Gravity slows down time.

[Russ_Watters]

Chinglu, please answer:
If I run a race in 10 seconds and you have a clock that erroneously runs half as fast as it should, how much time will your clock say it took to complete the race?

 

[paddoboy]

The fact about SR that surprises me, [although it's easy to be smart in hindsight] is that the logic of SR was not realised before 1905.

And of course as the great man would be the first to admit, he had quite a few scientists on whose shoulders he stood and saw the logic that "human made intuition" had hidden from observation for so long. The Maxwelsl, Lorentzs, Poincares, Michelsons Morleys, and Fitzgeralds. We must not forget them. Their contribution was also important. Einstein was smart enough to see that and put it all together, plus his findings were the clearest, and the most general.

How long will it be before we get a Zefram Cochrane to take us to the stars!!!!
Time alone will tell.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I know this is getting to be a lot and you aren't good at responding point-by-point, but this bears expansion:

The traveling observer accepts the events he sees with his eyes happened. If he knows nothing about Relativity, he may calculate the position of the sun as he gets back and predict it is in a different place than he finds it, thus causing the contradiction you are harping on. But again, that contradiction happens only if he doesn't understand Relativity. If he understands Relativity, he can calculate where the sun is accurately.

 

[paddoboy]

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

?????

Time is not a clock.
A clock only measures intervals of time, which we program based on astronomical movements...day, month, year, and then partitioned that with seconds and hours.
The BB occurred 13.8 billion years ago, and we were not around with our clocks to measure it....
We use other methods for those calculations.
Time exists independent of clocks...If we destroyed all the clocks, you would still age...If we destroyed the solar system, the Universe would still continue to age. We just wouldn't be around to measure it.

 

[victorespinoza]

?????

Time is not a clock.
A clock only measures intervals of time, which we program based on astronomical movements...day, month, year, and then partitioned that with seconds and hours.
The BB occurred 13.8 billion years ago, and we were not around with our clocks to measure it....
We use other methods for those calculations.
Time exists independent of clocks...If we destroyed all the clocks, you would still age...If we destroyed the solar system, the Universe would still continue to age. We just wouldn't be around to measure it.

And how is the time? Blue.

 

[Undefined]

Hi chinglu.

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.

The "science" you allude to is the OBSERVERS involved (you and your stay-put twin), not some disembodied personna.

And it is YOU and your twin that AFTERWARDS bring "meaning" to your respective clock/biology datasets when compared to each other and the earth-sun system dataset. Period.

In effect, YOU and your twin are THE "scientists" in the exercise; and it is YOU and your twin that make the 'connections' and 'meanings' of the datasets in your subsequent analysis of all the datasets and their logical meanings based on the physics effects on CLOCKS per se (especially the effect on YOUR traveling twin clock's rate).

It's all YOU, as the "scientist" making/taking the meanings of what occurred. The clocks merely do what they do, without making any 'claims' except present YOU with a "count" to make of it what you will as 'the scientist' observer and analyser/comparer of the datasets generated. Period.




Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE (this time a GR only SCENARIO) to highlight both the essentials and your confused interpretation OF and your claims FOR what the clocks 'say' etc:

Let the earth rotate only once a year, such that the same face is always pointing to the sun as it orbits that sun.

Let two clocks be at sea level at the 'leading edge' of the earth such that the clocks always describe the same orbital path length and velocity along the same orbital 'line' traced out by that position as it goes along the orbital.

Now move one clock slowly up a mountain such that the elevated clock tick rate is faster than the sea level rate which the stay-put clock is still ticking away at.

Now after 12 ORBITALS (years) have passed, YOU and your twin observer holding your respective clocks note the respective counts of your clock, and you communicate by radio back and forth while still in your respective positions.

The two clock counts are DIFFERENT. Yes? Even though both of you 'witnessed' 12 years (twelve orbitals) elapse. Yes?

So, the sun-earth system is NOT 'out of whack' because it is still doing the same thing it was doing beforehand; so it just went on producing the observable astronomical dataset EXTERNAL to both YOUR and your twin's clock tick rate processes. Yes?

The only 'meaning' brought to this differing dataset situation is brought by YOU and your twin (as the "science" observer/analysis afterwards).

See? Whether clock is SR affected or GR affected, there is the same logical disconnect from the 'year' count UNLESS LATER you both agree to INTERPRET the respective counts to agree with each other on the EXTERNAL 12 years while ALSO UNDERSTANDING WHY the two clock counts per se are different EVEN THOUGH NO 'SR' effects are involved.

There is NO "SR' clocks in this scenario (since both clocks trace the same orbital path/distance over the 12 years; that is why I positioned them where I did, such that elevating one up the radial from sea level did NOT move them offline as far as the orbital motion/distance is concerned).

Hence in THIS illustrative scenario there is ONLY 'GR' clocks (as you might call them). They did NOT 'lie' or 'claim' anything. They just counted off at their respective rates in their respective positions. Just as the two 'SR' affected clocks did in YOUR 'SR' motion scenario. Yes?

Now you BOTH KNOW that the two clocks 'tick count' in GR read differently, BUT ALSO KNOW that the orbit numbers are the same number for both of you as "science" observers. Hence the "science" merely brings the theory to the analysis to explain the differences and to 'correlate' their MEANING in view of all the datasets internal clock/biology PROCESSING datasets and external earth-orbit OBSERVATION dataset).



See it now, chinglu? In both cases it is YOU not the clocks doing/saying the rest. Neither the 'GR' nor the 'SR' clocks (as you would call them) makes any connections or claims about what it all 'means'. It is YOU (the "science" observers/representatives) that makes sense of it all in an overall COMBINED 'internal-external' ANALYTICAL CONTEXT which YOU as the "science" observer bring to it all AFTERWARDS.

Good luck, and enjoy your other discussions, chinglu, everyone!

 

[paddoboy]

And how is the time? Blue.

1435hrs AEDST right now....What's your time?

 

[Russ_Watters]

The fact about SR that surprises me, [although it's easy to be smart in hindsight] is that the logic of SR was not realised before 1905.

Why do you find it surprising? The Michelson Morley experiment happened only 23 years earlier and the Lorentz transformations started being developed at the same time, but didn't get finished until 1905. Essentially all of the major groundwork except for Maxwell's equations happened very recently before Einstein put it all together.

 

[paddoboy]

Why do you find it surprising? The Michelson Morley experiment happened only 23 years earlier and the Lorentz transformations started being developed at the same time, but didn't get finished until 1905. Essentially all of the major groundwork except for Maxwell's equations happened very recently before Einstein put it all together.

I think because of the fact that light has a finite speed, and that was known far ealier I recall...Ole Romer in the 1600s???

 

[Russ_Watters]

I think because of the fact that light has a finite speed, and that was known far ealier I recall...Ole Romer in the 1600s???

That doesn't lead you to SR though; what leads you to SR is that the speed of light is the same in all frames, which was not known until the MMX.

 

[paddoboy]

That doesn't lead you to SR though; what leads you to SR is that the speed of light is the same in all frames, which was not known until the MMX.

It does though lead one to logically conclude that time cannot be absolute....
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not taking anything away from Einstein, nor would I ever do that...Other then his obvious genius, he was also a humble human being not afraid to admit error.

 

[Russ_Watters]

It does though lead one to logically conclude that time cannot be absolute....

No, it doesn't. Pre-relativity, it was thought that light behaved exactly like sound - or a train, for that matter - with time and space absolute and the speed of light constant in the universal rest frame, but different in all other frames. Light behaves profoundly differently from other "objects" and just saying that its speed is finite doesn't tell you that because that isn't different from other objects.

Because Maxwell's equations fixed the speed of light anywhere the equations applied, it created a conflict, because either Maxwell's equations didn't apply the same in all reference frames or something else had to be different about how space and time and light work.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not taking anything away from Einstein, nor would I ever do that...

You have it backwards; you're elevating Einstein unnecessarily by putting down all the others. You're suggesting that every scientist for 400 years missed the obvious need for Special Relativity, which would make Einstein a unique genius for seeing what others failed to but should have.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Fyi:

chinglu has been given a 3 day ban for continued trolling in physics and maths.

 

[paddoboy]

No, it doesn't. Pre-relativity, it was thought that light behaved exactly like sound - or a train, for that matter - with time and space absolute and the speed of light constant in the universal rest frame, but different in all other frames. Light behaves profoundly differently from other "objects" and just saying that its speed is finite doesn't tell you that because that isn't different from other objects.

Because Maxwell's equations fixed the speed of light anywhere the equations applied, it created a conflict, because either Maxwell's equations didn't apply the same in all reference frames or something else had to be different about how space and time and light work. .

That's not how I see it exactly. If light has a finite speed, and that speed is the Universal maximum, irrespective of FoRs, that would invalidate a Universal "NOW" .....Didn't Newton in his era, accept that Universal 'NOW"? And isn't that belief in a Universal "NOW", invalidated if one accepts that light has a finite speed???
The problem I see is that the concept of space and time being "non absolute" appeared to be on face value, counter-intuitive.
Exactly the same similar problem that Einstein encountered with his equations when they told him the Universe was dynamic....The belief of the day was that it was static of course.
Hence his fudging with the Cosmological Constant.

You have it backwards; you're elevating Einstein unnecessarily by putting down all the others. You're suggesting that every scientist for 400 years missed the obvious need for Special Relativity, which would make Einstein a unique genius for seeing what others failed to but should have.

If that is what I appeared to be suggesting, then I apologise for the way I worded it......
It was not meant to denigrate or put down any of the names I mentioned.

 

[paddoboy]

That's not how I see it exactly. If light has a finite speed, and that speed is the Universal maximum, irrespective of FoRs, that would invalidate a Universal "NOW" .....Didn't Newton in his era, accept that Universal 'NOW"? And isn't that belief in a Universal "NOW", invalidated if one accepts that light has a finite speed???
The problem I see is that the concept of space and time being "non absolute" appeared to be on face value, counter-intuitive.
Exactly the same similar problem that Einstein encountered with his equations when they told him the Universe was dynamic....The belief of the day was that it was static of course.
Hence his fudging with the Cosmological Constant.









If that is what I appeared to be suggesting, then I apologise for the way I worded it......
It was not meant to denigrate or put down any of the names I mentioned.

I suppose it proves that no matter how Innovative and Imaginative a scientist is, the ingrain beliefs of the day, are sometimes hard to overthrow.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Some people believe that time is a dimension, as though we were travelling along a path,
with the past to the back of us and the future to the front.
Others believe that that path does not exist, and that all that exists is the present.
In this case, time is equivalent to change.

 

[chinglu]

Chinglu, please answer:
If I run a race in 10 seconds and you have a clock that erroneously runs half as fast as it should, how much time will your clock say it took to complete the race?

Sure, 10 seconds

 

[chinglu]

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.

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:
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.

Correct.

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

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.

I disagree with your basic premise. Clocks reflect earth orbits and rotations. If they deviate from this as in GPS, they are reset to the correct time.

Now, the revealing twin witnessed 12 earth orbits, how may earth orbits did the SR clock claim he witnessed? If your answer is not 12, then the clock is wrong.

 

[chinglu]

Hi chinglu.



The "science" you allude to is the OBSERVERS involved (you and your stay-put twin), not some disembodied personna.

And it is YOU and your twin that AFTERWARDS bring "meaning" to your respective clock/biology datasets when compared to each other and the earth-sun system dataset. Period.

In effect, YOU and your twin are THE "scientists" in the exercise; and it is YOU and your twin that make the 'connections' and 'meanings' of the datasets in your subsequent analysis of all the datasets and their logical meanings based on the physics effects on CLOCKS per se (especially the effect on YOUR traveling twin clock's rate).

It's all YOU, as the "scientist" making/taking the meanings of what occurred. The clocks merely do what they do, without making any 'claims' except present YOU with a "count" to make of it what you will as 'the scientist' observer and analyser/comparer of the datasets generated. Period.




Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE (this time a GR only SCENARIO) to highlight both the essentials and your confused interpretation OF and your claims FOR what the clocks 'say' etc:

Let the earth rotate only once a year, such that the same face is always pointing to the sun as it orbits that sun.

Let two clocks be at sea level at the 'leading edge' of the earth such that the clocks always describe the same orbital path length and velocity along the same orbital 'line' traced out by that position as it goes along the orbital.

Now move one clock slowly up a mountain such that the elevated clock tick rate is faster than the sea level rate which the stay-put clock is still ticking away at.

Now after 12 ORBITALS (years) have passed, YOU and your twin observer holding your respective clocks note the respective counts of your clock, and you communicate by radio back and forth while still in your respective positions.

The two clock counts are DIFFERENT. Yes? Even though both of you 'witnessed' 12 years (twelve orbitals) elapse. Yes?

So, the sun-earth system is NOT 'out of whack' because it is still doing the same thing it was doing beforehand; so it just went on producing the observable astronomical dataset EXTERNAL to both YOUR and your twin's clock tick rate processes. Yes?

The only 'meaning' brought to this differing dataset situation is brought by YOU and your twin (as the "science" observer/analysis afterwards).

See? Whether clock is SR affected or GR affected, there is the same logical disconnect from the 'year' count UNLESS LATER you both agree to INTERPRET the respective counts to agree with each other on the EXTERNAL 12 years while ALSO UNDERSTANDING WHY the two clock counts per se are different EVEN THOUGH NO 'SR' effects are involved.

There is NO "SR' clocks in this scenario (since both clocks trace the same orbital path/distance over the 12 years; that is why I positioned them where I did, such that elevating one up the radial from sea level did NOT move them offline as far as the orbital motion/distance is concerned).

Hence in THIS illustrative scenario there is ONLY 'GR' clocks (as you might call them). They did NOT 'lie' or 'claim' anything. They just counted off at their respective rates in their respective positions. Just as the two 'SR' affected clocks did in YOUR 'SR' motion scenario. Yes?

Now you BOTH KNOW that the two clocks 'tick count' in GR read differently, BUT ALSO KNOW that the orbit numbers are the same number for both of you as "science" observers. Hence the "science" merely brings the theory to the analysis to explain the differences and to 'correlate' their MEANING in view of all the datasets internal clock/biology PROCESSING datasets and external earth-orbit OBSERVATION dataset).



See it now, chinglu? In both cases it is YOU not the clocks doing/saying the rest. Neither the 'GR' nor the 'SR' clocks (as you would call them) makes any connections or claims about what it all 'means'. It is YOU (the "science" observers/representatives) that makes sense of it all in an overall COMBINED 'internal-external' ANALYTICAL CONTEXT which YOU as the "science" observer bring to it all AFTERWARDS.

Good luck, and enjoy your other discussions, chinglu, everyone!

Its all fine that the clocks do what they do.

The traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits. How many earth orbits did his clock claimed he witnessed?

 

[(Q)]

Now, the revealing twin witnessed 12 earth orbits, how may earth orbits did the SR clock claim he witnessed? If your answer is not 12, then the clock is wrong.

The traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits. How many earth orbits did his clock claimed he witnessed?

How many folks actually didn't think chinglu would repeat this yet again? LOL