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.
You are a clown. Prove your case. Use math. Thanks.
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.
so then do it.You are a clown. Prove your case. Use math. Thanks.
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.
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.
You weren't asked for a definition of a "second", you were asked for definitions of "clock" and "time".Chinglu said:Yes, I know how to find a standard definition of a second...
Correct, but that isn't what you said in the quote in the previous post. The previous post (the bolded part) contained a contradiction that you claim we believe. You've repeated this over and over and it is a lie every time you say it.I am not lying about your position.
All of you have agreed both can use astronomical observations to determine the number of earth orbits.
1. Correct.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.