Gravity slows down time.

[chinglu]

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.

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

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!

You are stuck on the same confusion.

Both twins lived the same astronomical age of 12 earth orbits.

Yet, one clock of the traveling twin claims that twin only loved 10 years.

So, the traveling twin claims he lived 12 earth orbits and 10 earth orbits which is a contradiction.

So, all humans should get a watch that wrongly runs slower than the actual earth orbits. Then, they will not age as quickly as those that posses a correct watch.

What kind of crackpottery is this?

What if a person got a watch that stopped running.

Then, they would live forever?

 

[paddoboy]

Both twins live the same observed 12 earth orbits.

They are the same astronomical age.

No not in the least, and that is supported by myriads of observational and experimental results.

The travelling twin has lived 10 years and his age is independant of what he has observed as Earth orbits in another FoR.....

Like I said back up there a bit, you can parrot the delusions you are under until the cows come home, but you lack any supportable evidence, and as such, the world will continue to advance and learn from the science of SR and GR and have our technology reflecting that fact.
Best of luck anyway.

 

[paddoboy]

So, all humans should get a watch that wrongly runs slower than the actual earth orbits. Then, they will not age as quickly as those that posses a correct watch.

What kind of crackpottery is this?
?

Oh this is getting so funny......
You keep ignoring two basic observable obvious facts....Light has a finite speed we dub "c" ......and time dilation only happens when different FoRs are compared.

You are now being deliberatley wrong.....and as you so ironically put it, a regular five star crackpot!!!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Both twins live the same observed 12 earth orbits.

They are the same astronomical age.

So you've completely jumped ship then? Did we get too close to clarity for your comfort that you have to disregard the recent line of discussion and reboot?

Sure, if you want to call the orbit of the earth "astronomical age", that's fine and that statement that they lived the same "astronomical age" is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that (in the 10/100 year example), one twin is alive and the other dead. You're ignoring that piece, which has been explicitly explained.

 

[Russ_Watters]

You are stuck on the same confusion.

Both twins lived the same astronomical age of 12 earth orbits.

Yet, one clock of the traveling twin claims that twin only loved 10 years.

So, the traveling twin claims he lived 12 earth orbits and 10 earth orbits which is a contradiction.

It isn't a contradiction: All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid.

So, all humans should get a watch that wrongly runs slower than the actual earth orbits. Then, they will not age as quickly as those that posses a correct watch.

What kind of crackpottery is this?

What if a person got a watch that stopped running.

Then, they would live forever?

We're not talking about malfunctioning watches, we're talking about watches that are functioning correctly. The traveling twin doesn't hit his clock with hammer while he's traveling: his clock is working fine. Again, you're ignoring the main issue and have found a new way to dodge. The fact is this is the whole point of Relativity's time dilation. You got so close to acknowledging you understand that this is what Relativity predicts, but you've now backed away from it again.

Just on the off chance that you'll admit that you understand relativity: do you really think it is a coincidence that moving clocks all happen to "malfunction" in exactly the same way and in a way that can be predicted before the "malfunction" even happens?

Remember, the clock part of the issue is *not* a hypothetical. It's been done and is being done over and over again. Clocks are compared, it is verified both are working fine, then one is sent on a journey. When it comes back, its cumulative time is different, but the clocks are compared again and both still appear to be working fine. And the difference in accumulative time by crazy coincidence just happens to exactly match the predictions of Relativity.

 

[Undefined]

Both twins live the same observed 12 earth orbits.

They are the same astronomical age.

Hi chinglu.

Lucky I came in to check a PM, or you would have gone another whole earth day conflating 'age' with 'existence/duration' per se.

You still don't get that, do you?

Every process has its own internal timings for things to happen/accrue.

In the case of biological 'aging', it is the telomere-depletion which accrues and aging 'happens' at the 'rate' determined by the process.

The sun-earth system is NOT 'aging' via 'telomere-depletion', is it? No. So it is NOT 'aging' like the traveling twin is 'aging'. Ok so far?

Your use of 'aging' without understanding the meanings in different contexts/uses is what's causing you to make facile statements like that last one in your above post.

When we speak of common existence of the universal phenomena AS A WHOLE, we do NOT speak of any individual part of it 'existing' separately.

However, when we DO speak of any individual part of it 'aging' separately at different rates, THEN we are speaking of that INDIVIDUAL PROCESS involved, and NOT the overall universal process. For example, a Shrew mammal lives FAST and SHORT existence because its metabolic rate/process is DIFFERENT.....just as (opposite effect) the traveling twin's own metabolic rate is now SLOWED and LONGER than his stay-put twin's.

BUT ALL OF THESE have "EXISTED" FOR THE SAME UNIVERSAL DURATION whilst they "LIVED" concurrently....BUT THEY "AGED" at different rates INTERNALLY and NOT as a universal measure like you keep implying by that last statement in your above post.

Do you understand that you are using 'age' and 'existence/witnessing/duration' INCORRECTLY when making such implications based on your CONFLATING these things? Here it is again, more plainly put....

They lived through the same concurrent (common astronomical) duration per se, but they aged at different individual rates quite separate from the common reference and each others'.

Can't get more clear than that, mate.

Try thinking it through again in that light, and do try this time to use the correct term for the UNIVERSAL/EXTERNAL and the SUBJECTIVE INTERNAL aspects of the timing factors/rates/counts for those entirely separate things in logic and effect for your 'analysis' and conclusions/interpretations you make in this particular instance/scenario.

Good luck and good thinking to you, chinglu; and enjoy your discussions, everyone!

 

[chinglu]

No not in the least, and that is supported by myriads of observational and experimental results.

The travelling twin has lived 10 years and his age is independant of what he has observed as Earth orbits in another FoR.....

Like I said back up there a bit, you can parrot the delusions you are under until the cows come home, but you lack any supportable evidence, and as such, the world will continue to advance and learn from the science of SR and GR and have our technology reflecting that fact.
Best of luck anyway.

There is no experiment evidence that 2 twins actually live different ages.

Anyway, we have 2 twins that agree they both lived 12 earth orbits by scientific observations.

Is that false?

 

[chinglu]

So you've completely jumped ship then? Did we get too close to clarity for your comfort that you have to disregard the recent line of discussion and reboot?

Sure, if you want to call the orbit of the earth "astronomical age", that's fine and that statement that they lived the same "astronomical age" is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that (in the 10/100 year example), one twin is alive and the other dead. You're ignoring that piece, which has been explicitly explained.

You are ignoring the facts of scientific observations and I am not.

Anyway, we have 2 twins that agree they both lived 12 earth orbits by scientific observations.

Is that false?

 

[chinglu]

It isn't a contradiction: All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid. All 3 time measurements are valid.

We're not talking about malfunctioning watches, we're talking about watches that are functioning correctly. The traveling twin doesn't hit his clock with hammer while he's traveling: his clock is working fine. Again, you're ignoring the main issue and have found a new way to dodge. The fact is this is the whole point of Relativity's time dilation. You got so close to acknowledging you understand that this is what Relativity predicts, but you've now backed away from it again.

Just on the off chance that you'll admit that you understand relativity: do you really think it is a coincidence that moving clocks all happen to "malfunction" in exactly the same way and in a way that can be predicted before the "malfunction" even happens?

Remember, the clock part of the issue is *not* a hypothetical. It's been done and is being done over and over again. Clocks are compared, it is verified both are working fine, then one is sent on a journey. When it comes back, its cumulative time is different, but the clocks are compared again and both still appear to be working fine. And the difference in accumulative time by crazy coincidence just happens to exactly match the predictions of Relativity.

If the watch of the traveling twin is functioning correctly, why does it disagree with scientific evidence that 12 earth orbits occurred?

Anything that disagree with scientific evidence must be wrong, no?

 

[chinglu]

Hi chinglu.

Lucky I came in to check a PM, or you would have gone another whole earth day conflating 'age' with 'existence/duration' per se.

You still don't get that, do you?

Every process has its own internal timings for things to happen/accrue.

In the case of biological 'aging', it is the telomere-depletion which accrues and aging 'happens' at the 'rate' determined by the process.

The sun-earth system is NOT 'aging' via 'telomere-depletion', is it? No. So it is NOT 'aging' like the traveling twin is 'aging'. Ok so far?

Your use of 'aging' without understanding the meanings in different contexts/uses is what's causing you to make facile statements like that last one in your above post.

When we speak of common existence of the universal phenomena AS A WHOLE, we do NOT speak of any individual part of it 'existing' separately.

However, when we DO speak of any individual part of it 'aging' separately at different rates, THEN we are speaking of that INDIVIDUAL PROCESS involved, and NOT the overall universal process. For example, a Shrew mammal lives FAST and SHORT existence because its metabolic rate/process is DIFFERENT.....just as (opposite effect) the traveling twin's own metabolic rate is now SLOWED and LONGER than his stay-put twin's.

BUT ALL OF THESE have "EXISTED" FOR THE SAME UNIVERSAL DURATION whilst they "LIVED" concurrently....BUT THEY "AGED" at different rates INTERNALLY and NOT as a universal measure like you keep implying by that last statement in your above post.

Do you understand that you are using 'age' and 'existence/witnessing/duration' INCORRECTLY when making such implications based on your CONFLATING these things? Here it is again, more plainly put....

They lived through the same concurrent (common astronomical) duration per se, but they aged at different individual rates quite separate from the common reference and each others'.

Can't get more clear than that, mate.

Try thinking it through again in that light, and do try this time to use the correct term for the UNIVERSAL/EXTERNAL and the SUBJECTIVE INTERNAL aspects of the timing factors/rates/counts for those entirely separate things in logic and effect for your 'analysis' and conclusions/interpretations you make in this particular instance/scenario.

Good luck and good thinking to you, chinglu; and enjoy your discussions, everyone!

You do not get it.

Scientific evidence for both twins proves 12 earth orbits occurred for both.

Yet, one of the watches disagrees with science.

So, the watch must be wrong or all science is worthless.

 

[arfa brane]

Scientific evidence for both twins proves 12 earth orbits occurred for both.

Yet, one of the watches disagrees with science.

So, the watch must be wrong or all science is worthless.

Back under the same old bridge?
You can't let go of your idea that 12 years on the earth is the same for the moving twin. They aren't the same.

 

[Nightmaker47]

Back under the same old bridge?
You can't let go of your idea that 12 years on the earth is the same for the moving twin. They aren't the same.

How do we know that the watch for the moving twin didn't malfunction or slowed down by some undentified factor besides gravity? Perhaps the idea that gravity slows down time is wrong and that something else is causing the clocks to slow down but not time itself.

 

[Undefined]

There is no experiment evidence that 2 twins actually live different ages.

Anyway, we have 2 twins that agree they both lived 12 earth orbits by scientific observations.

Is that false?

No, it is not false. Because they "lived" the same external standard of 12 earth orbits. BUT they did NOT "age" according to that external standard. Hence it would BE false to say they 'aged' equivalently for the 12 earth orbits.

Only if you acknowledge the difference, and admit they internally 'aged' differently during those external standard orbits, then there is no further disagreement to discuss. Yes?


See the salient aspects, chinglu?...

1) They "lived" (ie, externally existed) for exactly the same number of EXTERNAL earth-sun orbits dataset.

2) They 'aged' (ie, internally processed) differently according to their RESPECTIVE INTERNAL clock/biology datasets.

3) The stay-put twin's INTERNAL clock/biology 'tick/age' dataset never goes out of synch with the initially agreed EXTERNAL STANDARD of Earth-sun orbit system dataset.

4) BUT the traveling twin's INTERNAL clock/biology 'tick/age' dataset DOES go OUT of synch with the initially agreed EXTERNAL STANDARD dataset.


Any 'overlay connections' made by you/traveling twin is a purely theoretical one based on ASSUMPTIONS/EVIDENCE bridging his dataset and the external dataset so as to make sense of the EXTERNAL DATASET (since he is now OUT OF SYNCH with same), and so explain the different twin 'ages' while 'alive' for same external standard 'existence duration' counted by the external dataset of earth-sun orbits in the meantime.

So, again mate: they "live" through same external standard duration counted by earth orbits BUT they 'age' by their OWN internal respective processes/clocks.

These are two entirely DIFFERENT datasets and cannot be 'equated', but rather only 'bridged'; and that must be done properly, via 'bridging' assumptions/information that makes sense of what happened (ie, traveling twin's clock/biology processes went out of synch with the external astronomical agreed standard which the sty-put twin DID keep in synch with).

Once more for luck:

To "live/exist" and to "tick/age" are two entirely different concepts and should not be confused/conflated....the former two is PHILOSOPHICAL concept, the latter two is PHYSICAL concept.

Good luck with your other discussions, chinglu, everyone!

 

[paddoboy]

There is no experiment evidence that 2 twins actually live different ages.

Yes there is........

Anyway, we have 2 twins that agree they both lived 12 earth orbits by scientific observations.

Is that false?

The twins were in different FoRs.....
Is that false???



Again, you have side-stepped my suggestion, but I'll continue as long as you keep babbling....

Like I said back up there a bit, you can parrot the delusions you are under until the cows come home, but you lack any supportable evidence, and as such, the world will continue to advance and learn from the science of SR and GR and have our technology reflecting that fact.
Best of luck anyway.

 

[paddoboy]

How do we know that the watch for the moving twin didn't malfunction or slowed down by some undentified factor besides gravity? Perhaps the idea that gravity slows down time is wrong and that something else is causing the clocks to slow down but not time itself.

The experiment has been done thousands of times....Do you seriously suggest the moving clock has a fault thousands of times???
Especially when in all cases the clocks in question are checked for faults upon reuniting......

Here;s how it works.....watch the first video...It explains it clearly and simply

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUf_IpH4JFc

 

[paddoboy]

Again I must stress one valid point in chinglu's favour....It's the Pseudoscience forum!!!!!

 

[Nightmaker47]

The experiment has been done thousands of times....Do you seriously suggest the moving clock has a fault thousands of times???
Especially when in all cases the clocks in question are checked for faults upon reuniting......

Here;s how it works.....watch the first video...It explains it clearly and simply

Are you really going to believe those thousands experiments are proof enough to say the clocks are flawless? I guess by your logic, I can say that this pill has an effect for reducing headaches over 1,000 studies and would not even bother to do a control group study called the placebo group. Given that there is no control group nor controls for establishing casuality and controlling lurking variables, I suspect these so-called "flawless clocks" biased.

 

[paddoboy]

Are you really going to believe those thousands experiments are proof enough to say the clocks are flawless? I guess by your logic, I can say that this pill has an effect for reducing headaches over 1,000 studies and would not even bother to do a control group study called the placebo group. Given that there is no control group nor controls for establishing casuality and controlling lurking variables, I suspect these so-called "flawless clocks" biased.

LOL!
And Einstein and the thousands that have followed him, are having us on?????Misleading us all????...For what purpose???
Sorry matey, I'm not into conspiracy nonsense one iota.
If SR/GR were not valid and fully tested models, that have been and are still continually backed by observational and experimental results, then I dare say some reputable scientific figure, would have revealed it by this time....certainly not conspiracy nutters trolling science forums and completely ignorant of the maths and logic that support both SR and GR.

But people can parrot the delusions they are under until the cows come home, but they lack any supportable evidence, and as such, the world will continue to advance and learn from the science of SR and GR and have our technology reflecting that fact.
Best of luck anyway.

 

[paddoboy]

Are you really going to believe those thousands experiments are proof enough to say the clocks are flawless? I guess by your logic, I can say that this pill has an effect for reducing headaches over 1,000 studies and would not even bother to do a control group study called the placebo group. Given that there is no control group nor controls for establishing casuality and controlling lurking variables, I suspect these so-called "flawless clocks" biased.

And of course when we discuss the stupidity of suggesting thousands of clocks are faulty, it gets even more stupid when we consider these clocks are "atomic clocks", accurate to with billionths of a second....

here.....

Very accurate clocks can be constructed by locking an electronic oscillator to the frequency of an atomic transition. The frequencies associated with such transitions are so reproducible that the definition of the second is now tied to the frequency associated with a transition in cesium-133:

1 second = 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133 transition
The two most widely used atomic clocks in recent years have been the cesium beam atomic clock and the rubidium clock. Such clocks have provided the accuracy necessary to test general relativity and to track variations in the frequencies of pulsars. Atomic clocks are integral parts of the Global Positioning System since extreme accuracy in timing is necessary for the triangulation involved

more at....

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acloc.html



And of course then we have particle accelerators, muon lifetimes, and our old standard GPS needing to depend on SR/GR......



Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting...this is the Pseudoscience forum! [A place for everyone/everything, and everything/everyone in its place]

 

[wellwisher]

What is interesting is gravity also speeds up frequency =1/time via pressure. The nuclear reactions in the center of stars have higher frequencies than the plasma materials at the lower surface gravity. I don't think GR takes this into account since frequency is 1/time. If time was "net " slowing time should get longer and frequency should be slower in the center than the surface. The GR contribution is a minor fraction when it comes to time and matter.