The absolute frame.
in [Relativity]
|
From: GogoJF on 10 Aug 2010 21:20 On Aug 10, 1:34 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > There is an absolute frame, but the gamma factor hides this. > > There are three possibilities : > > 1.a does not move, only b moves wrt the absolute frame. > > 2.a moves and b moves faster first then returns slower > wrt the absolute frame to a > > 3.a moves and b moves slower first then returns faster > wrt absolute frame. > > first case : b's clock will move slower than a's on the > outward voyage and slower than a's on the way back. > > second case : b's clock will move muuuuch slower that > a's on the outward voyage and faster than a's on the way > back, in total, because the gamma factor has a quadradic > term we will end up just as slow as in the first case > and third case. > > Third case : b's clock will move faster that a's on the > outward voyage and muuuuch slower than a's on the way > back, and again, in total, because the gamma factor has > a quadradic term we will end up just as slow as in the > first case and in the second case. > > So no matter what case you choose : because there is > acceleration on the return point, the speed wrt to > absolute frame changes, and because of the quadratic > gamma factor, two way voyages always make the returning > twin age more, if not on the outward track, then it is > on the inbound track, or on both tracks. The > instantaneous clock rate is decided by the speed wrt to > the absolute frame, the average mass distribution of the > universe. > > SR-ians can make funny claims, and so can I, because > there is no way of verifying this, without Faster Than > Light transmission, which SR-ians exclude from their > theory, mainly because this would destroy SR, and > secondly because they do not know what proper time > exactly is. > They think it is "speed of passage through time", while > it actually is slowing the motion of objects and clocks > by increasing inertia. A clock is an inertiameter, or an > inertial field strength meter. If inertia becomes > stronger, the escapement of your clock is harder to move > back and forth, hence the clock slows. Because this > applies to any object moving in this higher inertia, we > think this is "time" we are measuring, while in fact it > does not much more than your freezer, alowing the motion > of the molecules. > > Uwe Hayek. > > -- > We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate > inversion : the stage where the government is free to do > anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by > permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of > human history. -- Ayn Rand > > I predict future happiness for Americans if they can > prevent the government from wasting the labors of the > people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- > Thomas Jefferson. > > Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of > ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue > is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill. What does absolute frame mean to me? Well, I would say that the North Star as it appears to us, is as absolute as the word can mean- even though the North Star changes every several hundred years- the poles of our solar system perturb. Air, water, S.T.P., these things we have taken for granted- end up being the only things responsible for our existence. But, I would say more than anything- that the instantaneousness of light is the most absolute frame to me.
From: Inertial on 10 Aug 2010 21:34 "GogoJF" wrote in message news:31d7324c-6003-4871-a0de-19ef7ae233e2(a)z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >But, I would say more than anything- that the > instantaneousness of light is the most absolute frame to me. It isn't instantaneous. Try again
From: GogoJF on 10 Aug 2010 21:34 On Aug 10, 8:20 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 10, 1:34 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > > There is an absolute frame, but the gamma factor hides this. > > > There are three possibilities : > > > 1.a does not move, only b moves wrt the absolute frame. > > > 2.a moves and b moves faster first then returns slower > > wrt the absolute frame to a > > > 3.a moves and b moves slower first then returns faster > > wrt absolute frame. > > > first case : b's clock will move slower than a's on the > > outward voyage and slower than a's on the way back. > > > second case : b's clock will move muuuuch slower that > > a's on the outward voyage and faster than a's on the way > > back, in total, because the gamma factor has a quadradic > > term we will end up just as slow as in the first case > > and third case. > > > Third case : b's clock will move faster that a's on the > > outward voyage and muuuuch slower than a's on the way > > back, and again, in total, because the gamma factor has > > a quadradic term we will end up just as slow as in the > > first case and in the second case. > > > So no matter what case you choose : because there is > > acceleration on the return point, the speed wrt to > > absolute frame changes, and because of the quadratic > > gamma factor, two way voyages always make the returning > > twin age more, if not on the outward track, then it is > > on the inbound track, or on both tracks. The > > instantaneous clock rate is decided by the speed wrt to > > the absolute frame, the average mass distribution of the > > universe. > > > SR-ians can make funny claims, and so can I, because > > there is no way of verifying this, without Faster Than > > Light transmission, which SR-ians exclude from their > > theory, mainly because this would destroy SR, and > > secondly because they do not know what proper time > > exactly is. > > They think it is "speed of passage through time", while > > it actually is slowing the motion of objects and clocks > > by increasing inertia. A clock is an inertiameter, or an > > inertial field strength meter. If inertia becomes > > stronger, the escapement of your clock is harder to move > > back and forth, hence the clock slows. Because this > > applies to any object moving in this higher inertia, we > > think this is "time" we are measuring, while in fact it > > does not much more than your freezer, alowing the motion > > of the molecules. > > > Uwe Hayek. > > > -- > > We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate > > inversion : the stage where the government is free to do > > anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by > > permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of > > human history. -- Ayn Rand > > > I predict future happiness for Americans if they can > > prevent the government from wasting the labors of the > > people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- > > Thomas Jefferson. > > > Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of > > ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue > > is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill. > > What does absolute frame mean to me? Well, I would say that the North > Star as it appears to us, is as absolute as the word can mean- even > though the North Star changes every several hundred years- the poles > of our solar system perturb. Air, water, S.T.P., these things we have > taken for granted- end up being the only things responsible for our > existence. But, I would say more than anything- that the > instantaneousness of light is the most absolute frame to me. The fall of gravity. The spectrum of the rainbow. The EMR scale of light. The periodic table.
From: eric gisse on 10 Aug 2010 21:38 Hayek wrote: > There is an absolute frame, but the gamma factor hides this. Math hides nothing. If you can't find it, it doesn't exist. [snip rest, unread]
From: GogoJF on 10 Aug 2010 22:32
On Aug 10, 8:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "GogoJF" wrote in message > > news:31d7324c-6003-4871-a0de-19ef7ae233e2(a)z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > >But, I would say more than anything- that the > > instantaneousness of light is the most absolute frame to me. > > It isn't instantaneous. > > Try again This is what I put and pile everything- of my ideas and theories on. Let me ask you this- do you doubt your size- or better said, do you know how large you are? I mean your size with the rest of the universe. I think that everything must have a distinct meaning- otherwise, we won't be learning. |