Hayek
Posts:
53
Registered:
12/13/04
|
|
Re: Dingle and the Twins' Paradox (Tom and Paul Andersen are wrong)
Posted:
Feb 19, 2012 5:39 PM
|
|
On 2/19/2012 10:33 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> 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,
Then try to build an inertiameter, just to figure out if inertia is
variable.
Uwe Hayek.
|
|
