Hexenmeister wrote:

{snip}

If it bothers you, stop reading his posts.

"Hayek" wrote in message ...



We have the earth move at 0.6 c through our galaxy,
more precisely the earth moves at 0.6 c wrt the
average mass distribution of the universe.

If only life were so easy. But let us assume that it
is inertial motion anyway.


Galaxus, one of the twins, is launched in a rocket,
and accelerates away from Earth till he reaches
immoblility wrt to the galaxy, more precisely :
immobile wrt the average mass distribution of the
universe.

That's it.

According to your viewpoint, will the Galaxus's clock
run :

1 - slower than the Earth's clocks
2 - faster than the Earth's clocks

It depends on whether I am on Earth or with Galaxus.
The two are in relative motion. You should know by
now that Galaxus will measure the Earth's clocks to
be running slow and observers on the Earth will
measure Galaxus' clocks to be running slow.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others, are
also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so. -- Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See

An interesting quote; heed it.

Martin Hogbin

Hayek wrote:
We all know the endless discussions about one of the
twins chasing the stars and coming back, about SR and
Lorentz.

Here is a "relatively" simple question, with two
possible, simple answers.


We have the earth move at 0.6 c through our galaxy,
more precisely the earth moves at 0.6 c wrt the
average mass distribution of the universe.

If you meant to say that the earth is moving at 0.6c wrt to the speed
at which the mass distribution of the universe is on the average
moving, is that faster or slower than the average? If you did not mean
to say that, I see no way to compare speed with mass distribution
alone, whether it is average or not.

Thus, your question is nonsense unless you can be more specific about
it. I'm surprised all of these "professional" physicists who have
posted here actually accepted your question as valid. Surely they
have a brain,no? - even if you don't.

"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...

| Thus, your question is nonsense unless you can be more specific about
| it. I'm surprised all of these "professional" physicists who have
| posted here actually accepted your question as valid. Surely they
| have a brain,no? - even if you don't.

Name all the professional physicists who have posted here and
have actually accepted Hayek's question as valid, confirming your
surprise.
I am not surprised you make unsubstantiated assumptions.
Surely they have a brain, no? Even if you don't?
Androcles.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Hayek" wrote in message
...



We have the earth move at 0.6 c through our
galaxy, more precisely the earth moves at 0.6 c
wrt the average mass distribution of the
universe.


If only life were so easy. But let us assume that
it is inertial motion anyway.



Galaxus, one of the twins, is launched in a
rocket, and accelerates away from Earth till he
reaches immoblility wrt to the galaxy, more
precisely : immobile wrt the average mass
distribution of the universe.

That's it.

According to your viewpoint, will the Galaxus's
clock run :


1 - slower than the Earth's clocks 2 - faster
than the Earth's clocks


It depends on whether I am on Earth or with
Galaxus. The two are in relative motion. You
should know by now that Galaxus will measure the
Earth's clocks to be running slow and observers on
the Earth will measure Galaxus' clocks to be
running slow.

We are not observing : we bet on future results, after
inventing FTL radio, for instance.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others,
are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams, Last
Chance to See


An interesting quote; heed it.

Martin Hogbin

Can you point me to someone who has experience in near
light speed travel ?

Uwe Hayek.

--
This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others, are
also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so. -- Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See

tomgee wrote:

Hayek wrote:

We all know the endless discussions about one of
the twins chasing the stars and coming back,
about SR and Lorentz.

Here is a "relatively" simple question, with two
possible, simple answers.


We have the earth move at 0.6 c through our
galaxy, more precisely the earth moves at 0.6 c
wrt the average mass distribution of the
universe.


If you meant to say that the earth is moving at
0.6c wrt to the speed at which the mass
distribution of the universe is on the average
moving,

It makes no sense to speak of the motion of the
average mass distribution of the universe.


is that faster or slower than the average? If you
did not mean to say that, I see no way to compare
speed with mass distribution alone, whether it is
average or not.

Thus, your question is nonsense unless you can be
more specific about it. I'm surprised all of these
"professional" physicists who have posted here
actually accepted your question as valid.

They know what I am talking about. It is called context.

Surely they have a brain,no?

Not only do they have a brain, they used it also to
study GR.

- even if you don't.

It must be another miracle. An empty skull is also an
inertial frame. And if you see what miracles imaginary
inertial frames can perform on light speed, nothing
should surprise you anymore.

I could tell you to read something about Mach's
principle, but clearly, learning is not your aim as
you obviously know everything there is to know, and
now your only goal left is showing off your complete
and utter ignorance, and to make a complete fool of
yourself.

Uwe Hayek.


--
This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others, are
also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so. -- Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See

Hexenmeister wrote:

"Hayek" wrote in message
... |
| We all know the endless discussions about one of
the | twins chasing the stars and coming back,
about SR and | Lorentz. | | Here is a "relatively"
simple question, with two | possible, simple
answers. | | | We have the earth move at 0.6 c
through our galaxy, | more precisely the earth
moves at 0.6 c wrt the | average mass distribution
of the universe. | | Galaxus, one of the twins, is
launched in a rocket, | and accelerates away from
Earth till he reaches | immoblility wrt to the
galaxy, more precisely : | immobile wrt the average
mass distribution of the | universe. | | That's it.
| | According to your viewpoint, will the
Galaxus's clock | run : | | 1 - slower than the
Earth's clocks | 2 - faster than the Earth's clocks


| Just an answer please, don't knows, can't knows
please | abstain. This is a bet, based on the
predictive power | of your pov, and we might never
know the real answer. | | My bet is on answer 2 :
faster. | | Uwe Hayek.

****ing hell. I DO know.

3 - EXACTLY THE SAME AS EARTH'S CLOCKS. Pay up,
you lose, we already know the real answer.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ynchronize.htm


As Roberts the idiot relativist says, "Real has
nothing to do with it", but of course he's wrong as
usual, real has everything to do with it.

You know what a voltmeter is.
You know there are different voltages, and the
voltmeter can do different readings.

A clock is an inertiameter.
It measures inertia.
How would you measure inertia ?
By moving a mass back and forth, and seeing how long
it takes.

Inertia is variable. It varies if you place more mass
around the test region, where your inertiameter
(formerly called clock) is situated. If you move the
inertiameter against the masses of the universe it
also undergoes more inertia, and moves slower.

Since inertia influences all the physical processes we
know so far, it is so far impossible to measure any
increase or decrease locally.

We can only compare two regions with different
inertia, and look at the different rates the meters run.

Inertia also influences the rate at wich our bodies
molecules react. We humans are just chemistry. As our
inertiameters indicate higher inertia, we cannot know
this locally, because our bodily chemistry has slowed
down at the same rate. Primitive minds will try to
explain this with religious concepts and will invoke
the fictitious notion of "time".

Your notion that "clocks must run everywhere the same"
is as silly as saying that voltmeters should always
measure the same voltage.

As inertia varies, the inertiameter readings will
vary, just as the voltmeter readings vary as the
voltage varies.

Physics is simple, if you understand.

"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


And lord Kelvin was OH SO RIGHT, and still is.

Those who claim they do not need a mechanical model,
simply haven't understood the subject.

And I add again the wise words of Heisenberg :

The physicist may be satisfied when he has the
mathematical scheme and knows how to use for the
interpretation of the experiments. But he has to speak
about his results also to non-physicists who will not
be satisfied unless some explanation is given in plain
language. Even for the physicist the description in
plain language will be the criterion of the degree of
understanding that has been reached. -- Werner
Heisenberg in Physics and Philosophy
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...eisenberg.html


Uwe Hayek.

--
This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others, are
also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so. -- Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See

Hayek wrote:
snip
You know what a voltmeter is.
You know there are different voltages, and the
voltmeter can do different readings.

A clock is an inertiameter.
It measures inertia.
How would you measure inertia ?
By moving a mass back and forth, and seeing how long
it takes.

Inertia is variable. It varies if you place more mass
around the test region, where your inertiameter
(formerly called clock) is situated. If you move the
inertiameter against the masses of the universe it
also undergoes more inertia, and moves slower.

Since inertia influences all the physical processes we
know so far, it is so far impossible to measure any
increase or decrease locally.

We can only compare two regions with different
inertia, and look at the different rates the meters run.

Inertia also influences the rate at wich our bodies
molecules react. We humans are just chemistry. As our
inertiameters indicate higher inertia, we cannot know
this locally, because our bodily chemistry has slowed
down at the same rate. Primitive minds will try to
explain this with religious concepts and will invoke
the fictitious notion of "time".

Your notion that "clocks must run everywhere the same"
is as silly as saying that voltmeters should always
measure the same voltage.

As inertia varies, the inertiameter readings will
vary, just as the voltmeter readings vary as the
voltage varies.
snip

Will one of these *inertiameters*
( I think you mean ocillating mass accelerometer)
behave the same at a hollow in the earth's center as
it does in earth orbit?

Sue...

"Hayek" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
|
| "Hayek" wrote in message
| ... |
| | We all know the endless discussions about one of
| the | twins chasing the stars and coming back,
| about SR and | Lorentz. | | Here is a "relatively"
| simple question, with two | possible, simple
| answers. | | | We have the earth move at 0.6 c
| through our galaxy, | more precisely the earth
| moves at 0.6 c wrt the | average mass distribution
| of the universe. | | Galaxus, one of the twins, is
| launched in a rocket, | and accelerates away from
| Earth till he reaches | immoblility wrt to the
| galaxy, more precisely : | immobile wrt the average
| mass distribution of the | universe. | | That's it.
| | | According to your viewpoint, will the
| Galaxus's clock | run : | | 1 - slower than the
| Earth's clocks | 2 - faster than the Earth's clocks
|
|
| | Just an answer please, don't knows, can't knows
| please | abstain. This is a bet, based on the
| predictive power | of your pov, and we might never
| know the real answer. | | My bet is on answer 2 :
| faster. | | Uwe Hayek.
|
| ****ing hell. I DO know.
|
| 3 - EXACTLY THE SAME AS EARTH'S CLOCKS. Pay up,
| you lose, we already know the real answer.
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ynchronize.htm
|
|
| As Roberts the idiot relativist says, "Real has
| nothing to do with it", but of course he's wrong as
| usual, real has everything to do with it.
|
| You know what a voltmeter is.

Yep.

| You know there are different voltages, and the
| voltmeter can do different readings.

Yep.

|
| A clock is an inertiameter.


A clock is oscillator with a counter. Idiot.


| It measures inertia.

Bull****, it counts oscillations.


| How would you measure inertia ?

| By moving a mass back and forth, and seeing how long
| it takes.

How the **** am I going to see how long it takes to oscillate
back and forth without a clock?


| Inertia is variable.

Your mentality is variable.

|It varies if you place more mass
| around the test region, where your inertiameter
| (formerly called clock) is situated.

It doesn't matter how many rocks I pile up on this clock,
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries/EMStonehenge.jpg
it will still record time by counting days.
You are a ****ing lunatic.



If you move the
| inertiameter against the masses of the universe it
| also undergoes more inertia, and moves slower.

Hey moron, we are talking about time, not inertia.


|
| Since inertia influences all the physical processes we
| know so far, it is so far impossible to measure any
| increase or decrease locally.

Hey moron, we are discussing time, not inertia.
You are a ****ing lunatic.

|
| We can only compare two regions with different
| inertia, and look at the different rates the meters run.

Hey imbecile, we are discussing time, not meters.
You are a ****ing lunatic.

|
| Inertia also influences the rate at wich our bodies
| molecules react.

Hey cretin, we are discussing time, not molecules.
You are a ****ing lunatic.

| We humans are just chemistry.

Hey numskull , we are discussing time, not chemistry.
You are a ****ing lunatic.


| As our
| inertiameters indicate higher inertia, we cannot know
| this locally, because our bodily chemistry has slowed
| down at the same rate.

Hey, we are discussing rate, rate of what?

| Primitive minds will try to
| explain this with religious concepts and will invoke
| the fictitious notion of "time".

You have a primitive mind, anencephalous cretin.

| Your notion that "clocks must run everywhere the same"
| is as silly as saying that voltmeters should always
| measure the same voltage.

Newton never said they would.
Why do you confuse clocks with time? Working clocks measure time,
but clocks can stop.
You are a ****ing lunatic.

|
| As inertia varies, the inertiameter readings will
| vary, just as the voltmeter readings vary as the
| voltage varies.
|
| Physics is simple, if you understand.

Physics always was simple, but you don't understand.
****ing "clock is an inertiameter". What a moron.


|
| "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
|
|
| And lord Kelvin was OH SO RIGHT, and still is.

Hey cretin, we are discussing time, not Lord Kelvin.
You are a ****ing lunatic.

|
| Those who claim they do not need a mechanical model,
| simply haven't understood the subject.

Hey cretin, we are discussing time, a clock is a mechanical model.

You are a ****ing lunatic.

|
| And I add again the wise words of Heisenberg :

And I add again these wise words of Androcles.
YOU ARE A ****ING LUNATIC.
Androcles.




|
| The physicist may be satisfied when he has the
| mathematical scheme and knows how to use for the
| interpretation of the experiments. But he has to speak
| about his results also to non-physicists who will not
| be satisfied unless some explanation is given in plain
| language. Even for the physicist the description in
| plain language will be the criterion of the degree of
| understanding that has been reached. -- Werner
| Heisenberg in Physics and Philosophy
| http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...eisenberg.html
|
|
| Uwe Hayek.
|
| --
| This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
| knowledge but no power.
| Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus
|
| Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
| ability to learn from the experience of others, are
| also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
| do so. -- Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See
|

SR is not the tool to give an answer.
I think you are trying to fool the community.
Later pls tell about the background of the bet.

Your 2 proposals lead into the direction of creating a preferred
frame.

Only with a tool that has not the limitation of c one can say if
slower/faster.
If it would be available, I would say it Galaxus has a faster clock.

Not directly connected to your thread:
Before and after the BB, seen from our location where we have
spacetime, our universe is/was infinite. Also the age of universe
depends on the location of the observer.
Infinite in that sense that we never can go to the current border,
because it's leaving with c since the BB event. Therefore the border
has no need for a clock.
Again, we have no tools to proove it. Nobody knows what's outside.

Math can be the tool, but that would be a new theory.

Rudi