Distant stars are not out of sight fortunately :) Nothing wrong with the concept, except it is not needed to solve the problem at hand, so the alledged "discovery" is caput mortuum.
Laplace : "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" -- Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 1:43 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:22 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox > > >> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:43:03 -0500: >> Hi, >> [snip] >>>"I solved the paradox by incorporating a new principle within >>>the relativity framework that defines motion not in relation to individual >>>objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation >>>to distant stars," said Kak. >> [snip] >> ..IOW by throwing out the concept of relativity and introducing a special >> absolute frame of reference. :) >> > > Funny, everything always seems to come back around to that. But its not an > absolute frame of reference...no, just the "distant stars"... > > What does "distant stars" _really_ mean? This is a nice case of, we have a > problem that makes us unhappy, so lets just move the problem way away, and > say that it is solved, since it is now too far away to trouble us...out of > sight, out of mind. > > Even worse is the 9 billion names for vacuum....Dirac sea, Spacetime, Space, > physical vacuum, ZPF, ether, aether (to use the archaic spelling), ad > infinatum ad tedium ad nauseam. > > So whats for breakfast? > > --Kyle >
