That explanation has been presented to you time and again, but you just keep ignoring it and asking the same question over and over and over and...
Surely, no one can be so obtuse.
Gravity slows down time.
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
That explanation has been presented to you time and again, but you just keep ignoring it and asking the same question over and over and over and...
Surely, no one can be so obtuse.
Bear with me here .. so if we have two identical twins / clocks in otherwise empty space, ie, no other reference points, infuences, etc, what was the initial reference frame, what made it the initial reference frame, and how, according to the equivalence principle (if that's what it's called) is it determined that one twin is moving as opposed to the other ?
BdS
Registered Senior Member
And for an attempt at a more technical/physical description. The travelling twins atomic clock frequency has slowed down so it records seconds slower than the Earth twins clock, which actually means energy is being transferred slower by the frequency changing. Can we also say that the twins atomic/molecular forces/fields frequency are also affected? All his atomic/molecular forces/fields are also transferring energy slower throughout his atomic/molecular lattice and causing his biological aging to be affected by speeding up or slowing down the energy transfers by changing frequencies?
Neither. They are both moving against the inertial reference frame which was Earth. Here you would take each one's navigation logs, and calculate the speeding or slowing of each clock relative to Earth. That will give you the age of each one relative to their age if they had remained on Earth. The you subtract one from the other to their age difference.
We have to use Earth as the reference frame because that's their place of origin -- the place where their clocks first started ticking (Ok maybe 15 minutes apart) -- and (most importantly) that's the place where their clocks were last running at the same rates. (This is not exactly true since one will move around move than the other while on Earth and this will change the numbers by extremely small amounts). You can have them leave together and then spit up in space, but the result will be the same as if you had let them take their own spaceships.
False, wrong and in error!
Gravity certainly does affect time and this has been shown many many times in experiments and in many practicable applications.
The lower the gravitational potential, [closer to the source of gravity] the slower times passes, the higher the gravitational potential, [further from a gravity source] the faster time passes.
Yep, in fact each twin's rate of passing of time, is correct with regards to that same FoR. That's why it is called relativity.
"In relation to one's own frame of reference"
No no no, mate! You are mistaking EXTERNAL "witnessed' and 'lived' referents/counts of ASTRONOMICAL POSITIONS with INHERENT or INTERNAL clock/biological 'aging/ticking' PROCESS.
The POSITIONAL/LIVING/WITNESSING of astronomical data is external, whereas the AGING/PROCESS/TICKING of CLOCKS/BIOLOGY is internal or inherent. They are entirely DISCONNECTED concepts/data sets.
See? That is why I explained that your use of 'living' or 'witnessing' etc is EFFECTIVELY and OBSERVATIONALLY entirely a different thing logically and physically from the INHERENT/INTERNAL clock/biology associated data sets/observations. You cannot SUBJECTIVELY and ARBITRARILY 'connect' the two data sets/observations without making the necessary BRIDGING ALLOWANCES/INTERPRETATIONS to give the 'whole picture' WITHOUT any 'paradox' being inadvertently produced by careless mixing without bridging in both logics and physics reality.
I will just check my PMs and log out again as soon as I can. So if I miss any further post from you I'll catch up with it tomorrow if I can, mate! Bye for now.
You are claiming astronomical data proves the moving twin witnessed 12 earth years by the earth orbits.
But, then you claim because your clock claimed only 10 earth orbits occurred then 12 earth orbits occurred by your observations and 10 earth orbits occurred by your clock.
So, your clock contradicts your scientific observations.
Thus, your clock is wrong.
The moving twin "witnesses" 12 earth orbits in less than 12 earth years, because they are not at the same location as the earth.chinglu said:
This is rather confused. A lot like you. The clock that measured 10 earth years isn't on the earth. The travelling twin with his travelling clock measured 12 earth orbits in 10 earth years. So for them, the earth appears to be moving faster than for the twin on the earth.
That explains why the GPS system is so unreliable. You must be a genius.
Hi chinglu.
Not much time again today, so I may have to leave in a hurry. Until then, in a rush...I am NOT claiming anything; I am just explaining that YOU are the one 'claiming' something on behalf of the traveling twin's clock that the clock itself is NOT 'claiming' for itself AT ALL.
Did you understand what I meant when I said that the clock data set is totally disconnected from external data sets; and that any 'connection' between them is made by YOU; but that YOU fail to include the necessary BRIDGING allowances/interpretations that would allow YOUR 'connecting' the two data sets to be consistent with the objective reality and not produce some inadvertent 'paradoxical connection' because YOU do not make those bridging allowances/interpretations correctly?
Consider (again): The two clocks will tick their 'seconds' at different rates (ie, the duration between 'ticks' will be of different lengths, as per already explained motional state difference effects on the traveling twin compared to the 'starting standard' duration length between 'ticks' in the 'starting' motional state (Earth's).
So, the TOTAL ABSOLUTE 'count' number in the traveling twin clock will be 10/12th the total absolute 'count' number of the Earth twin clock. And THAT IS ALL you can say about it. The clocks don't 'claim' anything about the Sun-Earth POSITIONAL states per se...that is a CORRELATION MADE BY YOU. BUT if you do not allow for the two clocks' DIFFERENT absolute count number, then you cannot 'bridge' the two disparate data sets AT ALL.
So, you see? The two clocks make NO 'claims' about anything EXCEPT to 'present you' with their RESPECTIVE CUMULATIVE 'absolute counts' which will DIFFER as explained. Only when you realize that the two counts can BOTH be correlated to the astronomical POSITION/CYCLE 'counts', THEN you know you must introduce bridging allowance/interpretation factor (ie, a 'correction factor' if you like) to:
- EITHER adjust the Earth clock 'count' to show what the TRAVELING clock 'ticked off' for the same Earth-sun cycle/orbit number...
- OR...adjust the Traveling clock 'count' to show what the Earth clock 'ticked off'...
- OR...leave the Earth clock 'count' alone (because it was never 'disconnected' from the sun-earth starting standards, ie, it never went out of synch with the Earth 'year' cycling)....AND merely...
- ONLY adjust the traveling clock 'count' number to show what the Earth clock shows and thus automatically showing the 12 'years' that Earth clock ticked off even as the traveling clock ticked off OSTENSIBLY '10 years' BUT really was ticking off the SAMNE astronomical data/duration AT A DIFFERENT 'tick value/rate' which produced a DISCONNCETED data set which WITHOUT proper adjustment (as explained) would leave you to incorrectly 'claim' that the 10 years worth of 'seconds' clock count were somehow the same as the 12 years worth of 'seconds' for the Earth clock.
And it is because YOU are making 'claims' to 'connect' the two clocks' tick counts as if they were 'on par' with each other, you keep making the 'paradox' claim which is not valid when the two data sets are properly correlated.
Your conclusion is made worse when you keep using terms like "lived through", "witnessed" astronomical data set etc as if it meant "aged" through the same data set. Which you obviously do NOT if your clock/biology 'ticks/ages' at a different rate/value depending on what motional state you have been in for the experiment run during which you make EXTERNAL astronomical observations while your clock/biology JUST INHERENTLY ticks off your specific value/number of 'seconds', and nothing else. Anything else is AFTER the event and brought by YOU making 'claims' and 'connections' which have NOT been properly 'bridged' between the two causally disconnected data sets.
Anyhow, gotta go. Please read again what I posted to you before in the light of what I just posted now. There is a cogent reason why I have tried to point to your conflating two different concepts and not correctly correlating/bridging two separate data sets etc etc, as already explained. Until you 'get' the subtle points made, you will keep kneejerking past them and making your same 'misconnections' between two data sets and making your 'misclaims' about 'clock claims' which are not being made by the clocks at all (again, as explained).
Logging out! Bye and good luck and good discussing to you, chinglu, everyone.
Hi chinglu.
You're always rushing, Undefined. Pretty soon you're going to show visible evidence of being time dilated
I for one am entirely convinced that you are a troll, and are playing silly buggers seeing how many rebuttal replies you can get........Either that or you are one of the nutty conspiracy brigades.
I bet you believe the Earth is flat......Or that we didn't go to the Moon....
BTW you still havn't checked that link?
The truth is so hard to bare isn't it?
You're always rushing, Undefined. Pretty soon you're going to show visible evidence of being time dilated
Haha! Good one, Lakon!
Would that it were so, mate! I am 64, and so I could very much do with having "witnessed/lived" through 64 Earth-sun 'year' cycles but actually biologically/chronologically "aged/ticked" through the EQUIVALENT of only 10/12ths such cycles (like chinglu's traveling twin in this thread)!
Seriously though, at my age there now don't seem to be enough hours in the day to do all the things one wants to do before one kicks the bucket...hence the rush in almost my every waking moment!
Damn. Gotta rush off again, lol. So no time for further posts in any thread/discussion today. Cheers! Keep up that great sense of humor, mate; and enjoy your discussions, Lakon, chinglu, everybody!
You are confused.
The traveling twin witnessed 12 earth orbits and his clock claimed 10 earth orbits occurred, which of course is false.
That is the problem.
The SR clock is wrong.
I for one am entirely convinced that you are a troll, and are playing silly buggers seeing how many rebuttal replies you can get........Either that or you are one of the nutty conspiracy brigades.
I bet you believe the Earth is flat......Or that we didn't go to the Moon....
BTW you still havn't checked that link?
The truth is so hard to bare isn't it?
What truth are you trying to claim?
Are you claiming the traveling twin witnessed 12 earth years and his clock contradicts him and claimed he only witnessed 10 years?
That is crackpottery.
Hi arfa brane.
I came in again to check an old post and saw this while I was scanning through the posts.
Please note that you are inadvertently enabling chinglu's confusion because you too fall into the trap of not properly distinguishing between two subtle but important concepts/aspects!
I have bolded (in the above quoted post) the two bits where this confusion is embodied/promulgated. The whole point I tried to explain earlier to chinglu (and now you) is that the clocks don't tick off 'years', they just tick off an absolute number of 'seconds'. And that's it. The correlations made with the number of earth-sun orbit 'years' is entirely made by the observer. The trouble comes in when the observer making the connection does not distinguish BETWEEN the 'witnessed' earth-sun years number of orbits DATA SET and the clock/biology age/tick DATA SET.
Understand? The two data sets and systems are effectively/logically NOT causally connected to each other's cycles except through the observer's logical correlations between the two based on some 'bridging' allowances/interpretations or 'corrections' which I have already explained.
Ok? Please both of you try to get this straight before you continue cross-purpose discussion based on conflated concepts which result in cross-purpose confusions already pointed out.
That is....the clocks don't 'claim' to be ticking off the number of earth year orbits; and the earth-sun system doesn't 'claim' to be ticking off the clocks' 'seconds' cycles; only your observers are making connections, but making the mistake of not recognizing and allowing for the subtle aspects I have pointed out which must be included in analysis/correlations for those to make any sense and avoid seeming 'paradox'.
Try reading all my posts in this thread again, both of you, and try to 'get' what I have pointed out regarding the where and whyfores of the confusion and cross-purpose misunderstandings that keeps arising when not properly understood what an invalid analysis/interpretation is doing. Good luck!
Hi chinglu!
Please read my above post to arfa brane, wherein I point out again where both of you are making 'claims' that the clock's are ticking off 'years'. Which is obviously incorrect, as I have already explained, because clocks only tick off their respective value 'second' counts, and not anything else connected with astronomical data. It is the observer (you) who is making claims and connections between two totally disconnected/independent data sets, and getting the 'paradox' because you haven't made the correct bridging allowances/interpretations necessary, as also explained previously. Bye, and good luck!
Please read my above post to arfa brane, wherein I point out again where both of you are making 'claims' that the clock's are ticking off 'years'. Which is obviously incorrect, as I have already explained, because clocks only tick off their respective value 'second' counts, and not anything else connected with astronomical data. It is the observer (you) who is making claims and connections between two totally disconnected/independent data sets, and getting the 'paradox' because you haven't made the correct bridging allowances/interpretations necessary, as also explained previously. Bye, and good luck!
Haha! Good one, Lakon!
Would that it were so, mate! I am 64, and so I could very much do with having "witnessed/lived" through 64 Earth-sun 'year' cycles but actually biologically/chronologically "aged/ticked" through the EQUIVALENT of only 10/12ths such cycles (like chinglu's traveling twin in this thread)!
Seriously though, at my age there now don't seem to be enough hours in the day to do all the things one wants to do before one kicks the bucket...hence the rush in almost my every waking moment!
Damn. Gotta rush off again, lol. So no time for further posts in any thread/discussion today. Cheers! Keep up that great sense of humor, mate; and enjoy your discussions, Lakon, chinglu, everybody!
My friend, let me remind you of some words of Lord Byron in regard to this ..
Let not a monument give you or me hopes
Since not a pinch of dust remains of Cheops ..