Gravity slows down time.

[arfa brane]

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.

This from the idiot who says gravity only acts in space.

Thus illustrating an almost complete ignorance of what the time "having duration" means. Good job, ha ha.

 

[Lakon]

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.

I skimmed through most of the above, though I noticed it mentions the Nut Job paddoboy - a self confessed thread derailer, self confessed anti-establishmentarian, and, inter alia, a proven fraudster .. LOL .. please .. he's all yours - 100% of him.

If you have any questions of me, rather than bouncing them of the Nut Job, try making them to me. Providing they are succinct I will answer them - AS I HAVE DONE BEFORE.

In the meantime, I did in fact try to advance this thread. Note the following CAREFULLY !

- Post #460 from Russ Watters - a genuine and amicable attempt by him, to make progress, regardless of what's gone by. DO YOU DECRY HIM AND HIS POST AS WELL ? Please answer this.

- My response in post #462 - a reply in similar sentiment to RW's showing no support for (or disapproval of) Chinglu, but..
Lets see Chinglus reply to this and how it develops

Did it develop at all ? No .. just incessant noise from the Nut Job fraudster, (As I warned in the same post) which basically ensures that such a discussion does NOT transpire. Again, if you reply that it shouldn't transpire for any reason, you are decrying RW's post and also his intention.

You see it don't you ? It certainly becoming more apparent that one or two people here DO NOT want simple, logical deductive discussion, and will continue to derail this thread at all costs.

And I have to say, your 'Ben Hur' post above did not help or lend one iota to the progress of the subject of this thread.

PS - tried to post this last nignt, couldn't. I now see RW and Chinglu have advanced by a post or two, the posts I referred to above. Even though there is little hope that Nut Job will not spit himself abroad to derail them, will have a good look, as I think it will be interesting. I am actually hoping to learn from this 'bit by bit' progress from RW, and I think it's highly benefical - even if to expose Chinglu.

 

[paddoboy]

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!





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.

No not really actually your first statement has shown your second statement should be in reference to yourself.

Hey, you think we went to the Moon?
You think 9/11 was a conspiracy??

LOL!!

 

[Lakon]

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 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.

LOL .. you ain't seen nothing yet. He is also a self confessed thread derailer, anti-establismentarian, a proven fraudster, and basically .. a Nut Job. Closer observation shows he's got a rejection complex - needs to belong to some pack (scientists probably) that have rejected him .. badly ..

 

[paddoboy]

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.

That also has been mentioned a few times.
Gee it can be frustrating when so many miniscule minds get together to try and decry and invalidate decades of science.
Thank f3@% though, the world ignores and carries on regardless.

 

[paddoboy]

I skimmed through most of the above, though I noticed it mentions the Nut Job paddoboy - a self confessed thread derailer, self confessed anti-establishmentarian, and, inter alia, a proven fraudster .. LOL .. please .. he's all yours - 100% of him.

If you have any questions of me, rather than bouncing them of the Nut Job, try making them to me. Providing they are succinct I will answer them - AS I HAVE DONE BEFORE.

In the meantime, I did in fact try to advance this thread. Note the following CAREFULLY !

- Post #460 from Russ Watters - a genuine and amicable attempt by him, to make progress, regardless of what's gone by. DO YOU DECRY HIM AND HIS POST AS WELL ? Please answer this.

- My response in post #462 - a reply in similar sentiment to RW's showing no support for (or disapproval of) Chinglu, but..
Lets see Chinglus reply to this and how it develops

Did it develop at all ? No .. just incessant noise from the Nut Job fraudster, (As I warned in the same post) which basically ensures that such a discussion does NOT transpire. Again, if you reply that it shouldn't transpire for any reason, you are decrying RW's post and also his intention.

You see it don't you ? It certainly becoming more apparent that one or two people here DO NOT want simple, logical deductive discussion, and will continue to derail this thread at all costs.

And I have to say, your 'Ben Hur' post above did not help or lend one iota to the progress of the subject of this thread.

PS - tried to post this last nignt, couldn't. I now see RW and Chinglu have advanced by a post or two, the posts I referred to above. Even though there is little hope that Nut Job will not spit himself abroad to derail them, will have a good look, as I think it will be interesting. I am actually hoping to learn from this 'bit by bit' progress from RW, and I think it's highly benefical - even if to expose Chinglu.

OMFG!!!!

He talks about incessant noise!!! Oh the Irony of it all!!


PML

 

[paddoboy]

LOL .. you ain't seen nothing yet. He is also a self confessed thread derailer, anti-establismentarian, a proven fraudster, and basically .. a Nut Job. Closer observation shows he's got a rejection complex - needs to belong to some pack (scientists probably) that have rejected him .. badly ..

Take it easy old son, you'll have coronary....and after all I only mentioned your agenda once, and that was when you asked for it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQUxUy5aQjo

 

[paddoboy]

LOL .. you ain't seen nothing yet. He is also a self confessed thread derailer, anti-establismentarian, a proven fraudster, and basically .. a Nut Job. Closer observation shows he's got a rejection complex - needs to belong to some pack (scientists probably) that have rejected him .. badly ..

That's OK, You are just adding evidence that is mounting showing you as another anti SR/GR nutter, although only half out of the closet.

 

[paddoboy]

Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years after its publication in the early 1900s, on scientific, pseudoscientific, philosophical, or ideological bases. Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now recognized as self-consistent, in accordance with many experiments, and moreover serves as the basis of many successful theories such as quantum electrodynamics.

Reasons for criticism of the theory of relativity were, for example, alternative theories, rejection of the abstract-mathematical method, misunderstandings, and alleged errors in the theory. Besides those reasons, antisemitic objections to Einstein's Jewish heritage occasionally played a role as well. Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"); however, their viewpoints are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

WIKI:

 

[Lakon]

Chinglu - I notice that Russ Watters simple question is;

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?

Notwithstanding all the noise, I notice you haven't given a simple answer to this simple question. Let me propose one for you;

5 seconds. Agreed ?

 

[Lakon]

Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years after its publication in the early 1900s, on scientific, pseudoscientific, philosophical, or ideological bases. Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now recognized as self-consistent, in accordance with many experiments, and moreover serves as the basis of many successful theories such as quantum electrodynamics.

Reasons for criticism of the theory of relativity were, for example, alternative theories, rejection of the abstract-mathematical method, misunderstandings, and alleged errors in the theory. Besides those reasons, antisemitic objections to Einstein's Jewish heritage occasionally played a role as well. Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"); however, their viewpoints are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

WIKI:

Here's a better wiki link for you Nut Job ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_job

 

[paddoboy]

Here's a better wiki link for you Nut Job ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_job

Look, I'm really sorry about all of this. I didn't realise how serious you would take exposing your agenda
..I don't think the backtracking is helping any though...Afterall, its all down in black and white....






Maybe I should buy you a Schooner to heal the rift!

 

[paddoboy]

I have been checking for the best videos to illustrate both SR and GR and explain in its most simple and effective way.

If any of the anti SR/GR brigade are fair dinkum in their pursuit to invalidate SR/GR they should not be afraid to at least take in that which validates SR/GR and has since 2005/2016.

The video is 15 mniutes long, [not too much time for a person to sacrifice to become aware of the Universe around him] with interesting facts and evidences at the 4 min 30 seconds mark, the 5 min 20 seconds mark, the 9 minutes 40 seconds mark, the 10 minute mark, the 11 minute 45 seconds mark and from the 13 minute mark onwards that will ratify and validate all the points that have been made here.

It's no skin of my nose if some prefer to remain ignorant, and being a layman [there, I said it again!] no one need listen to me.
In fact you can do what you like [well at least say what you like] in refutation of SR/GR and I suppose after all this is pseudoscience, but even in pseudoscience, it is rather nice and comforting to have the real truth revealed as opposed to pretenders and would be's if they could be's.

So here is a video, I have already posted somewhere way back amongst all the chit chatter and noise from my adverseries.
Have a good day and enjoy!!

The video is presented by Eugene Khutoryansky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec

 

[BdS]

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.

You are talking about predicting whats going to happen and thats not science. For science to work we need to measure whats happening in the frame not predict whats going to happen. Because the earth motion is constant you will come to the right prediction most of the time, because you're assuming whats going to happen. Ever heard the saying, "assumption is the mother of all f ups"? if some other event happens to the earth frame you will only be notified in the time it takes to make the measurement, and your prediction will be 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.

His visual timepiece will say 12 orbits have OCCURRED in cosmic events. But, the atomic clocks will say the time that has past in the different frames is different, because the motion on the atomic scale changed with time dilation. You only want to acknowledge your perspective on visual cosmic clock and dont want to acknowledge that atomic time also counts.

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.

If someone wants to open a thread to discuss the specific topic, you're welcome to do so.

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

IMHO, If Im stationary to the source then I will measure the exact frequency emitted by the source. If I move towards the source I will count the stationary wavelengths from the start of measurement and wavelengths occupying the distance I have traveled for 1 second. I dont care what theory says what, but to deny it will be going against everything physical in nature, science and logic. Actually, opposing it will be trying to refute the consistency of the speed of light.

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

We can pursue the obvious basics, but you must acknowledge that cosmic events are not the only events to base time on. Time can be measured on the cosmic scaled events to give a x reading and at the same time give a y reading when measured on the atomic scale events. You have to admit that when atomic clocks are in a gravitational well they are affected by the gravitational effects and speed the clock travels at, the proof is there. Whether there is an error or a logical flaw in using the atomic clocks to measure time is trivial, but the effects are there and have to be considered. Else we remain deadlocked in discussion.


Knowledge is power! wisdom is correctly processing that knowledge...

 

[paddoboy]

His visual timepiece will say 12 orbits have OCCURRED in cosmic events. But, the atomic clocks will say the time that has past in the different frames is different, because the motion on the atomic scale changed with time dilation. You only want to acknowledge your perspective on visual cosmic clock and dont want to acknowledge that atomic time also counts.


...





. You have to admit that when atomic clocks are in a gravitational well they are affected by the gravitational effects and speed the clock travels at, the proof is there. Whether there is an error or a logical flaw in using the atomic clocks to measure time is trivial, but the effects are there and have to be considered. Else we remain deadlocked in discussion.

If someone wants to open a thread to discuss the specific topic, you're welcome to do so.


Knowledge is power! wisdom is correctly processing that knowledge...

Those points are the points being consistently denied by chinglu, specifically time dilation......

Not sure about what else you want to discuss, but anyway, check out the excellent explanatory video in my previous post, and let me know what you think. It's just a little short of 15 minutes long

 

[Lakon]

Aqueous Id, I managed to read some more of your above post, in which you said;

I'm also assuming there are really only several hardcore trolls here operating as multiple sock puppets.

Who would you suppose that would be, and unless you are trolling, any evidence ?

 

[Lakon]

Look, I'm really sorry about all of this. I didn't realise how serious you would take exposing your agenda
..I don't think the backtracking is helping any though...Afterall, its all down in black and white....

Maybe I should buy you a Schooner to heal the rift!

Nah - save your money. You need it for last months rental arrears.

There's only one rift you got to deal with Nut Job, and it's between your right and left temples - and alas, it is beyond the healing powers of modern medicine.

 

[Lakon]

Chinglu - I notice that Russ Watters simple question is;

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?

Notwithstanding all the noise, I notice you haven't given a simple answer to this simple question. Let me propose one for you;

5 seconds. Agreed ?

Anytime soon would be good, Chinglu !

The answer to RW's question is 5 seconds. Agreed, or not ?

Edit

 

[Lakon]

PS, Nut Job, I just heard on the news that Meals On Wheels is imposing a minimum fee per meal as from January 2014, due to unavoidable cost increases and significant a drop in donations.

So no more beer money for you from then, although this might help your .. hmmm .. nah .. not likely ..

 

[origin]

Here's a better wiki link for you Nut Job ..

Do you think you could stop with the name calling? It is specifically against the forum rules.