Gravity slows down time.

[paddoboy]

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.

LOL!!!!
You have as much validity as a flying pig!

Ignoring competent answers just shows you up as the troll others so aptly have expressed....

Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References
Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References
Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References
Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References
Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References
Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References
Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References
Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References
Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References Frames of References

 

[origin]

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.

I am afraid that we are left with only 2 options:

1. You are trolling.
2. You are startlingly unitelligent.

 

[Russ_Watters]

We've said over and over that all three observations are valid (really, there are only two, with one duplicated) and chinglu insists we are saying one is wrong (or he says it himself).

I believe chinglu's reading comprehension error to be too precise/consistent to be possibly caused by startling unintelligence. Typically, the unintelligent can't grasp the arguments and flop around due to inability to focus on what they can't grasp. Not chinglu: he persistently states the exact same misrepresentation of the mainstream view. I see no way for that to not be on purpose.

Just for fun, let's try changing the timeframes to 10 and 100 years instead of 10 and 12. After returning to earth to find your twin brother dead from old age, would you try to wake him up and argue with him that he's wrong or do you kill yourself because you were wrong for not being dead?

 

[Lakon]

We've said over and over that all three observations are valid (really, there are only two, with one duplicated) and chinglu insists we are saying one is wrong (or he says it himself).

I believe chinglu's reading comprehension error to be too precise/consistent to be possibly caused by startling unintelligence. Typically, the unintelligent can't grasp the arguments and flop around due to inability to focus on what they can't grasp. Not chinglu: he persistently states the exact same misrepresentation of the mainstream view. I see no way for that to not be on purpose.

Just for fun, let's try changing the timeframes to 10 and 100 years instead of 10 and 12. After returning to earth to find your twin brother dead from old age, would you try to wake him up and argue with him that he's wrong or do you kill yourself because you were wrong for not being dead?

..he persistently states the exact same misrepresentation of the mainstream view..

I don't follow the reasoning here. Are you saying that because it is the mainstream view, it is therefore fait accompli that he is wrong ?

 

[Russ_Watters]

..he persistently states the exact same misrepresentation of the mainstream view..

I don't follow the reasoning here. Are you saying that because it is the mainstream view, it is therefore fait accompli that he is wrong ?

That's true (in this case), but it wasn't my point, no. My point was that you can't even have a meaningful dialogue unless both sides understand what the other is saying and respond to what is actually being said. And the fact that the misrepresentation is always exactly the same instead of jumping around trying to find the right meaning implies it is being done on purpose.

 

[paddoboy]

I am afraid that we are left with only 2 options:

1. You are trolling.
2. You are startlingly unitelligent.

Or both!

 

[chinglu]

This thread is currently saying the same thing.

You folks are saying that the traveling twin lived 12 years years by astronomical observation and 10 earth years by a clock.

So, the traveling live both 10 years and 12 years, which is a contradiction.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[chinglu]

We've said over and over that all three observations are valid (really, there are only two, with one duplicated) and chinglu insists we are saying one is wrong (or he says it himself).

I believe chinglu's reading comprehension error to be too precise/consistent to be possibly caused by startling unintelligence. Typically, the unintelligent can't grasp the arguments and flop around due to inability to focus on what they can't grasp. Not chinglu: he persistently states the exact same misrepresentation of the mainstream view. I see no way for that to not be on purpose.

Just for fun, let's try changing the timeframes to 10 and 100 years instead of 10 and 12. After returning to earth to find your twin brother dead from old age, would you try to wake him up and argue with him that he's wrong or do you kill yourself because you were wrong for not being dead?

This is a teaching moment for you.

The traveling twin returns both 100 years old and 10 years old.

So, he is both dead and alive.

Remember, the traveling twin witnessed 100 years by astronomical observations and if you refute his conclusions that he witnessed 100 years of age then you refute all astronomical conclusions.

Otherwise, you can show under SR where you can witness 1000 years of existence and yet live only 10 years.

I'd like to see that proof.

 

[paddoboy]

This thread is currently saying the same thing.

You folks are saying that the traveling twin lived 12 years years by astronomical observation and 10 earth years by a clock.

So, the traveling live both 10 years and 12 years, which is a contradiction.

Why is this so hard to understand?

No, not in the least...that is just your own warped unitelligent trolling take on it.

The travelling twin ages 10 years, in his FoR.
He sees the stationary twin age 12 years and astronomical observations advance by 12 years in "ANOTHER FoR]
When he returns to the stationary twin in the other FoR, he sees that although he has only aged 10 years both biologically and by his on board mechanical clocks, 12 years has passed in the FoR that he was not a part of.

Now if you really are fair dinkum, and you really believe we are all Idiots and you are an Einstein, why not take your view and get it published through proper chanells?
I'll tell you why...Because you are a pathetic troll, that is probable lucky enough to have two, as no one could be that silly pulling one!

 

[Russ_Watters]

This thread is currently saying the same thing.

You folks are saying that the traveling twin lived 12 years years by astronomical observation and 10 earth years by a clock.

So, the traveling live both 10 years and 12 years, which is a contradiction.

Why is this so hard to understand?

It isn't hard to understand. We understand perfectly well that you don't like reality. But reality doesn't care if you like it or not. No amount of wishing for that to be a contradiction will actually make it a contradiction.

This is a teaching moment for you.

The traveling twin returns both 100 years old and 10 years old.

So, he is both dead and alive.

No, he's 10 years old(er) and very much alive. Only the clock he took with him accurately shows his biological age.

Remember, the traveling twin witnessed 100 years by astronomical observations and if you refute his conclusions that he witnessed 100 years of age then you refute all astronomical conclusions.

There is nothing to refute. Both measurements of time's passage are valid - for the different twins they are measuring for.

We'll keep going around and around like this. You won't ever even pretend to understand what is being said. Here, I'll do the next few rounds for you just to save some time:

Chinglu: So you're saying the astronomical observation must be wrong?
Us: No, all 3 time measurements are valid (correct).
Chinglu: So you're saying one of the 3 clocks must be wrong?
Us: No, all 3 time measurements are valid (correct).
Chinglu: So which one is wrong?
Us: No, all 3 time measurements are valid (correct).
Chinglu: The spaceship's clock must be wrong then, right?
Us: No, all 3 time measurements are valid (correct).
Chinglu: Then which one is wrong?
Us: No, all 3 time measurements are valid (correct).
Chinglu: But if they don't agree, one must be wrong, right?
Us: No, all 3 time measurements are valid (correct).

Repeat.

Except....

Otherwise, you can show under SR where you can witness 1000 years of existence and yet live only 10 years.

I'd like to see that proof.

Ooh, we're so close. That almost implies you actually understand that the traveling twin can watch the earth go around the sun 1000 times and still only age himself 10 years. The proof is, of course, not of that exact situation, but there is a mountain of evidences showing that to be true. If I become convinced that you accept that's what Relativity predicts and stop with the mindless loop you're in, I may even try to discuss that evidence with you!

 

[Lakon]

That's true (in this case), but it wasn't my point, no. My point was that you can't even have a meaningful dialogue unless both sides understand what the other is saying and respond to what is actually being said. And the fact that the misrepresentation is always exactly the same instead of jumping around trying to find the right meaning implies it is being done on purpose.

OK, thanks. I try to follow these conversation which to me, are most fascinating. Sometimes I have some difficulty - from both camps, though I don't blame anyone for that.

 

[Lakon]

OK, thanks. I try to follow these conversation which to me, are most fascinating. Sometimes I have some difficulty - from both camps, though I don't blame anyone for that.

PS, RW - I like your two most recent posts - free of ad hominim and an earnest attempt to focus into what appears to be the central missunderstanding.

 

[paddoboy]

..he persistently states the exact same misrepresentation of the mainstream view..

I don't follow the reasoning here. Are you saying that because it is the mainstream view, it is therefore fait accompli that he is wrong ?

Certainly not. I on occasions crossed swords with mainstream science answers in another forum.
That was on the subject of ETL when I insisted that overwhelmingly its existence somewhere/sometime is far far more likely then non existing. [Even though I realise that the 100% correct answer is "we don't know".
I also have "faith" that manned inter-stellar travel will also be achieved one day.
But even as a layman [although an avid reader] I do know that SR and GR are constantly being tested, and verified.
Synchronised atomic clocks, with one being sent around the world on a plane will always upon return show a discrepancy.........The measurment of the amount of muons arriving at Earth's surface [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html ] GPS systems, and probably many more.

chinglu subsequently raises the ire of some, by either ignoring the evidence, saying it is wrong, [without any experimental results to invalidate what science absolutely know to be factual], or just repeating his warped view of what he thinks is the case.

Everyone has the right to question [as I am on the record of doing] without fear nor favour, but everyone also needs to add an alternative model that better suits what he/she is trying to invalidate.
chinglu does not, and more to the point cannot do that.

 

[Lakon]

Certainly not. I on occasions crossed swords with mainstream science answers in another forum.
That was on the subject of ETL when I insisted that overwhelmingly its existence somewhere/sometime is far far more likely then non existing. [Even though I realise that the 100% correct answer is "we don't know".
I also have "faith" that manned inter-stellar travel will also be achieved one day.
But even as a layman [although an avid reader] I do know that SR and GR are constantly being tested, and verified.
Synchronised atomic clocks, with one being sent around the world on a plane will always upon return show a discrepancy.........The measurment of the amount of muons arriving at Earth's surface [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html ] GPS systems, and probably many more.

chinglu subsequently raises the ire of some, by either ignoring the evidence, saying it is wrong, [without any experimental results to invalidate what science absolutely know to be factual], or just repeating his warped view of what he thinks is the case.

Everyone has the right to question [as I am on the record of doing] without fear nor favour, but everyone also needs to add an alternative model that better suits what he/she is trying to invalidate.
chinglu does not, and more to the point cannot do that.

OK, OK, steady on cobber. Don't confuse me further - I was merely asking RW a very specific but simple and singular question which he answered very well.

PS - slow down on the ad homonim. Doesn't get you far, and not a good look for a top flight, Aussie scientific mind like yourself

 

[Lakon]

.. and don't lose sight of the fact that this IS a Psuedoscience forum, thus, the proprietors of it would naturally allow as much as is available - and the more hits / posts, the better for them - and good luck to them.

 

[paddoboy]

OK, OK, steady on cobber. Don't confuse me further - I was merely asking RW a very specific but simple and singular question which he answered very well.

PS - slow down on the ad homonim. Doesn't get you far, and not a good look for a top flight, Aussie scientific mind like yourself

Yes he did, and there has been a heap of other good answers.
And yes your comment on the ad homonim will be taken into consideration and as it should be....and no, I'm certainly not any top scientific mind [Aussie or otherwise ] In fact I just a poor lowly retired Maintenance Fitter, who has read many reputable books by reputable people and am currently in my second read of Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps"

and don't lose sight of the fact that this IS a Psuedoscience forum, thus, the proprietors of it would naturally allow as much as is available - and the more hits / posts, the better for them - and good luck to them.

Well, yes, that's one point in his favour!

 

[Lakon]

Yes he did, and there has been a heap of other good answers.
And yes your comment on the ad homonim will be taken into consideration and as it should be....and no, I'm certainly not any top scientific mind [Aussie or otherwise ] In fact I just a poor lowly retired Maintenance Fitter, who has read many reputable books by reputable people and am currently in my second read of Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps"

Well, yes, that's one point in his favour!

All good.

Hey, if you like reading books that give a different (but not loony) perspective, read Ouspensky's 'Tertium Organum' somethime. It's available free on line (written a hundred years ago) and everyone I've ever recommended it to loved it. Philosophers rave about it in philosophy forums (not that I'm a philosopher).

 

[Undefined]

This thread is currently saying the same thing.

You folks are saying that the traveling twin lived 12 years years by astronomical observation and 10 earth years by a clock.

So, the traveling live both 10 years and 12 years, which is a contradiction.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Hi chinglu.

1) Have you tried to understand the subtle different word usage/meaning between "lived/witnessed" and "aged" like I pointed out for your benefit more than once now?

2) Also, have you tried to understand that the two things-----ie, the Earth-Sun orbit system and the Traveling Twin's Clock/Biology systems-----are thereby totally disconnected things once the 'standard state' time rates were established before the twin/clock travels away from that standard state; and furthermore, that the Earth-Sun orbit system 'orbit count' is an EXTERNAL dataset while the Twin Clock/Biology 'ticking/aging count/process' is INTERNAL dataset?

In combination, both 1) and 2) have a bearing on what you can say OR NOT SAY about the scenario. Failure to tease out and allow for the subtleties leads to confusions which are resulting from the non-sequiturs which those subtleties produce if not properly recognized/separated in your analysis/conclusions.

Again I stress the important aspect which is causing your confusion, namely: Just because the traveling twin "lived/witnessed" (or his clock "existed") for the "standard year" counts involved, it doesn't mean the traveling twin "aged" (or his clock "counted") in the same way as they did when at the starting 'standard' state where his stay-put twin remained.

See? You are conflating the traveling twin's "lived/witnessed" through EXTERNAL observations of Earth-Sun system with his INTERNAL "clock ticked/biological aged" observations/effects of the traveling biology/clock systems.

Once you realize all that, then the fact that the internal traveling twin age/clock 'disagrees' with the external Earth-Sun system 'count' (and the stay-put twin 'age') means that YES it is the traveling twin's clock/age that is 'wrong'....ACCORDING TO THE STARTING STANDARDS ONLY! Do you understand what I am trying to get across to you here?

To contrast that point further: If the OTHER twin had traveled, then it would be the OTHER twin and his clock that would be 'wrong'....again, according ONLY to the starting standards!

The scenario/conclusion is 'trivial' and not 'paradoxical' or 'wrong' IN ITSELF if all the above is understood by you, chinglu. Can you indicate that you DO understand what I have pointed out that may be causing you problems in seeing the trivial and non-paradoxical nature of the scenario?

Anyhow, mate, to answer your other question elsewhere asking whether "...all astronomical observations FROM EARTH etc are 'therefore wrong'?", I just point out that (as illustrated by the scenario just discussed/explained ) all the astronomical observations are NOT 'wrong' IN THEMSELVES. See? They are just MADE FROM THIS STANDARDS STATE 'here', that's all. It just means that necessary allowances/adjustments and interpretations etc etc need to be made to the EXTERNAL dataset by astronomers, so that some consistent 'reality' interpretation can be ascribed to the EXTERNAL (even more far distant) astronomical 'source/process' of what is 'observed' FROM HERE. No paradoxes involved and no 'wrongness' need be attributed....except maybe in the theories/hypotheses USED to INTERPRET the observations....just as YOU chinglu seem to be using your own WRONG hypothesis conflating "lived"/witnessed" with "ticked/aged" and etc to MISTAKENLY 'interpret' things as you have done so far in the scenario discussed? Yes? .

Back again tomorrow if I can. Cheers and good luck in your other discussions, chinglu, everyone!

 

[chinglu]

No, not in the least...that is just your own warped unitelligent trolling take on it.

The travelling twin ages 10 years, in his FoR.
He sees the stationary twin age 12 years and astronomical observations advance by 12 years in "ANOTHER FoR]
When he returns to the stationary twin in the other FoR, he sees that although he has only aged 10 years both biologically and by his on board mechanical clocks, 12 years has passed in the FoR that he was not a part of.

Now if you really are fair dinkum, and you really believe we are all Idiots and you are an Einstein, why not take your view and get it published through proper chanells?
I'll tell you why...Because you are a pathetic troll, that is probable lucky enough to have two, as no one could be that silly pulling one!

How exactly is the traveling twin seeing the earth orbit 12 times in in "ANOTHER FoR?

Are you claiming the twin on the earth is in an absolute FoR and so that is the preferred frame for all logic.

How is that SR?

The fact is that in each SR frame both observers conclude the earth orbits 12 times and so they both live 12 earth orbits in spite of their clocks.

 

[chinglu]

Hi chinglu.

1) Have you tried to understand the subtle different word usage/meaning between "lived/witnessed" and "aged" like I pointed out for your benefit more than once now?

2) Also, have you tried to understand that the two things-----ie, the Earth-Sun orbit system and the Traveling Twin's Clock/Biology systems-----are thereby totally disconnected things once the 'standard state' time rates were established before the twin/clock travels away from that standard state; and furthermore, that the Earth-Sun orbit system 'orbit count' is an EXTERNAL dataset while the Twin Clock/Biology 'ticking/aging count/process' is INTERNAL dataset?

In combination, both 1) and 2) have a bearing on what you can say OR NOT SAY about the scenario. Failure to tease out and allow for the subtleties leads to confusions which are resulting from the non-sequiturs which those subtleties produce if not properly recognized/separated in your analysis/conclusions.

Again I stress the important aspect which is causing your confusion, namely: Just because the traveling twin "lived/witnessed" (or his clock "existed") for the "standard year" counts involved, it doesn't mean the traveling twin "aged" (or his clock "counted") in the same way as they did when at the starting 'standard' state where his stay-put twin remained.

See? You are conflating the traveling twin's "lived/witnessed" through EXTERNAL observations of Earth-Sun system with his INTERNAL "clock ticked/biological aged" observations/effects of the traveling biology/clock systems.

Once you realize all that, then the fact that the internal traveling twin age/clock 'disagrees' with the external Earth-Sun system 'count' (and the stay-put twin 'age') means that YES it is the traveling twin's clock/age that is 'wrong'....ACCORDING TO THE STARTING STANDARDS ONLY! Do you understand what I am trying to get across to you here?

To contrast that point further: If the OTHER twin had traveled, then it would be the OTHER twin and his clock that would be 'wrong'....again, according ONLY to the starting standards!

The scenario/conclusion is 'trivial' and not 'paradoxical' or 'wrong' IN ITSELF if all the above is understood by you, chinglu. Can you indicate that you DO understand what I have pointed out that may be causing you problems in seeing the trivial and non-paradoxical nature of the scenario?

Anyhow, mate, to answer your other question elsewhere asking whether "...all astronomical observations FROM EARTH etc are 'therefore wrong'?", I just point out that (as illustrated by the scenario just discussed/explained ) all the astronomical observations are NOT 'wrong' IN THEMSELVES. See? They are just MADE FROM THIS STANDARDS STATE 'here', that's all. It just means that necessary allowances/adjustments and interpretations etc etc need to be made to the EXTERNAL dataset by astronomers, so that some consistent 'reality' interpretation can be ascribed to the EXTERNAL (even more far distant) astronomical 'source/process' of what is 'observed' FROM HERE. No paradoxes involved and no 'wrongness' need be attributed....except maybe in the theories/hypotheses USED to INTERPRET the observations....just as YOU chinglu seem to be using your own WRONG hypothesis conflating "lived"/witnessed" with "ticked/aged" and etc to MISTAKENLY 'interpret' things as you have done so far in the scenario discussed? Yes? .

Back again tomorrow if I can. Cheers and good luck in your other discussions, chinglu, everyone!

Both twins live the same observed 12 earth orbits.

They are the same astronomical age.