Gravity slows down time.

[paddoboy]

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.

The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant, regardless of frequency, and does not change. The frequency can be red-shifted and the straightest path between two points might appear to be bent, but the speed of light always remains at "c" in the local FoR.


However if we take things to the extreme, say an observer at a safe distance from a BH, observing his more intrepid partner approaching the EH of the BH, he will see his intrepid partner's clocks running dead slow, so much so, that he will never see him cross the EH into oblivion, just his image being further and further redshifted along the spectrum, until it literally disappears from view.

In this extreme example this is gravity causing clocks to run slower.

 

[chinglu]

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!

Well, here is you basic problem with your logic.


You agree that the traveling twin witnesses 12 years of events just as the stay at home twin. You also agree using science, the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits.

Yet, your SR clock tells you that you only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

Since science trumps all other logic, we must agree with science that 12 earth orbits occurred in spite of the failed SR clock claim that 10 earth orbits occurred.

 

[chinglu]

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.

The science claims the traveling twins witnessed 12 earth orbits. The SR clock claims the traveling twin witnessed only 10 earth orbits.

You are claiming we should never accept scientific observations as valid evidence.

 

[chinglu]

Yes there is........





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.

You also hate scientific observations.

According to science, the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits.

His failed SR clock claimed he only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

You choose to refute valid science.

Note, valid science never claims a person lives 10 years while at the same time living 12 years.

 

[paddoboy]

You also hate scientific observations.

According to science, the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits.

His failed SR clock claimed he only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

You choose to refute valid science.

Note, valid science never claims a person lives 10 years while at the same time living 12 years.

Seriously it's quite ironic that you use the word "valid" when you continually spout pseudoscience and crack-pottery......

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.




Oooopsy daisy!!!
Sorry, chinglu, I keep forgetting...this is the 'Pseudoscience "forum particularly for the crackpots to and babble incessantly, without any observational and experimental validity.

 

[chinglu]

Seriously it's quite ironic that you use the word "valid" when you continually spout pseudoscience and crack-pottery......

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.




Oooopsy daisy!!!
Sorry, chinglu, I keep forgetting...this is the 'Pseudoscience "forum particularly for the crackpots to and babble incessantly, without any observational and experimental validity.

Let's see, you are claiming a traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits according to science.

Then his SR clock claimed he only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

You then toss out science and take some crackpot flat earth medieval unproven opinion of 10 earth orbits and you say I am not scientific?

 

[paddoboy]

Let's see, you are claiming a traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits according to science.

Then his SR clock claimed he only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

You then toss out science and take some crackpot flat earth medieval unproven opinion of 10 earth orbits and you say I am not scientific?

Nope.....[as you well know...it must be play time again]
but just for the record......
The travelling twin witnesses 12 Earth orbits [now chinglu just for you] in another FoR....
His onboard mechanical clock, and his built in biological clock tell him 10 years have passed [and again for you chinlu] while still witnessing 12 Earth orbits in the other FoR......

We then logically conclude [and as can be illustratively shown] that time dilation has taken place.


But as you think you have a better model/interpretation, then you must if you are fair dinkum follow my following advice......
You need to get your ideas peer reviewed and judged accordingly.
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.

Obviously you can't do that because you have [1] no observational evidence, [2] no experimental evidence, [3] and no logical theoretical evidence.

 

[Undefined]

...
Yet, your SR clock tells you that you only witnessed 10 earth orbits.
...

Hi chinglu.

Did you not read what I posted to you before? Namely:

That the Clock/Biology tick/age process dataset is INTERNAL, and effectively causally disconnected from EXTERNAL astronomical datasets.

And that any correlation of the internal-to-external datasets is brought by YOU the observer as an AFTERTHOUGHT comparison 'analytical overlay', simply because the clock/biology process ITSELF does NOT 'claim' anything at all other than what it represents INTERNALLY. Full stop.

Do you understand? The "SR" clock you allude to is NOT 'saying' anything about 'earth years' elapsed or anything else "external' to its own system. Full stop.


See it now? Whenever you say things like "Yet, your SR clock tells you that you only witnessed 10 earth orbits.", it is actually YOU 'telling' the clock what its tick count represents!

See? It's NOT the clock 'telling' YOU anything of the kind; but rather it is YOU making some correlation between that internal dataset and an external dataset....and in the process YOU are the one that says "SR Clock claims 10 yrs etc etc".

Read and understand my posts again properly. When you finally 'get it' that this is the source of your confusion/conflation then you will see that it is YOU not the SR clock/biology that is 'saying' anything except what the internal tick/age 'count' IS irrespective of what other afterthought connections you make between that and other external datasets. Ok?

Good luck, chinglu, everyone.

 

[Russ_Watters]

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.

Because it would be an impossibly exact coincidence.

 

[Russ_Watters]

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.

You have the shoe on the wrong foot here: what YOU are suggesting is that they all - every clock ever used for testing Relativity - malfunction in the same exact way, including muons, by the way, which aren't really even clocks.

We know clocks malfunction. That's why there are multiple chronometers on ships and spare GPS satellites. But when they malfunction, they tend to either do so randomly or completely. They don't all malfunction in exactly the same way - at least not good clocks. Pendulum clocks tend to malfunction in a specific way, but they aren't used for science because of it.

 

[Russ_Watters]

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

You mean using actual twins? No. But so what? There's an awful lot in science that doesn't happen on human timescales which nevertheless has mountains of evidence for. Relativity is one such thing.

But again, you're dancing around the issue because previously you didn't even accept that the clocks weren't malfunctioning. Are you saying you accept it now? Because the point about experiments with actual twins doesn't matter if the clocks are malfunctioning. This dancing around, jumping between unrelated points without ever resolving one issue, is what makes you look like you are being intentionally deceptive.

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

Do I need to copy-paste the same response for you another dozen times or can you figure out what I'm going to say already?

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

Again, should I copy-paste the same response for you another dozen times? You have yet to address it, so its almost like you aren't seeing it. Since you can't possibly be missing it, I must assume you are ignoring it on purpose.

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

Is that false?

No, it's not false. Again: reread that one line over and over and over again until you grasp it.

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

It does not disagree with that evidence.

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

Uh, what? The clock's reading is evidence too, no? So why are you disagreeing with that scientific evidence? Doesn't it mean you are wrong?

So here we have an apparent contradiction: Two pieces of evidence, both apparently valid because nothing appears to be wrong with the clocks. As a scientifically minded person, you should start to process that and start to look for another possible explanation for how it can happen. Can you think of a way that all three pieces of evidence could all be valid? It shouldn't be difficult...

Just one more:

Yet, your SR clock tells you that you only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

No, it doesn't. That's not what the clock says at all. What the clock says is that the orbits took a different number of seconds than they did to the non-moving person.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Deleted: not needed.

 

[(Q)]

Let's see, you are claiming a traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits according to science.

Then his SR clock claimed he only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

You then toss out science and take some crackpot flat earth medieval unproven opinion of 10 earth orbits and you say I am not scientific?

Wash, rinse, repeat.

This stuck record has really gone on far too long.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Deleted: not needed.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Actually, based on his first few posts in the thread, some of what he now appears not to know he started-off knowing:

In GR, closer to earth implies slower clocks....

This is verified by GPS.

[separate post]
That high observer is older since time went faster for him/her. The land based observer is younger.

So Chinglu does indeed understand (and Chinglu, by all means correct me if I misunderstand you):

1. Clocks are scientific instruments, designed to measure the passage of time, and can do it very accurately.
2. Relativity predicts that time actually travels slower higher in a gravitational field.
3. Real clocks can and have accurately verified #2.
4. This means that the twins actually have different ages.

So the only real point of contention is the apparent contradiction of the twins paradox. His contention of parroting over and over again that there is a contradiction is based on this:

Keep in mind, all time clocks are supposed to sync with the earth's rotation and orbit.

And that's really his biggest error. It is false. For 3 reasons:

a. Neither earth's orbit or rotation are stable and they (for example via a sundial) therefore make very inaccurate clocks.
b. Neither earth's orbit or rotation happen fast enough to be precise enough to be useful for measuring short time intervals.
c. Knowing and accepting Relativity means that you would not assume time in different frames to stay in sync. So no, clocks are not all supposed to be in sync with earth's rotation and orbit.

So the contradiciton only exists if we assume Relativity is wrong. If we assume Relativity is correct, there is no contradiction. See, Relativity eliminates the contradiction. It doesn't cause the contradiction. That's why this whole argument of yours is a red herring. When backed into a corner you have to change to saying the clock must be in error (contradicting your own point #1), even though you started with the assumption that it wasn't. You are contradictiong your own assumptions because you don't like the conclusion they lead to.

We are not the ones discarding data and logic because we don't like the conclusion they lead to, you are. The only thing we are discarding is your circular assumption/conclusion:

1. Assume Relativity is wrong.
2. Measure something.
3. If the measurement agrees with Relativity, assume the measurement is wrong.

So we're really discussing the wrong thing here. What we should be discussing is how we know the measurement (none of the measurements) isn't wrong and how you know it is. Your insertion of the assumption that the clock by definition should be synced with earth's rotation allows you to avoid discussing how we know the clock isn't wrong. In logic, you can't assume that which you are claiming to prove.

Or to say it another way: there is no need for you to pretend there is contradiction between the traveling twin's clock and the stay-at-home twin's clock. We all know they read different things and you know that Relativity says they are supposed to and so that isn't a contradiction under Relativity. Since the contradition is only a contradiction if Relativity is wrong, you need to find a way to resolve it, which you haven't done. You need to design a clock that the astronaut can take with him that doesn't show the change.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Perhaps this will be useful: Is there any experiment the traveling twin can make in his frame (not using the earth/sun) that agrees with your theory of universal time?

Any theory/mechanism which actually predicts/ explains the "clock error" without Relativity?

 

[chinglu]

Hi chinglu.

Did you not read what I posted to you before? Namely:

That the Clock/Biology tick/age process dataset is INTERNAL, and effectively causally disconnected from EXTERNAL astronomical datasets.

And that any correlation of the internal-to-external datasets is brought by YOU the observer as an AFTERTHOUGHT comparison 'analytical overlay', simply because the clock/biology process ITSELF does NOT 'claim' anything at all other than what it represents INTERNALLY. Full stop.

Do you understand? The "SR" clock you allude to is NOT 'saying' anything about 'earth years' elapsed or anything else "external' to its own system. Full stop.


See it now? Whenever you say things like "Yet, your SR clock tells you that you only witnessed 10 earth orbits.", it is actually YOU 'telling' the clock what its tick count represents!

See? It's NOT the clock 'telling' YOU anything of the kind; but rather it is YOU making some correlation between that internal dataset and an external dataset....and in the process YOU are the one that says "SR Clock claims 10 yrs etc etc".

Read and understand my posts again properly. When you finally 'get it' that this is the source of your confusion/conflation then you will see that it is YOU not the SR clock/biology that is 'saying' anything except what the internal tick/age 'count' IS irrespective of what other afterthought connections you make between that and other external datasets. Ok?

Good luck, chinglu, everyone.

I read what you said about internal, whatever that means in physics.

But, what you have yet to understand, is you claim the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits and his clock claims he only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

That is the part you have not worked out yet.

The SR clock makes a claim that contradicts scientific observation.

It is that simple.

 

[chinglu]

Actually, based on his first few posts in the thread, some of what he now appears not to know he started-off knowing:
So Chinglu does indeed understand (and Chinglu, by all means correct me if I misunderstand you):

1. Clocks are scientific instruments, designed to measure the passage of time, and can do it very accurately.
2. Relativity predicts that time actually travels slower higher in a gravitational field.
3. Real clocks can and have accurately verified #2.
4. This means that the twins actually have different ages.

So the only real point of contention is the apparent contradiction of the twins paradox. His contention of parroting over and over again that there is a contradiction is based on this:
And that's really his biggest error. It is false. For 3 reasons:

a. Neither earth's orbit or rotation are stable and they (for example via a sundial) therefore make very inaccurate clocks.
b. Neither earth's orbit or rotation happen fast enough to be precise enough to be useful for measuring short time intervals.
c. Knowing and accepting Relativity means that you would not assume time in different frames to stay in sync. So no, clocks are not all supposed to be in sync with earth's rotation and orbit.

So the contradiciton only exists if we assume Relativity is wrong. If we assume Relativity is correct, there is no contradiction. See, Relativity eliminates the contradiction. It doesn't cause the contradiction. That's why this whole argument of yours is a red herring. When backed into a corner you have to change to saying the clock must be in error (contradicting your own point #1), even though you started with the assumption that it wasn't. You are contradictiong your own assumptions because you don't like the conclusion they lead to.

We are not the ones discarding data and logic because we don't like the conclusion they lead to, you are. The only thing we are discarding is your circular assumption/conclusion:

1. Assume Relativity is wrong.
2. Measure something.
3. If the measurement agrees with Relativity, assume the measurement is wrong.

So we're really discussing the wrong thing here. What we should be discussing is how we know the measurement (none of the measurements) isn't wrong and how you know it is. Your insertion of the assumption that the clock by definition should be synced with earth's rotation allows you to avoid discussing how we know the clock isn't wrong. In logic, you can't assume that which you are claiming to prove.

Or to say it another way: there is no need for you to pretend there is contradiction between the traveling twin's clock and the stay-at-home twin's clock. We all know they read different things and you know that Relativity says they are supposed to and so that isn't a contradiction under Relativity. Since the contradition is only a contradiction if Relativity is wrong, you need to find a way to resolve it, which you haven't done. You need to design a clock that the astronaut can take with him that doesn't show the change.

1. Clocks are scientific instruments, designed to measure the passage of time, and can do it very accurately.
2. Relativity predicts that time actually travels slower higher in a gravitational field.
3. Real clocks can and have accurately verified #2.
4. This means that the twins actually have different ages.

1) Clocks are scientific instruments, designed to measure the passage of time, and can do it very accurately. Yes, and they can also prove to be inaccurate depending on their underlying technology.

2) True.

3) Real frequency clock have verified 2. Independently, frequency has been shown to redden in higher gravity. This proves if you want the correct original frequency of the signal, you must perform adjustments. Frequency clocks are frequency measuring devices. Therefore, they are susceptible to the frequency changes caused by gravity.

Hence, we are not measuring a time difference caused by gravity, but a technological flaw of frequency based clocks.

4) Has therefore been refuted.

 

[chinglu]

This is so simple I can't even believe it.

The traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits.

His SR clock claims he only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

His clock therefore contradicts scientific observation.

So, all those that agree the clock is correct that only 10 earth orbits were witnessed, contradict science.

 

[paddoboy]

I read what you said about internal, whatever that means in physics.

But, what you have yet to understand, is you claim the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits and his clock claims he only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

That is the part you have not worked out yet.

The SR clock makes a claim that contradicts scientific observation.

It is that simple.

It's that simple yet you are still way off track, as your continuing side-stepping of issues, and ignoring validated rebuttals of your quackery has shown from the outset.

You ignore FoRs........
Let's give you another example....
If the travelling twin was at a constant 99.999% of c for 12 months by "HIS" onboard clock in his own FoR, he would observe around 250 years of sunsets and Earth orbits in the other FoR, and upon returning find his stay at home mate long dead and buried while he has aged only 12 months.
Now I have linked at least two online videos, explaining that, and graphically illustrating how and why it happens.
I even tested my 10 year old nephew with one of those videos, and after watching it twice, he was aware of the logic being shown and discussed.
Now he was only 10!!!

To further show you what a nice bloke I am, the SR clock that YOU CLAIM, IT CLAIMS contradicts scientific observation is false.
It's only CLAIM as you put it, is that 10 years have passed within its own FoR...that's it, pure and simple.
It doesn't give a hoot in hell, what is happening in another FoR, that's it, pure and simple.