Gravity slows down time.

[paddoboy]

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.

Talk is quite cheap......I could pick up the biggest hobo off the street that knows nothing about science, and he could also sprout crap just as crazy as your crap.
The point is you lack anyl observational, experimental, and logical theoretical scientific data to refute SR/GR.

The scientific world stands on the pillars of QM and SR/GR...That is what the facts are, and nothing you as yet said can invalidate that...but hey, keep on trying, It's good for a laugh!

 

[paddoboy]

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.

You have failed to answer my question about why this is in 'Pseudoscience "if what you say is true.......
You have also refused to go through the proper channels and get it peer reviewed...Why????
After all, you say you are correct and the rest of us a dodos....
So why not have the intestinal fortitude to get it peer reviewed?

 

[Russ_Watters]

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.

Frequency of what?

And what about SR? What effect has motion been shown to have?

 

[Russ_Watters]

His SR clock claims he only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

False and you already acknowledged you know what SR says; You know full well that that's not what it says. Here's what you said:

That high observer is older since time went faster for him/her.

That's GR, but you know SR makes similar predictions insofar as what it means for time. So you know that what SR and GR actually say is that the rate of the passage of time is different for the two observers. You must know that that means the elapsed time recorded for the orbits is different, not that the number of orbits recorded is different.

His clock therefore contradicts scientific observation.

You already acknowledged a clock reading is a scientific observation. And you acknowledge you know that the rate of the passage of time is different for different clocks under Relativity. Which means you know that the fact that two clocks show different elapsed times is not a contradiction under Relativity.

You can't just assume there is an error in a scientific observation. You have to demonstrate it.

 

[victorespinoza]

Who has seen the time, to say that it exists?

How is the time?
What color is the time?
Time is relative and absolute, or, none of the two?

No one has seen the time, to say that it exists.

Albert Einstein never saw the time.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Who has seen the time, to say that it exists?

How is the time?
What color is the time?
Time is relative and absolute, or, none of the two?

No one has seen the time, to say that it exists.

Albert Einstein never saw the time.

What color is sound?

 

[victorespinoza]

What color is sound?

Gravity exists because we attract. But time does not attract us.

What I mean, is that there is no evidence of the time it exist.

 

[paddoboy]

Who has seen the time, to say that it exists?


Time is relative and absolute, or, none of the two?
.

No, time is not absolute...It depends on ones FoR, and that is primarily because the speed of light is finite.
We have sent signals to the Moon, to verify its distance with greater precision...That signal takes about 3 seconds for a return trip.....
Let's now progress to the Sun....It takes light 8.25 minutes to reach us from the Sun, so theoretically speaking, if the Sun should blow up at a particular moment, you would not see it for 8.25 minutes.....
If that doesn't convince you of the non-absolute nature of time, [and space] let's try this.....if you look at the Alpha Centauri tonight, you are actually and factually seeing it 4.5 years ago....Theoretically it may not be there when you actually see it......
In other words there is no Universal now....

No one has seen the time, to say that it exists.

Albert Einstein never saw the time.

If time did not exist, neither would anything else. The BB wouldn't have happened.
Do you see magnetism??? Can you see an electric current????
They both exist though along with time, and to deny the existence of time is rather silly.......That doesn't mean we understand it fully though.

 

[paddoboy]

Gravity exists because we attract. But time does not attract us.

What I mean, is that there is no evidence of the time it exist.

Gravity exists because space/time exists and is warped by mass.......
Like I said, if time didn't exist, neither would the Universe.


I would say that is plenty of evidence that time exists!

 

[Undefined]

Hi chinglu.

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

It means the opposite of external. That is the point.

Two datasets associated/derived from two systems causally disconnected from each other regarding their respective periodic cycles/processes. That is the point.

The only 'connection' between them is YOU and YOUR subsequent 'connection' based on YOUR 'conversion' between the two datasets given the obvious disconnection after YOU and your clock/biology left the starting standard state of timing/motion. That is the point.

The SR clock makes a claim that contradicts scientific observation.

If you did read my posts, then why haven't you understood what I said about this?

Again: It is YOU 'making claims' about what the internal clock count dataset 'means' when YOU compare it to the 'external' dataset of earth orbits.

See it now? The clock makes NO claims'. It merely counted off at its own rate. Period. Any 'connection' with 'number of earth years' is YOUR 'connection' made after the fact when comparing the clock count and the Earth years count. That is the point.

Please read my posts again, chinglu, and understand the whole properly, not just bits here and there. If you had done that from the start, then you wouldn't be repeating that same statement about "SR clock claiming" this or that. Get it now? It is YOU making the claims FOR the clock; not the clock 'claiming' anything except what it counted off at its own INTERNAL rate. Got it now?

And did you read and understand what I pointed out about the difference between "lived/existed" (generic "duration per se" PHILOSOPHICAL concept) and "ticked/aged" (specific "process rate" PHYSICS concept)? Confusing/equating the two is also contributing to your mixing the essentials and so getting your self-manufactured 'paradox' out of it. I trust you understand this subtle but important distinction as well now, mate?

Good luck; and enjoy your other discussions, chinglu, everyone. Bye.

 

[Russ_Watters]

What I mean, is that there is no evidence of the time it exist.

False.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Einstein's watch told him all he needed to know.

That is a nerd's must-have item if ever I saw one.
A clever idea from these people:
http://www.philosophersguild.com/Relativity-Watch.html

 

[paddoboy]

Einstein's watch told him all he needed to know.

That is a nerd's must-have item if ever I saw one.
A clever idea from these people:
http://www.philosophersguild.com/Relativity-Watch.html

I want one!

 

[victorespinoza]

I want one!

Remove the Solar system and the time will no longer be the clock.

 

[chinglu]

Frequency of what?

And what about SR? What effect has motion been shown to have?

I proved frequency changes in a gravitational field and now you are off task.

 

[chinglu]

Hi chinglu.



It means the opposite of external. That is the point.

Two datasets associated/derived from two systems causally disconnected from each other regarding their respective periodic cycles/processes. That is the point.

The only 'connection' between them is YOU and YOUR subsequent 'connection' based on YOUR 'conversion' between the two datasets given the obvious disconnection after YOU and your clock/biology left the starting standard state of timing/motion. That is the point.




If you did read my posts, then why haven't you understood what I said about this?

Again: It is YOU 'making claims' about what the internal clock count dataset 'means' when YOU compare it to the 'external' dataset of earth orbits.

See it now? The clock makes NO claims'. It merely counted off at its own rate. Period. Any 'connection' with 'number of earth years' is YOUR 'connection' made after the fact when comparing the clock count and the Earth years count. That is the point.

Please read my posts again, chinglu, and understand the whole properly, not just bits here and there. If you had done that from the start, then you wouldn't be repeating that same statement about "SR clock claiming" this or that. Get it now? It is YOU making the claims FOR the clock; not the clock 'claiming' anything except what it counted off at its own INTERNAL rate. Got it now?

And did you read and understand what I pointed out about the difference between "lived/existed" (generic "duration per se" PHILOSOPHICAL concept) and "ticked/aged" (specific "process rate" PHYSICS concept)? Confusing/equating the two is also contributing to your mixing the essentials and so getting your self-manufactured 'paradox' out of it. I trust you understand this subtle but important distinction as well now, mate?

Good luck; and enjoy your other discussions, chinglu, everyone. Bye.

You have still not dealt with the fact that science claims 12 earth orbits transpired.

Yet, some failed SR watch claims only 10 earth orbits transpired.

Now, you can accept science or accept the failed SR watch.

 

[chinglu]

False and you already acknowledged you know what SR says; You know full well that that's not what it says. Here's what you said:
That's GR, but you know SR makes similar predictions insofar as what it means for time. So you know that what SR and GR actually say is that the rate of the passage of time is different for the two observers. You must know that that means the elapsed time recorded for the orbits is different, not that the number of orbits recorded is different.

You already acknowledged a clock reading is a scientific observation. And you acknowledge you know that the rate of the passage of time is different for different clocks under Relativity. Which means you know that the fact that two clocks show different elapsed times is not a contradiction under Relativity.

You can't just assume there is an error in a scientific observation. You have to demonstrate it.

I acknowledge only scientific observation which none of you can refute.

Both twins observed 12 earth orbits.

That is science fact.

Now, some worthless SR clock claims only 10 earth orbits occurred. I throw that watch in the trash as a crackpot watch since it contradicts science.

 

[paddoboy]

I acknowledge only scientific observation which none of you can refute.

Both twins observed 12 earth orbits.

That is science fact.

Now, some worthless SR clock claims only 10 earth orbits occurred. I throw that watch in the trash as a crackpot watch since it contradicts science.

You havn't answered my questions as yet....

If what you say is true and factual, why not get this knew momentous model peer reviewed through the proper scientific channels....You could even be in line for next years Nobel prize for physics.....
If they had one for Pseudoscience, you would win that hands down!

Oh, and you also keep repeating yourself.....

 

[Russ_Watters]

deleted - consolidating

 

[Russ_Watters]

I acknowledge only scientific observation which none of you can refute.

Both twins observed 12 earth orbits.

That is science fact.

Now, some worthless SR clock claims only 10 earth orbits occurred. I throw that watch in the trash as a crackpot watch since it contradicts science.

1. There is no such thing as an "SR clock". There are only clocks.
2. None of the clocks claim there were only 10 orbits. No matter how many times you repeat this mis-characterization, it won't become true. You acknowledged you know that SR predicts the rate of passage of time is different, so that means you understand the interval between events - not the total number of events - is different.
3. You acknowledged you agree that a clock is a scientific instrument. It is incumbent upon you to show how/why it is in error when used in a moving vehicle or when in a different gravitational field. You can't just claim it is in error because you don't like what it says.
4. SR is science too - all of the clocks agree with SR; SR perfectly predicts the different readings and as a result shows no contradictions. So if you are seeing a contradiction it is because you are not using SR. In other words, your method of interpreting the data (starting and ending by assuming absolute time) creates a contradiction, not ours.

I proved frequency changes in a gravitational field and now you are off task.

If this is off task, it is because you just brought it up. You brought it up because I pointed out that you need to explain how you know the clock is in error. You said it is because of "frequency". This clock "error" is your entire point here, so it can't be off point unless you don't think you have to prove your only point; unless you think you can just assume it.

I see in post #50:

The whole point of our clocks it to match the earth's motion as close as possible.

False. The point of clocks is to record the passage of time and the definition of the unit is not tied to the earth's motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Definitions_and_standards
"A clock is an instrument to indicate, keep, and co-ordinate time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock

In SR, time is a local phenomena; it is not universal. Again, this is you trying to assume your conclusion (universal time) instead of proving it.

If SR/GR are correct, then when clocks traveling through different space-time/acceleration/gravity when brought back together most likely will not agree on the time on their clocks.

Correct.

Therefore, they must disagree on the earth's position.

Again, false. They disagree on how long it took for the earth to change position, not on what position it is in.

This means frequency clocks simply do not keep time right give different circumstances and does not represent an actual change in time.

That is only true by using your circular reasoning that time is universal therefore anything that doesn't show time is universal must be in error. But if there is actually an error, you must show the error. You must show how it actually works. You implied it earlier in this page when you said "...frequency has been shown to redden in higher gravity." I'm not going to put words in your mouth because it is so hard to get you to state your position clearly. You must explain what "frequency" you are talking about and how exactly the error manifests.