[delete - naa; later]
Gravity slows down time.
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
Brilliant. I understand this very clearly. Lets see Chinglus reply to this and how it developes. Let's hope that no Nut Job decides at derailing.
Yep, that's the crux of the problem, and one that is easily illustrated in a couple of videos I supplied, and which he refused to either go there, and/or comment on.
ps:
We appear to be getting some cyber static every now and then...anyone with a cyber cure akin to mortein for cockroaches?
[nudge, nudge, wink, wink]
The pillars of SR
[1] The speed of light is the same for all FoRs, irrespective of the motion of that FoR......
[2] The Laws of physics are the same in all FoRs regardless of the velocity of that FoR....
Physically, this means that there is no absolute space/time, no absolute FoR with respect to which position and velocity are defined.
Only relative positions and velocities between objects are meaningful.
And that dear friends just about sums it up [ I think]
Any errors, alterations and/or corrections from reputable Physicists?
[1] The speed of light is the same for all FoRs, irrespective of the motion of that FoR......
[2] The Laws of physics are the same in all FoRs regardless of the velocity of that FoR....
Physically, this means that there is no absolute space/time, no absolute FoR with respect to which position and velocity are defined.
Only relative positions and velocities between objects are meaningful.
And that dear friends just about sums it up [
I think]Any errors, alterations and/or corrections from reputable Physicists?
Just found another reputable site with good explanations.
This site also actually gives all one would want to know about BHs also
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html
and the actual page on Time Dilation is here....
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/time.html
This site also actually gives all one would want to know about BHs also
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html
and the actual page on Time Dilation is here....
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/time.html
BdS
Registered Senior Member
Chinglu said:
Only observers at the same distance from the earth will agree on the earths position. If you are at a distance of c from the Earth you'll see the earth where it was 1 second ago. If Im at a distance 3 x c from the earth then I'll see the earth where it was 3 seconds ago... so yes in the instance all will disagree on the earths position.
Hi Bds (and chinglu, paddoboy, Lakon et al).
To be scrupulously fair to chinglu, the point he also tries to make is that once the traveling twin returns and reunites with his stay-put twin, they both agree that the earth has completed 12 orbits/years.
That is the common referent for the whole completed experiment, not for any 'partial' stages in between (ie, while traveling twin going away and coming back, they may disagree if comparing over the radio, but once re-united they agree when once again in their original co-moving 'starting' state).
So, YES, the earth orbit dataset constitutes the 'preferred' common/external 'duration' referent for the experiment, BUT their own individual internal biology/clocks aging/ticking processes are separate 'timing/aging' internal referents...later only connected by them as scientific observers via a theory explaining and making reality sense of the different clock/biology counts/ages noted upon the twin's return.
There are two distinctly separate aspects which chinglu's example contains:
1) the EXTERNAL preferred durational referent for the experiment (ie the earth-sun orbiting astronomical dataset); and
2) the INTERNAL aging/timing processes creating the internal differences between the twins/clocks over the 12 orbits both twins externally agree on as their common referent irrespective of internal differences accumulated meanwhile.
And I have already explained to chinglu WHY they are two separate things unconnected until HE (the observers) makes the theoretical connection and explain the effects on age/clock (difference) while also agreeing on the common referent of 12 earth orbits/years elapsed.
The further question pursued by chinglu seems to be whether there is an 'absoluteness' of astronomical referents as THE external durational 'preferred' referent for any specific motional effects meanwhile (such as the twins experiment already described). Insofar as that aspect/question goes, chinglu, one may take ANY regular astronomical referent as the preferred durational referent for any motional experiment 'run'. BUT then it is the actual state of that astronomical 'system' that you use. And since that chosen system has not yet been determined in any 'absolute' sense with reference to an 'absolute space' in which it exists, then we can only surmise what the 'orbital regularity 'durations' represent insofar as 'time' is concerned in any particular motional experiment. We can treat every system having similar orbital parameters as being THE preferred referent, but then we could just as easily choose the orbit of JUPITER as THE external durational referent, and conduct/start the twin experiment from that 'starting' state?
Yes, astronomical referents are good preferred frames used by scientists already, but NO actual connection can be made once the twin starts to move away at speed from the starting state where the other twin remains. Those twins and their clocks then operate in 'internal mode' insofar as their motional effects are concerned on THEM, irrespective of external referents.
The two aspects should be discussed separately so as not to cloud the question which you, chinglu want to pursue regarding 'absoluteness' of astronomical regular events as THE referent for all other motional changes/effects? Just a suggestion, mate.
Good luck and enjoy your discussions, chinglu, everyone!
To be scrupulously fair to chinglu, the point he also tries to make is that once the traveling twin returns and reunites with his stay-put twin, they both agree that the earth has completed 12 orbits/years.
That is the common referent for the whole completed experiment, not for any 'partial' stages in between (ie, while traveling twin going away and coming back, they may disagree if comparing over the radio, but once re-united they agree when once again in their original co-moving 'starting' state).
So, YES, the earth orbit dataset constitutes the 'preferred' common/external 'duration' referent for the experiment, BUT their own individual internal biology/clocks aging/ticking processes are separate 'timing/aging' internal referents...later only connected by them as scientific observers via a theory explaining and making reality sense of the different clock/biology counts/ages noted upon the twin's return.
There are two distinctly separate aspects which chinglu's example contains:
1) the EXTERNAL preferred durational referent for the experiment (ie the earth-sun orbiting astronomical dataset); and
2) the INTERNAL aging/timing processes creating the internal differences between the twins/clocks over the 12 orbits both twins externally agree on as their common referent irrespective of internal differences accumulated meanwhile.
And I have already explained to chinglu WHY they are two separate things unconnected until HE (the observers) makes the theoretical connection and explain the effects on age/clock (difference) while also agreeing on the common referent of 12 earth orbits/years elapsed.
The further question pursued by chinglu seems to be whether there is an 'absoluteness' of astronomical referents as THE external durational 'preferred' referent for any specific motional effects meanwhile (such as the twins experiment already described). Insofar as that aspect/question goes, chinglu, one may take ANY regular astronomical referent as the preferred durational referent for any motional experiment 'run'. BUT then it is the actual state of that astronomical 'system' that you use. And since that chosen system has not yet been determined in any 'absolute' sense with reference to an 'absolute space' in which it exists, then we can only surmise what the 'orbital regularity 'durations' represent insofar as 'time' is concerned in any particular motional experiment. We can treat every system having similar orbital parameters as being THE preferred referent, but then we could just as easily choose the orbit of JUPITER as THE external durational referent, and conduct/start the twin experiment from that 'starting' state?
Yes, astronomical referents are good preferred frames used by scientists already, but NO actual connection can be made once the twin starts to move away at speed from the starting state where the other twin remains. Those twins and their clocks then operate in 'internal mode' insofar as their motional effects are concerned on THEM, irrespective of external referents.
The two aspects should be discussed separately so as not to cloud the question which you, chinglu want to pursue regarding 'absoluteness' of astronomical regular events as THE referent for all other motional changes/effects? Just a suggestion, mate.
Good luck and enjoy your discussions, chinglu, everyone!
Last edited:
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
When you say "1 second ago" and "3 seconds ago" what you are saying is that "1 second" and "3 seconds" are absolute seconds.
What happens to your math if you moved during those 3 seconds? The light will have to travel more or less distance to arrive at your new location if you travel during those 3 seconds, no? Then...to top it off the earth could have moved during those 3 seconds! Now what? If you are plotting where each object was during those 3 seconds at every point in time then let's compare plots! Please explain to me why our plots are different when compared on the same coordinate system?
You've just opened up the biggest can of worms the world has ever known...and you don't even realize it!
Last edited:
If that's true then why can't you time-travel??
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Because you don't travel in time, you travel in space for a duration of time.
Yes and over many threads. I would estimate there are thousands of posts answering chinglu's trolling; at least he's lately confining it to the forum created for spouting nonsense (or at least to give them an outlet). Lakon is approaching this from the pedestrian view, and engaging it outside of technical content, and also expressed disinterest in learning it. If Lakon were a customer offering us big money just to reduce the science into simple nuggets of folk wisdom, we'd certainly have a challenge on our hands. I'm not sure if that's what Lakon has in mind or not, since I think the remark was "I don't care" (about relativity).
The rest of us are motivated by different things, I guess. I joined in connection with a specific idea I was following, and got more caught up in the nature of trolls here which seem to be all operating out of a covert agenda -- my assumption is that they are all fundamentalists. I'm also assuming there are really only several hardcore trolls here operating as multiple sock puppets.
There is a universal trait among them which goes far beyond plain skepticism. They are expressing angst, and directing it against the most commonly disseminated topics from childhood schooling in science. For example they are quick to disparage Einstein and Newton, and often they will hold up Tesla as a martyr of persecution by the mainstream. And of course they are associating "mainstream" with blind robots following what they were told to do, as if scientists have no creative talent, imagination, or personal insight to give them their own skeptical and original views on things.
Because this mode of communication allows or even encourages covert antics, lately I'm prone to ask the cranks up front to state their motivation for assuming that science is anything other than knowledge of nature. Often I will just ask them to show their hand. Other than religious indoctrination, the only other motive I've been able to come up with is psychopathic personality disorders. For example, chinglu expresses the persona of a child who failed out of math and science in early schooling. We might infer that a few of these cases were due to existing mental, emotional and behavioral problems. Presumably in a person who was either never treated for this, or else treatment has been unsuccessful, a few such persons might develop a true phobia of science such as chinglu's, and of similar people.
I was curious about Lakon's reaction to your posts. I haven't read everything you posted, but I've read enough to sense that you are not ignorant of the first principles that folks like chinglu are incapable of articulating. I thought it might be interesting to see if Lakon could find merit in what you've posted. I wasn't sure if I represented you accurately, but there is a healthy rationale for not answering some questions directly when we sense that we'e feeding the troll.
Of course there is nothing wrong with saying that a star ship observer with magical instruments could probably make observations of the Earth's motion from light years away. The fallacy in chinglu's claims (as usual) include the failure to reconcile that there are two clocks running at different relative rates. This has been his stumbling block over a lengthy history of posting in multiple threads. It occurred to me to give an example of chinglu's blind spot by way of an example.
Suppose he were to start with a special notepad that has a very internal stable clock source. Let's say it's accurate to within one second over 12 years. Chinglu hires one of us to write him an app that triggers from this clock, and shows the orbital position of the Earth relative to the sun as a graphical display, and it updates the clock and calendar on the screen one per second. Further chinglu plugs this device into a power supply and leaves it running at his bedside. Every morning he gets up and checks it, and every night before going to bed, and a year later he confirms by listening to shortwave broadcasts of universal coordinated time, that his device is correct within 1/12th of a second (and for an additional fee we him with that measurement).
He takes the device onto a magical spaceship that can travel at near light speed. He leaves and doesn't turn around until the ship's sensor tells him the Earth has made 6 orbits, or 12 years round trip. However each time the ship's sensor tells him the Earth is eclipsing the Sun (it's been another year) he checks his device only to discover that it's running slower than he thinks it should. At the moment sensors detect the 6th eclipse and the ship turns around, his device is showing that the Earth should have only completed 5 eclipses. And by the time he returns to a world that long got over its phobias, his device says that only 10 years have passed. Yet the ship sensors reported a total of 12 eclipses. However, from that moment forward his device matches all the other clocks on Earth in terms of elapsed time, and second by second. The calendar is just two years behind.
Therefore, relativity is true and chinglu is a mere troll. I'm assuming he's not religiously striped, but one of those people suffering a personality disorder that has something to do with failing out of school.
BdS
Registered Senior Member
Undefined said:
I totally agree that when the further observer returns to the distance of the nearer observer they will agree on the position.
The following is unrefined...
I've thought about it and the only thing that makes sense to me is. When the distant observer is on route back he sees the earth moving faster, because he is experiencing more wavelengths of the light coming from earth.
The 3 x c observer is stationary in the solar system and viewing the earth at a x frequency and a y wavelength.
When he starts moving back toward the c observer at a speed of 100 metres/s/s, he now sees the x frequency change to
x frequency + (100 metres / y wavelength) per second
The earth visually appears to be moving faster to him (only in his frame) while he's traveling back to the nearer observer. When the two observers are united and stationary in the solar system, they agree on the earths position and speed.
And the opposite for when he's traveling away from the earth, the earth appears to be slowing down in his frame.
Thats just my opinion, I dont know...
Motor Daddy said:
I dont think they are different, the more distant plot is just delayed.
Last edited:
Hi Bds (and chinglu, paddoboy, Lakon et al).
Hi yourself!
Just one question...How the bloody hell do you manage to maintain that peaceful calm persona in the face of such deliberately portrayed stupidity and arrogance?
I dips me lid to ya!
Well said.....Some people just seem to have fixations about established science that border on fanatical and paranoia.
On another forum we had a bloke similar to chinglu called Zarkov. He was anti this and anti that plus holding beliefs that the Moon landings were fake. He now runs his own forum at "Omegafour" where the only poster is himself!
It is indeed a sickness.
You have hit the nail on the head, fair and square!!
The point being the question had been answered many times by others more attuned and knowledgeable about SR/GR then my basic knowledge, and in every instant, those replies were met in parrot like fashion with the same posts in reply.
I see the other person as a kindred soul to chinglu [although hiding his persona in the closet so to speak] who sprung to his defence when things appeared to be getting rather hot for our troll.
Some quick checking of his posts will show him offering support to another that appears to be rather eccentric to put it as mildly and as nicely as possible.
He probably sees it as supporting the underdog.
I also offer support to the underdog in general, but certainly never unconditional support, nor ever when they are just blatantly wrong.
Nothing wrong at all...They are called thought experiments.
The difficult part from my position was that I did supply at least two quite simple explanatory illustratively u tube videos which he refused to acknowledge, explaining the concept of time dilation.
That was when I did start to be rather expletive in my description of chinglu, and when his kindred soul jumped into the ring in defence of him.
"There are none so blind as those with eyes who will not see"
We can't "noticeably" time travel because as yet we are unable to even obtain 1% of light speed.
In actual fact though in small, very tiny increments, we can time travel every time we travel in a aeroplane. Astronauts even achieve it to greater amounts although still not readily noticable.
An example I am somewhat familiar with is as follows...following on from the twin paradox which isn't really a paradox anyway......
If two twins constructed a very fast space ship, and one of them decided to test it, and proceeded to head of to the stars at 99.999% c for 6 months, turn around and head back to Earth at 99.999% c, he would arrive back on Earth 225 years in the future, with his twin brother long dead and buried, while he has aged only 12 months......
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
How much time did it take for the ship to accelerate to 99.999c, then back to 0c, then again to 99.999c, and then back to 0c once again? Ships don't instantly accelerate to 99.999c, you know? What distance and time did the ship travel while it was accelerating? What distance and time did it travel not accelerating (constant velocity)? I seriously doubt you can even properly describe the motion and coordinates of the ship at every point in time the entire trip! Maybe in your fairytale illusion that is the relativists world you think ships instantly accelerate to 99.999c (or for that matter accelerate instantly to any velocity), but not in reality! Do you even understand what space, distance, time, acceleration, velocity, direction, and force are? I doubt it!
It's a thought experiment supported by mathematics.
We can't go at 99.999%c, and yes we would have to accelerate up to that point and decellerate, but for the purpose of the exersise they are ignored.
The only decelleration/acceleration that is of concern as far as I am aware, is that one would need to turn back on the return trip.
That particular part of the exersise is then applied to differentiate and determine which twin was travelling according to the Equivalence principle
One of our proper physicist/scientists may like to interpret that more precisely if they wish.....
I'm only a bloody layman!
That is all fine.
But, we can use the constant speed of light to readjust to the earth frame.
For example, if we are looking at a galaxy 6 million light years away, we are not assuming we see it instantly.
The same holds true for the traveling twin. He adjusts based on distance and the speed of light.
Now, when he gets back, did the absolute timepiece of 12 earth orbits occur in reality or did the traveling twin's clock control the orbit of the earth and make it only orbit 10 times.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Is there supposed to be some sort of truth to the tales you tell or just for entertainment, not to be mistaken for what takes place in reality?
Why ignore crucial aspects of reality? Is it because your BS doesn't work if you try to accurately describe reality? It sounds like it to me, because I CAN tell you the coordinates of the ship at EVERY point in time. If your BS doesn't agree with me then you're SOL!
So you failed to directly answer my questions as to the distance and times of acceleration and constant velocity, so you really don't have a clue as to which you speak. HOW FAR did the ship travel until it reached the velocity of .99999c? How much time did it take for the ship to reach the velocity of .99999c?