# Gravity slows down time.

Seriously, chinglu, this particular issue is obviously already settled, as above. Save your time and energy for your other discussions/threads. Good luck.

As I predicted, and in line with his record, he really doesn't seem too interested in the truth, and that is the reason so many have given up on him.

The continued "discussion" going on here is probably a complete waste of time (pun intended).

Chinglu is telling you that if your watch is 5 minutes slow, then the sun will be in a different position for you, than where it "really" is according to an accurate watch or clock.
This is totally asinine. Why bother with this crap?

Exactly what he has been claiming from the first post, and as I remarked on and put in different terms back up a bit....

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.

Those in this thread are still struggling with the idea that they can live different times while they agree they lived the same number of earth orbits (years).

That is a contradiction.

Those in this thread are still struggling with the idea that they can live different times while they agree they lived the same number of earth orbits (years).

That is a contradiction.

Clocks are not hardwired to the Sun and/or the Earth's orbit, not by co-axial cable, fibre glass optics or any other means.
To believe that is to believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden.

A Clocks'rate of ticking is only hardwired to the potential of the gravitational well it is in.

Why do you keep avoiding the issue?
As others have noted, you lost this silly debate years ago, when your maths was shown to be in error.
And of course if you had any evidence at all, in any way shape or form, you would not be in pseudoscience.

Clocks are not hardwired to the Sun and/or the Earth's orbit, not by co-axial cable, fibre glass optics or any other means.
To believe that is to believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden.

A Clocks'rate of ticking is only hardwired to the potential of the gravitational well it is in.

Why do you keep avoiding the issue?
As others have noted, you lost this silly debate years ago, when your maths was shown to be in error.
And of course if you had any evidence at all, in any way shape or form, you would not be in pseudoscience.

Who cares.

You and others claim the twins lived 12 years (12 earth orbits) and did not live 12 years. That is the basis of your arguments. That is a contradiction.

Who cares..

Now that is quite a defeatist juvenile attitude to take.....Like I said, you have nothing, and are summarily dismissed!
The status quo stands as it has since 1905.

You and others claim the twins lived 12 years (12 earth orbits) and did not live 12 years. That is the basis of your arguments. That is a contradiction.

Like I said, a juvenile non realistic take on the situation, which points to scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You have nothing...no maths, no evidence, no hypothesis even...just fairies at the bottom of the garden...enjoy them.

chinglu said:
You and others claim the twins lived 12 years (12 earth orbits) and did not live 12 years.
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?

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?

You probably care - else you wouldn't bother. I agree it is really important to nail this down. Continually approaching it from mid or top point gives much wiggle room, which is why a serious, non-conflicted scientist tried to approach it from the bottom up. I can see the eminent sense he displayed in doing this, but alas, he was trolled out of the discussion.

Here is where that bottom up discussion rests;

A race was run. One clock beat 10 beats, the other 5, and the sun did not appear in different positions.

Chinglu has thus far largely agreed with this.

It is now up to the original scientist with the intention to have this conversation, or some other serious, non conflicted, non trolling scientist, non sock puppet, to continue this discussion from that level. On a simple, step by step basis, removing the wiggle room allowed by jumping all over the place.

You probably care - else you wouldn't bother. I agree it is really important to nail this down. Continually approaching it from mid or top point gives much wiggle room, which is why a serious, non-conflicted scientist tried to approach it from the bottom up. I can see the eminent sense he displayed in doing this, but alas, he was trolled out of the discussion.

Here is where that bottom up discussion rests;

A race was run. One clock beat 10 beats, the other 5, and the sun did not appear in different positions.

Chinglu has thus far largely agreed with this.

He has agreed???
Bullshit!
He is confused, but you as his number one supporter and pseudoscience pusher yourself, would find that hard to recognise.
How are your fairies at the bottom of your garden?

Lakon said:
You probably care - else you wouldn't bother.
Meh.
At some point, you just give up. Chinglu is obviously happy with his point of view.
The responses are because he's been telling everyone his point of view is correct, Albert Einstein was wrong, and so is everyone else who uses any technology that depends on Einstein's theories.

This includes the internet he's connected to. How much "wiggle room" is there in internet communication, or for that matter, any time-critical communication (such as used by the military)? How ignorant is the claim that all clocks are somehow tied to the earth's orbit? (Answer: it's really really ignorant).

But yeah, who cares?

Meh.
At some point, you just give up. Chinglu is obviously happy with his point of view.
The responses are because he's been telling everyone his point of view is correct, Albert Einstein was wrong, and so is everyone else who uses any technology that depends on Einstein's theories.

This includes the internet he's connected to. How much "wiggle room" is there in internet communication, or for that matter, any time-critical communication (such as used by the military)? How ignorant is the claim that all clocks are somehow tied to the earth's orbit? (Answer: it's really really ignorant).

But yeah, who cares?

This thread is now over 700 posts long. And not much further than where it was at the beginning.

Which seems to me the reason why, a serious, non-conflicted scientist, HAD THE GOOD INTENTION to take a new approach - from the ground up - step by step, and see where that went. Upon this, the troll / sock puppet went beserk, using every device available to it to detract and derail.

I cannot now blame that original, non conflicted scientist for not wishing to continue - not many would be bothered in the face of the trolls war of attrition.

But the opportunitly is still there. We can repeat the same 'ol same 'ol for another 700 odd threads, and Chinglu would not have won, but more importantly, he would have NOT LOST.

And any reasonable un-scientific observer would be wondering ..

"hmmm, is this how science deals with detractors ? Shutting them down by trolling and attrition ? hmmm"

So, for any reasonable, serious, non conflicted scientist, who is also not a troll, not a sockpuppet, here's where it's at (I have added a few words for clarity) ..

A race was run. During the extent of that race one clock beat 10 beats, the other 5, and the sun did not appear in different positions.

Despite the fact that the troll sock puppet continues to flagulate itself (I can see that at least, by the volume of it's deleted / ignored posts on my screen), it would be good for this conversation to continue on the basis a serious, non conflicted scientist intended.

Lakon said:
This thread is now over 700 posts long. And not much further than where it was at the beginning.
And that isn't chinglu's fault? It's because of all the trolling and sockpuppets?

Ok . . .

And that isn't chinglu's fault? It's because of all the trolling and sockpuppets?

Ok . . .

I never said it wasn't Chinglus fault. I never made any reference to specific fault. Your post, above, seems to want to open up an irrelevant arguement.

Despite the fact that the troll sock puppet continues to flagulate itself (I can see that at least, by the volume of it's deleted / ignored posts on my screen), it would be good for this conversation to continue on the basis a serious, non conflicted scientist intended.

You can twist and turn and squirm all you like, the 700 odd posts do tell it as it is.
You ignoring me [and I don't believe that to be true] makes no difference.
Chinglu' deserves to be beaten, he deserves ridicule and all the bricks and bats that have been hurled his way.
Children could have understood the many varied points put to chinglu, in many varying analogies...
He refused to watch illustrative videos for Christ's sake!
He was and is a troll...and you with your continued posts, everyone of them crying and whinging about other trolls, [that is anyone that tells it as it is] actually points to a paranoia that urgently needs some help.
The last 20 posts of yours have some reference to trolls [nudge nudge, wink wink] Get over it sonny boy!!! Grow up!!!!
Check the 700 posts!!!!
I'll stand on the judgement of the forum and the flavor the last 700 posts have taken, as to who is the real troll/s.
Certainly not your contrived santimonious heart wrenching bullshit about poor old chinglu.

Last edited:
I see it like this: "arguing" with chinglu is irrelevant. Or at least, pointless.

I never said it wasn't Chinglus fault. I never made any reference to specific fault. Your post, above, seems to want to open up an irrelevant arguement.

One step foward, two steps back!!!

I just tested chinglu's hypothesis.

I used an ordinary watch, checked the time on it and also the position of the sun (you know, up in the sky?).
Then, I adjusted the time on the watch! (I know, this is really technical stuff, but bear with it).

And . . . the sun didn't move!! WTF?

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.
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.
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.
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.

Last edited:
So, the high observer says the time on his clock is 12:00 am and the land based observer claims time on his clock is 12:00pm.

That means the high observer claims the earth is in a different rotational position from the land based observer, which is a contradiction.

Can anyone resolve this?

From chinglu's OP as it appears quite relevant to the previous post..........

I just tested chinglu's hypothesis.

I used an ordinary watch, checked the time on it and also the position of the sun (you know, up in the sky?).
Then, I adjusted the time on the watch! (I know, this is really technical stuff, but bear with it).

And . . . the sun didn't move!! WTF?

I know where the sun is, thanks.

Anyway, RW has progressed the matter, and has summed it up nicely.

The ball is now clearly in Chinglus court.