Gravity slows down time.

[chinglu]

I just scrolled quickly through the last 3 pages since my last post and given I don't see any algebra from chinglu I'll conclude he continues to be unable to actually show the GR contradiction, only assert it.

Chinglu, it is obvious to everyone you cannot do any relativity, special or general, which is explains why you can only resort to assertions without justification. Until such time as you can attempt to justify your claim using actual mathematical formalisations, without resorting to lies, misrepresentations and deceptions no further discussion is needed. You cannot even formalise the problem, much less work through the GR description to show the conclusion you claim. As I said previously, you really should feel embarrassed and ashamed for the profound level of wilful ignorance you show. I really hope you're a troll, doing this deliberately, as the alternative is you're a disgraceful human being.

This is a nonsense answer.

In order for you to support your "conclusions" above, you need to explain why the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth years as did the stay at home twin, but his "SR" clock claimed only 10 earth years occurred, which is false.

Now, can you explain this yes or not?

 

[chinglu]

The immediacy of your response indicates you haven't read and properly considered fully the distinction between "lived" and aged" which seems to be at the centre of your confusion.

Also you have already forgotten what I posted to you about the effectively "causal disconnectedness" or INHERENCY of the clock information/rates; or the 'value' difference between the INHERENT TICKS/RATES of the two twins when one is traveling faster.

That inattention and confusion is what leads you to STILL make illogical/incorrect statements like that above (my bolding).

The traveling twin's clock only 'claims' an INHERENT cumulative count of its particular value SECONDS. And nothing else.

See? It is YOU who is illogically 'connecting' the traveling twin's clock count with the orbital number and ABSTRACTLY and SUBJECTIVELY 'seeing/judging' it 'same/different' or whatever...exacerbated by your other illogical conflation of "lived" with "aged" concept.

Until you DISCONNECT the INHERENT information (your clock counts) from the EXTERNAL REFERENTS (the Earth orbit cycle number), you will be connecting and conflating your way to an imaginary paradox.

Take time to re-read everything I explained to you (including my response to Lakon), and then think about what IMPLICATIONS the SUBTLETIES I explained have for your 'analysis' and assumptions/assertions. Only after you properly understand those subtleties/implications will you understand that what you stated (my bolding) in your above post is NOT valid, since it is your own imagined connection and not the reality of what the clock is or is not 'claiming'.

PS: Lucky I was still checking for typos when you posted so immediately! But really have to go now, so the typos will have to look after themselves because I haven't time to check for them now. Good luck!

Your lived and aged concepts are irrelevant.

The traveling twin witnessed 12 earth years using scientific observation and yet his SR clock claims only 10 earth years elapsed, which is false.

So, SR is false since the traveling twin believes in scientific observation over crackpottery.

 

[(Q)]

This is a nonsense answer.

In order for you to support your "conclusions" above, you need to explain why the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth years as did the stay at home twin, but his "SR" clock claimed only 10 earth years occurred, which is false.

Now, can you explain this yes or not?

Yes, you continue to ignore everything being explained to you again and repeat over and over and over your ignorance.

 

[(Q)]

Your lived and aged concepts are irrelevant.

The traveling twin witnessed 12 earth years and yet his SR clock claims only 10 earth years elapsed, which is false.

So, SR is false.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Undefined. Please see my above post for a summary of my ongoing uncertainty and query on this.

Hi Lakon. As usual lately, am rushed again today, but I'll try a couple of my own 'explanatory wrinkles' beyond those I mentioned already in my post to you, regarding the 'starting states' etc for the twin's motion thereafter (Remember I said that if the twins never started out from the same 'states' then they have no reference except their mutual Purely SR relative observations which cannot distinguish who is moving/faster and who is not etc....ie, only relative closing/separation speed is observable in SR without any 'third party' information. ).

Anyhow, regarding the case where the twins START in the same motion states before any differential motion/acceleration is made by either one, then who is or is not accelerating/moving off will be an observable by making the rocket exhaust the 'telltale' indicator/information of which twin departs from the starting same-state 'standard clock/biological timing/aging rate conditions.

Another approach would involve creating an 'angle' between the path lines of one twin and the other as the 'telltale' information to distinguish who 'moved' and 'accelerated'. In this scenario, I would have the twins already in orbit around the sun, eg, along the same orbital path as the Earth).

Now have the 'intended' traveling twin leave (no rocket exhaust or other visible clue issuing from either rocketship), but leave with an acceleration profile such that his ship's orbit eventually changes to a SUN-POLAR orbit instead of the SUN-EQUATORIAL plane orbit! Now, let the traveling twin's ship finally enter/settle into an orbital 'diameter' and 'speed' which is the same as before (an Earth 'year' is still the same for both twins, except that the 'moved/accelerated' twin is now in a SUN-polar not SUN-equatorial orbit!).

The resultant situation will now have the twins passing each other twice every Earth/ship-orbit associated 'year' (which is still IDENTICAL for both twins), as their 'orbit circles' paths cross at 9-degrees because one 'circle' is aligned SUN pole-to-pole and the other 'circle' around SUN equator.

So the stay-put twin can definitely conclude that the other twin accelerated/moved because the traveled twin is passing him AT AN ANGLE, whereas before they were CO-PARALLEL (ie, moving alongside at same instantaneous speed in same instantaneous direction). Note that their 'speeds' are still the same, but their 'velocities' now differ because one has changed direction of orbit, and hence has been the one who accelerated/moved, according to the SUN-associated 'telltale' information/reference involving POLAR versus EQUATORIAL orbital paths and the 90-degree angles that results in.

But, again, without that polar/Equatorial EXTERNAL info, NEITHER twin can rely on the PURELY SR abstraction/model to enable them to distinguish who moved/accelerated; they would still only be able to observe a closing/separation speed and an angle between their now-differing orbital alignment.

In all cases of acceleration/moving from same-state conditions, only the moving twin can 'tell' he is the one accelerating. And only if he communicates his 'acceleration g-force experience' to the other stay-put twin will both have a common understanding of who is accelerating/moving and in what manner that now distinguishes between them absolutely.

So, to answer your specific concern/question, a purely SR abstract model/treatment STILL cannot distinguish between them UNLESS the EXTERNAL TO SR TREATMENT information (in this case, re the SUN poles/equator OR the INHERENT EXPERIENCE of g-forces 'information') is exchanged/understood between the twins.

Sorry. Gotta go, Lakon. I hope this rushed post isn't too typo-riddled to be clear on the essentials of what you wanted to have clarified at least! Don't know when I will be posting again. So bye for now, Lakon, and enjoy your discussions/explorations, everyone!

 

[Aqueous Id]

Yes, you continue to ignore everything being explained to you again and repeat over and over and over your ignorance.

Yep.

I'm sure you're well aware that chinglu isn't here to discuss science, but rather to antagonize folks who enjoy discussing it. In all the exchanges I've had with him I don't think he's ever expressed even a passing knowledge of the Lorentz transformation. It's a projection, a concept which is nowhere present in his remarks, as I recall. There are 2 quantities involved - the reference frame and the post-transform resultant - the projection. chinglu evidently has no background in matrix arithmetic or he would know that it's a serious error to mix and match inputs and outputs of a transform like this. But that's where he misses the boat every time. He constantly demands that these two disparate quantities be superimposed. He's always forcing the two frames to both be the same and not be the same. No matter how many times he's reminded of the working systems that undergo effects of SR and GR he simply dismisses them and continues on this same tack. That's why I put him on ignore although I see fragments of his remarks where good commentators such as yourself have quoted him.

 

[chinglu]

Yes, you continue to ignore everything being explained to you again and repeat over and over and over your ignorance.

Again, explain how the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth years through science and yet his SR clock claims only 10 years years elapsed.

 

[chinglu]

Yep.

I'm sure you're well aware that chinglu isn't here to discuss science, but rather to antagonize folks who enjoy discussing it. In all the exchanges I've had with him I don't think he's ever expressed even a passing knowledge of the Lorentz transformation. It's a projection, a concept which is nowhere present in his remarks, as I recall. There are 2 quantities involved - the reference frame and the post-transform resultant - the projection. chinglu evidently has no background in matrix arithmetic or he would know that it's a serious error to mix and match inputs and outputs of a transform like this. But that's where he misses the boat every time. He constantly demands that these two disparate quantities be superimposed. He's always forcing the two frames to both be the same and not be the same. No matter how many times he's reminded of the working systems that undergo effects of SR and GR he simply dismisses them and continues on this same tack. That's why I put him on ignore although I see fragments of his remarks where good commentators such as yourself have quoted him.

Sure I am here to discuss science.

Explain how the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth years through science and yet his SR clock claims only 10 years years elapsed.

Science claims 12 earth years elapsed. Are you refuting science like a flat earther?

 

[Undefined]

Your lived and aged concepts are irrelevant.

The traveling twin witnessed 12 earth years using scientific observation and yet his SR clock claims only 10 earth years elapsed, which is false.

So, SR is false since the traveling twin believes in scientific observation over crackpottery.

Hi Chinglu. I trust that you and everyone else here knows very well by now I am scrupulously independent, fair-minded and impartial in my observations without fear or favor as to ideas/source/person etc? So I have made my comments in the best interests of fair and objective understanding of the essentials involved. Nothing more; nothing less. So please don't kneejerk over my posts. They are meant objectively to help you understand where you may be having the difficulty of mixing frames/concepts resulting (in this instance at least) in an imaginary/illogically constructed 'paradox' which is not reality-valid. So please take all my posts and the following further observations as from a friend in science and humanity, and nothing else. OK?


Again, your clock 'claims' nothing. It only 'counts off' your inherently changed value 'seconds'. Period.

The rest is your subjective connections made between causally disconnected data/systems.

I explaine all that, as well as your 'lived' and 'aged' conflation as to what each means 'physically' and totally 'mutually exclusively' in logics/observations/effect.

Can't do more than that, mate. Really have to go. Bye and good luck in this and other discussions, Chinglu!

 

[arfa brane]

Your lived and aged concepts are irrelevant.

Not if they're equivalent.

The traveling twin witnessed 12 earth years using scientific observation and yet his SR clock claims only 10 earth years elapsed, which is false.

You seem to be unable to consider any alternative but that 12 years on earth is 12 years for the traveling twin. SR says this alternative is the false one.

So, SR is false since the traveling twin believes in scientific observation over crackpottery.

Except that if that were true, lots of things that work would not work. To explain the fact that they are working systems, you need to include the idea of time not being fixed by the earth orbiting around the sun.
After all, why should it be? Why should our planet be where time is defined and why does that mean it's fixed everywhere else, independent of relative motion?

Again, explain how the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth years through science and yet his SR clock claims only 10 years years elapsed.

This has been explained to you several times (over I assume several years). The problem is that you think the travelling twin seeing the earth orbit the sun 12 times ages by 12 years, as if somehow their aging is tied to the earth. It takes 10 years for the travelling twin to observe the 12 orbits, so they see the earth moving 1.2 times as fast.

You are stuck on a particular idea and it doesn't explain why we have working systems that 'prove' SR also works, so it isn't false, and it isn't crackpot.
You're like someone who believes the world is flat and the sun goes around the earth.

 

[chinglu]

Hi Chinglu. I trust that you and everyone else here knows very well by now I am scrupulously independent, fair-minded and impartial in my observations without fear or favor as to ideas/source/person etc? So I have made my comments in the best interests of fair and objective understanding of the essentials involved. Nothing more; nothing less. So please don't kneejerk over my posts. They are meant objectively to help you understand where you may be having the difficulty of mixing frames/concepts resulting (in this instance at least) in an imaginary/illogically constructed 'paradox' which is not reality-valid. So please take all my posts and the following further observations as from a friend in science and humanity, and nothing else. OK?


Again, your clock 'claims' nothing. It only 'counts off' your inherently changed value 'seconds'. Period.

The rest is your subjective connections made between causally disconnected data/systems.

I explaine all that, as well as your 'lived' and 'aged' conflation as to what each means 'physically' and totally 'mutually exclusively' in logics/observations/effect.

Can't do more than that, mate. Really have to go. Bye and good luck in this and other discussions, Chinglu!

The scientific observations of the traveling twin proves 12 earth years elapsed for his travels.

So, science prevails and the twin elapsed 12 earth years.

Yet, the twin's crackpot SR clock claimed elapsed only 10 years and that is false by science.

You have failed to reconcile this fact.

 

[chinglu]

Not if they're equivalent.You seem to be unable to consider any alternative but that 12 years on earth is 12 years for the traveling twin. SR says this alternative is the false one.
Except that if that were true, lots of things that work would not work. To explain the fact that they are working systems, you need to include the idea of time not being fixed by the earth orbiting around the sun.
After all, why should it be? Why should our planet be where time is defined and why does that mean it's fixed everywhere else, independent of relative motion?

This has been explained to you several times (over I assume several years). The problem is that you think the travelling twin seeing the earth orbit the sun 12 times ages by 12 years, as if somehow their aging is tied to the earth. It takes 10 years for the travelling twin to observe the 12 orbits, so they see the earth moving 1.2 times as fast.

You are stuck on a particular idea and it doesn't explain why we have working systems that 'prove' SR also works, so it isn't false, and it isn't crackpot.
You're like someone who believes the world is flat and the sun goes around the earth.

If SR claims the scientific observations of the traveling twins of 12 years is false then SR is false since it refutes science.

It is that simple.

Your task is to prove all scientific observations are useless in order to preserve SR.

 

[Undefined]

Explain how the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth years through science and yet his SR clock claims only 10 years years elapsed.

Please take note, Chinglu:

The traveling twin's clock/biology system 'ticked/aged' according to inherently NEW 'second' VALUES.

Earth twin clock/biology 'ticked/aged' according to previous 'second' values.

The Astronomical position/cycle number of Earth 'years' is only co-incident with the Earth twin 'seconds/year' value.

For the traveling twin, the Astronomical position/cycle number of Earth 'tears' is NO LONGER CO-INCIDENT with traveling twin 'seconds/year'.

The only 'connection' is being mae by YOU, between different 'values' for the same 'ccyles/years/seconds between the two twins/clocks.

The observation of 12 earth-sun-orbit cycles is physically disconnected from BOTH twin's clocks/biology once the 'standard' has been determined for a 'starting standard' IRRESPECTIVE of what was used to arrive at that 'starting standard' from which ONLY the traveling twin and his clock/biology departed. This requires re-calibration to once more agree with the standard upon return.

Both twin's observation of Earth-sun-rbit cycle number are observations of 'POSITION' and NOT 'PROCESS', since the only processes which apply to the twin/clock/biology is INHERENT. And the 'value' for INHERENT PROCESS cycles is different if one changes his motion state from initial agreed standard.

Nothing more than that. Trivial really. Bye.

 

[arfa brane]

...

What a fuckwit.

 

[chinglu]

Please take note, Chinglu:

The traveling twin's clock/biology system 'ticked/aged' according to inherently NEW 'second' VALUES.

Earth twin clock/biology 'ticked/aged' according to previous 'second' values.

The Astronomical position/cycle number of Earth 'years' is only co-incident with the Earth twin 'seconds/year' value.

For the traveling twin, the Astronomical position/cycle number of Earth 'tears' is NO LONGER CO-INCIDENT with traveling twin 'seconds/year'.

The only 'connection' is being mae by YOU, between different 'values' for the same 'ccyles/years/seconds between the two twins/clocks.

The observation of 12 earth-sun-orbit cycles is physically disconnected from BOTH twin's clocks/biology once the 'standard' has been determined for a 'starting standard' IRRESPECTIVE of what was used to arrive at that 'starting standard' from which ONLY the traveling twin and his clock/biology departed. This requires re-calibration to once more agree with the standard upon return. Nothing more. Bye.

"For the traveling twin, the Astronomical position/cycle number of Earth 'tears' is NO LONGER CO-INCIDENT with traveling twin 'seconds/year'."

This means all astronomical data collected by science is false.

Are you prepared to make that claim?

Further, if the traveling twin witnessed 12 years by astronomical data, why would he claim 12 earth years did not elapse?

 

[Undefined]

Chinglu: Please read my last post again, I added to it while you were posting. Take especial note of the difference between POSITION information and PROCESS information which you use to 'cross-purposely connect' the twin's clock data with the twin's observation of sun-earth data. Thanks.


arfa brane: Please delete/modify, or do not make at all, such UN-addressed comments, especially if they are ad hominems etc. Thanks.

 

[chinglu]

Chinglu: Please read my last post again, I added to it while you were posting. Take especial note of the difference between POSITION information and PROCESS information which you use to 'cross-purposely connect' the twin's clock data with the twin's observation of sun-earth data. Thanks.


arfa brane: Please do not make such UN-addressed comments, especially if they are ad hominems etc. Thanks.

Your comments make no difference.

They boil down to refuting astronomical observations as being true.

So, you are claiming the earth orbited the sun 12 times, but the traveling twin did not elapse 12 earths orbits of time, which is a simple contradiction.

That means you refute all astronomical observations as being true.

 

[Undefined]

Your comments make no difference.

They boil down to refuting astronomical observations as being true.

So, you are claiming the earth orbited the sun 12 times, but the traveling twin did not elapse 12 earths orbits of time, which is a simple contradiction.

That means you refute all astronomical observations as being true.

Remember that all our 'scientific' observations are in reality made from Earth based or Earth orbiting devices/reference frames. The earth orbiting devices/reference frames have their data adjusted according to recognized variations in timing/location so that all observations are eventually made consistent from one 'standard'.

So unless that 'standard' itself is changed and not corrected for, then the observations will not be 'scientific', like you say. BUT the ULTIMATE 'constant standard' used/is always the same (Earth based), so the observations, as 'corrected accordingly as explained, ARE 'scientific', and not in jeopardy (at least not from the 'aspect' you present as 'paradoxical' which is not in reality, as already explained).

See? Your 'concern' (in THIS instance at least) is falsely predicated on there being an ARBITRARY and VARYING standard for the observations. There is not such. Hence your concern (in THIS instance at least) is neither here nor there in reality. Yes?

 

[chinglu]

Remember that all our 'scientific' observations are in reality made from Earth based or Earth orbiting devices/reference frames. The earth orbiting devices/reference frames have their data adjusted according to recognized variations in timing/location so that all observations are eventually made consistent from one 'standard'.

So unless that 'standard' itself is changed and not corrected for, then the observations will not be 'scientific', like you say. BUT the ULTIMATE 'constant standard' used/is always the same (Earth based), so the observations, as 'corrected accordingly as explained, ARE 'scientific', and not in jeopardy (at least not from the 'aspect' you present as 'paradoxical' which is not in reality, as already explained).

See? Your 'concern' (in THIS instance at least) is falsely predicated on there being an ARBITRARY and VARYING standard for the observations. There is not such. Hence your concern (in THIS instance at least) is neither here nor there in reality. Yes?

Essentially you are claiming the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits, but he did not live 12 earth orbits.

And, the stay at home twin witnessed 12 earth orbits, and did live 12 earth orbits.

Is that correct?

So, is the earth twin a preferred frame and all other frames get the wrong answer?

 

[Undefined]

Essentially you are claiming the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits, but he did not live 12 earth orbits.

And, the stay at home twin witnessed 12 earth orbits, and did live 12 earth orbits.

Is that correct?

So, is the earth twin a preferred frame and all other frames get the wrong answer?

No no no, mate! You are mistaking EXTERNAL "witnessed' and 'lived' referents/counts of ASTRONOMICAL POSITIONS with INHERENT or INTERNAL clock/biological 'aging/ticking' PROCESS.

The POSITIONAL/LIVING/WITNESSING of astronomical data is external, whereas the AGING/PROCESS/TICKING of CLOCKS/BIOLOGY is internal or inherent. They are entirely DISCONNECTED concepts/data sets.

See? That is why I explained that your use of 'living' or 'witnessing' etc is EFFECTIVELY and OBSERVATIONALLY entirely a different thing logically and physically from the INHERENT/INTERNAL clock/biology associated data sets/observations. You cannot SUBJECTIVELY and ARBITRARILY 'connect' the two data sets/observations without making the necessary BRIDGING ALLOWANCES/INTERPRETATIONS to give the 'whole picture' WITHOUT any 'paradox' being inadvertently produced by careless mixing without bridging in both logics and physics reality.

I will just check my PMs and log out again as soon as I can. So if I miss any further post from you I'll catch up with it tomorrow if I can, mate! Bye for now.