Gravity slows down time.
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
Clowns like him are all over the place, they never let up. They're sitting at their computers laughing their heads off at anyone who responds to them.
The best thing to do is not respond, he will eventually go away to another forum and pick up where he left off here, yanking chains over there.
he must not understand that earths rotation is not an accurate measurement of time
and doesn't acknowledge the thought of atomic clocks.
i haven't read this crap from the beginning,
because the first thing i seen was the typical einstein crackpot/crank nonsense.
so i have no clue what he had mention,
but still.
Hi chinglu.
For the last time, mate, my post #897 answers all those questions via the essentials of the simplified GR-only and SR-only examples. Merely repeating your 'challenge' does not change that they have already been covered and explained accordingly, as per my post/examples. I have also explained where you conflate philosophical 'duration per se' (ie, existence/lived) aspects with physical 'time/timing' (ie, ticking/aging) process aspects. Your repetition of that 'challenge' is therefore futile and annoying; and just attracts more noise to the thread. Anyhow....Good luck in your discussions elsewhere!
Your assertions are based on the assumption that the travelling twin sees the same number of orbits on the trip out as he does on the trip back.
Frame Dragging--Time Dilation-Contraction
Wouldn't there be a frame dragging effect to consider?
Wouldn't frame dragging hold back the top of the pole or doesnt the Earth spin faster at the surface i.e. that over a long enough period of time, the top of the pole would angle backward from the bottom of the pole, as the leading edge of Earths spin?
Won't the pole have effects of time dilation-contraction factors to be considered? Lorentz or whatever in those areas
I.e I envision the pole getting longer as it falls behind the leading edge of the bottom of the pole attached to the faster spinning Earth.
So eventually--- over long enough period of time ---the pole, via time dialation, become as long as the Earths circumference etc...an even longer over time.
Of course common sense would tell us that if the angle of the pole changes that eventually the gravity of the Earth would bring the top of the pole in contact with the Earth ergo the frame of gravitational reference.
...)...
..O...
Here above is texiticonic representation of pole bending curved over time. If it lengths continues to dialate-- i.e the top of pole maintains its heigth distance from earth --- then it would continue on to create an eternally existent spiral around Earth.
R6
Wouldn't there be a frame dragging effect to consider?
Wouldn't frame dragging hold back the top of the pole or doesnt the Earth spin faster at the surface i.e. that over a long enough period of time, the top of the pole would angle backward from the bottom of the pole, as the leading edge of Earths spin?
Won't the pole have effects of time dilation-contraction factors to be considered? Lorentz or whatever in those areas
I.e I envision the pole getting longer as it falls behind the leading edge of the bottom of the pole attached to the faster spinning Earth.
So eventually--- over long enough period of time ---the pole, via time dialation, become as long as the Earths circumference etc...an even longer over time.
Of course common sense would tell us that if the angle of the pole changes that eventually the gravity of the Earth would bring the top of the pole in contact with the Earth ergo the frame of gravitational reference.
...)...
..O...
Here above is texiticonic representation of pole bending curved over time. If it lengths continues to dialate-- i.e the top of pole maintains its heigth distance from earth --- then it would continue on to create an eternally existent spiral around Earth.
R6
Uh, we are talking about a difference of 12 earth orbits vs 10 earth orbits.
So, your contention about the earth's rotation is irrelevant.
Hi chinglu.
For the last time, mate, my post #897 answers all those questions via the essentials of the simplified GR-only and SR-only examples. Merely repeating your 'challenge' does not change that they have already been covered and explained accordingly, as per my post/examples. I have also explained where you conflate philosophical 'duration per se' (ie, existence/lived) aspects with physical 'time/timing' (ie, ticking/aging) process aspects. Your repetition of that 'challenge' is therefore futile and annoying; and just attracts more noise to the thread. Anyhow....Good luck in your discussions elsewhere!
Yes, for the last time, I read your post and it makes no difference. In fact, you made a statement that astronomical observations are not pertinent in deciding the number of earth orbits. Well, if your delete astronomical observations as you seem to do, then you have a very nice argument that has nothing to do with the OP.
Now, try to stay with the OP and discussion in the thread that astronomical observations are relaxant. For example, astronomical observations are used to determine then age of the universe. I would petition you therefore, that astronomical observations are a valid decisioning procedure of time in physics.
Hence, if both twins confirm 12 earth orbits occurred during the traveling twins' trip, then you must include this in the premises of your deduction.
So, next time, explain philosophically how the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits by astronomical observations and that is consistent with his watch indicating only 10 earth orbits occurred.
No, I am not. I am saying he will see 12 earth orbits without referencing how it occurs in his looking glass. I am also saying by nature, his observations will be consistent with reality.
Information exchange has not been proven to change based on acceleration. The traveling twin might see a frequency change, that has been evidenced, but the amount of data has not been shown to change.
So, the traveling twin should not notice a speed up or down of the earth's orbit, otherwise, the speed of light is not a constant.
typical
" 3) The traveling twins must also witness 12 earth years/orbits or all mainstream astronomical observations are false. ",
except the traveling twin is no where near earth nor in the same reference of earth time.
you fail acknowledge that you are trying to implement earth time to high rates of speed time in space.
" 6) Therefore SR and GR are false because they contradict proven mainstream astronomical observations. ",
actually no. not at all,
what has contradicted proven mainstream astronomical observations is your understanding of,
and it's obvious you do not understand orbital mechanics if you actually know it exist.
it's as simple as this below,
time stretches and space shrinks when an object moves at a high velocity.
in time dilation, the faster an object moves, the slower time passes.
SR describes how the universe behaves when an object is moving, called time dilation.
which forces time to go more slowly for you(relative to stationary people)the faster you travel.
if you are traveling at c , 0 time passes. time is frozen.
time is reluctant to change except at high speeds
cosmos doesn't have a single inviolable size.
if you could go at light speed to see what photon experiences,
there would be no distance at all between you and the farthest edges of the cosmos.
you would find your self everywhere at once
imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space
time dilation, the faster an object moves, the slower time passes.
time stretches and space shrinks
" 3) The traveling twins must also witness 12 earth years/orbits or all mainstream astronomical observations are false. ",
except the traveling twin is no where near earth nor in the same reference of earth time.
you fail acknowledge that you are trying to implement earth time to high rates of speed time in space.
" 6) Therefore SR and GR are false because they contradict proven mainstream astronomical observations. ",
actually no. not at all,
what has contradicted proven mainstream astronomical observations is your understanding of,
and it's obvious you do not understand orbital mechanics if you actually know it exist.
it's as simple as this below,
time stretches and space shrinks when an object moves at a high velocity.
in time dilation, the faster an object moves, the slower time passes.
SR describes how the universe behaves when an object is moving, called time dilation.
which forces time to go more slowly for you(relative to stationary people)the faster you travel.
if you are traveling at c , 0 time passes. time is frozen.
time is reluctant to change except at high speeds
cosmos doesn't have a single inviolable size.
if you could go at light speed to see what photon experiences,
there would be no distance at all between you and the farthest edges of the cosmos.
you would find your self everywhere at once
imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space
time dilation, the faster an object moves, the slower time passes.
time stretches and space shrinks
You have not solved the fact that the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits. So, assume time stretches and space shrinks for the traveling twin. That twins still sees 12 earth orbits and returns to earth with that information where the earth twin also witnessed 12 earth orbits. Yet, the traveling twin's clock claims only 10 earth orbits transpired. That is the problem. You have not solved this issue with the above.
there is no issue.
if you took the 12 orbits and laid them out parallel,
to the distance the traveling rocket traveled, with out the time dilation and space shrink,
you will see that the 12 orbit length is grater in distance than what the rocket traveled..
he's to far away to see earth.
maybe a better word like,
"experiences " is a better word.
if you took the 12 orbits and laid them out parallel,
to the distance the traveling rocket traveled, with out the time dilation and space shrink,
you will see that the 12 orbit length is grater in distance than what the rocket traveled..
he doesn't see any earths orbit at all,
he's to far away to see earth.
maybe a better word like,
"experiences " is a better word.
You can lay out things all you want.
But, I already said the traveling twin remains in the solar system.
Heck, we even know how many orbits Pluto makes per earth obit based on astronomical observations.
You are claiming our observations are wrong about Pluto, is that correct?
but you can not, because the speed would create a certain distance, at these speeds, the distance will exceed the solar system.
are you seriously this pathetic ?
1) YOU ARE CLAIMING THE TRAVELING TWIN CANNOT REMAIN IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM. CAN YOU PROVE WHY?
2) I asked you a simple question can we tell what is going on with Pluto? Now, answer it. This will determine if the traveling twins can know about earth orbits.
and i gave a simple answer,
because the speed would create a certain distance, at these speeds, the distance will exceed the solar system.
just think about this for a while.