Gravity slows down time.

[Undefined]

If you are correct, then each of these clocks you cite must disagree on the position of the sun since they disagree on time.

How does that work?

The fact is it does not. If any clock claims anything that disagrees with the earth's rotation/orbit, then that clock is wrong.

Hi chinglu.

I provided you with a GR-only scenario where the 'position of the sun' essentially does NOT change at all for either clock. Here it is (as embedded/highlighted in my post #345)

...

Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE (this time a GR only SCENARIO) to highlight both the essentials and your confused interpretation OF and your claims FOR what the clocks 'say' etc:

Let the earth rotate only once a year, such that the same face is always pointing to the sun as it orbits that sun.

Let two clocks be at sea level at the 'leading edge' of the earth such that the clocks always describe the same orbital path length and velocity along the same orbital 'line' traced out by that position as it goes along the orbital.

Now move one clock slowly up a mountain such that the elevated clock tick rate is faster than the sea level rate which the stay-put clock is still ticking away at.

Now after 12 ORBITALS (years) have passed, YOU and your twin observer holding your respective clocks note the respective counts of your clock, and you communicate by radio back and forth while still in your respective positions.

The two clock counts are DIFFERENT. Yes? Even though both of you 'witnessed' 12 years (twelve orbitals) elapse. Yes?

So, the sun-earth system is NOT 'out of whack' because it is still doing the same thing it was doing beforehand; so it just went on producing the observable astronomical dataset EXTERNAL to both YOUR and your twin's clock tick rate processes. Yes?

The only 'meaning' brought to this differing dataset situation is brought by YOU and your twin (as the "science" observer/analysis afterwards).

See? Whether clock is SR affected or GR affected, there is the same logical disconnect from the 'year' count UNLESS LATER you both agree to INTERPRET the respective counts to agree with each other on the EXTERNAL 12 years while ALSO UNDERSTANDING WHY the two clock counts per se are different EVEN THOUGH NO 'SR' effects are involved.

There is NO "SR' clocks in this scenario (since both clocks trace the same orbital path/distance over the 12 years; that is why I positioned them where I did, such that elevating one up the radial from sea level did NOT move them offline as far as the orbital motion/distance is concerned).

Hence in THIS illustrative scenario there is ONLY 'GR' clocks (as you might call them). They did NOT 'lie' or 'claim' anything. They just counted off at their respective rates in their respective positions. Just as the two 'SR' affected clocks did in YOUR 'SR' motion scenario. Yes?

Now you BOTH KNOW that the two clocks 'tick count' in GR read differently, BUT ALSO KNOW that the orbit numbers are the same number for both of you as "science" observers. Hence the "science" merely brings the theory to the analysis to explain the differences and to 'correlate' their MEANING in view of all the datasets internal clock/biology PROCESSING datasets and external earth-orbit OBSERVATION dataset).



See it now, chinglu? In both cases it is YOU not the clocks doing/saying the rest. Neither the 'GR' nor the 'SR' clocks (as you would call them) makes any connections or claims about what it all 'means'. It is YOU (the "science" observers/representatives) that makes sense of it all in an overall COMBINED 'internal-external' ANALYTICAL CONTEXT which YOU as the "science" observer bring to it all AFTERWARDS.

Good luck, and enjoy your other discussions, chinglu, everyone!

Did you understand the essentials? The Earth rotates only ONCE per yearly orbit, so the sun position is not changing at all; and the upper clock was merely moved up and away from the common starting position at the bottom of the mountain. That's all.

Therein, the sun's position is the same for BOTH clocks even after one moves move up the mountain. That was the point of that exercise, to eliminate the confusing irrelevancies/misconnections which YOU bring to it rather than them being fundamentally inhgerent to the clocks/sun behavior.

To stress the essentials so that you can dispell once and for all your misconnections/misattributions about one clock being 'right' and the other being 'wrong', let's consider the opposite case, where:

BOTH clocks start out at the TOP and one is moved to the BOTTOM of the mountain.


In THAT case, based on your current non-sequitur misunderstanding/misscontribution etc, you would call the MOVED TO LOWER position clock 'wrong' and the stay-put clock remaining in the upper position 'right'. Yes?

That is the OPPOSITE of what you would say if both clocks start out at the lower position and one is moved UP. Yes?

Do you see the self-contradiction in your insistence of attribution of rightness' or 'wrongness' to EITHER clock?

If you ran both variants of my GR-only example, then you would have BOTH clocks 'wrong' because they both read different for different starting/ending variation 'run' of that GR-only scenario.

See, mate? Neither clock is 'wrong' or 'right', just 'different' depending on the changed circumstances affecting one OR THE OTHER clock depending on where they started from an agreed standard location that ONE clock moves away from.

So, the sun stays in the same position in this example; and therefore is NO logical/physical connection between BOTH clocks CHANGED ALTITUDE and the sun in my example; even though there IS a change of circumstances affecting one or other DEPENDING on where they started from. Neither in either case is 'right' or 'wrong', as just demonstrated. They merely differ from each other and which is the one that 'differs from standard starting state' is the one that moved, irrespective if we move one clock UP from the bottom starting position, or move the other clock DOWN from the top starting position WHILE THE SUN position stays always essentially in the SAME position for BOTH at all times (in my GR-only example as described above)!

There is no more ways it can be put, mate. You must see it now, yes?

Good luck with your other discussions, mate!

 

[Lakon]

Correct! So you agree that I finished the race? Your watch doesn't say that I only finished half the race, it says I finished it in half the time?

Yes, my clock claims you finished the race in half the time compared to your clock. But, when we both look at the sun's position in the sky after the race, the sun does not appear in 2 positions to suit both of our clock times. It is only ever in one position. So, one of our clock must be wrong.

Thus, in our case, the traveling clock claimed the moving twin experienced only 10 earth orbits of life. The absolute science said, and the traveling twin agrees, he witnessed 12 earth orbits. So, just like above, the clock was wrong. The clock claimed the twin witnessed only 10 earth orbits, yet by scientific observations, the twin witnessed 12 earth orbits. So, the clock is wrong.

Your second paragraph, the one I've underlined above, is where we were at with the RW discussion.

Yes, the sun does not appear in 2 positions. Yes, one clock measured 10 the other 5.

That's all we can say - all we've agreed with so far, in the discussion with RW.

Your third paragraph jumps ahead too far.

Let's see if RW developes this, though it's most unlikely, given the voluminous noise and ongoing trolling from the sockpuppet.

 

[arfa brane]

The continued "discussion" going on here is probably a complete waste of time (pun intended).

Chinglu is telling you that if your watch is 5 minutes slow, then the sun will be in a different position for you, than where it "really" is according to an accurate watch or clock.
This is totally asinine. Why bother with this crap?

 

[paddoboy]

Let's see if RW developes this, though it's most unlikely, given the voluminous noise and ongoing trolling from the sockpuppet.

And its pretty obvious that chinglu's history with getting posts shifted to pseudoscience and receiving suspensions for unsupported crap, plus your own documented behavour in supporting his claims and protesting his bans etc, who the real two trolls are.
You can keep up with all the lies and inuendos you like Lakon, the evidence as to its validity is there in black and white.


Oh, and I will keep on keeping on.

 

[paddoboy]

The continued "discussion" going on here is probably a complete waste of time (pun intended).

Chinglu is telling you that if your watch is 5 minutes slow, then the sun will be in a different position for you, than where it "really" is according to an accurate watch or clock.
This is totally asinine. Why bother with this crap?

I was started to feel sorry for him [chinglu] but after checking more of his history, it seems he is a master at this game [trolling] and no amount of explaining, giving examples to support SR/GR will make a scrap of difference.
The sorry part about it is that the many including yourself that have dropped out and given up, are then described as losers and taunted as such.


here's an example from another thread..."Apparent 2 Directions "

Are there no takers to this question?

Yes, you would have thought they would have quickly smacked you down.

Doesn't look like it.

Though I can't understand the science / math (not being one) I am nonetheless fascinated by the interactions of posters. Lets see.

They won't come here.

I smell fear.

I smell more of the same as this continues.

 

[Lakon]

The continued "discussion" going on here is probably a complete waste of time (pun intended).

Chinglu is telling you that if your watch is 5 minutes slow, then the sun will be in a different position for you, than where it "really" is according to an accurate watch or clock.
This is totally asinine. Why bother with this crap?

No discussion is a waste of time. Only trolling to shut down discussion is a waste of time. If you are not inclined to 'bother with this crap' that's fine.

Chinglu has made an important step in a 'from the bottom up' conversation with RW which I was following with interest. It is this;

Yes, my clock claims you finished the race in half the time compared to your clock. But, when we both look at the sun's position in the sky after the race, the sun does not appear in 2 positions to suit both of our clock times. It is only ever in one position. So, one of our clock must be wrong.

So far, in that conversation, it is agreed by all (Chinglu, RW and myself) that one clock beat 10, the other 5, and the sun does not appear in different positions.

Despite the incessent and volumonous trolling at the periphery that this seems to generate (pages and pages, according to the advancing page numbers) let's see if RW advances this, though sadly, I think it most unlikely.

 

[arfa brane]

So far, in that conversation, it is agreed by all (Chinglu, RW and myself) that one clock beat 10, the other 5, and the sun does not appear in different positions.

Yeah, but we ALSO have this from the same source:

If you are correct, then each of these clocks you cite must disagree on the position of the sun since they disagree on time.

How does that work?

The only difference being that one of the two clocks has been on a journey, then returned to the earth. For the race scenario, apparently chinglu is prepared to agree that two different times on two different clocks does not mean the sun is in two different positions.

 

[Lakon]

Yeah, but we ALSO have this from the same source:

The only difference being that one of the two clocks has been on a journey, then returned to the earth. For the race scenario, apparently chinglu is prepared to agree that two different times on two different clocks does not mean the sun is in two different positions.

Yes, we have had much from many sources. Which is why approaching it in simple terms, from the bottom up, is a great idea. Which is what I believe RW tried to do, before being drowned in the cacophony of troll noise.

So, where we are at the moment, so far as the discussion in this thread that I'm interested in is concerned, is here ..

A race was run. One clock beat 10 beats, the other 5, and the sun did not appear in different positions.

It's that simple. I think it is now over to RW (notwithstanding a few more pages of trolling from the sockpuppet) to develope this simple 'from the bottom up' discussion.


Edit
2nd last line corrected / changed.

 

[paddoboy]

Despite the incessent and volumonous trolling at the periphery that this seems to generate (pages and pages, according to the advancing page numbers) let's see if RW advances this, though sadly, I think it most unlikely.

I wouldn't mind betting at this stage that if we went through the last, let's say dozen posts from Lakon, everyone of them will be making some insidious untruthful remark about someone whom he thinks is a troll.
It's a sorry state of affairs that all one needs to do is go through the many pages of this thread to see who the real troll is and his "knight in shining armour "supporter. That and the fact that at least 6 or 7 forumites have given chinglu every possible chance...in spite of his record, yet at near 700 posts, he still refuses to see the evidence, and his kindred soul and supporter [Lakon] still hides from this fact and instead focuses his venom on me for daring to keep refuting and pointing out the stupidity from the forum's most persistent troll.


To Lakon, it worries me not matey, what lies you see the need to spread, and it does actually more reflect on your own character [or lack thereof] then mine.
Again the evidence is down on near 700 posts....

 

[paddoboy]

A race was run. One clock beat 10 beats, the other 5, and the sun did not appear in different positions.

It's that simple. I think it is now over to RW (notwithstanding a few more pages of trolling from the sockpuppet) to develope this simple 'from the bottom up' discussion.

Let me help you, because I'm a nice bloke....

His reply will be along the lines of......

You are simply not understanding.

Our time concepts are connected to the earth's motion.

A clock's definition of second is connected to the earth's motion.

So, your statements are irrelevant.

If a clock claims the earth orbits 10 times when it orbited 12 times, then then clock is wrong.

 

[paddoboy]

Let's get waayyy back to the OP......

Assume two observers are at the same place on the earth.

One climbs a very high pole and remains there for a very long time.

Eventually, the observer climbs down.

That high observer is older since time went faster for him/her.

Yes.

The land based observer is younger.

Yes.

So, the high observer says the time on his clock is 12:00 am and the land based observer claims time on his clock is 12:00pm.

Yes.

That means the high observer claims the earth is in a different rotational position from the land based observer, which is a contradiction.

No.

Can anyone resolve this?

Resolved, and a pleasure to do business with you!

 

[chinglu]

Yeah, but we ALSO have this from the same source:

The only difference being that one of the two clocks has been on a journey, then returned to the earth. For the race scenario, apparently chinglu is prepared to agree that two different times on two different clocks does not mean the sun is in two different positions.

This is absolutely correct. Time as we know it relates back to the earth's motion. Since the earth cannot be in two different positions, then any clock that disagrees with the earth's position is wrong, and that would include SR clocks also.

 

[chinglu]

Let's get waayyy back to the OP......




Yes.



Yes.




Yes.





No.




Resolved, and a pleasure to do business with you!

This is the same ole nonsense from you. This is trolling.

 

[chinglu]

The continued "discussion" going on here is probably a complete waste of time (pun intended).

Chinglu is telling you that if your watch is 5 minutes slow, then the sun will be in a different position for you, than where it "really" is according to an accurate watch or clock.
This is totally asinine. Why bother with this crap?

OK arfa, if your clock is 5 minutes slower than another clock and you are both on earth and you claim the clock timing is not related to the earth's motion, which is false, then how do you relate to the fact that the earth's motion is am implementation of time that humans have used since the dawn.

So, how exactly do you claim the earth's motion is not an accurate time keeper?

This is the real issue.

 

[Undefined]

OK arfa, if your clock is 5 minutes slower than another clock and you are both on earth and you claim the clock timing is not related to the earth's motion, which is false, then how do you relate to the fact that the earth's motion is am implementation of time that humans have used since the dawn.

So, how exactly do you claim the earth's motion is not an accurate time keeper?

This is the real issue.

Hi chinglu.


Please see my post #681 above.

Read the GR-only example WITHOUT rotation complications (I removed that by having the Earth spin ONLY once per year orbit).

That simplified both the GR example and the SR examples you have been using.

The sun's position in my example does NOT change, so NO 'connection' or 'wrongness' of either clock can be attributed to the comparison of some NON-present factor such as "sun's position different".

The ONLY 'difference' is then between the clocks themselves. And that difference is due to the different positions THEY were in, even though the sun didn't 'shift position for either of them while their mutual clocking' difference was compared and explained WITHOUT any need for SUN position needing enter into it AT ALL.

See?

PS: Seriously, chinglu, this particular issue is obviously already settled, as above. Save your time and energy for your other discussions/threads. Good luck.

 

[chinglu]

Hi chinglu.


Please see my post #681 above.

Read the GR-only example WITHOUT rotation complications (I removed that by having the Earth spin ONLY once per year orbit).

That simplified both the GR example and the SR examples you have been using.

The sun's position in my example does NOT change, so NO 'connection' or 'wrongness' of either clock can be attributed to the comparison of some NON-present factor such as "sun's position different".

The ONLY 'difference' is then between the clocks themselves. And that difference is due to the different positions THEY were in, even though the sun didn't 'shift position for either of them while their mutual clocking' difference was compared and explained WITHOUT any need for SUN position needing enter into it AT ALL.

See?

Yea?

Let's see if I understand you. The traveling twin notices his clock is not accurately measuring the earth's orbits while he is away. He can say his personal time is time dilated, which is absurd under SR (ie there is no such thing), or he can say his clock is wrong.

That is where you are left. See, if your inertial clock is wrong, then you cannot ever believe in the accuracy of time.

 

[Undefined]

Yea?

Let's see if I understand you. The traveling twin notices his clock is not accurately measuring the earth's orbits while is is away. He can say his personal time is time dilated, which is absurd under SR (ie there is not such thing), or he can say his clock is wrong.

That is where you are left. See, if your inertial clock is wrong, then you cannot ever belief in the accuracy of time.

Read my post #681, and consider carefully my own GR-only simplifying example which removes the sun-earth 'different position' aspect from consideration altogether.

Read it, and see where the clocks are all that's left to consider.

My example simplifies ALL those SR/GR examples you and others have been using which contain extraneous things which are now effectively removed in my GR-only ONE spin of Earth per ONE year orbit. Like the moon always faces the earth. Get it?

Seriously, chinglu, this particular issue is obviously already settled, as above. Save your time and energy for your other discussions/threads. Good luck.

 

[chinglu]

Read my post #681, and consider carefully my own GR-only simplifying example which removes the sun-earth 'different position' aspect from consideration altogether.

Read it, and see where the clocks are all that's left to consider.

My example simplifies ALL those SR/GR examples you and others have been using which contain extraneous things which are removed in my GR-only ONE spin of Earth per ONE year orbit. Like the moon always faces the earth. Get it?

Seriously, chinglu, this particular issue is obviously already settled, as above. Save your time and energy for your other discussions/threads. Good luck.

Thanks for your kindness.

Show me under SR where the inertial clock cannot accurately reflect the earth's motion and so that observer lives 2 different times. You continue to refuse to prove this.

 

[Lakon]

This is the same ole nonsense from you. This is trolling.

Chinglu, there is a facility in your account settings where you can put sockpuppet trolls on ignore. I found it very useful.

Anyhow, the part of the conversation that I was interested in, was one that a serious and non-conflicted scientist HAD INTENTION to have with you, and has thus far resulted in the following summary;

A race was run. One clock beat 10 beats, the other 5, and the sun did not appear in different positions.

Do you agree with this ? I think you do, though you said one clock was wrong the other right. The only qualification I would make is that no clock was right / wrong, just different rates of measurement, right ? Like as if I had two differently spinning bicycle wheels - one spun 600 revs, the other, spinning at half the rate, spun 300 revs during the race. Right ?

Alas, the serious and non-conflicted scientist who displayed the INTENTION to have this conversation with you, seems to now be trolled out of this thread. But let's see how it goes.

Again, think about putting the troll on ignore. It works really well.



Edited to add 'during the race' above

 

[paddoboy]

This is the same ole nonsense from you. This is trolling.

Trolling??? How???... By disputing your nonsense??
All of your questions are answered as per observations and experimental results.
If you cannot live with the truth, why come to a science forum.
Remember, even though you are in pseudoscience, everyone has the right to refute and dispute anything that is just not valid.
And guess what??
What you propose is not valid, either mathematically observationally or experimentally.

In reality all you have done is by your own admission, painted yourself as the true troll by continually posting nonsense which we all agree is certainly nonsense.