Gravity slows down time.

(Q) said:
Has anyone noticed chinglu is simply repeating the same thing over and over and over? Is there any reason to continue responding?
Click to expand...

His whole style of posting, in my opinion, tells me he is and has been playing games all along...Either that, or he is one of these conspiracy/fanatical anti-establishment nutters.
But in the off chance that I maybe wrong, once again I will supply an illustrative video which most should understand....
Relevant facts in the video occur at around the 3 minute mark, the 5 minute 20 seconds mark, , the 8 minute mark, and the 8 minute 55 seconds mark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-R8LGy-OVs
 
arfa brane said:
No, look, you seem to have misunderstood what I've been saying to chinglu.

You are correct that there is no causal connection between any astronomical cycle and a clock tick rate, the connection is that both are clocks. The only requirement for a system to be a clock is that it exhibit regular periodic motion. To be relevant to the twin paradox, it will need a period that is sufficiently small, such that two values can be compared when the traveling twin returns.

In fact, if the traveling twin can observe the earth's motion, then he has a clock which is identical to the stationary twin's clock, which is the periodic motion of the earth. That's all they need to compare.
The traveler will report that they measured the same number of orbits, but that the earth wasn't orbiting at a constant rate, assuming they can determine the earth's velocity, which isn't too far away from determining its position, which is required so that you can count the number of orbits.
Click to expand...

Hi arfa. :)

No problem with all that, mate. It's the usual form of explanation given for the scenario involved. Everyone else has tried to explain it to chinglu using similar approaches. That's the problem, since the usual explanatory approaches haven't seemed to dispel chinglu's confusion.

It is that confusion that I am specifically addressing in a different way than usual, by pointing out to chinglu he subtle aspects and conflations which are at the root of his confusion and hence his self-manufactured 'paradox'.

Your explanation, just like all the other usual ones saying that they see the Earth orbit at higher/lower rate for the same absolute number of orbits is what his confusion is all about; simply because he conflates "living/witnessing" EXTERNAL astronomical positional data set/process with INTERNAL 'aging/ticking' data set/process.

Which is why your usual explanation so far only ingrains his confusion because you already ascribe the twins/clocks with 'foreknowledge' that the traveling twin 'witnesses/lives' through a faster rate of 12 Earth orbits than the slower rate of the same 12 Earth orbits 'lived/witnessed' by the stay-put twin!

See? The only way to dispel chinglu's confusion is to remove any such A-PRIORI/ASSUMED 'connection' between the astronomical 'orbits' data/process and the biology/clock data/process altogether once the experiment is under way....and so run a BLIND EXPERIMENT wherein only the biology/clock data is internal, and the orbit data is external. That way no confusion between the two creeps into it from the get-go.

Only after the experiment is run, and comparisons are made, should any 'correlation' between orbits number and clock/biology counts/aging be attempted! That will avoid his confusions, by eliminating the initial assumptions and disconnected conflations which led him to believe that a 'paradox' was involved.

That's all I was doing. I wasn't criticizing/misunderstanding your/others "usual" explanations! :)

I was just concentrating on addressing the specific/subtle causes of his confusion, and explaining it all in a different way than the usual in order to highlight those specifics/subtleties involved, above and beyond the usual explanation that one sees the orbits going 'faster' or 'slower' etc.


And as for considering the Earth-sun orbital cycle/system as a 'clock' much as the atomic clocks carried by the twins, I must point out that UNLESS you can CARRY the Earth-sun system WITH you when you move like th traveling twin does, then you cannot consider it a 'clock' in the same way, because once the traveling twin and his clock move off then the Earth-sun system is causally/totally DISCONNECTED from twin biology/clock rates....again, unless the traveling twin can carry with him an identical Earth-sun orbital system as his 'clock'....in which case it will then be seen to go 'out of synch' with the stay-put Earth-sun 'clock'...because the traveling twin is observing both the stay-put system and his own system in its newly INHERENT rate state! Only then can a continuous 'connection' be kept between the traveling 'clock' and the astronomical 'clock' data sets/processes...and the observed respective slowing/speeding of orbital rate/counts continuously 'read off' by either twin as the case may be for the SAME orbit numbers..:)

Anyhow, I think I've said all I wanted to say on this for chinglu's sake especially.

And I've run out of time again; and probably won't have time to post again for a few days. So until we speak again...Cheers, arfa, chinglu, everyone...and enjoy your discussions! :)
 
paddoboy said:
Because you deliberately are misinterpreting and shoving obtuse meanings into other people's post.
Anyway for your enjoyment here we go again.

The Earth orbits the travelling twin observed were in another FoR.
His own FoR both mechanical and biological moved through a lesser period compared to the other FoR

Now read the links I have given.....one quite illustrative and should be able to explain the concept at any level.
If you chose not to watch, well keep living in ignorance, but your ignorance and invalid interpretation of SR/GR will not change the world we live in, or the accepted standards one iota.
Click to expand...

The earth orbiting 12 times is not in any FoR, it is absolute since both twins agree on this.

So, the twins have an absolute measure of time.

Therefore, the moving twins clock that claims the number of seconds of 10 earth orbits elapsed is inaccurate.

It is very simple.
 
I don't understand why you all are so confused.

The stay at home twins witnessed the number of seconds for 12 earth orbits by astronomical observations. His clock did also. All is good.

The traveling twins witnessed the number of seconds of 12 earth orbits by astronomical observations.

Yet, his clock claimed only 10 earth orbit seconds elapsed.

His clock is obviously wrong or all astronomical observations are in error.

Take your pick.
 
chinglu said:
I don't understand why you all are so confused.

The stay at home twins witnessed the number of seconds for 12 earth orbits by astronomical observations. His clock did also. All is good.

The traveling twins witnessed the number of seconds of 12 earth orbits by astronomical observations.

Yet, his clock claimed only 10 earth orbit seconds elapsed.

His clock is obviously wrong or all astronomical observations are in error.

Take your pick.
Click to expand...



LOL!!!!!!
You watched the video yet???? Of course not!

You just actually proved I was correct in my summation of you......
 
paddoboy said:
LOL!!!!!!
You watched the video yet???? Of course not!

You just actually proved I was correct in my summation of you......
Click to expand...

Did you yet prove the traveling twin lived 10 years in seconds according to his clock and also lived 12 years in seconds according to his astronomical observations?

The answer is no.
 
chinglu said:
I don't understand why you all are so confused.

The stay at home twins witnessed the number of seconds for 12 earth orbits by astronomical observations. His clock did also. All is good.

The traveling twins witnessed the number of seconds of 12 earth orbits by astronomical observations.

Yet, his clock claimed only 10 earth orbit seconds elapsed.

His clock is obviously wrong or all astronomical observations are in error.

Take your pick.
Click to expand...

Our confusion lies in how it's possible one can repeat the same thing over and over and over? Rote, perhaps? Does anyone hear a bell ringing?
 
chinglu said:
Did you yet prove the traveling twin lived 10 years in seconds according to his clock and also lived 12 years in seconds according to his astronomical observations?

The answer is no.
Click to expand...



There is no proof in physics, just continuing evidence supporting a claim or observation........And in that respect all aspects of SR/GR have been continued to be heavily supported by the evidence and observations....many many times.
You on the other hand continue to support pseudo scientific ideas without one shred of evidence, and at the same time, continually refusing to consider/watch illustrative videos explaining what people have been trying to tell you in this thread.
Not very smart, in fact rather a childish action.



So once again, the same question....Have you watched the two videos I have supplied showing in simple precise detail, why time dilation and length contraction occur?
By not watching, you inevitably support my previous summation of you.
 
In actual fact, the most damning evidence "AGAINST" the pseudo scientific quackery put by chinglu, is that the concept of time dilation needs to be allowed for in todays technology such as GPS systems'....but that has already been stated earlier in the thread and as most pseudo scientific conspiracy quackers do, also ignored...Again, not very smart, in fact a child like reaction.
 
paddoboy said:
There is no proof in physics, just continuing evidence supporting a claim or observation........And in that respect all aspects of SR/GR have been continued to be heavily supported by the evidence and observations....many many times.
You on the other hand continue to support pseudo scientific ideas without one shred of evidence, and at the same time, continually refusing to consider/watch illustrative videos explaining what people have been trying to tell you in this thread.
Not very smart, in fact rather a childish action.



So once again, the same question....Have you watched the two videos I have supplied showing in simple precise detail, why time dilation and length contraction occur?
By not watching, you inevitably support my previous summation of you.
Click to expand...

No, I did not watch your videos.

And, I am conditioning my reasoning on logic.

If both twins witnessed the same number of seconds of 12 earth orbits astronomically, then explain how the traveling twin's clock can logically disagree with astronomical data?

That proves either the clock is wrong or all astronomical observations are in error.

Explain this if SR is true.
 
paddoboy said:
In actual fact, the most damning evidence "AGAINST" the pseudo scientific quackery put by chinglu, is that the concept of time dilation needs to be allowed for in todays technology such as GPS systems'....but that has already been stated earlier in the thread and as most pseudo scientific conspiracy quackers do, also ignored...Again, not very smart, in fact a child like reaction.
Click to expand...

Interesting. SR claims time dilation is reciprocal. Does GPS prove from the GPS satellite view that the ground based clocks are time dilated as required by SR? If not, then SR is disproved.
 
chinglu said:
Interesting. SR claims time dilation is reciprocal. Does GPS prove from the GPS satellite view that the ground based clocks are time dilated as required by SR? If not, then SR is disproved.
Click to expand...



Only from the point of view of some blinkered pseudo conspirator ratbag.
SR/GR stands supreme in the eyes of any scientists/layman alike, as long as observational and experimental evidence keeps supporting it.
And the rantings and ravings, and twistings and turnings, along with the absence of any intestinal fortitude needed to read the links given that aptly and admirably show why and how it works.

The only thing continually being disproved is your own crazy unsupported pseudo scientific quackery.......But life goes on, as does SR and GR...
 
chinglu said:
If both twins witnessed the same number of seconds of 12 earth orbits astronomically, then explain how the traveling twin's clock can logically disagree with astronomical data?
Click to expand...
Both twins can "witness" that the earth orbited the sun 12 times. But the traveling twin is NOT in the same frame of reference as their twin.

Now if SR is wrong, then the GPS system is flawed. So is the idea of using light to transmit signals down a glass fibre, because it would be a "waste of time" trying to synchronise any signals. However, GPS works very well, and so does fibre optics. How is that possible if SR is "wrong"?

That's the BIG problem you have: you claim SR is flawed so you NEED to prove that GPS is flawed, and that fibre optic communication is too.
I don't have this problem because I understand what SR is, and I understand how the internet works (yes, that's right, the internet works, it works because we can communicate with light signals in a coordinated way, which is because SR is a working theory).
 
Let's see if our extraordinary friend can answer a few questions.....

Do you believe the speed of light in a vacuum "c" is a constant?
If not how do you account for the many experimental results that confirm "c "?
Do you have any experimental results that show that "c " is not constant?
Do you know of any experimental results that show the above is not so?

Many experimental results and observational results show that time dilation happens, how do you explain this?
How do you explain the differences of synchronised atomic clocks after one is sent around the world in a jet?
Do you believe science is lying to us poor layman with regards to these results?
Do you have any observational and experimental test results invalidating time dilation and SR/GR?
Do you know of any?
Are you just trolling this forum, with your unsupported claims, and your refusal to answer questions and to watch explanatory videos when asked?
If you have any evidence at all, experimental and/or observational, that invalidate the current mainstream view on SR/GR why don't you get it peer reviewed through the usual channels?


Please show reputable links to and confirming any answers you have to the above that differ to what has been observed and the results in experiments that have been obtained.
 
chinglu said:
No, I did not watch your videos.

And, I am conditioning my reasoning on logic.

If both twins witnessed the same number of seconds of 12 earth orbits astronomically, then explain how the traveling twin's clock can logically disagree with astronomical data?

That proves either the clock is wrong or all astronomical observations are in error.

Explain this if SR is true.
Click to expand...

Wash, rinse, repeat.
 
chinglu said:
If both twins witnessed the same number of seconds of 12 earth orbits astronomically, then explain how the traveling twin's clock can logically disagree with astronomical data?

That proves either the clock is wrong or all astronomical observations are in error.
Click to expand...

Actually your statments prove 2 things:

1. You are clueless about relativity.

2. You are incapable (for whatever reason) of learning relativity.
 
paddoboy said:
Are you just trolling this forum, with your unsupported claims, and your refusal to answer questions and to watch explanatory videos when asked?
If you have any evidence at all, experimental and/or observational, that invalidate the current mainstream view on SR/GR why don't you get it peer reviewed through the usual channels?
Click to expand...
chinglu likes to construct hypothetical scenarios which might seem plausible, but they usually aren't. For example, he has messed with readers' minds in other threads by inventing implausible scenarios in which an observer would supposedly be able to measure the range to the egressing wavefront. Only it's not cast that way, so you have to dig a little to figure out what he's actually getting at.

Here we have no idea what geometry is supposedly used for the person in flight to decide whether or not earth has completed one revolution or not. That requires an inertial reference frame which hasn't been specified. (Not in the discussion visible to me; I keep him on ignore to avoid getting dragged into pointless implausible hypotheticals.)

Once we know what end is up, we can say with certainty what the Earth's orbit might look like on some imaginary display Spock might be studying as the Enterprise is moving away from or toward Earth at near warp speed. Until then, the scenario is so vaguely posed as to make the question moot.

If the Enterprise were leaving the solar system in the plane of Earth's orbit, it could plot a vector that leaves in the direction of the Earth's shadow and remain on that course at warp factor 0.8, and then by the miracles of 23rd century science it could detect the next time the Earth eclipses the Sun and this would count as a valid measure of one revolution. The elapsed time on the ship's clock would be (1 Earth year) * sqrt(1 - 0.8[sup]2[/sup]) ship-years = (1 EY) * sqrt ( 1 - 0.64) SY = (1 EY) * sqrt (0.36) SY = 0.6 ship-years. (An accelerometer could translate this to Stardate such-and-such).

At this point the ship could reverse course and return at the same speed. It would arrive back in the next eclipse 0.6 ship-years later, or 1.2 years cumulative elapsed time on the ship's trip chronometer. Upon transporting to Earth, the crew would notice that the local date had advanced by 2 Earth years, a discrepancy of 0.8 years (about 9-1/2 months). That is, the cells in their bodies would be 9-1/2 months younger than they would be if they had remained on Earth.. And this is because cellular metabolism is time dependent, and of course time is relative.

Of course they would have known this in advance, since you wouldn't be able to get into Starfleet Academy without passing the exams covering the Lorentz transformation. Presumably it would have been taught in grade school, and the chinglus of the 23rd c. would be relegated to buffing phaser scorch marks off the hulls of starships rather than advising the science officers in matters of science. In fairness to the Academy, I understand that it would have tried its best to rehabiitate the chinglus of Buffer Team Alpha Zed, by offering incentives for taking remedial math and promoting themselves through the ranks, perhaps all the way to supervising all buffing operations for an entire sector. (I think they might expect them to pass the exam in GR by that point as well as the course in metallurgy, and probably some courses in logic and effective communication).

No doubt the posts made here today will be referenced by Federation researchers in the course of discovering how to wipe out scientific illiteracy.

:p
 
Last edited:
arfa brane said:
Both twins can "witness" that the earth orbited the sun 12 times. But the traveling twin is NOT in the same frame of reference as their twin.

Now if SR is wrong, then the GPS system is flawed. So is the idea of using light to transmit signals down a glass fibre, because it would be a "waste of time" trying to synchronise any signals. However, GPS works very well, and so does fibre optics. How is that possible if SR is "wrong"?

That's the BIG problem you have: you claim SR is flawed so you NEED to prove that GPS is flawed, and that fibre optic communication is too.
I don't have this problem because I understand what SR is, and I understand how the internet works (yes, that's right, the internet works, it works because we can communicate with light signals in a coordinated way, which is because SR is a working theory).
Click to expand...

Good, then you can explain how the 2 twins witness that same number of seconds astronomically during their separation and yet one of their clocks does not agree with the astronomical observations.

Now, are you claiming all astronomical observations must be false?

I have asked this over and over from you and your type but your type continue to refuse to answer.

That proves my argument is valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top