Gravity slows down time.

[paddoboy]

There is just one problem.

No one has refuted me in this thread.

if you think that is true, then please be specific and post your proof.

All you do is reinforce your tag as a liar and a fraud...840 posts, 42 pages and no one has refuted you???
The previous poster, RW, has spent considerable time trying to "spoon feed" you and pry a logical response to a couple of simple questions, yet you still avoid answering them.....Others have bent over backwards for you to be given a fair go.
You have spat in their face and continue to play games, something which I actually mentioned back in the first half a dozen pages or so.

We all are sick and tied of refuting you. It's the whole scientific world that refutes you and has every day since 1905.
You are a lost cause....a sick lost cause.

 

[river]

All you do is reinforce your tag as a liar and a fraud...840 posts, 42 pages and no one has refuted you???
The previous poster, RW, has spent considerable time trying to "spoon feed" you and pry a logical response to a couple of simple questions, yet you still avoid answering them.....Others have bent over backwards for you to be given a fair go.
You have spat in their face and continue to play games, something which I actually mentioned back in the first half a dozen pages or so.

We all are sick and tied of refuting you. It's the whole scientific world that refutes you and has every day since 1905.
You are a lost cause....a sick lost cause.

paddoboy

you seem ......zealous .....

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy

you seem ......zealous .....

Zealous??? Not really, although I am in awe of the Universe around us, and the means we use to describe it based on observation and experiments.
I have my own ideas on a couple of issues, but in saying that, I certainly don't just rush in claiming I have some magical insight into different aspects, and that the mainstream views are wrong.
That's what distinguishes this particular charlatan and others with their immediate claims of having discovered what mainstream science has not, from myself and normal folk.
The scientific method and peer review is the best we have got, and no other system can progresses the cause of real science as much as the present scientific method.......That's not to say that on the odd occasion, some idea, not mainstream, could be swept away or lost in the mountains of junk that needs to be sifted through.
But no system is perfect, still it's the best we have.

 

[paddoboy]

There is, as yet, nothing to resolve as you have just failed to go into the details. This is what you always do, you do not know the equations and so instead you hear qualitative superficial explanations of various aspects of relativity, combine them together in a way you don't understand and declare it a contradiction.

If you claim there is a contradiction then please go through the explicit calculations involving a rotating system in general relativity which lead to a contradiction, such as 1=2. Your wordy description doesn't account for how distances and times are modified by the motion and position of the person in question. You're only showing that you have no experience dealing with multiple frames within a GR context. The modifications in the points of view due to gravitational and kinetic effects result in the two observers seeing things like the size of the Earth, its orbit around the Sun, the rate of rotation and the rate of orbit all slightly differently. At the end of it, when they meet up their clocks will disagree and yet it will be completely consistent with their own observations.

If you cannot provide the detailed calculations of your claim or at least show you are familiar with the details then I'm going to move this to pseudo-science. The thread as it currently stands, if it were authored by another member, is fine but we all know which way this is heading, you make assertions you cannot back up, your errors are explained to you and you refuse to listen because you don't understand. You obviously don't put much qualitative thought to anything before posting because if a contradiction in GR were that obvious it would have been seen long ago. Different observers with precise clocks moving up and down in the Earth's gravitational field is exactly what the GPS network does, as they have a small but non-zero eccentricity, meaning their orbital distance varies.

Given the fact GPS are a demonstrable reality and use GR calculations of the kind pertaining to your question the conclusion is that you're mistaken about GR. As such provide details or you're off to pseudo science.

Ahaa, I actually missed that post. So this was in normal accepted science first?
Explains a lot as to why we have over 800 posts and as yet, no resolution....Other then of course that SR/GR works and are observed to work in the modern society we are all a part of [well most of us that is ]

 

[river]

Zealous??? Not really, although I am in awe of the Universe around us, and the means we use to describe it based on observation and experiments.
I have my own ideas on a couple of issues, but in saying that, I certainly don't just rush in claiming I have some magical insight into different aspects, and that the mainstream views are wrong.
That's what distinguishes this particular charlatan and others with their immediate claims of having discovered what mainstream science has not, from myself and normal folk.
The scientific method and peer review is the best we have got, and no other system can progresses the cause of real science as much as the present scientific method.......That's not to say that on the odd occasion, some idea, not mainstream, could be swept away or lost in the mountains of junk that needs to be sifted through.
But no system is perfect, still it's the best we have.

the present system is flawed , far beyond the best we have

 

[paddoboy]

the present system is flawed , far beyond the best we have

That's your opinion, and incorrect at that....Unless of course you have a better system.

 

[Lakon]

There is just one problem.

No one has refuted me in this thread.

if you think that is true, then please be specific and post your proof.

Chinglu, to be fair, I see now, amongst all the noise, that a few posts ago you may have asked me for MY definition of time. My answer is, I don't know what time is. I don't have a definition.

However, this is beside the point as I am asserting nothing in this thread. I was simply keen to follow a conversation between you and RW that seemed to require an approach from the ground up, as I thought this might be of benefit to progress in our understanding. We have to, after all, agree on basic terms before we can progress, otherwise it's just noise.

So once again, regardless of mine, or yours, or anyones definition of time, the simple questions put to you are,

- Define what a clock is,
- Define what a clock does.

As you are the principal contributor of alternative ideas in this thread, don't you think it's appropriate that you simply answer these two simple questions, so we know we're on the same page ?

We can then progress from there. Thanks.

 

[Russ_Watters]

the present system is flawed , far beyond the best we have

Nonsense. The mainstream of science has provided all of the scientific advancements we now enjoy as modern technology, for the past 400 years. No other method for acquiring knowledge has produced even a tiny fraction of our current technology.

BTW, "far beyond the best we have" means better than the best....I know that's not what you mean though.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river View Post

the present system is flawed , far beyond the best we have

Nonsense. The mainstream of science has provided all of the scientific advancements we now enjoy as modern technology, for the past 400 years. No other method for acquiring knowledge has produced even a tiny fraction of our current technology.

BTW, "far beyond the best we have" means better than the best....I know that's not what you mean though.

yes you do know what I mean

Is that we could be far , far , far more advanced than what we are now , if not for the flawed system of " science " we have now and for goodness knows how long ....

 

[arfa brane]

Is that we could be far , far , far more advanced than what we are now , if not for the flawed system of " science " we have now and for goodness knows how long ....

Man, you look like someone who has no idea what science is.

Your conjecture is asinine, it's like saying the earth could be in a much better place than it is.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river

Is that we could be far , far , far more advanced than what we are now , if not for the flawed system of " science " we have now and for goodness knows how long ....

Man, you look like someone who has no idea what science is.

Your conjecture is asinine, it's like saying the earth could be in a much better place than it is.

not just Earth , but also forms of travel

 

[paddoboy]

Chinglu, to be fair, I see now, amongst all the noise, that a few posts ago you may have asked me for MY definition of time. My answer is, I don't know what time is. I don't have a definition.

Now try to be a bit fair dinkum, and take the time to check back near the beginning.
He is not interested in giving you any definition as that will reveal the inconsistencies, and ridiculous assumptions he needs to dream up supporting his gobbldydook.

As you are the principal contributor of alternative ideas in this thread,

It doesn't even stack up as an alternative idea......the assumptions needed defy common sense. eg Clocks being hardwired to the motions of the earth.

 

[chinglu]

The question asked the definition of "clock", not "time". And that it isn't even the definition of "time".

I must agree with the others here. Your unwillingness or inability to answer a simple question about the definition of "clock" makes it clear this thread really can go no further. There is no hope of you grasping/acknowledging the functioning of Relativity if you won't even display elementary-school knowledge of timekeeping.

And no, there is nothing useful to be gained by having us spoonfeed you elementary school knowledge. Forcing us to drag you to it only serves to display the lengths you will go to to avoid knowledge.

So if you want to change that perception and make progress in this thread, the best way to start would be to post a googled/wiki/dictionary definition of the word "clock". For example, the first sentence of the wiki article.

P.S. Others may fall for your attempts to deflect/reboot/change the subject, but I will not. I recognize it is a game and will not play. You can't discuss how old a person is if you don't even know what time/a clock is!

I don't know how many times I have to answer this. The purpose of a clock is to provide a technology that mimics some percentage that matches the rotation of the earth.

I have already proven that frequency based clocks in GPS are supposed to match as close as possible the rotation of the earth in some percentage.

Now, here is what I want you do do.

Use specifics on how I have not answered what a clock is using the above. So, the above is my definition of a clock period. It is specific and matched with GPS and UTC.

It is now your turn to describe a clock in your "SR" world. If your definition does not match mine, then you will be refuted quickly.

If you match mine, then your refute SR. So, all you folks step up to the plate.

I have stated and provided proof for my definition of a clock and time over and over.

It is now your turn. You see, if you folks are correct, then you will quickly provide your SR definition and since this is so correct, all these many readers of this thread will laugh all day at me. That should give you all joy.

Let's go.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I don't know how many times I have to answer this. The purpose of a clock is to provide a technology that mimics some percentage that matches the rotation of the earth.

Only once, correctly. But repeating the wrong answer over and over again will not ever make it stop being wrong. You could fix this easily if you choose to: Just copy and paste the first sentence of the wiki or the definition from a dictionary link.

 

[paddoboy]

If you match mine, then your refute SR. So, all you folks step up to the plate.

I have stated and provided proof for my definition of a clock and time over and over.

It is now your turn. You see, if you folks are correct, then you will quickly provide your SR definition and since this is so correct, all these many readers of this thread will laugh all day at me. That should give you all joy.

Let's go.

The arrogance!!!!
Why do you persist in trying to convince us Idiots?
If you are correct, get it peer reviewed, take it to the world! Why waste your time in "PSEUDOSCIENCE "
Make a name for yourself [YOU CERTAINLY WILL, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! ]

 

[chinglu]

Only once, correctly. But repeating the wrong answer over and over again will not ever make it stop being wrong. You could fix this easily if you choose to: Just copy and paste the first sentence of the wiki or the definition from a dictionary link.

Well, looks like you are going to refute me.

Go at it and prove I am wrong and I will be embarrassed I guess.

 

[chinglu]

The arrogance!!!!
Why do you persist in trying to convince us Idiots?
If you are correct, get it peer reviewed, take it to the world! Why waste your time in "PSEUDOSCIENCE "
Make a name for yourself [YOU CERTAINLY WILL, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! ]

Why do you persist in trying to convince us Idiots?

I did not claim I could.

 

[paddoboy]

Why do you persist in trying to convince us Idiots?

I did not claim I could.

Of course you can't,,,,just as any peer review outlet would wipe their arse with your proposal.
Which tells a great deal about the delusional state you are sufferring in.

So, anyway, you can't convinvce anyone here, obviously any peer review outlet would send you packing, so where does that leave you?
Wandering the world, with an idea that would change everything and everybody, but nobody is taking any notice of you......Quite frustrating I would Imagine.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Well, looks like you are going to refute me.

Go at it and prove I am wrong and I will be embarrassed I guess.

No. I will not spoonfeed you elementary school knowledge. You will have to go get it yourself and bring it here to prove that you aren't just playing games (or, rather, are willing to stop playing games). Until then, you've simply shown the people in this thread you don't understand what clocks/time are on even a most basic level.

 

[chinglu]

No. I will not spoonfeed you elementary school knowledge. You will have to go get it yourself and bring it here to prove that you aren't just playing games (or, rather, are willing to stop playing games). Until then, you've simply shown the people in this thread you don't understand what clocks/time are on even a most basic level.

I think you are cornfused. I wanted you to get specific in your definitions as I did. That way, I can show you where you are wrong.

Now, lot's of readers have come here and since you are a self-proclaimed "expert", I am sure they want to hear your "expert" opinion. So, stop being coy and get specific just the way I did.