Gravity slows down time.
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
HI chinglu. Good to see you back. 
If you understand that 'the clocks just do what they do', then it should be obvious (as I've pointed out many times now) that it is YOU who is making claims FOR what that clock 'says'.
Understand, mate? The clock is NOT claiming or saying anything except presenting you with a 'count' which YOU (the 'science' observer) THEN makes some 'connection in logic' to make sense of the clock counts which DIFFER with each other....and THEN realize that the clock counts had nothing to do with the earth orbits EXCEPT that the traveling twin clock DEPARTED from the starting states/rates of ticking/biology. Period.
No clock is 'wrong'. See? It just means that the traveling clock count is DIFFERENT due to INTERNAL CHANGES of state from 'starting state'. Period.
YOUR 'connection' of that internal dataset with the external astonomical dataset is YOU 'saying what it means' according to external dataset comparison, while the clock just 'counts off' at whatever applicable internal rate. Period.
So, if you do understand the first point (ie, "clock just do what they do"), and if you understand the second point (ie, it is YOU making/saying something above and beyond the clock count per se), then there is no 'paradox', since it is YOU making/saying all those things FOR the clock which the clock doesn't at all say for itself in any way whatsoever.
I hope this is now clear, chinglu? The two datasets are 'bridged' by 'science/observer' afterwards via logical external-internal dataset comparison/analysis 'to make sense' of BOTH the clock counts and the astronomical orbit count. No paradox; just logical analysis to make sense of all the counts involved. No more than that. OK?
I suggest you spend whatever time and energy you have available towards pursuing your other discussions. Your point/claim in this discussion (ie, your view that the clock is 'wrong' etc) has been explained to show clearly that no paradox is involved as you first thought, but that it is YOU bringing the claims FOR the clock's count 'meaning'.
Good luck and enjoy your other discussions, chinglu, everyone!
PS: chinglu, did you understand the thrust of my GR-only example/scenario desribed in my previous post? It has the same essentials whilst also highlighting that NEITHER CLOCK departs from the SR 'starting' state BUT STILL DEPARTS FROM THE GR 'starting' state even though the astronomical count is THE SAME FOR BOTH OF THEM. Understand that and you will 'get' the point for both the SR and the GR scenario INTERNAL 'tick/biology counts/ages' datasets have nothing to do with the EXTERNAL 'astronomical orbit' dataset meanwhile! It is YOU 'connecting the dots' to make sense of all the datasets. Period. No 'claims' by clocks; just 'connections' by YOU. Period. Bye.
If you understand that 'the clocks just do what they do', then it should be obvious (as I've pointed out many times now) that it is YOU who is making claims FOR what that clock 'says'.
Understand, mate? The clock is NOT claiming or saying anything except presenting you with a 'count' which YOU (the 'science' observer) THEN makes some 'connection in logic' to make sense of the clock counts which DIFFER with each other....and THEN realize that the clock counts had nothing to do with the earth orbits EXCEPT that the traveling twin clock DEPARTED from the starting states/rates of ticking/biology. Period.
No clock is 'wrong'. See? It just means that the traveling clock count is DIFFERENT due to INTERNAL CHANGES of state from 'starting state'. Period.
YOUR 'connection' of that internal dataset with the external astonomical dataset is YOU 'saying what it means' according to external dataset comparison, while the clock just 'counts off' at whatever applicable internal rate. Period.
So, if you do understand the first point (ie, "clock just do what they do"), and if you understand the second point (ie, it is YOU making/saying something above and beyond the clock count per se), then there is no 'paradox', since it is YOU making/saying all those things FOR the clock which the clock doesn't at all say for itself in any way whatsoever.
I hope this is now clear, chinglu? The two datasets are 'bridged' by 'science/observer' afterwards via logical external-internal dataset comparison/analysis 'to make sense' of BOTH the clock counts and the astronomical orbit count. No paradox; just logical analysis to make sense of all the counts involved. No more than that. OK?
I suggest you spend whatever time and energy you have available towards pursuing your other discussions. Your point/claim in this discussion (ie, your view that the clock is 'wrong' etc) has been explained to show clearly that no paradox is involved as you first thought, but that it is YOU bringing the claims FOR the clock's count 'meaning'.
Good luck and enjoy your other discussions, chinglu, everyone!
PS: chinglu, did you understand the thrust of my GR-only example/scenario desribed in my previous post? It has the same essentials whilst also highlighting that NEITHER CLOCK departs from the SR 'starting' state BUT STILL DEPARTS FROM THE GR 'starting' state even though the astronomical count is THE SAME FOR BOTH OF THEM. Understand that and you will 'get' the point for both the SR and the GR scenario INTERNAL 'tick/biology counts/ages' datasets have nothing to do with the EXTERNAL 'astronomical orbit' dataset meanwhile! It is YOU 'connecting the dots' to make sense of all the datasets. Period. No 'claims' by clocks; just 'connections' by YOU. Period. Bye.
Here we go again,
Yes, the travelling twin witnesses 12 Earth Orbits.....guess what though.... It is in another FoR....
His clock does not claim anything...It is an inert mechanical device, man has constructed to record passages of events based on astronomical events....
But in his own FoR, the observation of 12 Earth orbits in the other FoR, is quite irrelevant for his own FoR, except for the fact that time dilation has occurred, which by the way only becomes obvious upon returning to the same FoR as the stay at home twin.
To Interpret that accepted scenario any differently [as you have] is always shown to be wrong, and is continued shown to be wrong, by observational evidence and experimental evidence done every day since 1905.
Time dilation happens....No question about it.....
Length contraction happens....No question about it......
It happens because there is no Universal "NOW" since light has a finite speed.
Those facts can be logically illustrated if you watch one of the explanatory illustrative videos I have listed for you......
And, he repeats it again.
Seriously guys, do you actually think chinglu is going to say anything other than this no matter what you explain to him?
HI chinglu. Good to see you back.
If you understand that 'the clocks just do what they do', then it should be obvious (as I've pointed out many times now) that it is YOU who is making claims FOR what that clock 'says'.
Understand, mate? The clock is NOT claiming or saying anything except presenting you with a 'count' which YOU (the 'science' observer) THEN makes some 'connection in logic' to make sense of the clock counts which DIFFER with each other....and THEN realize that the clock counts had nothing to do with the earth orbits EXCEPT that the traveling twin clock DEPARTED from the starting states/rates of ticking/biology. Period.
No clock is 'wrong'. See? It just means that the traveling clock count is DIFFERENT due to INTERNAL CHANGES of state from 'starting state'. Period.
YOUR 'connection' of that internal dataset with the external astonomical dataset is YOU 'saying what it means' according to external dataset comparison, while the clock just 'counts off' at whatever applicable internal rate. Period.
So, if you do understand the first point (ie, "clock just do what they do"), and if you understand the second point (ie, it is YOU making/saying something above and beyond the clock count per se), then there is no 'paradox', since it is YOU making/saying all those things FOR the clock which the clock doesn't at all say for itself in any way whatsoever.
I hope this is now clear, chinglu? The two datasets are 'bridged' by 'science/observer' afterwards via logical external-internal dataset comparison/analysis 'to make sense' of BOTH the clock counts and the astronomical orbit count. No paradox; just logical analysis to make sense of all the counts involved. No more than that. OK?
I suggest you spend whatever time and energy you have available towards pursuing your other discussions. Your point/claim in this discussion (ie, your view that the clock is 'wrong' etc) has been explained to show clearly that no paradox is involved as you first thought, but that it is YOU bringing the claims FOR the clock's count 'meaning'.
Good luck and enjoy your other discussions, chinglu, everyone!
PS: chinglu, did you understand the thrust of my GR-only example/scenario desribed in my previous post? It has the same essentials whilst also highlighting that NEITHER CLOCK departs from the SR 'starting' state BUT STILL DEPARTS FROM THE GR 'starting' state even though the astronomical count is THE SAME FOR BOTH OF THEM. Understand that and you will 'get' the point for both the SR and the GR scenario INTERNAL 'tick/biology counts/ages' datasets have nothing to do with the EXTERNAL 'astronomical orbit' dataset meanwhile! It is YOU 'connecting the dots' to make sense of all the datasets. Period. No 'claims' by clocks; just 'connections' by YOU. Period. Bye.
I said clocks do what they do.
I did not what they do is correct.
Now, it has been explained to you and others in this thread that the traveling twin scientifically witnessed 12 earth orbits and yet his clock claimed he only witnessed 10 earth orbits.
So, your task to explain how the clock is correct when it contradicts scientific observations. I thought you people claimed anything that contradicts scientific observations is crackpottery.
You see, I agree with that.
In know, I know, you guys claim the twin witnessed 12 earth orbits and yet he only witnessed 10 earth orbits because his SR clock is absolute truth and said that.
So, all you people are claiming that he witnessed 12 earth orbits during only 10 earth orbits according to the clock.
Any reasonable person would say the clock is wrong.
Here we go again,
Yes, the travelling twin witnesses 12 Earth Orbits.....guess what though.... It is in another FoR....
His clock does not claim anything...It is an inert mechanical device, man has constructed to record passages of events based on astronomical events....
But in his own FoR, the observation of 12 Earth orbits in the other FoR, is quite irrelevant for his own FoR, except for the fact that time dilation has occurred, which by the way only becomes obvious upon returning to the same FoR as the stay at home twin.
To Interpret that accepted scenario any differently [as you have] is always shown to be wrong, and is continued shown to be wrong, by observational evidence and experimental evidence done every day since 1905.
Time dilation happens....No question about it.....
Length contraction happens....No question about it......
It happens because there is no Universal "NOW" since light has a finite speed.
Those facts can be logically illustrated if you watch one of the explanatory illustrative videos I have listed for you......
You will note that it has a Si definition of a second is frequency based. That is the one you are going on in an absolute sense.
Anyway, the basic difficulty you are having is you claim based on SR that no universal standard exists for time. Well, I fixed that. When the traveling twin returns, both twins concur they lived 12 earth orbits. That is where you are struggling. The earth's orbit is an absolute time standard that no one can disagree on without a contradiction.
And to refute this absolute time standard, you will have to refute scientific observations.
So, under this irrefutable absolute time standard, both twins lived 12 earth orbits. Any clock that disagrees with this refutes science.
Now, you are the traveling twin
Wash, rinse, repeat. Too bad you had nothing new to say, Mr. Stuc K. Record.
Most certainly, the last thing you are able to discern is who is a reasonable person.
Wash, rinse, repeat. Ever thought of being a clock yourself?
Wash, rinse, repeat. Too bad you didn't have a nickel for each time you said that.
Wash, rinse, repeat. That has to one of cleanest statements on the planet.
Yeah yeah sure.....The whole world is struggling with SR/GR and time dilation effects except for chinglu......and Santa Claus is real, and I have fairies at the bottom of my garden, and the Easter bunny comes at Easter, and and and the Moon is made of cheese, and the Earth is flat, and we are the center of the whole Universe etc etc etc etc
And that's why you have this thread in Pseudoscience....Live with it chingy baby!
Yeah yeah sure.....The whole world is struggling with SR/GR and time dilation effects except for chinglu......and Santa Claus is real, and I have fairies at the bottom of my garden, and the Easter bunny comes at Easter, and and and the Moon is made of cheese, and the Earth is flat, and we are the center of the whole Universe etc etc etc etc
And that's why you have this thread in Pseudoscience....Live with it chingy baby!
Talk is cheap.
The universal time clock of earth orbits proves both twins lived 12 earth orbits or 12 years.
Yet, the failed SR clock of the traveling twin refutes the scientific observations of this absolute time standard.
So, the SR clock is not accurate when compared to the absolute time standard of science observations of 12 earth orbits.
That proves the SR clocks is in error when compared to the scientific observations.
So, the twins are the same age.
Yes, you continually show that......
No......you fail to understand primary school science with regards to FoRs, and clocks are a man made construct adjusted to match Earth orbits but only with regards to that same FoR
Plus of course we have Atomic clocks based on the atom and subsequent vibrations.
The clock did not fail as is proven and has been proven every day since 2005, and the only absolute quantity involved is the absolute limits of your understanding of SR/GR
Your absolute limits in understanding again raises its ugly head.......All clocks are accurate within their individual FoR.....
It has been proven time and time again, that the absolute limits in your understandings of SR/GR borders on abysmal
No clocks are in error, and both twins age differently simply because they are in different FoRs
Keep it simple.
Your SR clock disagrees that the traveling twins observed 12 earth orbits.
So, it is wrong. What is so hard to understand?
You now need to show the forum participants that you are either playing silly buggers, or that you have a genuine revelation that no one else can see or has been able to see since 2005.....
So far you have
[1] failed to submit any evidence refuting or invalidating SR/GR and time dilation effects....
[2] Refuse to watch illustrative explanatory videos I have supplied to explain time dilation.....
[3] Refuse to submit your ideas through the proper channels, in light of your insistence that you are correct.....
[4] Ignored explanatory posts simply explaining the complexities of SR/GR and time dilation
[5] Have had similar anti-SR/GR threads closed in normal science sections of the forum....
[6] and have been side-lined to Pseudoscience due to the lack of concrete evidence to validate your claim....
That dear friends, is the whole sorry saga of an amateurish attempt to invalidate two of the present pillars of physics in SR and GR
So far you have
[1] failed to submit any evidence refuting or invalidating SR/GR and time dilation effects....
[2] Refuse to watch illustrative explanatory videos I have supplied to explain time dilation.....
[3] Refuse to submit your ideas through the proper channels, in light of your insistence that you are correct.....
[4] Ignored explanatory posts simply explaining the complexities of SR/GR and time dilation
[5] Have had similar anti-SR/GR threads closed in normal science sections of the forum....
[6] and have been side-lined to Pseudoscience due to the lack of concrete evidence to validate your claim....
That dear friends, is the whole sorry saga of an amateurish attempt to invalidate two of the present pillars of physics in SR and GR
It appears you have a deep seated phycological problem with regards to the establishment, and the establishments accepted views on science based on the scientific method.
This could be for a number of reasons....maybe you are a failed science student?? Maybe you have a deep hatred of authority??? Maybe this is all one big "fishing " game to fish replies from people trying to straighten you out??
This could be for a number of reasons....maybe you are a failed science student?? Maybe you have a deep hatred of authority??? Maybe this is all one big "fishing " game to fish replies from people trying to straighten you out??
It appears you have a deep seated phycological problem with regards to the establishment, and the establishments accepted views on science based on the scientific method.
This could be for a number of reasons....maybe you are a failed science student?? Maybe you have a deep hatred of authority??? Maybe this is all one big "fishing " game to fish replies from people trying to straighten you out??
This could be for a number of reasons....maybe you are a failed science student?? Maybe you have a deep hatred of authority??? Maybe this is all one big "fishing " game to fish replies from people trying to straighten you out??