YBM wrote:
> Hayek a écrit :
>> Dono wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 1:37 pm, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> And your so called "Physics education" sounds more like
>>>>>> "indoctrination".
>>>>>> Uwe Hayek.
>>>>> The classical crackpot argument, "science=indoctrination" :-)
>>>> I could teach you something, but I resist the urge.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Uwe Hayek.
>>> 
>>> In order to teach me, you need to know. But you are an ignorant old
>>> fart, so you can't teach.
>> 
>> I think that nobody ever succeeded in teaching you anything,
>> judging by your manners.
> 
> AFAIK you've never said anything here but repeating again and
> again "a clock is an inertiameter", which means nothing without
> giving a physical meaning to the words you use (you know, it's
> about providing some math about what "clock" or "inertia" means,
> with some kind of predictive value).

I give an interpretation of the formalism, YBM, and that does not
require a new formalism.

[snipping for brevity]

Relativity just teaches me that it is impossible, so far, to measure the
strength of the inertial field you are in. All your clocks suffer from
the same inertia. Hence the meaning of relativity : you can only, again
so far, compare inertia (your clock reading) with another inertia in
another frame. In a frame ALL the physical processes undergo the same
inertia, so you cannot measure it locally.

> 
> This is quite boring.

I find it exciting. It leads to unification of GR and QM.
This has been called the holy grail of physics.
It leads to understanding of uncertainty and QM weirdness.


> Why don't you consider spending the next
> few years saying another insignificant sentence, for instance
> "a telephone is a dark bird on my head" (or any other meaningless
> sentence, at your choice) ?

One day you will understand its significance, and I am sure you will be
bragging to others that you had discussions with me on usenet.
Maybe even claiming that you were the first to understand the
significance..

I find it strange, and it never stops wondering me, how totally unable
people are to reason for themselves, and even to accept views that are
logically explained to them. It takes authority to make them accept views.

It is not only that they are unable to find the way themselves, but also
  to find their way with a map, and then even with a map with a large
arrow - you are here, and with the route to follow dotted out.

It is in the details, you have to understand Mach's Principle, to grasp
some details of GR, and SR. Then I carefully studied every way we derive
time from, and found them all working on inertia.

Then I looked at the Equivalence principle, and what Eotvosch does tell
us. It leaves room open for interpretation. And since GR says
gravitation influences clocks, and since gravitation and inertia are
equivalent...and since clocks work on inertia, take the earth, for
instance, and then I drew the conclusion.

A clock is an inertiameter.

Einstein's missing inertia, was hidden in his faulty notion of time.
One does not read time on a clock, but inertia.

And now you can claim all you want, that an approach to physics should
be more mathematical, but then I bounce back the question : how come I
found this out first, and by using intuition, by trying to find out what
the formula's mean, and with working with those physical models in my mind.
If "shut up and calculate" is the preferred method, how come I have
beaten them to it ?

Because of course, calculating is no method whatsoever, the barren
results of String theory show us that. After 100 years of calculating,
none of the calculators can't say what a clock is, what time is, and how
to explain the quantum weirdness.

And your counterarguments are, Hayek is a crackpot, so what he says
can't be right. While in fact, you should go looking to try to falsify
my interpretation, and find a clock that does not work on inertia.
And if you do not find one, say, maybe it is not such a bad idea.

Uwe Hayek.