Gravity slows down time.

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

  1. Uncle Pythagoras Banned Banned

    Messages:
    156
    I watched the videos, but there are better answers to those videos than time slows down. So I don't think that they help at all. Time doesn't exist. You only need to have a fixed step distance for the photons to travel always at the same speed. If photons travel via holes 1cm apart for example they will always travel at the same speed without the need for time. So the videos don't help.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    The evidence supports some other theory.

    Below is the problem with GR and SR that cannot be refuted.

    Here is the point of this thread.

    1) The mainstream claims all astronomical observations are valid. This is defended by trips to the moon, mars and voyager 1 and 2.

    2) The earth twin witnesses 12 earth years/orbits.

    3) The traveling twins must also witness 12 earth years/orbits or all mainstream astronomical observations are false.

    4) Therefore, both twins lived 12 years.

    5) Yet, the SR/GR clock claims the traveling twin only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

    6) Therefore SR and GR are false because they contradict proven mainstream astronomical observations.

    None of those supporting SR/GR have refuted this simple reasoning.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703


    The proof of my previous posts is amply illustrated above....[1] He defies and ignores all the whole scientific world and all observational and experimental evidence validating SR/GR since 1905....[2] He ignores the evidence put to him...[3] He refuses to watch any illustrative video which proove he is wrong...[4] He childishly and stupidly misinterprets what is happening in different FoR's [5] He refuses to even recognise FoR's and/or the other facts put to him[6]He continues to reinforce the facts, that he is a troll, a liar and a fanatic anti Einstein pusher, and [7] He is in pseudoscience for the obvious reasons.

    That's about it kids...Make your choice!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703


    Yet the whole world refutes it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    PML!!!
     
  8. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    That is false.

    Anyway, here is the point of this thread.

    1) The mainstream claims all astronomical observations are valid. This is defended by trips to the moon, mars and voyager 1 and 2.

    2) The earth twin witnesses 12 earth years/orbits.

    3) The traveling twins must also witness 12 earth years/orbits or all mainstream astronomical observations are false.

    4) Therefore, both twins lived 12 years.

    5) Yet, the SR/GR clock claims the traveling twin only witnessed 10 earth orbits.

    6) Therefore SR and GR are false because they contradict proven mainstream astronomical observations.

    None of those supporting SR/GR have refuted this simple reasoning.

    Now, if you can directly refute the above do it. Otherwise, move along.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Huh???
    Time doesn't exist for photons in its own FoR, but it does for the rest of us......Light also does not travel in increments.



    From a photon’s point of view, it is emitted and then instantaneously reabsorbed. This is true for a photon emitted in the core of the Sun, which might be reabsorbed after crossing a fraction of a millimetre’s distance. And it is equally true for a photon that, from our point of view, has travelled for over 13 billion years after being emitted from the surface of one of the universe’s first stars.
    So it seems that not only does a photon not experience the passage of time, it does not experience the passage of distance either. But since you can’t move a massless consciousness at the speed of light in a vacuum, the real point of this thought experiment is to indicate that time and distance are just two apparently different aspects of the same thing.


    If we attempt to achieve the speed of light, our clocks will slow relative to our point of origin and we will arrive at our destination quicker that we anticipate that we should – as though both the travel time and the distance have contracted.
    Similarly, as we approach the surface of a massive object, our clocks will slow relative to a point of higher altitude – and we will arrive at the surface quicker than we might anticipate, as though time and distance contract progressively as we approach the surface.
    Again, time and distance are just two aspects of the same thing, space-time, but we struggle to visualise this. We have evolved to see the world in snapshot moments, perhaps because a failure to scan the environment with every step we take might leave us open to attack by a predator.
    Science advocates and skeptics say that we should accept the reality of evolution in the same way that we accept the reality of gravity – but actually this is a terrible analogy. Gravity is not real, it’s just our dumbed-down interpretation of space-time curvature.



    Astronauts moving at a constant velocity through empty space feel weightless. Put a planet in their line of trajectory and they will continue to feel weightless right up until the moment they collide with its surface.
    A person on the surface will watch them steadily accelerate from high altitude until that moment of collision. But such doomed astronauts will not themselves experience any such change to their velocity. After all, if they were accelerating, surely they would be pushed back into their seat as a consequence.
    Nonetheless, the observer on the planet’s surface is not suffering from an optical illusion when they perceive a falling spacecraft accelerate. It’s just that they fail to acknowledge their particular context of having evolved on the surface of a massive object, where space-time is all scrunched up.
    So they see the spacecraft move from an altitude where distance and time (i.e. space-time) is relatively smooth – down to the surface, where space-time (from the point of view of a high altitude observer) is relatively scrunched up. A surface dweller hence perceives that a falling object is experiencing acceleration and wrongly assumes that there must be a force involved.
    As for evolution – there are fossils, vestigial organs and mitochondrial DNA. Get real.
    Footnote: If you were falling into a black hole you would still not experience acceleration. However, your physical structure would be required to conform to the extremely scrunched up space-time that you move through – and spaghettification would result.


    Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/87983/...escope-a-photons-point-of-view/#ixzz2mkKJqsR7
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I dont need to move along. I support that which is accepted by the mainstream and has been observationally and experimentally proved.

    You are the liar, as others have noted, you are the troll, as others have noted, you are the one defying all logic and putting childish crazy interpretations on SR/GR, you are the one that has been banned from many forums and moderated here.

    If you were a man, instead of the liar/troll that you are you would admit your silly error and cease your babbling.
    And if you do keep on as you are, I suggest you are in line for more moderation.
     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Why bother responding? Chinglu will never understand and will never stop yanking chains, that's what he does, that's all he does.

    Let his nonsensical threads die and he'll have no chains to yank.
     
  12. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    ...............
     
  13. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I can tell you are smart.

    That implies you can refute the clear concise argument.

    I will await your refutation.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    What an Idiotic thing to say.....



    The only problem in this thread, is you failing to accept the facts of evidence as it stands, and manufacturing ridiculous interpretations that do not make any sense at all.
    Here is the point of this thread.



    The mainstream also claims that FoR's exist and each FoR has its own independant passage of tiem, governed by the gravitational well it is in.




    In his FoR.



    No: The travelling may witness [in the other FoR] that 12 Earth orbits have passed in 12 days according to the stationary twins clock...
    But that 12 days in that stationary twins FoR, has no bearing in how much time has passed in his own FoR


    No, as you said in point [1] all FoR's are valid. Therefor the travelling twins FoR is valid, and since his clocks, both mechanical and biological have been dilated , he will have aged differently.


    Clocks have no interest in how the Earth has moved...They are not hard wired to the Earth and each clock is governed by the gravity well it is in.


    None of those supporting SR/GR have refuted this simple reasoning.[/QUOTE]

    The world supports mainstream observations because those observations all align with SR/GR
    The simple reasoning you refer to is an obvious misinterpretation of the facts.
     
  15. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Again, I offered a simple 6 step proof. All you have to do is refute it like no one here can do.

    I will await your proof since you are so right,.
     
  16. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Can you refute the simple steps I posed yes or no.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703


    The onus is on you to refute mainstream SR/GR applications, and show evidence to the contrary.
    All you have done is repeat the same rubbish page after page. That's what you have been banned from many sites for, and why you have been moderated here.
     
  18. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    The world supports mainstream observations because those observations all align with SR/GR
    The simple reasoning you refer to is an obvious misinterpretation of the facts.[/QUOTE]

    Your conclusions above have refuted astronomical observations. The traveling twin witnessed the same number of earth orbits as did the earth twin.

    So, for you to grasp the failed SR/GR conclusion of FoR, you have therefore refuted the mainstream's astronomical observation methodology.

    So, you are refuting the mainstream.

    See why you are wrong?
     
  19. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Sure, I did prove my case.

    It was a simple 6 step process. You are unable to refute it.

    Why not just face facts?
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Your points have all been refuted many times.
    gO BACK TO PAGES 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, etc etc etc etc


    Now you answer my points...

    [1] Why are you in pseudoscience?
    [2] Why have you been banned from many sites and moderated on this one?
    [3] Why do you refute what all mainstream science accepts and is obvious.....
    [4] How can clocks be hardwired to the earth's rotation as you want to infer?
    [5] How do you answer all the practicable applications that exist and depend on SR/GR
     
  22. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I am a little confused.

    This is a science discussion.

    Do you have anything further to offer to the simple 6 step disproof of SR.GR?
     
  23. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I am not seeing the simple 6 step refutation I presented which is consistent with the OP.

    Can you refute the simple 6 steps yes or no.

    Note, you tried and I taught you that you were refuting mainstream astronomical science with your assertions.
     

Share This Page