sal wrote:


However, hayek is as usual, posting soundbites
with no real comprehension of what he is posting,



No argument there!

I will give you a soundbite :

"A clock is an inertiameter"

And challenge you to
- understand it,
- to point at someone who said this before,
- try to falsify it by pointing at a process that is
well understood, acts as a clock, and is not based on
inertia.

Should I bother to take her Shallowness out of my
killfile ? I don't think so, I do not expect any
worthy answer.

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

Oops! Another message from Hayek!

Did I forget to plonk him? Looks like I did.

Oh, well, no time like the present.

plonk

--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 03:42:16 +0000, Bilge wrote:

sal:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:32:29 +0000, Bilge wrote:

sal:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:13:54 +0000, Dirk Van de moortel 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.

We all know how imbeciles like you have the struggle of
their life with it.


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

What would an imbecile like you who claims that "HIV does
not cause AIDS" do with simple answers?
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...hayek+aids+hiv

Crikey, he really does say that.

Where do all these crazy people come from, anyway?

That is actually a conjecture made a long time ago by peter
duesberg,
who is a well-respected molecular biologist

_Formerly_ well-respected. His goofball view of Aids, which
seemed to be based on reasoning along the lines of "It doesn't
look like an ordinary disease caused by a common microbe so it
can't result from any kind of virus", pretty much put an end to
that everywhere except the lunatic fringe.

Well, that is not really his argument. His argument is that the
presence of HIV antibodies may be correlated with AIDS, but is not
the causative agent. In effect, his view is similar to arguing that
dirty surgical instruments are not the cause of infections - while
it is obvious that dirty surgical instruments are correlated with a
higher infection rate, unseen microbes are the cause, not the dirt
itself, the dirt merely being an indicator of how likely it is that
the microbes are present. It is still possoble to not get an
infection with a dirty surgical instrument as well as get an
infection with a clean surgical instrument, since there is a
correlation between dirt and the microbes which cause the infection.

Yes, that sounds like what I recall. Correlation without causality is
what he claimed. The nagging question which arose was just how much
"correlation" it takes before you are forced to conclude there's some
sort of causality present, after all.

I was following this somewhat more closely a number of years ago, when
Duesberg was still taken seriously by a lot of people; at this point
all I really recall clearly about it are my conclusions,
unfortunately, not the details that went into them.


I am not advocating his viewpoint since I do not consider myself
enough of an expert on the subject to advocate either viewpoint. To
argue either viewpoint without sufficient expertise would be to
engage in the same crackpottery that litters this newsgroup (I also
object to people who vigorously advocate accepted science like
relativity if they have no idea why they are advocating it - the
kookiness is advocating what one lacks the knowledge to discuss at
the level of expertise needed to form an opinion.

Point taken, and I'll shut up about it (after this post).

[ ... ]

I never understood why he was apparently admired in the gay
community; the guy was toxic as far as I could see.

I can't address that, since I was unaware that he was admired in the
gay community. If that is true, it probably has a lot more to do
with their desire to create a perception they like than for
scientific merit.

As I recall he was considered somewhat of a hero at one time. My
impression was that it did, indeed, have to do with the fact that he
was the only one in the scientific community at the time who was
willing to stand up and challenge the mainstream viewpoint. This was
long before there was any treatment for Aids, and may even have been
before the western blot test was available; the only thing mainstream
science had to offer victims at that time was the assertion that they
must have brought it on themselves by their behavior (which is never a
helpful thing to tell a patient).


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

If a frame is splitted e.g. by launching of a rocket, then we have 2
frames.
The "rocket frame" has changed his "state of motion".

It's then clear whose clock is delayed. SR alone can't say this.
So if we would know the history since BB we would be able to
say more about all clocks, wherever they are.

BUt does this lead us to new insights?

Rudi

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
oups.com...
If a frame is splitted e.g. by launching of a rocket, then we have 2
frames.
The "rocket frame" has changed his "state of motion".

Yes it has. Now go back and read what I posted, and try to answer the
questions.


It's then clear whose clock is delayed. SR alone can't say this.
So if we would know the history since BB we would be able to
say more about all clocks, wherever they are.

BUt does this lead us to new insights?

Does your post have any relevance to what I asked?

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.

I think you mean wrt the average momentum, not mass.

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.

The problem with your question is not so much the answer -- you could
say #2, and find many good, even real, justifications for it -- but
rather the problem of how you would determine the answer. Anyone who
travels along a closed path relative to an inertial observer must, by
simple geometry, spend more time at a higher "absolute velocity" than
the inertial observer, which will cause his clocks to be behind the
inertial observer's clocks when he returns. It is, to say the least,
difficult to find even a theoretical method for deciding the issue.

Phil

John C. Polasek wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:26:30 +0200, "Henry Haapalainen"
wrote:

"The Ghost In The Machine" kirjoitti viestissä
news
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:19:02 +0100, Hayek wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

snip

The atomic clocks are not running too slow or too fast if they are not
disturbed. All the clocks in the universe run similarly in free fall.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

No, atomic clocks all run slower in a gravity well, and whether they
are in free fall or being acclerated does not affect their rate.
John Polasek

Apparently you don't know what is a gravity well, nor what free-falling
objects are, nor that free-falling objects are being accelerated, nor
that their time rates are being affected continuously.

"Hayek" wrote in message
...


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


Martin Hogbin wrote:

"Hayek" wrote in
message
...






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.

There are two possible options : the third -
undetermined - would be pure fiction, so I left
it out.

Science allows us to speculate between to
possible options. And this question allows to
nicely discern between the two camps : if there
are still two camps : I got two, and including
me, three votes for faster, and no votes for
slower : the other camp just launched insults.

It is almost as if they know they are beaten, and
just leave the discussion room swearing. :-)


The only theory of space and time accepted by
physicists the world over is Einstein's theory of
relativity.

Science is not about authority and acceptance.
It is about understanding and enlarging knowledge.
Einstein himself said : "we should never stop asking
"What If"."


The answer according to this theory is as I have
stated previously.

I perfectly understand that answer, but it is just
unsatisfactory to me.

If FTL radio exists then relativity (as it is
presently understood) is wrong.

Not necessarily. Aether theory made us construct MMX,
relativity theory will (maybe) make us construct the
next step. Maxwell and Aether served their purpose,
and we moved on to QM and relativity. It raises
further questions, and we should pose these questions.
In the previous century, physicists also thought there
was nothing left to be discovered, that physics was
complete. They were dead wrong. Let us not make the
same mistake.

It is an interesting line of thought : If ftl radio is
discovered, what would the effect be on relativity ?

What if we find a local experiment that allows us to
determine our absolute speed wrt the average mass
distribution ?

I think these answers are already given by Lorentz and
relativity theory today.

I have been trying to explain all the result of
relativity with physical effects, in a mechanistic
way, and find it fits perfectly. Why explain a magical
relativity, if it can be intuitively explained in a
mechanistic way, yielding exactly the same results ?

And in the process maybe opening the way to a
practical experiment that will be the next big step in
physics ?

If you do not try, it will never happen.

It is therefore not possible to answer your
question using relativity on the basis that FTL
radio exists.

That is your opinion. Relativity is no straigthjacket,
it is an assumption after MMX. I see relativity as
something that tries to tell us about the true
workings of physics. It is not the end of all
discussions, but another beginning.

Indeed, some people use theories as brain stoppers...