
>
> Now I got it...
>
>
> Thanks, but I am not a religious man.
What you don't appear to realise is that physics is a monolithic,
internally consistent body of knowledge which is excellent at
predicting the results of observations.
That is not exactly a religion.
Franz Heymann
Randy Poe
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
>
>> Ooh, you clever man!!!
>> Now go and learn some physics as well, and you might be kitted up to
>> post here.
>
>
>
> A few moments later it dawned to me what you meant...
>
> "Go to our physics church and learn our mantras and prayers, so you can
> pray together with us..."
Nope. Learn our language so you can argue with us in
the same language. Does everyone who speaks your language
agree with everything?
> Now I got it...
Nope. You missed it completely.
> Thanks, but I am not a religious man.
Mati Meron said it elsewhere. Why don't people realize that
research careers are made by creating new stuff, not by adhering
to old stuff?
As for "mantras and prayers", I once shared an office with
a very religious Lebanese Moslem, who was also a scholar
of the Torah, several different translations of the
Christian Bible and the books that did not make it into
the officially accepted Bible. This knowledge of Christian
prayers, beliefs, history and practice, much deeper than
my own, did not make him Christian.
- Randy
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> What you don't appear to realise is that physics is
> a monolithic, internally consistent body of
> knowledge which is excellent at predicting the
> results of observations.
>
> That is not exactly a religion.
I think we agree on all the experiments, on relativity.
Anyone not agreeing to a properly conducted experiment
and properly interpreted results, is a fool.
But with relativity there is sooo much room for
interpretation. Is there mutual clock retardation?
Some swear by it, some say it is magic. Is there an
experiment that absolutely confirms, rejects this ?
And so it goes on and on. You claim it is not possible
to know what inertia your own frame is in. I claim there
must be a way.
There is no absolute reference but what is GR if you set
up the metric with real gravitating masses ? You can
define a zero motion wrt to this metric. Some say you
can't.
Some say there are no local effects for the traveller,
it is only the other party that is affected. Some say
the effects are local. Who is right ? Where is your
monolithic, body of knowledge which is excellent at
predicting the results of observations ?
The speed of light forbids us to do the necessary
observations.
And I conclude with my specialty : time.
Is there a fourth dimension, does yesterday still exist
or is there only motion, mainly controlled by inertia ?
If you have the answers, I will stop talking and start
listening.
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> What matter? I thought you said an empty universe.
>
> However, if you meant to say "empty except for two pieces of matter",
> the answer is that there is no experience on which to build a theory
> for such an eventuality, and pure ratiocination is incapable of
> providing answers to questions in physics.
>
> Physics is about the Universe as we find it, not about some "what if"
> situation, so your question is essentially sterile, except in some ng
> other than ones devoted to physics.
How come SR then supposes exactly that, an empty
universe with two pieces of matter ?
So SR is essentially sterile ? :-)
Gotcha...
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
>
> >
> > What you don't appear to realise is that physics is
> > a monolithic, internally consistent body of
> > knowledge which is excellent at predicting the
> > results of observations.
> >
> > That is not exactly a religion.
>
>
> I think we agree on all the experiments, on relativity.
> Anyone not agreeing to a properly conducted experiment
> and properly interpreted results, is a fool.
>
> But with relativity there is sooo much room for
> interpretation. Is there mutual clock retardation?
What might nutual clock retardation be?
> Some swear by it, some say it is magic. Is there an
> experiment that absolutely confirms, rejects this ?
There are plenty of experiments on time dilation in the particle
physics field. All are in complete conformity of predictions of SR.
>
> And so it goes on and on.
And so what goes on and on?
All the predictions of SR which have been subjected to experiment have
been found to be vindicated.
Have you ever thought about the fact that the design of all high
energy particle accelerators are based fully on relativistic
mechanics?
> You claim it is not possible
> to know what inertia your own frame is in.
That is a meaningless assertion
> I claim there
> must be a way.
As is that one.
>
> There is no absolute reference but what is GR if you set
> up the metric with real gravitating masses ? You can
> define a zero motion wrt to this metric. Some say you
> can't.
>
> Some say there are no local effects for the traveller,
> it is only the other party that is affected. Some say
> the effects are local. Who is right ? Where is your
> monolithic, body of knowledge which is excellent at
> predicting the results of observations ?
You seem to be asking quite a large number of exceedingly badly framed
questions.
>
> The speed of light forbids us to do the necessary
> observations.
>
> And I conclude with my specialty : time.
> Is there a fourth dimension, does yesterday still exist
> or is there only motion, mainly controlled by inertia ?
>
> If you have the answers, I will stop talking and start
> listening.
Frankly, who do you think cares whether you listen or not?
Franz Heymann
Titanpoint
> And I conclude with my specialty : time.
> Is there a fourth dimension, does yesterday still exist
> or is there only motion, mainly controlled by inertia ?
Speciality unfortunately does not imply expertise.
>
> If you have the answers, I will stop talking and start
> listening.
>
>
> Hayek.
Please start boning up on the math.
Spacetime is an experimentally verified fact. Time exists and
therefore there is motion. Motion exists and therefore there is time.
Thought experiments without the math is like driving a car without the
engine. Thought experiments are meaningless unless there's a way to
express them logically and that is what mathematics is about.
I've got 3 books in preparation for my final year course in Cosmology:
Relativity: The special and the general theory - Albert Einstein.
Schaum's Outline of Vector Analysis with introduction to tensors
Introducing Einstein's Relativity - R.A. Inverno
I recommend them all, to be read in that order.
TP
Hayek
Titanpoint wrote:
> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:<3DF8F65E...@nospam.xs4all.nl>...
>
>
>> And I conclude with my specialty : time. Is there
>> a fourth dimension, does yesterday still exist or
>> is there only motion, mainly controlled by
>> inertia ?
>>
>
> Speciality unfortunately does not imply expertise.
In this case, it does.
I am amazed how little you all understand of what you're
doing.
>
>
>> If you have the answers, I will stop talking and
>> start listening.
>>
>>
>> Hayek.
>>
>
> Please start boning up on the math.
Knowing the difference between 3D & 4D *IS* Math.
> Spacetime is an experimentally verified fact.
If you do not know what time is, how can you know what
spacetime is ? When I tell you that the "time" in
spacetime stands for 'inertia' you deny it. That only
proves you do not know what "time" or inertia is. You do
the equations without knowing what goes on.
And experts in MATH agree : nothing moves in spacetime.
A 3d plane in spacetime is in 3D what a single image is
in a movie, a frozen 3D image. It is really essential
mathemathics.
> Time exists and therefore there is motion.
Time does not cause motion.
I answered that in another post.
Where does your time go at 0 degrees Kelvin ?
In hibernation perhaps ?
> Motion exists and therefore there is time.
That is a circular definition.
Strictly out of the question in any logical or
mathemagical reasoning.
>
> Thought experiments without the math
> is like driving a car without the engine. Thought
> experiments are meaningless unless there's a way to
express
> them logically and that is what mathematics is
> about.
Start with a circular definition, mix up 3d & 4d and
start calculating. Kip Thorne & Paul Davies then
conclude one can time travel.
> I've got 3 books in preparation for my final year
> course in Cosmology:
>
> Relativity: The special and the general theory -
> Albert Einstein. Schaum's Outline of Vector
> Analysis with introduction to tensors Introducing
> Einstein's Relativity - R.A. Inverno
>
> I recommend them all, to be read in that order.
How about Math 101 & Physics 101 ?
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
> Hayek:
>> I think we agree on all the experiments, on relativity.
>> Anyone not agreeing to a properly conducted
>> experiment and properly interpreted results, is a
>> fool.
>>
>> But with relativity there is sooo much room for
interpretation.
>> Is there mutual clock retardation?
>>
>
> What might nutual clock retardation be?
As you might have noticed, I do not believe in time.
As I said, I am not religious. :-) (joke)
With the help of Mach's Principle and GR I realized that
'time' in spacetime stands for 'inertia'.
Time does not dilate, time does not exist as a physical
entity, but clocks do,and their inertial mass increases.
A clock is nothing but a local inertiameter.
So I prefer the term clock retardation.
So mutual clock retardation is 'mutual time dilation',
which, in my view, is nonsense, because this requires a
time dimension, that is not there. If the moving frame
moves through the inertial field and racks up "bongs of
bell (inertia)" (MTW), its masses have inertia added.
This slows down clocks. There is no physical action to
the other frame that can cause its inertia to increase.
For the SR approach of two objects in empty space I
refer you to the other thread, where we discussed this.
> There are plenty of experiments on time dilation in the
> particle physics field. All are in complete conformity
> of predictions of SR.
Could you ask the particles if they noticed our time
slowed down too ? I am not contesting inertial increase
of a moving particle, I am contesting its reciprocal
effect. I am not contesting that the moving particle may
perceive that our clocks are slowed down too, but that
is only perception.
>
> And so what goes on and on? All the predictions of SR
> which have been subjected to experiment have been found
> to be vindicated. Have you ever thought about the
> fact that the design of all high energy particle
> accelerators are based fully on relativistic
> mechanics?
I am *FUULLLY* aware of that. Again, I am concerned with
the reciprocal effects. I deny that these are real.
>
>
>
>> You claim it is not possible to know what inertia your
>> own frame is in.
>>
>
> That is a meaningless assertion
Maybe by my explanation in this post you see the logic
of it. Inertia is a more correct statement than time.
>
>
>> I claim there must be a way.
>>
>
> As is that one.
It has meaning and you already answered :
"don't jump frames" to that. I don't want to jump frames
I want to know it locally. I realize this might be the
philosophers stone.
>> There is no absolute reference but what is GR if you
>> set up the metric with real gravitating masses ?
>> You can define a zero motion wrt to this metric.
>> Some say you can't.
>>
>> Some say there are no local effects for the traveller,
>> it is only the other party that is affected.
>> Some say the effects are local. Who is right ?
>> Where is your monolithic, body of knowledge which
>> is excellent at predicting the results of
>> observations ?
>>
>
>
> You seem to be asking quite a large number of exceedingly
> badly framed questions.
The finger on the relativistic wound. If you see the
discussions here, and I leave out the cranks, it is more
a body of confusion than a body of knowledge. The
specialists say, and they are right on that, GR does not
preclude any metric. But if you put in the gravitating
masses, you create this metric. They forget this, and
continue claiming there is no metric. They obviously
don't know what they are doing.
> Frankly, who do you think cares whether you listen or
> not?
I will keep posting then.. :-)
OC
Just one thing: how do you define "inertia".
For example, in classical mechanics what inertia is, is defined by
Newton's first law. How it can be measured is given by the second law.
How does it work in your case?
OC
Titanpoint
> Titanpoint wrote:
>
> > Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> > news:<3DF8F65E...@nospam.xs4all.nl>...
> >
> >
> >> And I conclude with my specialty : time. Is there a fourth
> >> dimension, does yesterday still exist or
> >> is there only motion, mainly controlled by
> >> inertia ?
> >>
> >>
> > Speciality unfortunately does not imply expertise.
>
>
> In this case, it does.
> I am amazed how little you all understand of what you're doing.
I'm not doing anything except bringing to your attention that your
equation of 'inertia' (which means 'The tendency of a body to resist
acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a
body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless
acted on by an outside force.') with time ('A nonspatial continuum in
which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past
through the present to the future') is like equating apples with whales.
If you have expertise in your chosen specialism you should at least be
able to not make such gross errors as these.
You declare that a subject is your specialism. You then equate specialism
with expertise without going through all that nasty mathematical theory
stuff suggests, to me, a mind unfettered by the need to make logical or
physical sense.
>
>
> >> If you have the answers, I will stop talking and start listening.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hayek.
> >>
> >>
> > Please start boning up on the math.
>
>
> Knowing the difference between 3D & 4D *IS* Math.
Knowing the difference is not simply saying it but explaining it. You have
not demonstrated this at all.
>
> > Spacetime is an experimentally verified fact.
>
>
> If you do not know what time is, how can you know what spacetime is ?
> When I tell you that the "time" in spacetime stands for 'inertia' you
> deny it. That only proves you do not know what "time" or inertia is. You
> do the equations without knowing what goes on.
I do and clearly you don't. Clearly the willingness to redefine commonly
accepted terms to mean other than how they are defined does not lead me to
have full confidence in your entire argument thus far.
> And experts in MATH agree : nothing moves in spacetime. A 3d plane in
> spacetime is in 3D what a single image is in a movie, a frozen 3D image.
> It is really essential mathemathics.
Which math experts? Name a mathematics professor at any accredited
university who has made such a statement.
> > Time exists and therefore there is motion.
>
> Time does not cause motion.
I did not say time causes motion. I said time exists AND THEREFORE there
is motion.
> I answered that in another post.
> Where does your time go at 0 degrees Kelvin ? In hibernation perhaps ?
0 degrees Kelvin is not attainable. It is a theoretical limit. Time is not
affected by temperature, only by mass (note: not inertia but inertial
mass)
> > Motion exists and therefore there is time.
>
>
> That is a circular definition.
> Strictly out of the question in any logical or mathemagical reasoning.
I assume that you did not misspell mathematical as mathemagical. I think I
am getting to the root of the problem.
>
> > Thought experiments without the math
>
> > is like driving a car without the engine. Thought experiments are
> > meaningless unless there's a way to
> express
> > them logically and that is what mathematics is
> > about.
>
>
> Start with a circular definition, mix up 3d & 4d and start calculating.
> Kip Thorne & Paul Davies then conclude one can time travel.
A total non-sequitur. I was not talking about spacetime but the basis of
using thought experiments without underlying mathematical logic is
irrelevant and meaningless. I can think of a million thought experiments
but without a logical foundation of mathematical consistency based on
axioms, they are meaningless.
It does not follow that because you say something is so, that it becomes
universally true for all. It is the height of folly to believe otherwise.
>
>
> > I've got 3 books in preparation for my final year course in
> > Cosmology:
> >
> > Relativity: The special and the general theory - Albert Einstein.
> > Schaum's Outline of Vector Analysis with introduction to tensors
> > Introducing Einstein's Relativity - R.A. Inverno
> >
> > I recommend them all, to be read in that order.
>
>
> How about Math 101 & Physics 101 ?
>
>
> Hayek.
I did not recommend them because I did not believe that you needed them. I
could be wrong.
TP
Stephen Speicher
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:10:55 +0100, Hayek wrote:
>
> > And experts in MATH agree : nothing moves in spacetime. A 3d plane in
> > spacetime is in 3D what a single image is in a movie, a frozen 3D image.
> > It is really essential mathemathics.
>
> Which math experts? Name a mathematics professor at any accredited
> university who has made such a statement.
>
Hayek is just parrotting something which he really does not
understand, but there is a legitimate sense in which one can say
that "nothing moves in spacetime." As a mathematical abstraction
which we use as a tool of analysis, spacetime is a 4-dimensional
manifold in which all events are already laid out, for all time.
To us the worldline of an object is simply fixed, and we can
inspect the worldline at at any given event, all events having
already occurred.
Of course, to the object itself this is not so, since the object
experiences spacetime event to event as it moves through
spacetime. But, to us who analyze this spacetime, nothing is
actually moving, but rather all is fixed in the manifold of
spacetime.
p.s. Beware talking to Hayek. He is both ignorant and disturbed,
but he picks up pieces of the truth from others time to time, and
he can use (his distorted version) of these tidbits of truth as a
weapon against you.
Hayek
OC wrote:
>>
>>Maybe by my explanation in this post you see the logic
>>of it. Inertia is a more correct statement than time.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Just one thing: how do you define "inertia".
> For example, in classical mechanics what inertia is, is defined by
> Newton's first law. How it can be measured is given by the second law.
> How does it work in your case?
It is that same inertia !
No difference.
Get a weight, have it move back an forth and distill
time from it.
A clock is an inertiameter.
Good old Newtonian inertia.
In flat space-'time' it is considered everywhere the same.
Now Einstein found out that 'time' runs slower when
speeding, and in a gravitational field. It is not 'time'
that dilates, it is increase of inertia. Hence your
clock runs slower.
That's it.
The error continues to exist because we like time,
and it is circularly defined. We extract time from
inertia, and then use time to define inertia.
But space only provides with inertia. By Mach's
Principle, "mass over there, governs inertia over here"
. And he was speaking of stars, galaxies, everything
that surrounds us.
Don't slap too hard on your head,
I am not responsible. :-)
This also effectively ends relativity, by making it an
absolute theory.
And time does not even exist. There are other ways to
impede motion than inertia, stopping the motion, for
chemical reactions and biological ones, cooling them,
which is nothing else than stopping the thermal motion.
Copyright,
original idea,
"the time in space-'time' is inertia.",
"clock is an inertiameter"
property of Herbert D. Van Hoof.
AKA Hayek.
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> > Hayek:
> >> I think we agree on all the experiments, on relativity.
> >> Anyone not agreeing to a properly conducted
> >> experiment and properly interpreted results, is a
> >> fool.
> >>
> >> But with relativity there is sooo much room for
> interpretation.
> >> Is there mutual clock retardation?
> >>
> >
> > What might nutual clock retardation be?
>
> As you might have noticed, I do not believe in time.
> As I said, I am not religious. :-) (joke)
>
> With the help of Mach's Principle
I hope you realise that Mach's Principle should really be called
Mach's Conjecture, since there is no experimental evidence available
which could lend strength to it.
In view of that, it is not too wise to derive conclusions "with the
help of Mach's Principle".
Franz Heymann
Hayek
Titanpoint wrote:
> I'm not doing anything except bringing to your attention
> that your equation of 'inertia' (which means 'The
> tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the
> tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of
> a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in
> a straight line unless acted on by an outside
> force.') with time ('A nonspatial continuum in
> which events occur in apparently irreversible succession
> from the past through the present to the future')
> is like equating apples with whales.
Noted. For future reference...
>
> If you have expertise in your chosen specialism you
should
> at least be able to not make such gross errors as
> these.
Noted. For future reference...
> You declare that a subject is your specialism. You then
> equate specialism with expertise without going through
> all that nasty mathematical theory stuff suggests,
> to me, a mind unfettered by the need to make
> logical or physical sense.
On the contrary.
The method by which one arrives to the physical reality
is not important. Observing an apple falling is not
necessarily inferior to solving tensors and concluding
that time travel is possible. One leads to magic and the
other to physics.
>> Knowing the difference between 3D & 4D *IS* Math.
>>
>
> Knowing the difference is not simply saying it but
explaining
> it. You have not demonstrated this at all.
Why should I demonstrate the difference between 3d & 4D
to you? Ask your math teacher.
>
>>> Spacetime is an experimentally verified fact.
>>
>>
>> If you do not know what time is, how can you know what
>> spacetime is ? When I tell you that the "time"
>> in spacetime stands for 'inertia' you deny it.
>> That only proves you do not know what "time" or
>> inertia is. You do the equations without knowing
>> what goes on.
>>
>
> I do and clearly you don't. Clearly the willingness to
> redefine commonly accepted terms to mean other than
> how they are defined does not lead me to have full
> confidence in your entire argument thus far.
I did not redefine them. It is good old inertia like
Newton defined it. Only it increases by adding
gravitating mass or by speeding through the field
created by the gravitating mass.
>> And experts in MATH agree : nothing moves in spacetime.
>> A 3d plane in spacetime is in 3D what a single
>> image is in a movie, a frozen 3D image. It is
>> really essential mathemathics.
>>
>
> Which math experts? Name a mathematics professor at any
> accredited university who has made such a statement.
>
Read the follow up post. Ihren liebsten Speicher even
agrees on this on. With a warning, don't liste to
strange men.
>>> Time exists and therefore there is motion.
>>
>> Time does not cause motion.
>>
>
> I did not say time causes motion. I said time exists AND
> THEREFORE there is motion.
It does not exist and is an illusion created by motion.
>> I answered that in another post. Where does your time
>> go at 0 degrees Kelvin ? In hibernation perhaps ?
>>
>
> 0 degrees Kelvin is not attainable. It is a theoretical
> limit. Time is not affected by temperature, only
> by mass (note: not inertia but inertial mass)
You do not need to reach 0 degrees Kelvin, just enough
to make the chemical reaction stop. Then the objects
time stops, it no longer changes.
>> That is a circular definition. Strictly out of the
question
>> in any logical or mathemagical reasoning.
>>
>
> I assume that you did not misspell mathematical as
mathemagical.
> I think I am getting to the root of the problem.
Here I misspelled it. Most of the time it is
intentional. And you're getting to the root of the
problem. It is your worshipping of mathemagics.
Not misspelled this time.
>
>
>>> Thought experiments without the math
>>
>>> is like driving a car without the engine. Thought
>>> experiments are meaningless unless there's a
>>> way to
>> express
>>> them logically and that is what mathematics is
>>> about.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Start with a circular definition, mix up 3d & 4d and
>> start calculating. Kip Thorne & Paul Davies then
>> conclude one can time travel.
>>
>
> A total non-sequitur. I was not talking about spacetime
> but the basis of using thought experiments without
> underlying mathematical logic is
irrelevant and meaningless. I can think of a million
thought experiments
> but without a logical foundation of mathematical
consistency based on
> axioms, they are meaningless.
I am talking about GR and what Thorne and Davies
concluded from it. According to you GR is logically
founded and of mathematical consistency. Yet it leads to
magic. I conclude Mathemagics. Because it is not
physics. If it is not physics, I can call it mathemagics
, don't you agree ?
>
> It does not follow that because you say something is
so, that it becomes
> universally true for all. It is the height of folly
> to
believe otherwise.
I do not use mathemagics, I just understand physics.
If I say that the "time" in spacetime is only "inertia",
then it is so. It is the privilege of those who do real
physics. It is the privilege of mathemagicians to
attempt time travel. I say attempt.
>>
>>> I've got 3 books in preparation for my final year
course in
>>> Cosmology:
Now you can walk out of the classroom because your
teacher refuses you to teach the 'inertial'
interpretation of GR. It is been done before for the
vector algebra of the Maxwell equations.
I reckon I cannot count on you for helping me getting my
book ready :-)
Maybe you should ask someone who is less prejudiced and
knows physics if a clock is an inertiameter, and if the
'time' in space-'time' stands for 'inertia'. Of course
it is obvious for someone who knows physics that this
'time'(of spacetime) slows down with the increase of
inertia, and vice versa.
Follow Speichers advice and no longer talk to me, or you
will loose your SR-ian status. Read my answer to Franz
Heymann :
http://groups.google.com/groups?&hl=en&selm=3DF8F733...@nospam.xs4all.nl
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
>Hayek:
>>With the help of Mach's Principle
>>
>
> I hope you realise that Mach's Principle should really be called
> Mach's Conjecture, since there is no experimental evidence available
> which could lend strength to it.
> In view of that, it is not too wise to derive conclusions "with the
> help of Mach's Principle".
Is there ? I thought Eotvosch, Newtons Bucket, Foucaults
pendulum, and last but not least, Gravity Probe B
do\will say something about MP. Besides, you do not
need MP to see that 'time' in spacetime can be replaced
by inertia. Reciprocal of course, but I do not need to
tell you that. What else can a clock be except an
inertiameter ?
Surely, the great Franz Heymann can make this
connection, when you point him to it. It is not like you
had to discover the thing....Maybe it *is* easier to
discover than to accept. He who discovers sees why, the
others need to be convinced. He who can read a map, can
draw the arrow 'you are here', those who need the arrow
are the ones who can't read maps. No offence intended.
Come on Franz, built an inertiameter. In your mind.
You can do it.
Hayek
Titanpoint wrote:
>
> I'm not doing anything except bringing to your
> attention that your equation of 'inertia' (which
> means 'The tendency of a body to resist
> acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to
> remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion
> to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted
> on by an outside force.') with time ('A nonspatial
> continuum in which events occur in apparently
> irreversible succession from the past through the
> present to the future') is like equating apples
> with whales.
I see you studied your Mantras.
It reminds me of the book of Richard Feynman "Surely
your joking Mr Feynman" , where he teaches physics in
Brazil. The students know their texts by heart, but do
not know the physical consequences of what they are
saying. Take a pair of tweezers (een tang) and sqeeze
a sugar cube when it is really dark.
Back to the future, eh, inertia.
Look at the pendulum of a clock.
Suppose you increased its mass,it would swing slower..
If you increased its relativistic mass...it would swing
slower...
Now, there is no such thing as 'relativistic mass
increase' it is only undergoing more inertia. This is
the same as inertial mass increase. Mass is the number
of atoms(1), inertial mass is the inertial field these
atoms are in. The number of atoms, nor their properties
change, just the surrounding inertia changes.
The gravitation of the Earth causes clocks to slow down,
more correct: it is the gravitation of the Earth that
submerges every clock in a little more inertia, in
effect or formerly called, a little more inertial
mass.(2) That makes the clock slow down, this is the
cause of the so called 'time dilation'. It does not
dilate time at all. It just adds inertia to clocks, and
everything else. That's why I call clocks inertiameters.
If you travel through space-'inertia' you rack up
inertial influence, you get more than by not moving
through this 'field'. You cross field lines and get an
inertial bonus.
It is the same thing GR says with a different view,
imnsho, a more correct view. An easier to understand and
less time travelly view. It also renders relativity
absolute, that is why I kept going on about this.
(1) of the same material or multiplied by their atomic
mass. I left this out for clarity in making the
distinction between mass & inertial mass.
(2) Gravity probe B is testing this soon but it is
basically GR.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
>
> If you have expertise in your chosen specialism you
> should at least be able to not make such gross
> errors as these.
It is your gross misunderstanding. Not seeing the whole
picture and not seeing the connection. Do not worry,
very little people have seen this before you. Maybe it
were their mantras that kept them from seeing it.
> You declare that a subject is your specialism. You
> then equate specialism with expertise without going
> through all that nasty mathematical theory stuff
> suggests, to me, a mind unfettered by the need to
> make logical or physical sense.
If you're good you're good, and when you're bad that's
even better. I am a bad boy. I do not believe
in time. :-)
Dale A Trynor
> Titanpoint wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm not doing anything except bringing to your
> > attention that your equation of 'inertia' (which
> > means 'The tendency of a body to resist
> > acceleration;
[snip]
> Look at the pendulum of a clock.
> Suppose you increased its mass,it would swing slower..
> If you increased its relativistic mass...it would swing
> slower...
> Now, there is no such thing as 'relativistic mass
> increase' it is only undergoing more inertia. This is
> the same as inertial mass increase. Mass is the number
> of atoms(1), inertial mass is the inertial field these
> atoms are in. The number of atoms, nor their properties
> change, just the surrounding inertia changes.
> The gravitation of the Earth causes clocks to slow down,
> more correct: it is the gravitation of the Earth that
> submerges every clock in a little more inertia, in
> effect or formerly called, a little more inertial
Dale Trynor wrote:
Have you seen any of my posts examining the idea that not only
dose gravitational time dilation cause more apparent inertia, but
it causes extra space as well. Objects with more inertia near a
black hole without this extra space could cause one to have far
more gravity than the matter that went in. In other words, its
got more inertia and therefore more gravity but because its all
farther away due to more space, we would measure no change. I do
need to look more closely into what's known as gravitational
binding energy to be more sure about the validity and accuracy of
this argument.
www.alternatescience.com
Franz Heymann
[...]
> A clock is an inertiameter.
I think you misunderstand the significance of those two pointers and
the scale marked
I to XII, so the rest of your screed is certain to be composed of
horse manure. I therefore took the liberty of snipping it.
[...]
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> >Hayek:
> >>With the help of Mach's Principle
> >>
> >
> > I hope you realise that Mach's Principle should really be called
> > Mach's Conjecture, since there is no experimental evidence
available
> > which could lend strength to it.
> > In view of that, it is not too wise to derive conclusions "with
the
> > help of Mach's Principle".
>
>
> Is there ? I thought Eotvosch, Newtons Bucket, Foucaults
> pendulum, and last but not least, Gravity Probe B
> do\will say something about MP.
No. You thought wrong.
Besides, you do not
> need MP to see that 'time' in spacetime can be replaced
> by inertia. Reciprocal of course, but I do not need to
> tell you that. What else can a clock be except an
> inertiameter ?
Something for telling the time?
Useful for not missing a meeting.
>
> Surely, the great Franz Heymann
Only 5 ft 11 inches in his socks.
> can make this
> connection, when you point him to it.
Sorry, he cannot. He does not specialise in consuming horse dung
> It is not like you
> had to discover the thing....Maybe it *is* easier to
> discover than to accept. He who discovers sees why, the
> others need to be convinced. He who can read a map, can
> draw the arrow 'you are here', those who need the arrow
> are the ones who can't read maps. No offence intended.
Not only do you not know any physics, you also do not even have any
success in offending.
>
[...]
Franz Heymann
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
> Not only do you not know any physics, you also do not even have any
> success in offending.
There is a difference between mantras and physics.
How hard is this problem ?
Use a frictionless rotor as a clock.
Give it the required speed and it will rotate, say every
second. Add 20 % mass, like in relativistic mass
increase and see it run exactly 20% slower. Realize that
this mass increase is not real, that it is an effect of
increased inertia.
Now, that was difficult physics.
If nobody understands even this simple problem,
I might as well give it up here.
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
>
> > Not only do you not know any physics, you also do not even have
any
> > success in offending.
>
>
> There is a difference between mantras and physics.
>
> How hard is this problem ?
> Use a frictionless rotor as a clock.
> Give it the required speed and it will rotate, say every
> second. Add 20 % mass, like in relativistic mass
> increase
With the pesent definition of mass, there is no such thing as
relativistic mass increase. Mass is defined to be what in olden days
used to be called rest-mass.
and see it run exactly 20% slower. Realize that
> this mass increase is not real, that it is an effect of
> increased inertia.
I'm not with you. I thought you said "add 20% mass".
If you dpn't want to be lampooned, say something without mistakes
which tempt the lampooner.
Franz Heymann
>
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
> I'm not with you. I thought you said "add 20% mass". If
> you dpn't want to be lampooned, say something
> without mistakes which tempt the lampooner.
I think there is a program in (early) unix,
DWIM, do what I mean.
UWIM, understand what I mean.
I do not go for the errors,
I go for what the man means, if I do not understand, I
do not assume he's wrong, I ask for clarification.
And maybe I do not want to deal with lampooners,
who have an ego that largely exceeds their knowledge.
OC
> OC wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>Maybe by my explanation in this post you see the logic
> >>of it. Inertia is a more correct statement than time.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Just one thing: how do you define "inertia".
> > For example, in classical mechanics what inertia is, is defined by
> > Newton's first law. How it can be measured is given by the second law.
> > How does it work in your case?
>
>
> It is that same inertia !
> No difference.
> Get a weight, have it move back an forth and distill
> time from it.
>
Newton's laws need cinematics to be stated. That means, time is used
(if not explicitly defined) as a coordinate. And this goes into the
definition of inertia and mass.
Since you do not accept time (as a coordinate, as far as I have
understood), your statement "It is the same inertia!" must be proofed.
But, in order to do so, you must first give a definition of inertia,
which does not require, not even implicitly, time (which you do not
accept).
OC
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not with you. I thought you said "add 20% mass". If
> > you dpn't want to be lampooned, say something
> > without mistakes which tempt the lampooner.
>
>
> I think there is a program in (early) unix,
> DWIM, do what I mean.
> UWIM, understand what I mean.
> I do not go for the errors,
> I go for what the man means, if I do not understand, I
> do not assume he's wrong, I ask for clarification.
>
> And maybe I do not want to deal with lampooners,
> who have an ego that largely exceeds their knowledge.
Ah, but since the choice of when to stop lampooning you is mine, it
would be up to you to stop posting lampoonable nonsense if you want to
cease being lampooned.
Franz Heymann