You are a clown. Prove your case. Use math. Thanks.
Gravity slows down time.
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
You are a clown. Prove your case. Use math. Thanks.
12 Orbits Around Sun--365 revolutions of Earth
I awoke thinking of Earth-pole-top of pole, and midway on the pole, there is another pole attaced at 90 degrees to it, and that pole goes to celestial object size of the sun, so,
the Earth-pole-top of pole spins around and around like a propellor prop of plane, as it orbits--- on pole ---attached to object size of sun.
So we have relativity referenece frame between Earth and top of it attached pole, and frame of reference of that dual set and large object.
To me, person and top and bottom of Earth pole see same number of orbits around large object.
But what happens on the Earth pole is happening a 2nd time--- 2nd frame of reference ---with pole extended from large object the size of sun.s
To me it would seem we have a tspirally tight spherical/spheroidal set of relationships connected part of a another larger spirally tight, spherical/spheroidal set, given we envision long enough periods of time and map those trajectories.
r6
I awoke thinking of Earth-pole-top of pole, and midway on the pole, there is another pole attaced at 90 degrees to it, and that pole goes to celestial object size of the sun, so,
the Earth-pole-top of pole spins around and around like a propellor prop of plane, as it orbits--- on pole ---attached to object size of sun.
So we have relativity referenece frame between Earth and top of it attached pole, and frame of reference of that dual set and large object.
To me, person and top and bottom of Earth pole see same number of orbits around large object.
But what happens on the Earth pole is happening a 2nd time--- 2nd frame of reference ---with pole extended from large object the size of sun.s
To me it would seem we have a tspirally tight spherical/spheroidal set of relationships connected part of a another larger spirally tight, spherical/spheroidal set, given we envision long enough periods of time and map those trajectories.
r6
Au contraire mon ami.
It is because the speed of light is constant that time must slow down, otherwise, a stationary observer would measure a travelling observers beam to move faster than his own. The thing with this, is there is also the relativity of simultaneity to consider.
If the trip is a ten year voyage, and the twins exchange seasons greetings every year, this is what happens:
Or, to put it another way, using a more formalized diagram using a 20 year/6 lightyear voyage:
I know what you are saying, but you miss the point of removing/making constant any astronomical variables. That shows the irrelevance of that dataset to the actual inherent time/timing processes directly involved in the twins/clocks state. It also again confirms that you conflate the philosophical 'connection' to external variables with the actual dataset of the twins/clocks....which is made clear when you remove any such things to make such 'connections' with.
Once you see that, then you see that all valid datasets arise with the twins bilogy/clocks. Anything else is a VARIABLE which can be DIFFERENT given different astronomical systems/referents.
In short, the clocks don't 'say' anything about astronomical dataset, they just tick off at their own rate wherever they happen to be whether in staring state or different state. The differences between states would apply IN REVERSE if one started the experiment from as it were 'the other way round'....ie, start with twins/clocks moving towards Earth and one accelerating to Earth and then the other also accelerating to join him, eventually both ending up on Earth, only the record of ticks would show 'pattern of accelerated/slowing RATES at various stages.
See? It doesn't matter where you start from, the processes are different from the philosophical understandings which YOU bring to the exercise as a whole.
Good luck in your other discussions when you get back, chinglu.
Looks like we're back off again and I'm a few days late. Still, I'll post my summary:
The point here is that while units are defined according to physical things we can witness and use to make a clock (the earth's rotation/revolution, vibrations of a cesium atom, pendulum swings, etc.), those units are chosen for a combination of convenience, applicability and accuracy, time itself is not defined by choice of units. That's why, as you well know, the definitions of "clock" and "time" make no reference to the earth/sun's motion. The earth/sun's motion is one convenient "clock", but it isn't the only one, much less the only useful/relevant one. Indeed, as has been pointed out a number of times, when precision is required, the earth/sun's motion actually makes for a relatively poor quality clock.
The point here is:
1. Time is "a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future."
2. A clock is "a device...for indicating or measuring time".
3. Neither of those definitions say anything about the motion of the earth/sun. Choice of units to use is completely arbitrary.
4. The reason you are harping on the idea of the earth/sun's motion as being central to the definitions of "clock" and "time" is because you are trying to set the issue up as self-reinforcing; You are trying to assume your conclusion to be true instead of proving it.
The reason you have to do this is that your assumption is what creates that contradiction. So rather than admit a flaw in your reasoning, you are instead lying and saying that the contradiction is ours. Simply put:
We accept that the traveling twin - if he's watching the earth through a telescope or using an appropriate calculator - agrees with the stay-at-home twin about how many times the earth orbited the sun during the journey.
But since the definitions of "clock" and "time" say nothing about requiring a link to the earth/sun's motion, they not require clocks to follow or agree with a time rate based on the earth/sun's motion.
So it does not present a contradiction for an earth-bound twin to say 12 years have elapsed while a traveling twin says 10 years have elapsed. Both are talking about time, but only the earth twin is talking about the earth/sun's motion. The traveling twin is talking about the clock/calendar he carried with him: he isn't using the earth/sun's motion as a clock.
But what if he did? If the traveling twin used the earth/sun's motion as a clock instead of the atomic clock he carried with him - or re-calibrated it to stay roughly in sync, similar to what GPS satellites do - then we've gotten rid of your contradiction, right? So why not always do that? The reason is that if we try to maintain an absolute time, the laws of physics and the technology based on them stop working. His computer crashes because it puts out 20% more heat than it did when he was in Earth orbit, for example.
So that sums-up pretty much the entire line of discussion. Figured every now and then it is good to run through the entire thing. We have multiple points of failure though, and as far as I've seen, none of them have been resolved - not even the most basic ones involving the definitions of "time" and "clock".
You weren't asked for a definition of a "second", you were asked for definitions of "clock" and "time".Chinglu said:
The point here is that while units are defined according to physical things we can witness and use to make a clock (the earth's rotation/revolution, vibrations of a cesium atom, pendulum swings, etc.), those units are chosen for a combination of convenience, applicability and accuracy, time itself is not defined by choice of units. That's why, as you well know, the definitions of "clock" and "time" make no reference to the earth/sun's motion. The earth/sun's motion is one convenient "clock", but it isn't the only one, much less the only useful/relevant one. Indeed, as has been pointed out a number of times, when precision is required, the earth/sun's motion actually makes for a relatively poor quality clock.
The point here is:
1. Time is "a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future."
2. A clock is "a device...for indicating or measuring time".
3. Neither of those definitions say anything about the motion of the earth/sun. Choice of units to use is completely arbitrary.
4. The reason you are harping on the idea of the earth/sun's motion as being central to the definitions of "clock" and "time" is because you are trying to set the issue up as self-reinforcing; You are trying to assume your conclusion to be true instead of proving it.
Correct, but that isn't what you said in the quote in the previous post. The previous post (the bolded part) contained a contradiction that you claim we believe. You've repeated this over and over and it is a lie every time you say it.
The reason you have to do this is that your assumption is what creates that contradiction. So rather than admit a flaw in your reasoning, you are instead lying and saying that the contradiction is ours. Simply put:
We accept that the traveling twin - if he's watching the earth through a telescope or using an appropriate calculator - agrees with the stay-at-home twin about how many times the earth orbited the sun during the journey.
But since the definitions of "clock" and "time" say nothing about requiring a link to the earth/sun's motion, they not require clocks to follow or agree with a time rate based on the earth/sun's motion.
So it does not present a contradiction for an earth-bound twin to say 12 years have elapsed while a traveling twin says 10 years have elapsed. Both are talking about time, but only the earth twin is talking about the earth/sun's motion. The traveling twin is talking about the clock/calendar he carried with him: he isn't using the earth/sun's motion as a clock.
But what if he did? If the traveling twin used the earth/sun's motion as a clock instead of the atomic clock he carried with him - or re-calibrated it to stay roughly in sync, similar to what GPS satellites do - then we've gotten rid of your contradiction, right? So why not always do that? The reason is that if we try to maintain an absolute time, the laws of physics and the technology based on them stop working. His computer crashes because it puts out 20% more heat than it did when he was in Earth orbit, for example.
So that sums-up pretty much the entire line of discussion. Figured every now and then it is good to run through the entire thing. We have multiple points of failure though, and as far as I've seen, none of them have been resolved - not even the most basic ones involving the definitions of "time" and "clock".
Just to put an exclamation point on my previous post:
2. Correct.
3. Correct.
4. False, based on your incorrect definition of "time".
5. False based on a) your made-up/nonexistent "SR/GR clock" and b) your lie. The lie is in that no one claims the traveling twin witnessed 10 earth orbits. This has been stated repeatedly.
6. False due to the problems with 4 and 5 - and this is itself also a lie. SR and GR agree nearly perfectly with astronomical observations.
1. Correct.
2. Correct.
3. Correct.
4. False, based on your incorrect definition of "time".
5. False based on a) your made-up/nonexistent "SR/GR clock" and b) your lie. The lie is in that no one claims the traveling twin witnessed 10 earth orbits. This has been stated repeatedly.
6. False due to the problems with 4 and 5 - and this is itself also a lie. SR and GR agree nearly perfectly with astronomical observations.
It's been shown to chinglu that the movements of the Earth/Moon are not regular and change over time. The Moon was once a lot closer to Earth, and the Earth also rotated faster. It will also be a lot further away in the future and Earth's rotational velocity will be much slower...........
It's been easily shown that clocks are not in some mysterious way, hardwired to the Earth/Moon's motions.......They are just a man made construct that we synchronise with astronomical bodies and their movements
There has been at least 4 or 5 illustrative explanatory videos, that show exactly what happens...Chinglu refused to watch any of them......
Many other analogies from others have also been given to no avail.
The problem is not some technical deep mathematical construct of SR/GR.
It is a simple primary school aspect that chinglu will not let go of, and that in his opinion, sees the ticking of a clock, religiously tied to the movement of the Earth.
It's been easily shown that clocks are not in some mysterious way, hardwired to the Earth/Moon's motions.......They are just a man made construct that we synchronise with astronomical bodies and their movements
There has been at least 4 or 5 illustrative explanatory videos, that show exactly what happens...Chinglu refused to watch any of them......
Many other analogies from others have also been given to no avail.
The problem is not some technical deep mathematical construct of SR/GR.
It is a simple primary school aspect that chinglu will not let go of, and that in his opinion, sees the ticking of a clock, religiously tied to the movement of the Earth.