Gravity slows down time.

[Lakon]

Now it's going to take someone man enough to short circuit the derailing, by not replying. RPENNER has certainly done that even in the face of unecessary, against the rules goading by both chinglu and you.

Nut job, as I've said before, I only glance sideways (and that's generous) at your .. emm material, so I missed the above at first.

Just happened to see it now though - and now I understand the straw man that you're creating here - an excuse and justification scenario as to why rpenner isn't replying - else why do you presume to speak for him ?

You're doing it very badly (as usual) though.

 

[arfa brane]

In fact, seeing as I don't undestand relativity, I LIKE Chinguls reduction of the arguement to simple terms - terms that I can understand.

Do you want to understand relativity? Are you prepared to accept chinglu's argument at face value, and, are you aware of what his claim entails?

Do you understand what an absolute frame of reference is? Chinglu's idea, that the earth orbiting the sun is an absolute frame of reference for time coordinates for a traveling observer, anywhere, implies that motion is absolute everywhere, do you understand what that implies?

Just askin'.

 

[Lakon]

Do you want to understand relativity? Are you prepared to accept chinglu's argument at face value, and, are you aware of what his claim entails?

Do you understand what an absolute frame of reference is? Chinglu's idea, that the earth orbiting the sun is an absolute frame of reference for time coordinates for a traveling observer, anywhere, implies that motion is absolute everywhere, do you understand what that implies?

I do not understand relativity. I have tried to do so in the past but haven't been able to.

THUS, I have restricted myself to observation only. I have take NO position, made NO comment one way or the other about it in this thread, or anywhere else recently.

I am NOT prepared to accept chinglus or anyone elses argument at face value. I DON"T CARE if relativity is true or false. I have no interest in it being one or the other.

The only things I will say about chinglu is that he reduces things to a simple, succinct level that I can understand.

Rather than go on the attack and derailment (viz. Nut Job) a respondent should be capable of responding in similar terms. If he / she doesn't, I ask him / her to do so, so that I can understand.

If he / she DOES go on the attack, ad hominem, derailment, etc, then THAT TOO speaks a great deal to me, and I'm sure to many other curious readers.

 

[arfa brane]

I DON"T CARE if relativity is true or false. I have no interest in it being one or the other.

Well, strictly speaking, that isn't true. It could be true if you weren't living in a country that has all that technology and infrastructure, or at least, some pretty crucial parts of it.

The only things I will say about chinglu is that he reduces things to a simple, succinct level that I can understand.

You understand the earth's orbit being used as a universal clock?

 

[paddoboy]

.you understand the earth's orbit being used as a universal clock?

lol!!!

 

[paddoboy]

Being such a nice bloke, and having such a big heart, and dearly wanting everyone to understand the fundamentals of SR, time dilation and length contraction, I hereby submit this video for the second time...........


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-R8LGy-OVs

Just 9 minutes long and pretty simplified so all and sundry will understand.......

 

[Russ_Watters]

The only things I will say about chinglu is that he reduces things to a simple, succinct level that I can understand.

Sometimes oversimplifications are easy to understand, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they are right. Chinglu's errors are fairly straightforward and not much more complicated than his repeated statement of them:

1. Clocks are measurement instruments, period. They are not theories: There is no such thing as an "SR clock". They do not make predictions about where the earth will be in its orbit, they only tell you how long it took to get to a certain position.

2. You cannot assume that which you are trying to prove. Chinglu asserts that the earth's revolution is the only valid clock and then uses that assertion to dismiss clocks that give differing readings; declaring them wrong. This allows him to avoid dealing with the fact that these measurements demonstrate.

 

[Lakon]

Well, strictly speaking, that isn't true. It could be true if you weren't living in a country that has all that technology and infrastructure, or at least, some pretty crucial parts of it.You understand the earth's orbit being used as a universal clock?

OK - not sure how it's so difficult to understand.

I do not wish to get into a discussion about relativity. You can appreciate, that's my right, right ?

I was quite content to observe the ongoing discussion between Chinglu and some others, Undefined for instance. That's it. That's the extent of my chosen involvement.

If you've understood otherwise, I hope this clarifies it.

 

[Lakon]

Sometimes oversimplifications are easy to understand, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they are right.

Absolutely ! And not once did I say Chinglu was wrong or right. It would be rather rich of me to do so, wouldn't it, considering I have said on multiple occassions I do not understand relativity.

But it is also my right to continue to observe the conversation, and object to derailers - you know, like the Nut Job ..

 

[Lakon]

Being such a nice bloke, and having such a big heart, and dearly wanting everyone to understand the fundamentals of SR, time dilation and length contraction, I hereby submit this video for the second time...........


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-R8LGy-OVs

Just 9 minutes long and pretty simplified so all and sundry will understand.......

Nut job, I wasn't talking to you, but at any rate, here is one final example of your stupidity and ongoing attempts at derailment, which is, after all only an expression of your fear.

You made some reference to my posting on another thread about my favourite book being "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"

You tried to turn that into some anti establishment consiracy on my part.

Whereas, had you done even the most basic checking, you would have found (Wiki) that ..

The subjects of Mackay's debunking include economic bubbles, alchemy, crusades, witch-hunts, prophecies, fortune-telling, magnetisers (influence of imagination in curing disease), shape of hair and beard (influence of politics and religion on), murder through poisoning, haunted houses, popular follies of great cities, popular admiration of great thieves, duels, and relics. Present day writers on economics, such as Andrew Tobias and Michael Lewis, laud the three chapters on economic bubbles.[1] Scientist and astronomer Carl Sagan mentioned the book in his own discussion about pseudoscience, popular delusions, and hoaxes.

So if anything, it was PRO establishment.

Nut job.

Way beyond your pay grade though.

You are an embarrassment even to have to talk to.

Why would anyone take you seriously when you've been caught out lying ?

You've ignored the above because you've been caught out.

As well as a Nut Job, you're a Fraud.

You know what ? I reckon most serious scientists here would be cringing at your support of them.

 

[Russ_Watters]

[I added to my post after your post]

Absolutely ! And not once did I say Chinglu was wrong or right. It would be rather rich of me to do so, wouldn't it, considering I have said on multiple occassions I do not understand relativity.

Fair enough, but the danger here is clear: that people who do not understand Relativity will see Chinglu's posts, understand them, and conclude he is right because of their simplicity. That's part of the reason people like me continue responding.

But it is also my right to continue to observe the conversation, and object to derailers - you know, like the Nut Job ..

Ehh, I suppose, but the danger is that if you don't know Relativity, you might not be correct when you try to identify the derailers and you thus may become one yourself.

 

[Lakon]

Sometimes oversimplifications are easy to understand, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they are right. Chinglu's errors are fairly straightforward and not much more complicated than his repeated statement of them:

1. Clocks are measurement instruments, period. They are not theories: There is no such thing as an "SR clock". They do not make predictions about where the earth will be in its orbit, they only tell you how long it took to get to a certain position.

2. You cannot assume that which you are trying to prove. Chinglu asserts that the earth's revolution is the only valid clock and then uses that assertion to dismiss clocks that give differing readings; declaring them wrong. This allows him to avoid dealing with the fact that these measurements demonstrate.

I didn't see your 1&2 in your initial post - you might have just edited them in.

OK - this is more beffitting a reply to Chinglu than to me, as I have never said otherewise. I only assert that I am following the dicscussion.

If things are as you say (and they probably are, because I hold your views in high esteme) then all you can do is continue to repeat it, if you care to, as much as Chinglu asserts it. Else, ignore it. Launching a banal, fraudulent derailment (like the Nut Job does) would only serve to depreciate your position in the eyes of those less informed, particularly as Chinglu remains as calm as he does.

Repetiton is not proscribed under the forum rules. And I note that in that other forum (physicsforum) where you occasionally post, the same questions are asked - virtually on a daily basis.

 

[Lakon]

Our posts crossed. Concerning further material raised by you ..

[I added to my post after your post]

Fair enough, but the danger here is clear: that people who do not understand Relativity will see Chinglu's posts, understand them, and conclude he is right because of their simplicity.

Worse, much worse ! Similar people would see the Nut Jobs banal derailment attempts (self admitted by him) combined with his fraud (see unanswered material, above) and be horrorfied that such a moron in pretending to defend science. They would then likely gain a distinct distaste for any defence of science, and perhaps exptrapolate their opinions of the Nut Job, to other more serious scientists.

That's part of the reason people like me continue responding.

Have you seen any objection on my part about yours or anybody elses responses ? I think yours, Udefined's and others are admirable.

Ehh, I suppose, but the danger is that if you don't know Relativity, you might not be correct when you try to identify the derailers and you thus may become one yourself.

Chalk and cheese. It is easy to see the derailers. You are not one. Undefined is not one. Nut Job is. This is obvious even to my fox terrier !

edit grammar

 

[paddoboy]

Oh the Irony of it all!!!!
PML

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy is right - there is simply no direct answer to an absurd and incompletely formulated question, other than to declare it invalid.

And of course the question [as absurd and twisted as it is] has been answered umpteen times by many folk, and subsequently ignored just as many times.

 

[paddoboy]

I have been doing some checking out at different sections of the forum as a whole, and came upon a gem of a "discussion" in the "formal debates" sub forum.
The thread is entitled "Time paradox in Special Relativity Theory."as initiated by a forumite called Emil, with the opening post as follows.......

"" I want to show that there is time paradox in SRT.
I challenge anyone who says that this paradox is a false paradox.

I will present a concrete situation where is time paradox.
Who responds to the challenge will need to show that there is no time paradox.""

Some excellent rubuttal replies from Rpenner, Tach, and others. I learnt quite a bit .
Many examples of silly assumptions by the initiator trying to invalidate SR, but as in this current discussion, not doing anything other then showing their gross ignorance and and incredible prejudice against the scientific pillars of SR/GR.

I have always been a facts/analogy/methodology type with regards to scientific models, but now wish I was more attuned to the mathematics side of things after seeing the brilliant rebuttals backed by the maths, from the previous mentioned contributors.

I see it as very relevant to this debacle but do not have too much hope that lessons can be learnt by our fanatical anti SR/GR pushers in this thread.

 

[chinglu]

Sometimes oversimplifications are easy to understand, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they are right. Chinglu's errors are fairly straightforward and not much more complicated than his repeated statement of them:

1. Clocks are measurement instruments, period. They are not theories: There is no such thing as an "SR clock". They do not make predictions about where the earth will be in its orbit, they only tell you how long it took to get to a certain position.

2. You cannot assume that which you are trying to prove. Chinglu asserts that the earth's revolution is the only valid clock and then uses that assertion to dismiss clocks that give differing readings; declaring them wrong. This allows him to avoid dealing with the fact that these measurements demonstrate.

Unfortunately, the earth's orbit is an absolute clock standard, but you could user other planets as well.

That means, no one that, regardless of their motion can refute the number of orbits taken by the earth during an agreed upon start event and agreed upon end event.

So, anyone regardless of their motion in this solar system, lives the same number of earth orbits as does everyone else.

See, you folks claim there is no way to sync clocks frame to frame under SR. Yet, all we need do in this solar system is sync to the earth's motion and we all have the same time throughout the solar system regardless of out motion. SR claims this is absolutely impossible.

So, SR is false.

Finally, when I say SR clock I mean one that obeys the SR theory. So, there are SR clocks in theory.

 

[chinglu]

Do you want to understand relativity? Are you prepared to accept chinglu's argument at face value, and, are you aware of what his claim entails?

Do you understand what an absolute frame of reference is? Chinglu's idea, that the earth orbiting the sun is an absolute frame of reference for time coordinates for a traveling observer, anywhere, implies that motion is absolute everywhere, do you understand what that implies?

Just askin'.

You have it!

Otherwise, everyone in the observable range of earth would disagree on the earth's actual position in orbit. That is in fact what SR predicts, which is absurd.

So, the earth's orbit is an absolute time standard contrary to SR.

Personally, I believe in the absolute position of the earth in orbit more than I do a SR theory that claims it has an infinite number of different valid positions around the sun any any given instant.

 

[chinglu]

Maybe you misread the question. Please try again:

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?

You can disagree all you like, but until you become the one who gets to write the definition, you'll just stay wrong.

Are you aware of the fact that GPS clocks are pre-calibrated to run at a different rate than earth-based clocks? They mostly keep synchronized without corrections because the different pre-programmed tick rate enables them to avoid deviation.

You've claimed "I proved frequency changes in a gravitational field...."

Please state what "frequency" and how it is proven. Because this is critical. GPS clocks don't need daily correction of 38 ms because scientists were able to calculate the rate difference. How? You say this is an "error". What, exactly is the error and how is it manifest so that it can be pre-calculated? How was it discovered? You need to explain this "frequency" error you are claiming.

Edit: and this is neither here nor there, but you may be interested to know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Timekeeping

Perhaps more importantly; are you aware that the earth's orbit is not perfectly consistent/stable and thus the length of the year varies by quite a considerable amount?

I am just going to deal with this statement.

Are you aware of the fact that GPS clocks are pre-calibrated to run at a different rate than earth-based clocks? They mostly keep synchronized without corrections because the different pre-programmed tick rate enables them to avoid deviation.

Yes, I am well aware of this. Part is for the effects of acceleration and gravity on frequency measuring devices (frequency clocks) and part is for absolute motion difference between the 2.

You see, without any understanding, you are claiming SR supports absolute time dilation. Yet, SR claims each frame will claim the other is time dilated. So, GPS refutes SR because of absolute time dilation.

 

[paddoboy]

2.

You see, without any understanding, you are claiming SR supports absolute time dilation. Yet, SR claims each frame will claim the other is time dilated. So, GPS refutes SR because of absolute time dilation.

That's OK, we accept your paranoia fixation, after all this is pseudoscience.