oriel36
Posts:
96
Registered:
7/21/08
|
|
Re: Dingle and the Twins' Paradox (Tom and Paul Andersen are wrong)
Posted:
Feb 19, 2012 4:33 PM
|
|
On Feb 19, 8:59 pm, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 7:53 PM, Androcles wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Uwe Hayek"<haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> >news:4f413c9a$0$6862$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
> > | On 2/14/2012 2:51 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > |> **** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins? paradox,
> > |> between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
> > |> Lorentz transform is applied.
> > |
> > | I beg to differ.
> > |
> > | There is a third way, neither SR ian or Dingle.
> > |
> > | Call it the Machian Way, were the mass distribution of the Universe
> > | constitutes a Preferential Frame.
> > |
> > | If a clock is stationary wrt this frame it runs at the highest speed.
>
> > Instead of one second per second it runs at the higher speed of
> > one second per second.
> > You are insane, Hayek.
>
> A clock does not measure 'time'.
>
> Time was never correctly defined by anyone.
>
> A clock measures inertia.
>
A clock doesn't measure anything,it sets a standard pace and the main
topic is discovering what exactly that pace corresponds to.The
fundamental unit of time is not the second,minute,hour,day or year,the
fundamental unit of time is a proportion between the two main
dynamical cycles of the Earth where 1461 rotations for 4 orbital
circuits reduces to 365 1/4 to 1 orbital circuit.The AM/PM
designations which straddle the natural noon cycles and the clock AM/
PM cycles are central to discovering the steady pace of a hand
sweeping across the face of a watch keeping pace with the daily cycle
of the Earth.
The core empirical ideology based on right ascension reasoning sets
the pace of the clock to stellar circumpolar motion or 'inertial
space' as you guys call it,in short,setting the pace of a clock to a
rotating celestial sphere was a particularly poor conclusion -
... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical [constant/steady]... " John Flamsteed
He was looking at this geometry which should be as unsightly and
unacceptable to any reader here in this 13 second time lapse footage -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI
If you set the pace of a watch to that then forget
astronomy ,planetary dynamics and everything else because ultimately
that is what Newton's absolute/relative time,space and motion dissolve
into.In the race to the bottom that goes on here day in and day out,it
takes nothing to turn this around and begin to reason as men should.
> Inertia is variable, just like voltage.
>
> A voltmeter always measures one volt, provided you measure a voltage
> source of one volt.
>
> If you put an inertiameter next to another one, in other words a clock
> next to a clock, then they are in the same inertial field strength and
> thus measure the same inertia. It so happens that on the Earth's sea
> level the inertial field strength is about everywhere the same. Thus
> clocks run everywhere the same on Earth's sea level.
>
> Look at it as a voltage potential, it is an inertial potential.
>
> If there is a gravitational force, you have a difference in inertia.
>
> It is tremendously easy to see, but it does not plea for the
> intelligence of this ng, that they simple are unable to grasp this.
>
> I guess this is how it always worked, great ideas were always rejected
> and ridiculed.
>
> Uwe Hayek.
|
|
