Gravity slows down time.

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by chinglu, Aug 18, 2013.

  1. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    see chapter 4

    http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf

    I am a little confused how you are struggling with this so much. It is so public.

    Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run faster, and clocks close to massive bodies (or at lower gravitational potentials) run slower.

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


    Anyway, when the high observer climbs down very slowly, his clock will have run faster than ground based clocks.

    So, the high observer thinks the earth is in a different rotational position.

    What clown believes this crackpottery?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    You did not answer the issue.

    Do they agree on the earth's rotational position yes or no.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    The proof of consistency needs to show there is always a light sphere at the origin of the unprimed frame and there is always a light sphere at the origin of the primed frame. That is the light postulate for both frames. Did the prove show this?

    Next, you have not indicated how times can be different on SR/GR clocks and yet they agree on the earth's rotational position.

    Can you please indicate how your beliefs are consistent?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    The clocks are at the same place.

    Did you not read the OP?
     
  8. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    How can this user want to understand that 2 clocks at the same place after experiencing different gravity potentials have different times on their clocks yet agree on the earth's rotational position?

    We measure time in terms of the earth's rotational and orbital positions.

    Please explain your logic.
     
  9. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    457
    Huh? How you figure that? We measure time in seconds. Just because the earth's rotation and motion are constant it all pans out, days and years relate to positions. If the earth speeds up tomorrow then what? the only thing that would stay constant would be the time aspect and not the calendar. Time is all related to a second not cycled positions.
     
  10. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    The second is derived from the earth's rotation. However, it is not perfect.

    Anyway, using your model of thinking, assume the high observer climbed down after many years and the high observer's clock was 12 hours different from the low observer's clock.

    Now, when the two observers are back together, their clock differ by 12 hours. So, the low observer's clock matches the sun's position in the sky, say 12:00 pm.

    Yet, the high observer claims it is 12:00am and that the sun is not out.

    That is a contradiction.
     
  11. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    This thread demonstrates the relativity apologists AN and RPenner are unable to explain how two clocks rejoined with SR/GR time dilation can be consistent with the time of the earth's rotation.

    This proves SR/GR is a crackpot theory.
     
  12. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    457
    If the Earths speed changes we need to recalculate the second and every constant related to time would need to change? Cumbersome to do it that way. But, when you think about it how else you can work out the increment of a second? Its a difficult topic and what really doesnt make sense to me is the when people say time is motion you get a lot of resistance from others, when it is clear then that our time system is based on just that, motion or change of position. It is the only way to work our calendar, but the increment of a second should be more of a universal constant thats not worked out from our location in space or motion.

    Thats exactly why I said you cant work out the increment of time (seconds) from positions and speeds, because you're making the second relate to the Earths speed and cycled positions. Going by what you're saying we worked out the second at sea level speed? If the one clock is located higher than sea level you need to recalibrate the second to its altitude and speed, because at higher altitudes it has travelled a further distance (accelerated) than the clock at sea level and its average orbital distance/speed around the sun has also changed. So its increment of a second has changed because its speed has changed. Even the clock at higher altitude would reach the annual orbital point before/after the sea level altitude point regardless of where the sun is in the sky. The next thing you should think is what happens if the higher altitude clock is directly between the sun and lower altitude clock, they cross the orbital annual point at the same time? Then the argument changes to, the higher altitude clock is at a current lower orbital point around the sun than the sea level clock.

    Have we recovered any of your missing hours yet? I don’t know! I do know that Im damn confused now!
     
  13. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    The whole point of our clocks it to match the earth's motion as close as possible.

    But, you are still not seeing the problem.

    If SR/GR are correct, then when clocks traveling through different space-time/acceleration/gravity when brought back together most likely will not agree on the time on their clocks.

    Therefore, they must disagree on the earth's position.

    This means frequency clocks simply do not keep time right give different circumstances and does not represent an actual change in time.

    For example, a sundial does not keep perfect time for its reasons.
     
  14. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    457
    Umm, are you trying to say. If physical Time Dilation actually existed then the clock coming down the pole must be syncronised with the lower clock. We shouldn't have to compensate on the GPS system it should naturally be self syncronised by physical TD, no compensation required. The clock going up the pole is now affected by TD and this clock should automatically be syncronised by physical and natural TD. Just by the mere fact we have to compensate on the GPS system already proves theres a problem with TD? because, the GPS is not experiencing TD or it would naturally be syncronised?
     
  15. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    No, I am not saying the high observer would agree with the low observer given frequency clocks.

    I am saying frequency clocks have defects in measuring time just as sundials do.

    We have to make "GPS" corrections to sundial clocks given the season or latitude.

    Likewise, frequency clocks also have defects based on conditions.

    For example, frequency is known to change based on gravity. It is just a fact.

    So, a frequency measuring device such as a frequency clock, would certainly contain this defect.

    So, given there is one time standard, ie the earth's orbit and rotation, then any clock that disagrees with this standard must not measure time correctly and therefore contains some time measuring defect just like a sundial.

    So, just because a sundial at the equator and one in the north in summer tell time differently, that does not imply they have a different time reality. It is just a defect in the time measuring technology.

    The same logic holds true for a frequency clock.
     
  16. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Let's put this thread into the perspective of the twins experiment.

    Twin A remains on the earth.

    Twin B takes off in a spaceship and travels real fast for 30 years, and turns around and comes back to earth.

    Twin A has a time that is consistent with the earth's rotation and orbit around the sun.

    Twin B comes back and claims his time is less than that of Twin A's.

    Now, either Twin B is correct and he has experienced less time than Twin A or Twin B's clock is wrong.

    However, if Twin B experienced less time than Twin A, then for Twin B, the earth must be in a different orbital position than for Twin A.

    So, with Twin A and Twin B standing at the same spot, they must disagree on the earth's position in its orbit around the sun, which is a contradiction since there is only one earth and sun.

    Therefore, it must be the case that Twin B measured time incorrectly.

    And, this is the simplest refutation of SR.
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    That simply gives an extremely brief overview of how GR formalises the notion of time.

    I asked you to do the calculations which describe the system being discussed. You claim a contradiction exists but you have not shown it, only asserted it. I'll repeat my request, seeing as you continue not to address it; please formulate and solve the respective geodesic equations for the two points of view being discussed and show that they lead to contradictory results. I explicitly asked you to compute geodesics, ie the paths of the observers in question. Once you have computed them then the general expression for worldline time given in your link is applicable. Until then you have not addressed what I asked.

    I never said otherwise. Clearly you're sufficiently stupid not to understand what GR or I actually say. Yes, GR says that clocks further from a gravitational source will tick faster than clocks closer. No one argues with that, it is one of the foundational principles upon which the GPS network is built.

    You assert this necessarily leads to a contradiction but you have not shown it. Using the equations you have linked to please demonstrate that two different observers moving along the world lines discussed will necessarily lead to contradictions. You have not done that.

    Prove it

    I ask you to do the calculations, the specific calculations pertaining to the scenario you describe, because each and every time in the past we have discussed relativity and you've asserted things you have always later been shown to be wrong. You assert and assert and assert and never demonstrate the validity of your claim. Each time when one of us finally gets tired of your BS and does the calculations for you it turns out you're wrong. ALWAYS.

    You did not answer me so it's laughable you throw that complaint at someone else. You claim there is a contradiction, that they will necessarily disagree on the position of the Earth. Prove it. Do the geodesic calculations. So far you have only linked to a document someone else wrote which only gives the governing equations in generality, I have asked you to solve those equations for the system in question.

    Why are you not doing so? Why are you avoiding this? You claim the contradiction is there, show it. Are you too stupid to understand what I'm asking you? Or are you unwilling to address what I ask you because you know you cannot do the calculations in question. Given you cannot even do special relativity I'm certain you cannot do these GR calculations so all you're trying to do is avoid addressing what I've asked.

    We measure time by atomic oscillation phenomena, not by the position of planets. We used to do it by the position of the planet but that has long been superseded by more rigorous methods. Besides, it is irrelevant how we measure the time, the equations of GR are all that matter. You even linked to something where the definition of what GR calls time is given. Looks like you don't even understand the concepts involved, never mind the fact you cannot do the equations.

    This shows how dishonest you are. How does my level of knowledge have anything to do with the consistency of GR? Besides, if me not providing calculations is proof of your position why is it that you not providing proof of your claims doesn't count as proof you're wrong? And besides, I've shown in numerous threads you've started that I can do relativistic calculations, each time proving that you cannot because you are shown to be wrong.

    You claim there is an inconsistency, you have yet to prove it from the equations. Instead you make a bunch of assertions, disappear for a few days and make more assertions, each time ignoring the requests made of you to justify your claim.

    What's the matter chinglu, can't you do the calculations yourself? You have shown you cannot do even basic special relativity problems, as well as not understanding even basic concepts within mathematics. I think you're a fraud. I think you cannot do any GR calculations pertaining to this problem, which is why you avoid any and all requests of you. I think you don't understand the workings of relativity and hence why you keep making threads like this one. I think you're knowingly dishonest from the way you demand people provide details and then ignore them when they are provided. I don't think you can solve the sets of equations GR uses to describe the scenario in question and I think you'll continue to make any and all excuses you can to avoid having to admit it.

    GR's description of how space, time, gravity and motion relate has been tested to high accuracy by experiments, including the GPS network. You claim an inconsistency exists, prove it by doing the mathematical calculations. You have been unable to justify your claims and I therefore conclude you're too stupid and dishonest to do so. I'm certain you won't prove me wrong.
     
  18. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Well done, you've just shown you cannot do a 1st year undergraduate homework problem. You also show you do not understand the GR notion of time, which you yourself linked to. You show how you have never done any actual modelling using relativity since no one who could do such things would make such a laughable mistake.

    You should feel embarrassed for the level of stupidity and dishonesty you show.
     
  19. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I am not going to reply to your previous post since all can be done with this one.

    I am surprised you responded. It will not be good for you.

    Here is the simple question. Do the 2 twins disagree on the earth's orbital and rotational positions when they reunite yes or no?
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,535
    Twin B's clock is right for Twin B, but won't be the same as Twin A because of the time dilation experienced by Twin A and his clock. And, according to Twin A's on board guidance system, the Earth's rotation and position is not consistent with his clock, but is consistent, as you say, with Twin B and his clock. Twin A would find the Earth out of position according to his clock.
     
  21. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    You have the A and B reversed but your point is true.

    Twin B would find the Earth out of position according to his clock.

    So, is the earth wrong or is the clock wrong? Since the earth's position is what it is, then the clock is wrong.

    That is the issue.

    That proves the SR reasoning is false since it claims time dilation is absolute fact for the traveling twin.
     
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,535
    The clock isn't wrong, it's merely experienced the effects of time dilation so it isn't going to be the same as the other clock. Simple, really.
     
  23. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    So if the traveling clock is correct, it should expect to see the earth in a different position from the stay at home twin.

    Yet it does not.

    So, you and other SR addicts need to explain how the traveling clock is correct and yet the earth is in exactly the same position for both clocks when they are re-united.

    That implies the traveling twin experienced less time and did not experience less time, which is a logical contradiction.
     

Share This Page