Gravity slows down time.

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...



I dont think they are different, the more distant plot is just delayed.

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.​

This is very good. If you travel away, you must see the past. Yet, when you come back, the past must move faster in light terms until you see the present history of earth orbits upon landing.

This is inconsistent with a constant speed of light in the frame though, which is required by SR.

I had not thought of this so, why not pursue further?
 
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.

it does not matter what the clock say. we measure time in earth orbits and earth rotations.

Everyone in the solar system cannot disagree on the earth's position around the sun since it only has one position. So, there is no relative time when it comes to the earth motion clock.
 
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?

Very good, this is SR.

How do you explain the fact that we can use the earth's motion as an absolute clock in the solar system?
 
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.

Unfortunately, you have yet to explain how both twins agree on the absolute clock of the earth's motion.

So, when the twins reunite, both are 12 earth orbits, or 12 years old.

Can you prove this statement is false?
 
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.


The Earth Orbits analogy is not absolute:


The clock on Earth records 12 Earth orbits in its FoR we will call [a]....


The clock in the other FoR records 10 Earth orbits in its own FoR we will call

If the the clock in the FoR has a camera and views conditions in the Earth's FoR [a] he "SEES" 12 Earth orbits, while at the same time recording 10 passages of Earth orbits in its own FoR


So SR/GR are factual and realistic and work each according to their own FoRs....
Which means you are either [1] confused, [2] really dumb, or [3] a bloody persistent troll...Take your pick.
 
The Earth Orbits analogy is not absolute:


The clock on Earth records 12 Earth orbits in its FoR we will call [a]....


The clock in the other FoR records 10 Earth orbits in its own FoR we will call

If the the clock in the FoR has a camera and views conditions in the Earth's FoR [a] he "SEES" 12 Earth orbits, while at the same time recording 10 passages of Earth orbits in its own FoR


So SR/GR are factual and realistic and work each according to their own FoRs....
Which means you are either [1] confused, [2] really dumb, or [3] a bloody persistent troll...Take your pick.


Let's assume you are correct. But, let's say 12 earth orbits and 9.5.

Then when the twins reunite, the home twin claims it is winter and the traveling twin claims it is summer, which is a contradiction.

The earth motion clock is absolute and there is nothing you can do about that.
 
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?

I'm trying to establish with this question that you understand what time is and how it works on a basic level. Because statements you've made imply that you don't understand the point of time.



Or as one who continues to parrot about others not answering his highly mis-construed questions, perhaps he would finally answer the above question put by another.....
 
Let's assume you are correct. But, let's say 12 earth orbits and 9.5.

Then when the twins reunite, the home twin claims it is winter and the traveling twin claims it is summer, which is a contradiction.

The earth motion clock is absolute and there is nothing you can do about that.


PML :)


Firstly I am correct, secondly when they reunite we have only one FoR , with one twin slightly older [the stay at home one] then the other.
The travelling twin has obviously "MISSED" some of Earth's history, while he was in another FoR.

With your third claim, yes both clocks are absolute according to each's own FoR, but the passage of time that has actually passed is relative to each FoR.
 
paddoboy, are you ignoring me because you can't answer my questions? If the twins were together at the start, and the ship was at a zero velocity prior to the one brother traveling, what distance did the ship travel in space until it reached the .99999c velocity? How much time elapsed until it reached that velocity?
 
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?



Like I said, it's a thought experiment....Scientists do it all the time, and we can for the sake of a particular argument ignore some aspects of the exersise.
If I wanted to include the time and distance to accelerate up to 99.999c, and then decellerate down again, the problem would become mighty complicated.

Similar in some respects to analogies such as a stretched rubber sheet representing space/time, and a bowling ball in the middle representing mass and gravity...there are some things you just ignore.

If you see that as hiding crucial aspects and see it as BS, then get whatever you see as reality peer reviewed.
Don't come mouthing off to me simply because you fail to understand how science works.
 
paddoboy, are you ignoring me because you can't answer my questions? If the twins were together at the start, and the ship was at a zero velocity prior to the one brother traveling, what distance did the ship travel in space until it reached the .99999c velocity? How much time elapsed until it reached that velocity?

No I'm not ignoring you.
Try applying common sense.
 
Like I said, it's a thought experiment....Scientists do it all the time, and we can for the sake of a particular argument ignore some aspects of the exersise.

So as long as people do stuff all the time it's all good? How do you determine which aspects can be ignored and which ones can't be ignored? Like for example, can we just ignore time dilation and still be good? Can we ignore one pile of bricks and just count the other two piles, and then just claim that we can just ignore that pile? "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." said the Great and Powerful Oz! You should become an illusionist, you have a knack for it.


If I wanted to include the time and distance to accelerate up to 99.999c, and then decellerate down again, the problem would become mighty complicated.

I'll make it simple, just tell me the distance the ship accelerated for. Just make up any old distance and we'll see what happens. Just any old distance!

Similar in some respects to analogies such as a stretched rubber sheet representing space/time, and a bowling ball in the middle representing mass and gravity...there are some things you just ignore.

Why do you just ignore them? Who is the ultimate approving authority that determines which factors can be ignored and which ones can't? Is there some kind of rule book for this game of BS that you play?

If you see that as hiding crucial aspects and see it as BS, then get whatever you see as reality peer reviewed.
Don't come mouthing off to me simply because you fail to understand how science works.

The problem is that I do understand distance and time, and you don't! If you did understand it you would answer my question as to the distance and time that the ship traveled until it reached the velocity of .99999c? How far away from the twin was the brother at that time?
 
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!


Ahaa, now I get it!! Another anti SR/GR person.
Now all you need to do is [1] show one shred of evidence that invalidates SR/GR, [2] Show that the time travel example I gave is wrong, [3] have your own model [if you have one, peer reviewed through the proper channels.


Just to elaborate on some of your claims re my time travel example.....
As I have stated many times, I am only a layman, and not attuned to mathematics. As such even if it was necessary [which it isn't] to calculate time and distance re the acceleration and decelleration, I would not no how to do it.
The example I gave was one given to me a by a SR/GR expert theorist.
Although not educated in the deeper knowledge of SR and GR, I think I have a rough working knowledge, enough anyway to refute the boring as bat shit anti SR/GR people that abound on these forums....none by the way ever attempt to use the accepted scientific method...Too much scrutiny I suspect. :)
The same anti anti people also push and shove each other to cry "conspiracies " with regards to such things as the Moon Landings and 9/11

Thank f^%$ though the majority, both expert and lay people alike recognise these fools for what they are and treat them with the contempt they deserve.
 
Chinglu, please: this is not a difficult question and the line of discussion is critical for understanding the issue. Please answer. Please stop dodging:
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?
Answering the question - discussing the issue with some depth instead of dancing around its edges - will help you understand why your repeated statements similar to this one are wrong:
How do you explain the fact that we can use the earth's motion as an absolute clock in the solar system?
Please: show you are not a troll by discussing the issue in depth instead of jumping around, making claims and then not delving into their logic and evidence.
 
Why do you just ignore them? Who is the ultimate approving authority that determines which factors can be ignored and which ones can't? Is there some kind of rule book for this game of BS that you play?
?



You wouldn't really understand...logic, common sense, are two qualities needed as opposed to your qualities of cynicism, anti establishment bias, and fanaticism.


The problem is that I do understand distance and time, and you don't! If you did understand it you would answer my question as to the distance and time that the ship traveled until it reached the velocity of .99999c? How far away from the twin was the brother at that time?


Oh sure I understand time and distance, but as a layman and not attuned mathematically I would find it difficult to calculate anyway.
But maybe you can explain why it is necessary in the example of time travel I gave.
 
A thought experiment or Gedankenexperiment (from German) considers some hypothesis, theory,[1] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and, in the case that it is possible for it to be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question. The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question.

Famous examples of thought experiments include Schrödinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, which attempts to demonstrate the ability of a hypothetical finite being to violate the second law of thermodynamics.


In its broadest usage, thought experimentation is the process of employing imaginary situations to help us understand the way things really are (or, in the case of Herman Kahn’s "scenarios", understand something about something in the future). The understanding comes through reflection upon this imaginary situation. Thought experimentation is a priori, rather than an empirical process, in that the experiments are conducted within the imagination (i.e., Brown’s (1993) "laboratory of the mind"), and never in fact.

Thought experiments, which are well-structured, well-defined hypothetical questions that employ subjunctive reasoning (irrealis moods) – "What might happen (or, what might have happened) if . . . " – have been used to pose questions in philosophy at least since Greek antiquity, some pre-dating Socrates (see Rescher 1991). In physics and other sciences many famous thought experiments date from the 19th and especially the 20th Century, but examples can be found at least as early as Galileo.

Thought experiments have been used in philosophy, physics, and other fields (such as cognitive psychology, history, political science, economics, social psychology, law, organizational studies, marketing, and epidemiology). In law, the synonym "hypothetical" is frequently used for such experiments.

Regardless of their intended goal, all thought experiments display a patterned way of thinking that is designed to allow us to explain, predict and control events in a better and more productive way.


Theoretical consequences[edit]
In terms of their theoretical consequences, thought experiments generally:

challenge (or even refute) a prevailing theory, often involving the device known as reductio ad absurdum, (as in Galileo's original argument, a proof by contradiction),
confirm a prevailing theory,
establish a new theory, or
simultaneously refute a prevailing theory and establish a new theory through a process of mutual exclusion.

WIKI
 
Chinglu, please: this is not a difficult question and the line of discussion is critical for understanding the issue. Please answer. Please stop dodging:
Answering the question - discussing the issue with some depth instead of dancing around its edges - will help you understand why your repeated statements similar to this one are wrong:

Please: show you are not a troll by discussing the issue in depth instead of jumping around, making claims and then not delving into their logic and evidence.


I see it as similar to our conspiracy nutters and faked Moon Landing claims and 9/11 government involvement etc....All tarred with the same brush.

I hope you get your answer.
 
Ahaa, now I get it!! Another anti SR/GR person.

I take that as a compliment as an atheist would to the comment that he was anti-god! You're f'n-A right I'm anti BS!


Now all you need to do is [1] show one shred of evidence that invalidates SR/GR, [2] Show that the time travel example I gave is wrong, [3] have your own model [if you have one, peer reviewed through the proper channels.

1. http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k
2. Time travel is impossible because motion occurs over a duration of time. Instantaneous motion is nonexistent! IMPOSSIBLE!
3. I have understanding, I would like to pass that understanding on to the whole of humanity, but couldn't care less that someone who bites the hand that feeds them is starving to death!

Just to elaborate on some of your claims re my time travel example.....
As I have stated many times, I am only a layman, and not attuned to mathematics. As such even if it was necessary [which it isn't] to calculate time and distance re the acceleration and decelleration, I would not no how to do it.

That's laughable!!! How do you have ANY understanding at all if you don't know what acceleration is? Do you think your car takes zero time to go from 0-60 MPH? Do your brakes stop you INSTANTLY when you apply them? I bet you don't know the difference between velocity and closing speed, do ya? You have no business in this conversation if you don't know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

The example I gave was one given to me a by a SR/GR expert theorist.
Although not educated in the deeper knowledge of SR and GR, I think I have a rough working knowledge, enough anyway to refute the boring as bat shit anti SR/GR people that abound on these forums....none by the way ever attempt to use the accepted scientific method...Too much scrutiny I suspect. :)

You do not understand squat! In order to understand SR/GR you first must have a basic understanding of measures of distance and time. You do not!


The same anti anti people also push and shove each other to cry "conspiracies " with regards to such things as the Moon Landings and 9/11

Thank f^%$ though the majority, both expert and lay people alike recognise these fools for what they are and treat them with the contempt they deserve.

The real fool is you! You agree with something you don't understand. You run with the pack is all. You drink the Kool-Aid, and you're proud of that. :rolleyes:
 
chinglu said:
Let's assume you are correct. But, let's say 12 earth orbits and 9.5.

Then when the twins reunite, the home twin claims it is winter and the traveling twin claims it is summer, which is a contradiction.
What you don't seem to have noticed is that if the twins are reunited, they are on one planet, the earth, and the earth having two different seasons for two people in the same location is the contradiction.
You are too unintelligent to realise when your own statements are not logical
The earth motion clock is absolute and there is nothing you can do about that.
There is nothing you can offer to prove that planetary motion is absolute. You don't even recognise what absolute motion implies, you're just chanting a new mantra. When everyone has left you to it, that will be evidence for you, the resident idiot, that you were right.

Perhaps this is something you need to do because you aren't intelligent enough to begin to understand the subjects you decry. You also don't seem to have a clue that, if you ARE right, then a lot of things should NOT work, these are things the modern world relies on every day, the modern world would not function IF you are right and all the scientists are wrong.
 
Back
Top