Oh, I see we're back on!
Prove it. Post a definition of "clock" from a reputable source. Like a dictionary or the wiki on clocks.
Gravity slows down time.
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
Number 9 Bus Shelter
Registered Member
To say that "gravity slows down time" is not 100% correct to begin with. But there are 45 pages of replies, so someone has probably answered your question already
Yes it has been detailed many times.
This poster chinglu by the way, is not interested in facts. He doesn't accept time dilation, SR and/or GR, and just ignores the pages and pages of evidence and proofs illustrating it in action.
We have a couple of ratbag/conspiracy/anti mainstream brigade to deal with around here...Another pushes Plasma/Electric Universe theory and claims a conspiracy by mainstream scientists against it.
That's why its important to also have a humour around here.
Dear Russ, I have posted and defined a clock and time over and over and over.
Now, if I am wrong in my posts, please indicate specifically why.
Yes it has been detailed many times.
This poster chinglu by the way, is not interested in facts. He doesn't accept time dilation, SR and/or GR, and just ignores the pages and pages of evidence and proofs illustrating it in action.
We have a couple of ratbag/conspiracy/anti mainstream brigade to deal with around here...Another pushes Plasma/Electric Universe theory and claims a conspiracy by mainstream scientists against it.
That's why its important to also have a humour around here.
I am afraid that is not true.
I have proven that the earth observer and the fast traveling observer witness 12 earth orbits.
You all have agreed with this.
But, then you all claim when the the traveling twin comes back to earth, both twins agree they witnessed 12 earth orbits ie 12 years.
Then you all claim since they both agree 12 years elapsed, then 12 years did not elapse for both.
That is a contradiction.
That is your position.
Prove your case why this contradiction is true.
Everything I have said about you is true, and more.
The forum as a whole supports and agrees that you are [1]very very stupid, [2] just a troll, or [3] both
There is no contradiction, only lies, and purposely misinterpretation by you.
You are in pseudoscience for a reason.
I have now grown quite tired in feeding you, a troll, and as It is now plain to see for anyone willing to check out this whole thread, your rantings and ravings will not be refuted anymore. You have the thread to yourself.
Your suspension was for a reason you know.....
Have a good day chinglu.
Here is the problem, I have proven both twins witness 12 earth years.
Then you all claim they do and yet do not. That is pure crackpottery.
See, your kind are in a contradiction by supporting SR/GR.
I am not.
Defined it wrong, yes. Being wrong over and over doesn't make you become right.
No. That's not how it works. You cannot just pull a definition out of thin air and then demand to be proven wrong. You must prove yourself right by posting references. You're the one making the extraordinary claim (that accepted science is wrong), so you must prove it.
I've told you where to find a standard definition (the dictionary). You're not an idiot - you must know what it is and that it is not what you say it is. I want you to post the definition side-by-side with yours, and then try to claim that black and white are the same color while they are sitting right next to each other.
That is a flat-out lie.
You cannot prove your point by lying about the positions of the people you are debating. Indeed, you can't prove us wrong if what you are arguing about isn't what is being said - you may even accidentally agree with us!
Hi chinglu.
In my post #346, for SR-only case, I removed all extraneous variables (such as Earth-sun astronomical SYSTEM dynamics/orbits) and just had the twins and their respective clocks/biologies telling (ticking off) the 'time' at their respective rates. If one twin and his clock 'took off', then his clock/biology INTERNAL PROCESSES change their rate to their new motional state 'standard' which is different to the previous COMMON STANDARD which obtained while the twins were co-moving in their 'starting standard' co-moving state. So depending on WHICH TWIN DEPARTED from that prior co-moving standard, then that twin's NEW 'standard' would apply to HIM ONLY. This is easily seen if we later ask the stay-put twin to ALSO ACCELERATE and JOIN the first-moved-off twin.....at which point when the twins are again in their NEW co-moving COMMON STANDARD state, their clocks/biologies would AGAIN be IN SYNCH but in a NEW standard state/rate. See, neither is 'wrong' clock/biology, but rather 'merely different' from other standards. Any standard can be chosen as THE standard, but if we have BOTH twins move to a new co-moving state, then the NEW STANDARD will apply. Neither the old standard or new standard are 'wrong', they are merely different standards which can be used accordingly as the 'starting standard' in a particular experiment/analysis, that's all.
and...
In my post #758, for the GR-only case, I again removed extraneous variables such that the sun-earth-ORBIT NUMBERS was the same for BOTH twins/clocks. ALSO the Earth-spin itself was changed to make the SUN position in the sky a CONSTANT for BOTH twins/clocks....see?....BOTH of these things were CONSTANTS for BOTH twins/clocks irrespective of whether they were at the top OR the bottom of your mountain. In this case the twin that moved up/down the mountain would have a different rate of clock/biology process due to Gravitational effects, but the astronomical system had NO EFFECT OR RELEVANCE to their respective clock/biology rates in the NEW position up/down that mountain. Moreover, I also pointed out that because they both could have started the experiment EITHER from the bottom (and one moved UP) OR from the top (and one moved DOWN)., and NEITHER clock/biology was 'wrong', but rather merely different from their starting position/altitude 'standard'. Again, this can be easily seen if we have the OTHER twin do the moving, and then have the other twin join him in their new co-located/co-altitude position which will have the NEW same standard for both of them (from which they could then start a new experimental run and do the REVERSE. Each time they would merely reflect the difference, not whether one was 'right or wrong'. See?
Anyhow, chinglu, if we thus (as above explained) remove all the misunderstandings about philosophical overlays and extraneous variables which have no bearing on the essentials (as I have already done for you in both the SR-only and the GR-only cases), then you must now see it's not a matter of 'right' or 'wrong', but a matter of difference between different states and the associated 'starting standards' applying in those states IF we go on to carry out such experiments FROM whatever current co-moving states applicable to the twins when they 'start' an experiment.
So, mate, you know I am not trolling you or misunderstanding you, right? If you do know that, then please take my advice and go concentrate on other discussions which you have a better grasp of the essentials of, because you seem to be missing that here, and so confusing all sorts of things into one compounded overlay of confusion on both the SR and GR cases which I have simplified for you to help you see the essentials and not be distracted/confused by the non-essentials.
Good luck elsewhere, chinglu!
In my post #346, for SR-only case, I removed all extraneous variables (such as Earth-sun astronomical SYSTEM dynamics/orbits) and just had the twins and their respective clocks/biologies telling (ticking off) the 'time' at their respective rates. If one twin and his clock 'took off', then his clock/biology INTERNAL PROCESSES change their rate to their new motional state 'standard' which is different to the previous COMMON STANDARD which obtained while the twins were co-moving in their 'starting standard' co-moving state. So depending on WHICH TWIN DEPARTED from that prior co-moving standard, then that twin's NEW 'standard' would apply to HIM ONLY. This is easily seen if we later ask the stay-put twin to ALSO ACCELERATE and JOIN the first-moved-off twin.....at which point when the twins are again in their NEW co-moving COMMON STANDARD state, their clocks/biologies would AGAIN be IN SYNCH but in a NEW standard state/rate. See, neither is 'wrong' clock/biology, but rather 'merely different' from other standards. Any standard can be chosen as THE standard, but if we have BOTH twins move to a new co-moving state, then the NEW STANDARD will apply. Neither the old standard or new standard are 'wrong', they are merely different standards which can be used accordingly as the 'starting standard' in a particular experiment/analysis, that's all.
and...
In my post #758, for the GR-only case, I again removed extraneous variables such that the sun-earth-ORBIT NUMBERS was the same for BOTH twins/clocks. ALSO the Earth-spin itself was changed to make the SUN position in the sky a CONSTANT for BOTH twins/clocks....see?....BOTH of these things were CONSTANTS for BOTH twins/clocks irrespective of whether they were at the top OR the bottom of your mountain. In this case the twin that moved up/down the mountain would have a different rate of clock/biology process due to Gravitational effects, but the astronomical system had NO EFFECT OR RELEVANCE to their respective clock/biology rates in the NEW position up/down that mountain. Moreover, I also pointed out that because they both could have started the experiment EITHER from the bottom (and one moved UP) OR from the top (and one moved DOWN)., and NEITHER clock/biology was 'wrong', but rather merely different from their starting position/altitude 'standard'. Again, this can be easily seen if we have the OTHER twin do the moving, and then have the other twin join him in their new co-located/co-altitude position which will have the NEW same standard for both of them (from which they could then start a new experimental run and do the REVERSE. Each time they would merely reflect the difference, not whether one was 'right or wrong'. See?
Anyhow, chinglu, if we thus (as above explained) remove all the misunderstandings about philosophical overlays and extraneous variables which have no bearing on the essentials (as I have already done for you in both the SR-only and the GR-only cases), then you must now see it's not a matter of 'right' or 'wrong', but a matter of difference between different states and the associated 'starting standards' applying in those states IF we go on to carry out such experiments FROM whatever current co-moving states applicable to the twins when they 'start' an experiment.
So, mate, you know I am not trolling you or misunderstanding you, right?
If you do know that, then please take my advice and go concentrate on other discussions which you have a better grasp of the essentials of, because you seem to be missing that here, and so confusing all sorts of things into one compounded overlay of confusion on both the SR and GR cases which I have simplified for you to help you see the essentials and not be distracted/confused by the non-essentials. Good luck elsewhere, chinglu!
Yes, I know how to find a standard definition of a second that matches as closely as possible to the earth's rotation.
However, I have shown this definition seems to be consistent within the frame, but it is inconsistent with astronomical observations.
The earth frame and the traveling frame both witness 12 earth orbits. The standard definition of the traveling contradicts astronomical observations.
That is the whole point here that none of you have handled.
I am not lying about your position.
All of you have agreed both can use astronomical observations to determine the number of earth orbits.
Otherwise, all of you are claiming all astronomical observations of the mainstream are false.
Is that what you are claiming?
Now, since you cannot refute mainstream astronomical observations then your are forced to agree that your SR clock contradicts mainstream astronomical observations for the traveling twin.
Is that your position?
Hi chinglu.
In my post #346, for SR-only case, I removed all extraneous variables (such as Earth-sun astronomical SYSTEM dynamics/orbits) and just had the twins and their respective clocks/biologies telling (ticking off) the 'time' at their respective rates. If one twin and his clock 'took off', then his clock/biology INTERNAL PROCESSES change their rate to their new motional state 'standard' which is different to the previous COMMON STANDARD which obtained while the twins were co-moving in their 'starting standard' co-moving state. So depending on WHICH TWIN DEPARTED from that prior co-moving standard, then that twin's NEW 'standard' would apply to HIM ONLY. This is easily seen if we later ask the stay-put twin to ALSO ACCELERATE and JOIN the first-moved-off twin.....at which point when the twins are again in their NEW co-moving COMMON STANDARD state, their clocks/biologies would AGAIN be IN SYNCH but in a NEW standard state/rate. See, neither is 'wrong' clock/biology, but rather 'merely different' from other standards. Any standard can be chosen as THE standard, but if we have BOTH twins move to a new co-moving state, then the NEW STANDARD will apply. Neither the old standard or new standard are 'wrong', they are merely different standards which can be used accordingly as the 'starting standard' in a particular experiment/analysis, that's all.
and...
In my post #758, for the GR-only case, I again removed extraneous variables such that the sun-earth-ORBIT NUMBERS was the same for BOTH twins/clocks. ALSO the Earth-spin itself was changed to make the SUN position in the sky a CONSTANT for BOTH twins/clocks....see?....BOTH of these things were CONSTANTS for BOTH twins/clocks irrespective of whether they were at the top OR the bottom of your mountain. In this case the twin that moved up/down the mountain would have a different rate of clock/biology process due to Gravitational effects, but the astronomical system had NO EFFECT OR RELEVANCE to their respective clock/biology rates in the NEW position up/down that mountain. Moreover, I also pointed out that because they both could have started the experiment EITHER from the bottom (and one moved UP) OR from the top (and one moved DOWN)., and NEITHER clock/biology was 'wrong', but rather merely different from their starting position/altitude 'standard'. Again, this can be easily seen if we have the OTHER twin do the moving, and then have the other twin join him in their new co-located/co-altitude position which will have the NEW same standard for both of them (from which they could then start a new experimental run and do the REVERSE. Each time they would merely reflect the difference, not whether one was 'right or wrong'. See?
Anyhow, chinglu, if we thus (as above explained) remove all the misunderstandings about philosophical overlays and extraneous variables which have no bearing on the essentials (as I have already done for you in both the SR-only and the GR-only cases), then you must now see it's not a matter of 'right' or 'wrong', but a matter of difference between different states and the associated 'starting standards' applying in those states IF we go on to carry out such experiments FROM whatever current co-moving states applicable to the twins when they 'start' an experiment.
So, mate, you know I am not trolling you or misunderstanding you, right?
Good luck elsewhere, chinglu!
No sorry, you are wrong.
You see, you must claim all astronomical observations are wrong since both twins witnessed 12 earth orbits. Then you will need to explain how humans made it to the moon, mars and voyager 1 and 2.
So, you are forced to concede both frames witness 12 earth orbits since that is the truth.
Now, the traveling twin's clock contradicts proven proven mainstream astronomical observations. Hence, the SR/GR clock is wrong.
To any newbies, youngin's and lay people out there that are reading this and are interested in what is the correct scenario.
A few points to consider....the first and most important is that this is in pseudoscience. There are a few reasons why people's posts are in pseudoscience....[1] They have an abnormal anti mainstream obsession, [2] whatever is being proposed has no observational and experimental evidence to support it, [3] It is physically impossible, and [4] They are purposely trolling.
The title of this thread is correct....Gravity does slow down time, both mechanically and biologically.
This has been proven time and time again since Albert Einstein formulated SR in 1905 and GR in 1916.
The lone person you see pushing his thoughts that SR/GR are false, would fall into all four points I have made.
Your best bet is to google and check out reputable sites re SR/GR and so as to avoid the complicated procedure in going through 45 pages of insidious trolling by one childish individual, the facts as accepted by all of mainstream science, all engineering, astronomical and meteorological orginisations and the first few pages and posts 2, 4, 5, and 6.
There is no need to go any further.
Why does this person do this????
He is mentally ill, he has an ego problem, or as I listed in the first paragraph, has an anti mainstream bias, which in itself is a sickness.
So don't be fooled by the false confidence and silly bravado exploits, because the facts are time dilation actually occurs, as does length contraction.
As they have been lost in the nonsense being spewed by our resident troll [who by the way, has been banned from other places], here are a couple of good illustrative examples, which proves once and for all, these effects do occur.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-R8LGy-OVs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUf_IpH4JFc
Pretty simple stuff err?
Hope my post has alleviated any confusion and been of help to some.
A few points to consider....the first and most important is that this is in pseudoscience. There are a few reasons why people's posts are in pseudoscience....[1] They have an abnormal anti mainstream obsession, [2] whatever is being proposed has no observational and experimental evidence to support it, [3] It is physically impossible, and [4] They are purposely trolling.
The title of this thread is correct....Gravity does slow down time, both mechanically and biologically.
This has been proven time and time again since Albert Einstein formulated SR in 1905 and GR in 1916.
The lone person you see pushing his thoughts that SR/GR are false, would fall into all four points I have made.
Your best bet is to google and check out reputable sites re SR/GR and so as to avoid the complicated procedure in going through 45 pages of insidious trolling by one childish individual, the facts as accepted by all of mainstream science, all engineering, astronomical and meteorological orginisations and the first few pages and posts 2, 4, 5, and 6.
There is no need to go any further.
Why does this person do this????
He is mentally ill, he has an ego problem, or as I listed in the first paragraph, has an anti mainstream bias, which in itself is a sickness.
So don't be fooled by the false confidence and silly bravado exploits, because the facts are time dilation actually occurs, as does length contraction.
As they have been lost in the nonsense being spewed by our resident troll [who by the way, has been banned from other places], here are a couple of good illustrative examples, which proves once and for all, these effects do occur.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-R8LGy-OVs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUf_IpH4JFc
Pretty simple stuff err?
Hope my post has alleviated any confusion and been of help to some.
chinglu, my wrist chronograph slows down. When I take it to the Jeweler, he claims it is the Battery and charges me to replace it.
Is gravity draining the Battery?
Should I wear it on my ankle instead of my wrist to keep it from slowing down?
Being the Christmas season, should I gift it to my Taller brother and see if it speeds up?
While here and on the subject - is that why Flights at airports are not on schedule so often because Pilots constantly go up and down and can never be sure of the proper time to land?
Did I experience a "sense of" a word or two missing there?
Is gravity draining the Battery?
Should I wear it on my ankle instead of my wrist to keep it from slowing down?
Being the Christmas season, should I gift it to my Taller brother and see if it speeds up?
While here and on the subject - is that why Flights at airports are not on schedule so often because Pilots constantly go up and down and can never be sure of the proper time to land?
That's why its important to also have a humour around here.
Did I experience a "sense of" a word or two missing there?
So, mate, you know I am not trolling you or misunderstanding you, right?
Good luck elsewhere, chinglu!
Nice approach undefined, but as expected, ignored to the point of manic obsession.
Hi again, chinglu.
If you read my above post #890 properly, then you now saying in reply "You see, you must claim all astronomical observations are wrong..." is an obvious non-sequitur inference/claim on your part.
Why did you infer/claim that, when I just made the IRRELEVANCE of the astronomical systems/orbits the key point to explain that your continued insistence/fixation on the astronomical system/dataset is IRRELEVANT, as per my two simplifying examples?
Did you understand that both my examples (the GR-only and the SR-only scenario) effectively made those things either:
- a CONSTANT for both twins/clocks (in the GR-only example);....OR....
- REMOVED astronomy data altogether (in the SR-only example)?
Given that, your continuing statements/claims which still allude to astronomical variables/connections etc are NO LONGER MATERIAL to the understanding of the essentials I highlighted via both my above simplifying examples.
Please stop this line of non-sequitur 'comebacks'. If you DO understand what the essentials are, as highlighted, then you must agree that your philosophical/non-essentials 'overlays' are what is the stumbling block to your understanding of the situation.
The situation is: NEITHER clock/biology is 'wrong'....merely different from a previously chosen common standard for the START of an experiment.....which experiment could have STARTED from a DIFFERENT starting state which had a different starting standard. See?
It's a choice of which came first as the 'standard' for the 'start' of any experiment. You could have started from the OTHER END 'standard' and come back to 'this one'. It doesn't matter. Neither is 'wrong', just 'different' See?
I hope you see it now. Good luck elsewhere, chinglu!
If you read my above post #890 properly, then you now saying in reply "You see, you must claim all astronomical observations are wrong..." is an obvious non-sequitur inference/claim on your part.
Why did you infer/claim that, when I just made the IRRELEVANCE of the astronomical systems/orbits the key point to explain that your continued insistence/fixation on the astronomical system/dataset is IRRELEVANT, as per my two simplifying examples?
Did you understand that both my examples (the GR-only and the SR-only scenario) effectively made those things either:
- a CONSTANT for both twins/clocks (in the GR-only example);....OR....
- REMOVED astronomy data altogether (in the SR-only example)?
Given that, your continuing statements/claims which still allude to astronomical variables/connections etc are NO LONGER MATERIAL to the understanding of the essentials I highlighted via both my above simplifying examples.
Please stop this line of non-sequitur 'comebacks'. If you DO understand what the essentials are, as highlighted, then you must agree that your philosophical/non-essentials 'overlays' are what is the stumbling block to your understanding of the situation.
The situation is: NEITHER clock/biology is 'wrong'....merely different from a previously chosen common standard for the START of an experiment.....which experiment could have STARTED from a DIFFERENT starting state which had a different starting standard. See?
It's a choice of which came first as the 'standard' for the 'start' of any experiment. You could have started from the OTHER END 'standard' and come back to 'this one'. It doesn't matter. Neither is 'wrong', just 'different' See?
I hope you see it now. Good luck elsewhere, chinglu!
Last edited:
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.
I would also add for any newbies, lay people or other Interested party, even just on this page, our troll has been labeled for what he truly is and which I failed to mention...He is a liar.....Others have also noted that point.
Again, don't be fooled by this gangster/troll/liar, and check out the proof of SR/GR in the videos I supplied.
Just to clarify one point, and a very Important point for any young ones and lay people out there. This isn't any argument or disagreement between all in this thread supporting the overwhelming evidence for SR/GR, and one lone silly person against it.....This is the same silly person, going against more then a 100 years of experiments and observations supporting SR/GR, and the scientific and world community in general.
That is the point he/she should be judged on.
Like all egocentric individuals that find themselves one out, he will probably claim that they also laughed at Galileo and that a general victim status applies.......Just as it did with Galileo. But the likes of Galileo and Einstein and Newton, were one in a million.
And of course they also laughed at Bozo the Clown!
Last edited: