How exactly did the traveling twin only live to be 10 earth orbits when in fact he lived 12 earth orbits by scientific observation?
Gravity slows down time.
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
How exactly did the traveling twin only live to be 10 earth orbits when in fact he lived 12 earth orbits by scientific observation?
Because the clocks [mechanical and biological] were ticking at different rates due to time dilation, a measurable validated effect.
Or to put that even more simply, the travelling twin only observed 12 Earth orbits [IN ANOTHER FRAME OF REFERENCE] while in his own travelling frame, he only aged the equivalent of 10 Earth orbits.
I DO NOT WANT TO PRE-EMPT RUSS WATTERS RESPONSE TO THIS - THE FOLLOWING ARE ONLY MY THOUGHTS;
Chinglu - Yes, the whole race WAS finished.
One clock measured 5 beats. The other 10. In my mind, both are what they are. To further develope this, different societies have had different measurements of time. One might have measured 18 copeks (a fictional term for the exersise) and the other 9.
Or, to put it another way - you ran the race in 50 heartbeats - you were running, after all.
I was observing you, quite relaxed, and I experienced 25 heartbeats.
What experimental evidence do you have that biological clocks move at different rates as compared to scientific astronomical observations?
All of our logic places scientific astronomical observations as being true and correct reality. Thus, the traveling twin lived 12 years just like the stay at home twin based on the science.
We have a standard that only crackpots challenge and that is scientific astronomical observations (SAO).
In the case of the twins, SAO claims both lived 12 years. Those that want to believe the traveling twin lived only 10 earth orbits must refute SAO and thus must refute science.
Whatever .. I don't know anything about that, and that's NOT what I'm talking about. My very simple post, was ..
Chinglu - Yes, the whole race WAS finished.
One clock measured 5 beats. The other 10. In my mind, both are what they are. To further develope this, different societies have had different measurements of time. One might have measured 18 copeks (a fictional term for the exersise) and the other 9.
Or, to put it another way - you ran the race in 50 heartbeats - you were running, after all.
I was observing you, quite relaxed, and I experienced 25 heartbeats.
Just speak to that for the moment, if you could. Thanks.
PS - I am not trying to intervene on your discussion on the same issue with RW.
GPS systems, particle accelerators, Muon particle lifetimes etc etc etc
Not at all, and has been shown by experiment and observation.
You insidiously and cunningly keep avoiding FoRs, just as you did and was banned for at the other place.
Gravitational Time Dilation is a valid effect our lives are intertwined with and no amount of stubborness and stupidity on your part will change that.
I am not sure what to think about you observing 25 hb when I actually experienced 50.
I would say you are wrong.
No, the establishment, both scientific and general, accept the results of experiments and observations...They do not accept twisted illogical versions of it, that insidiously and cunningly ignore pertinent facts.
This makes you a troll and a fraud and is what you were banned at the other place for.
All of your statements are completely irrelevant.
Both twins used science to verify they both lived 12 earth orbits or 12 years.
If you disagree with this, then you disagree with science.
What I'm saying is that my heart 'clock' beat only 25 during the race, whereas your heart 'clock' beat 50, as it was beating at a different rate.
No, I tell it as it is. You are a troll and a fraud.
You have constantly rehashed the same reply irrespective of the questions asked of you...
You constantly ignore FoRs...
You constantly ignore the scientific and general establishments and the reasons why it is accepted...
You constantly are putting your self out on a limb...
You constantly ignore explanatory videos explaining the concept quite simply....
You were banned from the last place for the same reason...
You were banished from recognised science here to pseudoscience for the same reasons.....
Nope you are wrong.
Both twins used science to prove each lived 12 earth orbits.
Try to refute this.
Hi again, chinglu.
Did you forget what I pointed out about the subtle but important implications of conflating 'lived" term with "timed" term? And how they are two separate concepts?
The "lived" term is a metaphysical term implying absolute DURATION concept irrespective of what "timing" dynamics one uses to "subdivide" such duration concept into physically meaningful terms for COMPARISONS between two or ore DIFFERENT "timing" systems/processes Like the twin biology/clock systems/processes).
See? No clock is more wrong or right than another. The comparison is what counts. and the comparison indicates something has CHANGED while the experiment is run over the DURATION of the common external referent of 12 Earth-orbits.
That is all. You are trying to make one clock 'wrong' while leaving the other clock 'right'. BUT that is not the physical but metaphysical 'connection' YOU make.
The real physical connection is that THREE referents having there own "timing" system/process were involved during the experiment.
One referent was the common EXTERNAL to both twin INTERNAL system/process referents. That's it. no one 'system/process' referent is more right or more wrong than any other; they are just DIFFERENT because of the CHANGES that occurred to the TWIN clock/biology during his transit to/from DIFFERENT state than the other two referents remained in.
There is NO 'wrongness' involved at all except as YOUR own bringing this 'metaphysical claim' into the picture which is not really there physically/logically at any stage. Ok?, mate?
Remember, I too have my misgivings about the strictly mathematical abstractions of SR, but I know where those abstractions start and end when it comes to interpreting the reality evidence irrespective of SR or other analysis used to interpret that reality evidence. Your distinction here is purely metaphysical based on the continuing conflation of the real meanings of both "lived" (generic external duration concept per se) and "timed" (specific internal system/process per se which may DIFFER if changes affect them as already explained).
And remember the point of my GR-only example where the change happened without any SR 'wrongness' coming into it as you keep trying to bring into it?
That should tell you where your non-sequitur intrusion of metaphysical concepts like wrong/right' and 'duration' are being confused and introduced into the real physical 'timing' aspects/processes involved in the exercise in reality. And that's all. No more, and no less than that.
I would suggest you drop your insistence on 'wrongness' of SR clock etc etc, and just understand the implications for what they are in reality and leave it at that.
Better to spend your time and energy and intellectual capital on your other threads/discussions, because you are wasting those in this instance to no real end as far as any new reality insights are concerned.
Damn, I have to rush off again! Cheers and good luck with your other threads/discussions, chinglu, everyone!
That's not what you said above. Above, you said the whole race was finished in a measured time of 5 seconds. You are contradicting yourself.
The question was: "...how much time will your clock say it took to complete the race?"
Your answer was: "5 sec"
This means you recognize that you saw the race end and checked the clock to see how much time elapsed.
No. Not playing.
I have as have many others many times.
"There are none so blind as those that refuse to see "
The twins are in different FoRs.
You are not only wrong, but just ignore all relevant stuff showing you are wrong.
Why were you banned at the other place?
Why are you banished to pseudoscience here, if as you believe you are correct?
And if you are correct, why don't you reveal your genuis to the world as a whole?
Anyway, you really dazzled them with the mathematics at the other place, but have yet to use it to prove your point here.
Oh yeah, it was shown to be in gross error wasn't it?
Chinglu, it probably got lost in all the noise -
Following the simple dialouge you were having with RW and to which I contributed, the above is my reply for your consideration. Thanks.
I doubt it......It has been asked of him many times by many people, in many different forms for an answer...all to no avail.