Gravity slows down time.

[Undefined]

I've only been on this forum for a relatively short time, but in that time, according to others, chinglu does have a record in pursuing anti SR/GR stuff periodically.
That has also been confirmed by my own checking, on another forum, and another thread on this forum.
I amongst others have been fully tested by the incessant ignoring of facts, and the constantly same regurgitated answers from chinglu.
He approached the matter in a mathematical methodology in another forum, which was shown to be in error, and now he has dropped the mathematics and resorted to unsupported claims.
It's obvious now he has backed himself into a corner.
It would be nice and appropriate if he recognised that fact.

I do though have one remaining question....

Chinglu, please tell me, what drives you in this apparent quest to prove one of the pillars of physics as in error?
I would genuinely like to know.....
What is the drive that pushes you to ignore all evidence supporting SR/GR, and the part it is and has played in all our lives?

My objection to you is not personal. It is based on the actions of yourself in outright declaring that you are correct...that everyone else is wrong....
My objection to you and others pushing conspiracy, and anti establishment bias is that it reaches the point of fanaticism.
Why do you and others like you have the incessant need to tear down the establishment just for the sake of it?

You are from China??
Great! I was in Bejing Shanghai and visited Shaanxi Province to view the TerraCotta Warriors....I walked the great walk on the Great Wall of China....Wonderful place overall!!
I also have a great interest in the Chinese Space Program and have followed the launching of Shenzhou and the Taikonauts that manned it.
I sincerely hope that one day the Chinese effort can be amalgamated along with the Russians, ESA and Japan and NASA.

I mention the above as I'm sure you know and realise that the Chinese efforts have also relied on SR/GR.

Anyway I just wanted you to answer the question I put, honestly and straight forward.

Hi paddo.

Mate, I would recommend to all objective scientific discoursers that each idea/discussion should be presented/treated on its own exclusive merits, irrespective of source or repetition/reception elsewhere/elsewhen.

Anything else is fraught with potential to insidious/subtle prejudice which may hinder fresh and open objective discussion on merits presented in any one instance/discussion removed from all prior discussion/source/repetition etc considerations which may bias a discussion/attitude and cause missing of new insights which would otherwise arise from new discourse of old and 'apparently settled' topics/ideas.

Take care, paddo, everyone! Bye and good luck in every new discussion here and elsewhere/elsewhen!

 

[paddoboy]

Hi paddo.

Mate, I would recommend to all objective scientific discoursers that each idea/discussion should be presented/treated on its own exclusive merits, irrespective of source or repetition/reception elsewhere/elsewhen.

I totally agree...and am sorry I didn't infer that point in my post, although it is mentioned elsewhere.........
I have never been backward in coming forward, and have literally crossed swords with an Astronomer named Geraint Lewis and an excellent young SR/GR theorist named Chris something or other.
I fully realise they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
What I'm trying to say is that I'm certainly no mainstream, establishment suckhole.
And I'm also trying to say is that I really don't believe chinglu actually believes what he is preaching, and is why I linked him to conspiracy pushers.
It appears to be a game. yeah, I could be wrong, but I also don't believe he is inline for the Nobel next year, and we all know I'm right in that one.

 

[paddoboy]

Another point to note undefined is that if you check the whole thread, you will find quite a few have just dropped out and given up.....and get this, chinglu [and he has said so] then sees that as some sort of victory. Now I ask you, is that good for his ego and the education of anyone else he comes in contact with?
Unlike those far more sensible others that have dropped out through frustration, I'm a far more stubborn old bastard and like a dog with a bone, will not let go.

I sincerely hope that we [those that have refuted his thoughts strongly] have not chased him away.
I would like to here his thoughts on other matters, whether mainstream or not.
I just don't see it beneficial to chinglu or anyone else, if we are forced to treat him with kid gloves. Afterall, he is plain and simply wrong...no two ways about it.

 

[paddoboy]

edit: double post:

 

[Undefined]

Hi Paddo.

I totally agree...and am sorry I didn't infer that point in my post, although it is mentioned elsewhere.........
I have never been backward in coming forward, and have literally crossed swords with an Astronomer named Geraint Lewis and an excellent young SR/GR theorist named Chris something or other.
I fully realise they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
What I'm trying to say is that I'm certainly no mainstream, establishment suckhole.
And I'm also trying to say is that I really don't believe chinglu actually believes what he is preaching, and is why I linked him to conspiracy pushers.
It appears to be a game. yeah, I could be wrong, but I also don't believe he is inline for the Nobel next year, and we all know I'm right in that one.

No problem, mate. Understood where 'you are coming from'.

But again, like I already cautioned: One does not know whence or why the next insightful advance will arise. What may start out as clowning around might end up actually helping elicit that next big insight in another. That's what SERENDIPITY effect/outcomes teaches us in all fields of human endeavor.

Who knows, the Nobel Committee may very well eventually end up giving a prize to someone who once started out 'clowning around' and accidently ended up with one of his (in the opinion of others at first blush) 'clownish pursuits' becoming important catalyst or idea in its own right!

One never knows for sure, that's why I always either hear fairly or keep out altogether. Any 'half measures' is not fair to either the person or the idea or the potential end result in discussion with others elsewhere/when.

That's a principle I stick to always, irrespective of what person or intent instigated the question/challenge/discussion. But that's just me. Still, I recommend it to anyone and everyone of genuine and fair mind in all matters science and humanity.

Another point to note undefined is that if you check the whole thread, you will find quite a few have just dropped out and given up.....and get this, chinglu [and he has said so] then sees that as some sort of victory. Now I ask you, is that good for his ego and the education of anyone else he comes in contact with?
Unlike those far more sensible others that have dropped out through frustration, I'm a far more stubborn old bastard and like a dog with a bone, will not let go.

I sincerely hope that we [those that have refuted his thoughts strongly] have not chased him away.
I would like to here his thoughts on other matters, whether mainstream or not.
I just don't see it beneficial to chinglu or anyone else, if we are forced to treat him with kid gloves. Afterall, he is plain and simply wrong...no two ways about it.

I understand your frustrations etc. But remember too that without people (whoever they may be or whatever their motivation...that is purely their personal business) asking/challenging in this manner, then there would not be much of a discussion site at all.

Not to mention that such discussions (again, whatever their provenance/intention) can lead to further 'refinements' of arguments/insights for ALL concerned. Just as has been the case here I suspect, both for chinglu, you, Lakon, me and everyone else who has followed the discussions/explanations/examples put so far, some of which I haven't seen put in any other discussion I have been privy to!

So it's never a 'dead loss' to discuss whatever with whomever from whatever source/intention to begin with. yes? Cheers!

 

[paddoboy]

Hi Paddo.

So it's never a 'dead loss' to discuss whatever with whomever from whatever source/intention to begin with. yes? Cheers!

One of my favorite scientific quotes has got me into trouble in the past.......[with straight down the line, hard nose mainstreamers]
" Imagination is more Important than Knowledge " Not that the great man for one minute meant it so literally, but of course making the point that knowldege, Imagination, Innovation are all hand in hand in the progress of science.

What would annoy some of these hard liners was my quoting another famous quote attributed to another great scientist, although obviously wrong in this and other occasions

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. [around the late 1800s, only a decade or so before the Wright BROTHERS.]
Lord Kelvin

 

[Lakon]

Undefined, Maaaate .. here's where it's at;

First, RW said;
If I run a race in 10 seconds and you have a clock that erroneously runs half as fast as it should, how much time will your clock say it took to complete the race?

Chinglu replied;
No, this is not correct and I have answered. It depends on how the earth moved during the race. That is the correct answer. That will indicate the correct time.

Chinglu then vascilated for a while, but after some prompting from me, he replied;
5 sec

The most recent comment in fact, was from RW;
Correct! So you agree that I finished the race? Your watch doesn't say that I only finished half the race, it says I finished it in half the time?

Each of the above parties had intent in proceeding with such a conversation.

Now they don't.

QED

 

[Undefined]

Undefined, Maaaate .. here's where it's at;

First, RW said;
If I run a race in 10 seconds and you have a clock that erroneously runs half as fast as it should, how much time will your clock say it took to complete the race?

Chinglu replied;
No, this is not correct and I have answered. It depends on how the earth moved during the race. That is the correct answer. That will indicate the correct time.

Chinglu then vascilated for a while, but after some prompting from me, he replied;
5 sec

The most recent comment in fact, was from RW;
Correct! So you agree that I finished the race? Your watch doesn't say that I only finished half the race, it says I finished it in half the time?

Each of the above parties had intent in proceeding with such a conversation.

Now they don't.

QED

Understood, mate. I too hope they will both come back to finalize their exchange on that specific example. Thanks and good luck!

 

[Lakon]

Understood, mate. I too hope they will both come back to finalize their exchange on that specific example. Thanks and good luck!

Very cool. One more thing I forgot to mention in the above post. Please stop banging on about the paddoboy troll. I don't know how much clearer I can make it - I have no interest in any exchange with him / it, on any issue whatsoever.

Thanks.

 

[paddoboy]

Very cool. One more thing I forgot to mention in the above post. Please stop banging on about the paddoboy troll. I don't know how much clearer I can make it - I have no interest in any exchange with him / it, on any issue whatsoever.

Thanks.

pot...kettle....black.....

 

[paddoboy]

Undefined, Maaaate .. here's where it's at;

First, RW said;
If I run a race in 10 seconds and you have a clock that erroneously runs half as fast as it should, how much time will your clock say it took to complete the race?

Chinglu replied;
No, this is not correct and I have answered. It depends on how the earth moved during the race. That is the correct answer. That will indicate the correct time.

Chinglu then vascilated for a while, but after some prompting from me, he replied;
5 sec

The most recent comment in fact, was from RW;
Correct! So you agree that I finished the race? Your watch doesn't say that I only finished half the race, it says I finished it in half the time?

Each of the above parties had intent in proceeding with such a conversation.

Now they don't.

QED

That's not quite true.....


He also answered as follows....

Sure, 10 seconds

In answer to......
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Originally Posted by Russ_Watters View Post
Chinglu, please answer:
If I run a race in 10 seconds and you have a clock that erroneously runs half as fast as it should, how much time will your clock say it took to complete the race?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



So confusion reigns I suggest!

 

[chinglu]

Correct! So you agree that I finished the race? Your watch doesn't say that I only finished half the race, it says I finished it in half the time?

Yes, my clock claims you finished the race in half the time compared to your clock. But, when we both look at the sun's position in the sky after the race, the sun does not appear in 2 positions to suit both of our clock times. It is only ever in one position. So, one of our clock must be wrong.

Thus, in our case, the traveling clock claimed the moving twin experienced only 10 earth orbits of life. The absolute science said, and the traveling twin agrees, he witnessed 12 earth orbits. So, just like above, the clock was wrong. The clock claimed the twin witnessed only 10 earth orbits, yet by scientific observations, the twin witnessed 12 earth orbits. So, the clock is wrong.

 

[paddoboy]

Correct! So you agree that I finished the race? Your watch doesn't say that I only finished half the race, it says I finished it in half the time?

Yes, my clock claims you finished the race in half the time compared to your clock. But, when we both look at the sun's position in the sky after the race, the sun does not appear in 2 positions to suit both of our clock times. It is only ever in one position. So, one of our clock must be wrong.

Thus, in our case, the traveling clock claimed the moving twin experienced only 10 earth orbits of life. The absolute science said, and the traveling twin agrees, he witnessed 12 earth orbits. So, just like above, the clock was wrong. The clock claimed the twin witnessed only 10 earth orbits, yet by scientific observations, the twin witnessed 12 earth orbits. So, the clock is wrong.

No you are confused......
Firstly just by sheer logic, a thousand clocks could never be wrong by the same amount, countless particle accelerators data could never all be spitting out the same results....and finally, and as usual, you keep ignoring FoRs.
Now again, you were once using mathematics to push your claims, and that was shown to be in error, now you have resorted to other nonsense.
Of course the Sun's position is in the same place in the sky, but the clocks do not have any MAGICAL connection with or to the Sun...They beat and pass the time independantly of each other and the Sun.
It is only gravity which affects the rate at which each tick and everything ages.

Again, in the original experiment, both clocks are correct in their own FoRs, the slower one being affected more by gravitational time dilation.

That is the mainstream belief based on years and years of evidence, and it is really quite arrogant of you to come along and perceive to have some deep insight into physics, the establishment has missed.

 

[paddoboy]

Why do you continually refuse to watch the explanatory videos I linked to?
I also asked you a few more questions further up, you may or may not like to answer.

 

[chinglu]

No you are confused......
Firstly just by sheer logic, a thousand clocks could never be wrong by the same amount, countless particle accelerators data could never all be spitting out the same results....and finally, and as usual, you keep ignoring FoRs.
Now again, you were once using mathematics to push your claims, and that was shown to be in error, now you have resorted to other nonsense.
Of course the Sun's position is in the same place in the sky, but the clocks do not have any MAGICAL connection with or to the Sun...They beat and pass the time independantly of each other and the Sun.
It is only gravity which affects the rate at which each tick and everything ages.

Again, in the original experiment, both clocks are correct in their own FoRs, the slower one being affected more by gravitational time dilation.

That is the mainstream belief based on years and years of evidence, and it is really quite arrogant of you to come along and perceive to have some deep insight into physics, the establishment has missed.

If you are correct, then each of these clocks you cite must disagree on the position of the sun since they disagree on time.

How does that work?

The fact is it does not. If any clock claims anything that disagrees with the earth's rotation/orbit, then that clock is wrong.

 

[paddoboy]

If you are correct, then each of these clocks you cite must disagree on the position of the sun since they disagree on time.

How does that work?

The fact is it does not. If any clock claims anything that disagrees with the earth's rotation/orbit, then that clock is wrong.

Don't be concerned with me being correct or not...I'm only a layman with an interest.
Worry about the whole of the scientific community since 2005, and what other people have been telling you here.

Anyway, as I said, the ticking of the clocks are NOT HARDWIRED WITH THE MOVEMENT OF THE SUN. There time rate are only governed by one thing...Gravity.
The only connection the position of the Sun/Earth have, are in calculating and formulating, divisions of time that are reasonably constant.
So a clock will keep pace with the Earth/Sun, as long as it is in that same inertial frame it was in when first programmed.
But take it [the clock] out of that frame.....accelerate it, put it in another gravitational potential, and it will along with biological clocks change the rate of passing.

 

[chinglu]

Don't be concerned with me being correct or not...I'm only a layman with an interest.
Worry about the whole of the scientific community since 2005, and what other people have been telling you here.

Anyway, as I said, the ticking of the clocks are NOT HARDWIRED WITH THE MOVEMENT OF THE SUN. There time rate are only governed by one thing...Gravity.
The only connection the position of the Sun/Earth have, are in calculating and formulating, divisions of time that are reasonably constant.
So a clock will keep pace with the Earth/Sun, as long as it is in that same inertial frame it was in when first programmed.
But take it [the clock] out of that frame.....accelerate it, put it in another gravitational potential, and it will along with biological clocks change the rate of passing.

You are simply not understanding.

Our time concepts are connected to the earth's motion.

A clock's definition of second is connected to the earth's motion.

So, your statements are irrelevant.

If a clock claims the earth orbits 10 times when it orbited 12 times, then then clock is wrong.

 

[paddoboy]

The fact is it does not. If any clock claims anything that disagrees with the earth's rotation/orbit, then that clock is wrong.

YES, YOU ARE ACTUALLY CORRECT!!!!!
But it is only incorrect with reference to the Earth's rotation/Sun's position [since these are your favorite references] in that FoR.
It is not wrong from the FoR from which it came.....
In other words, let's get back to the actual travelling twins....let's use an extreme example....the travelling twin has been away for 12 months consistently travelling at 99.999% c...
He returns to Earth 12 months later by his mechanical clocks and his own biological clocks that have him aging 12 months.
In my example, he will return to Earth 225 years in the future, his twin Brother long since dead and buried.
His clock then is of course logically wrong with comparison to the Earth he has returned to...but even though the local frame says it is 225 years later, he still has aged only 12 months.

Again, you need to learn "Frames of References "

 

[paddoboy]

You are simply not understanding.

Our time concepts are connected to the earth's motion.

Our concepts of time may be, but our clocks are not...unless you have a few million miles of co-axial cable or Fibre optic cable......

A clock's definition of second is connected to the earth's motion..

Our definition of time maybe but only as a means of conveniance and reference.
The clocks themselves are not.......

So, your statements are irrelevant..

Evidence does not support that.

If a clock claims the earth orbits 10 times when it orbited 12 times, then then clock is wrong.

Only in that same Frame upon returning, but again, if you are honest enough to answer my first question then you may see why you are totally confused and disorientated.

 

[paddoboy]

Why don't you watch one of the videos I have linked to chinglu?

My objection to you is not personal. It is based on the actions of yourself in outright declaring that you are correct...that everyone else is wrong....that you are some revolutionary Einstein......
My objection to you and others pushing conspiracy, and anti establishment bias is that it reaches the point of fanaticism and anti mainstream/establishment, just for the sake of it, and without any justification..