# Gravity slows down time.

Nobody except you has claimed that.

The travelling twin lived for 10 years and observed (somehow) the earth make 12 orbits. The explanation, which you are too stupid to understand, is that the earh orbited faster for the traveller. In your determined stance against Einstein's theories, you invoke the completely absurd idea that clocks cannot measure time independently of each other. You cling to this idea even though you accept that two different clocks can give different times for a race (although you tried, unsuccessfully, to stipulate that this depends on the earth's motion), because one of the clocks is slow.

You must be a real idiot. But who cares?

OK, so you agree the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits just like the stay at home twin. So they both lived the same number of earth orbits.

Yet his SR clock lived 10 earth orbits and lived 12 earth orbits by observation. How do you reconcile without a contradiction?

Any scientist would go with the observation. I see that you do not do this.

Ok, please say again for clarity since before you said that your clock said I only finished half the race. Please acknowledge you were wrong before. Please say that you recognize that the clock doesn't know if I finished the race or not: you know and you are the one looking at the clock, which does nothing but show time. Right?

Say: The clock does not know if I finished the race or not.
and:
Clocks don't tell us *if* events (except their own) happened, they only tell us *when* they happened.

I know one clock is wrong; I made it wrong on purpose! So there is no need for you to try to prove it; that isn't the issue we are discussing. We are discussing the fact that I finished the race and neither of our clocks contradicts the fact that I finished the race.

Clocks do not tell us when events happened, the earth's position does.

You and I with different clocks will not disagree on the earth's position clock. See, you have to prove the earth's position has some kind of error in order to refute it as a valid clock.

You cannot do so.

So, if my clock claims you finished the race in 5 whatever and your clock claimed 10, I would take the start position of the earth and the end position of the earth. That clock we cannot disagree.

So, if my clock disagreed with the earth's position, I would naturally call it wrong.

Deleted - response now seen, above.

And though I and others could jump in here, I for one will resist the urge and wait RW's response.

OK, so you agree the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits just like the stay at home twin. So they both lived the same number of earth orbits.

Yet his SR clock lived 10 earth orbits and lived 12 earth orbits by observation. How do you reconcile without a contradiction?

Any scientist would go with the observation. I see that you do not do this.

What did I tell you!! PML!!!

Clocks do not tell us when events happened, the earth's position does.

You and I with different clocks will not disagree on the earth's position clock. See, you have to prove the earth's position has some kind of error in order to refute it as a valid clock.

You cannot do so.

So, if my clock claims you finished the race in 5 whatever and your clock claimed 10, I would take the start position of the earth and the end position of the earth. That clock we cannot disagree..

You have failed as usual to show how the Earth's/Sun's movements are hardwired to any clock.

So, if my clock disagreed with the earth's position, I would naturally call it wrong.

OMFG what a balls up!!!

The only connection between the clock and the Earth's position is that it was synchronised by man to that phase of astronomical events.

Again, for the dummies.....
The travelling clock and the travelling twin are in a deeper gravitational well which has the effect of time dilating in that same FoR, both mechanically and biologically ........
Although he may view the Earth moving through 24 hrs in another FoR, that same 24 hrs is interpreted and dilated to 12 hrs in his FoR.
So he ages 12 hrs, and his clock shows 12 hrs passing, while the Earth has gone through 24 hrs and the stay at home twin aged 24 hrs.
No one except a moron would say that means the Sun is in two positions....No one except a moron would say that the travelling clock is faulty and has been faulty in every experiment since 1905.
No one except a moron would dispute such undeniable facts...No one except a moron would refuse to watch an explanatory video explaining this concept.

OK, so you agree the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits just like the stay at home twin. So they both lived the same number of earth orbits.

Yet his SR clock lived 10 earth orbits and lived 12 earth orbits by observation. How do you reconcile without a contradiction?

Any scientist would go with the observation. I see that you do not do this.

But scientists and the establishment accept SR/GR and the counter-intuitive aspects that go with it.
You are obviously in deep shit trying to uphold any semblance of decency and logic with your crazy interpretations...You are now trying to get out from under.
You have been proven wrong and you have been shown to be an embarrasment.

You are a troll, and already have been totally banned from another forum, and moderated with a suspension on this one, and your theories shifted to pseudoscience .
Others have given up on you, and so have I....But I will just the same, keep refuting your hypothesis, and showing them for the rubbish they are and as noted by others.

chinglu said:
OK, so you agree the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits just like the stay at home twin.
Assuming the travelling twin can, in fact, see the earth orbiting the sun.
So they both lived the same number of earth orbits.
I suppose that would be true if you redefine "lived" to be the same as "observed".

But in the English language, "lived" means "aged". So the travelling twin does not "live" the same number of years, or seconds, or any other standard unit of time, because they are not comoving with the earth. That, I'm afraid, is relativity.

It's a much better theory than your one about the earth orbiting the sun being an absolute frame of reference. That's what the Roman Catholic Church believed a few centuries ago ; are you shilling for a deceased Pope?

Clocks do not tell us when events happened
You are nuts. You need psychiatric help.

It seems we have regressed:
Clocks do not tell us when events happened....
What do clocks do then? Remember, you have previously agreed on what a "clock" is/does. Previously, you said:
A clock only measures intervals of time...
and:
1) Clocks are scientific instruments, designed to measure the passage of time, and can do it very accurately.
That would be intervals of time between events, of course. So how can you reconcile these statements of yours? Please define the word "clock".

And though I and others could jump in here, I for one will resist the urge and wait RW's response.

RW's response will be along the lines of my post and arfa brane, and all the others that have decided to give up on this nut/troll/moron, and that has been explained to him again and again, and again, and again in more then 37 pages of answers....
Guess what??? Like the nut/troll/moron he is, he'll come back with the same old comeback line he has comeback with in over 37 pages.

But in the English language, "lived" means "aged". So the travelling twin does not "live" the same number of years, or seconds, or any other standard unit of time, because they are not comoving with the earth.

But in science context here, it is important to distinguish (as I have already more than once) the difference between "lived" as the concept of "existence state per se" without any inherent "aging" interval parsings for that existence state per se.

In the physics context, the "aged" is directly related to internal processes being "timed" according to whatever "parsing of external existence state" is applicable internally by a clock/process in that frame/condition applying to the clock/process.

See? As I have tried to get across to chinglu, his inadvertent conflating of "lived" (a purely philosophical "Existence per se" concept) and "aged" (a strictly Physical Time interval parsing of external existence state according to local standard/non-standard COMPARATIVE time RATE/INTERVAL of PROCESS in question) is what is causing all the confusion and cross-purpose arguments.

For while the twins philosophically "live/exist" through some common "external duration" referent irrespective of how many orbits are involved, they SPECIFICALLY and RESPECTIVELY "physically age/process" DIFFERENTLY at different RATE depending on internal process duration-parsing system of 'timing rates' applicable to THEM ONLY.

Understanding the subtle difference and inadvertent conflation involved so far in this discussion, is very important to cut through the cross-purpose exchanges which will otherwise go on forevermore.

In short: they philosophically "live/exist" for the same external duration referent, but they physically "age/process" for different internal timing referent created by internal clock/process as compared with other internal clock/process of the other twin/clock.

Good luck, arfa brane, chinglu, everyone!

////Late Edit: in similar vein of "Reductio ad Absurdum" method:

PS: chinglu, everyone, please consider the case where both the traveling twin and his clock are vaporizd by nuclear explosion after only 5 external common referent Earth-orbits. Then that twin/clock would not 'live/exist' anymore, but the stay-put twin/clock would! So then, who is to say what that twin/clock has to claim about anything at all to do with either the other twin/clock OR the Earth-sun dynamics/orbit number? See? These twins/clocks are entirely disconnected from each other and the astronomical external referent. The only 'connecting' factor is the observer bringing HIS 'take' on what it all 'means' in reality process timing terms. And that observer is NOT the 'destroyed twin', but chinglu/scientist who must be CAREFUL NOT to conflate philosophical 'live/exist' concept with physical 'age/process' events when making the analysis to make sense of it all. Good luck all!

Last edited:
It seems we have regressed:
What do clocks do then? Remember, you have previously agreed on what a "clock" is/does. Previously, you said:

and:

That would be intervals of time between events, of course. So how can you reconcile these statements of yours? Please define the word "clock".

It would seem then, that even at this VERY early stage of this bottom up process, Chinglu seems to be fudging it.

It didn't take 700 posts - only 5 or 6 real ones, to get to this point.

Great way to do it, RW. I'm looking forward to Chinglus attempted explanation.

Hi chinglu, arfa brane, Lakon, everyone: please see the ////Late Edit: PS to my last post above outlining the minimum essentials in similar vein to "Reductio ad Absurdum" method; to more clearly demonstrate the effective disconnect between externals and internals in the context of the SR or GR twin examples of chinglu's. Thanks. G'night.

Last edited:
It didn't take 700 posts - only 5 or 6 real ones, to get to this point.

.

No, more then 700, if you troubled yourself to look, and most would certainly agree with me on that score. But you and your agenda of course have been exposed for what are, havn't you?

No, more then 700, if you troubled yourself to look, and most would certainly agree with me on that score. But you and your agenda of course have been exposed for what are, havn't you?

Now we have an attempt to get out from under......Best of luck!
That's two of you now [yourself and chinglu] that appear to be in deep shit.

Hi chinglu, arfa brane, Lakon, everyone: please see the ////Late Edit: PS to my last post above outlining the minimum essentials in similar vein to "Reductio ad Absurdum" method; to more clearly demonstrate the effective disconnect between externals and internals in the context of the SR or GR twin examples of chinglu's. Thanks. G'night.

We are nowhere near any consideration of SR / GR twins in this bottom up discussion, nor does it appear will it be necessary. Rather than over 700, it has taken only 5 or 6 posts to get a glimpse of where Chinglus error might lie. We await his response to post 728 so he can clarify his statement as asked in that post.

So, if my clock claims you finished the race in 5 whatever and your clock claimed 10, I would take the start position of the earth and the end position of the earth. That clock we cannot disagree.

.. although, for my benefit, and just so I can continue to follow the conversation, Chinglu, I don't quite follow the above. Please help me understand what you mean.

A race was run. One clock recorded 10 beats, the other, running half as fast, recorded 5. At the same time, two more clocks, say two bicycle wheels were spinning at constant rates. One recorded 600 revolutions, the other, spinning half as fast, recorded 300 revolutions. The earth moved a certain distance, say 10 miles. It did so for ALL the four clocks mentioned above. The same 10 miles in each case. What's wrong with that ? Do you disagree with it ? Please explain as I am really interested in following this conversation.

We are nowhere near any consideration of SR / GR twins in this bottom up discussion, nor does it appear will it be necessary. Rather than over 700, it has taken only 5 or 6 posts to get a glimpse of where Chinglus error might lie. We await his response to post 728 so he can clarify his statement as asked in that post.

Indeed you are right, mate. Carry on as you are going! I'll come back and see what the morrow brings from chinglu in response to your genuine efforts to comprehend why/where he may likely have gone astray in this particular instance. G'night.

We are nowhere near any consideration of SR / GR twins in this bottom up discussion, nor does it appear will it be necessary. Rather than over 700, it has taken only 5 or 6 posts to get a glimpse of where Chinglus error might lie.
As I said a few hundred posts ago, what a clock is and how to use it is stuff kids learn in elementary school, so I don't believe for a second that Chinglu really doesn't know it. He probably thinks he's bogging me down by staying on that track, not realizing he's actually bogging himself down!

OK, so you agree the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits just like the stay at home twin. So they both lived the same number of earth orbits.

Yet his SR clock lived 10 earth orbits and lived 12 earth orbits by observation. How do you reconcile without a contradiction?

There is no contradiction because nobody believes that. You are the only one that mistakenly believes that has been said or implied. No amount of pounding on your apparently titanium reinforced skull has been able to sway you from that absurd idea.:shrug:

Indeed you are right, mate. Carry on as you are going! I'll come back and see what the morrow brings from chinglu in response to your genuine efforts to comprehend why/where he may likely have gone astray in this particular instance. G'night.

The facts are Undefined, he is not right......I don't believe there is any genuine effort from either chinglu or Lakon.
Chinglu is simply playing the troll as is evidenced in over 700 posts, and Lakon, appears to be standing on the notion that chinglu has the right to say exactly as he wants, without any refutation from anyone else.
The problem with that of course is people do have the right to call a spade a spade, and a troll a troll.

As I said a few hundred posts ago, what a clock is and how to use it is stuff kids learn in elementary school, so I don't believe for a second that Chinglu really doesn't know it. He probably thinks he's bogging me down by staying on that track, not realizing he's actually bogging himself down!

Yep, as has everyone else that has been a part of this debacle.......

There is no contradiction because nobody believes that. You are the only one that mistakenly believes that has been said or implied. No amount of pounding on your apparently titanium reinforced skull has been able to sway you from that absurd idea.:shrug:

Plus of course the other threads in which he has tried to invalidate SR/GR, and also other forums where he is totally banned for the same thing.

Yet Lakon dares to suggest that he has not been given a fair go!
Although he is doing some back-tracking of late, as the stupidity and trollish nature of chinglu becomes even more obvious.