Gravity slows down time.

[Lakon]

You are actually totally disinterested, period.

Good. Then there is no reason for you to continue to stalk me. I will not enter into any dialouge with you. I will not be informed by you. Nothing you say will be of benefit to me.

If other menbers object in, or find error in what I've said, they are probably able to say so themselves.

Try to let go.


edit

 

[paddoboy]

Good. Then there is no reason for you to continue to stalk me. I will not enter into any dialouge with you. I will not be informed by you. Nothing you say will be of benefit to me.

If other menbers object in, or find error in what I've said, they are probably able to say so themselves.

Try to let go.


edit

I can't, You have too hard a grip on my sleeve!


Plus I'm sure most members don't want to interfere in our childish little spat...
But from memory, you have had at least two asking to to desist in your antics???

 

[Lakon]

I can't, You have too hard a grip on my sleeve!


Plus I'm sure most members don't want to interfere in our childish little spat...
But from memory, you have had at least two asking to to desist in your antics???

Stop stalking me. I have no interest in you whatsoever. Try to let go.

 

[Undefined]

So, what.

The watch incorrectly claimed I finished only 1/2 the race when in fact I finished the whole race.
So, the clock is wrong, which is what I have been saying all along.

The clock must math physical reality.

I DO NOT WANT TO PRE-EMPT RUSS WATTERS RESPONSE TO THIS - THE FOLLOWING ARE ONLY MY THOUGHTS;

Chinglu - Yes, the whole race WAS finished.

One clock measured 5 beats. The other 10. In my mind, both are what they are. To further develope this, different societies have had different measurements of time. One might have measured 18 copeks (a fictional term for the exersise) and the other 9.

Or, to put it another way - you ran the race in 50 heartbeats - you were running, after all.

I was observing you, quite relaxed, and I experienced 25 heartbeats.

Hi Lakon.

Hey, that's not a bad illustrative use of the 'biological' process 'aspect' as the 'clock' process (just like the 'aging' process of the twin biology, only in reverse 'rate' effects from the moving/running).

In fact, it's an excellent way to illustrate the point about 'internal' referents of 'timing' and comparing later to an 'external referent (ie, 'the race') duration per se according to the 'rest' standard 'heart beat rate' of the stay-put twin as compared to the 'traveling' NON-standard 'heart beat rate' of the racing twin (in this case the rate effect is the reverse of what happens in the relativistically moving twin case, of course, where the rates is SLOWED rather than SPEEDED UP; but in your example using the EFFECT OF EXERTION on heart rates illustrates the essential point that there IS a DIFFERENCE in the rates/counts per se BETWEEN the two 'counters' involved, for the SAME 'external event/duration' observed/run by both twins/clocks/hearts/biologies, as the case may be).

If the penny doesn't drop after reading your 'reverse-effect rate' illustrative device of 'heartbeat' in two different 'states' (or 'processing rates'), then nothing can help, especially as it has already been explained in just about every contextual/logical/realistic way possible.

Your explaining it that way is just about as good as it gets insofar as teasing out the reality essentials involved 'internally' and 'externally' to the scenrio of differing biology/clock processing rates during the same external 'event duration common to both biology/clock involved meanwhile.

Good one, Lakon! I enjoyed reading your illustrative 'take' overall for explanatory purposes building on Russ Waters initial 'race' example. It just about 'puts the cherry on the top' of the whole pile of explanations to date. Thanks for your continuing impartial approach to scientific discourse/explanation, mate!

 

[paddoboy]

Hi Lakon.

Hey, that's not a bad illustrative use of the 'biological' process 'aspect' as the 'clock' process (just like the 'aging' process of the twin biology, only in reverse 'rate' effects from the moving/running).

In fact, it's an excellent way to illustrate the point about 'internal' referents of 'timing' and comparing later to an 'external referent (ie, 'the race') duration per se according to the 'rest' standard 'heart beat rate' of the stay-put twin as compared to the 'traveling' NON-standard 'heart beat rate' of the racing twin (in this case the rate effect is the reverse of what happens in the relativistically moving twin case, of course, where the rates is SLOWED rather than SPEEDED UP; but in your example using the EFFECT OF EXERTION on heart rates illustrates the essential point that there IS a DIFFERENCE in the rates/counts per se BETWEEN the two 'counters' involved, for the SAME 'external event/duration' observed/run by both twins/clocks/hearts/biologies, as the case may be).

If the penny doesn't drop after reading your 'reverse-effect rate' illustrative device of 'heartbeat' in two different 'states' (or 'processing rates'), then nothing can help, especially as it has already been explained in just about every contextual/logical/realistic way possible.

Your explaining it that way is just about as good as it gets insofar as teasing out the reality essentials involved 'internally' and 'externally' to the scenrio of differing biology/clock processing rates during the same external 'event duration common to both biology/clock involved meanwhile.

Good one, Lakon! I enjoyed reading your illustrative 'take' overall for explanatory purposes building on Russ Waters initial 'race' example. It just about 'puts the cherry on the top' of the whole pile of explanations to date. Thanks for your continuing impartial approach to scientific discourse/explanation, mate!

Hmmm, yeah I suppose I was a bit hard on Lakon in post 628 for obvious reasons....
I'll give him a cigar.......this time.







cue: ?????

 

[paddoboy]

Chinglu must be giving this plenty of thought......I wish him the best!

 

[Lakon]

Hi Lakon.

Hey, that's not a bad illustrative use of the 'biological' process 'aspect' as the 'clock' process (just like the 'aging' process of the twin biology, only in reverse 'rate' effects from the moving/running).

In fact, it's an excellent way to illustrate the point about 'internal' referents of 'timing' and comparing later to an 'external referent (ie, 'the race') duration per se according to the 'rest' standard 'heart beat rate' of the stay-put twin as compared to the 'traveling' NON-standard 'heart beat rate' of the racing twin (in this case the rate effect is the reverse of what happens in the relativistically moving twin case, of course, where the rates is SLOWED rather than SPEEDED UP; but in your example using the EFFECT OF EXERTION on heart rates illustrates the essential point that there IS a DIFFERENCE in the rates/counts per se BETWEEN the two 'counters' involved, for the SAME 'external event/duration' observed/run by both twins/clocks/hearts/biologies, as the case may be).

If the penny doesn't drop after reading your 'reverse-effect rate' illustrative device of 'heartbeat' in two different 'states' (or 'processing rates'), then nothing can help, especially as it has already been explained in just about every contextual/logical/realistic way possible.

Your explaining it that way is just about as good as it gets insofar as teasing out the reality essentials involved 'internally' and 'externally' to the scenrio of differing biology/clock processing rates during the same external 'event duration common to both biology/clock involved meanwhile.

Good one, Lakon! I enjoyed reading your illustrative 'take' overall for explanatory purposes building on Russ Waters initial 'race' example. It just about 'puts the cherry on the top' of the whole pile of explanations to date. Thanks for your continuing impartial approach to scientific discourse/explanation, mate!

Hi Undefined.

No, I think you read far too much in my example.

RW put to Chinglu a completed race. One clock measured it at 10 seconds. Another clock, ticking at half the rate, measured it at 5 seconds.

Chinglu purported not to understand this, and went off on some tangent about the earth spinning, or wahtever.

I tried to get past this by giving two other measuring devices along a similar argument as RW's those being 2 different heart rates - one beat 25, the other 50.

This has nothing to do with twin biology .. or whatever you've mentioned above. At this stage, it's far simpler than that. I mentioned no time dilated twins (yet) or anything like that.

Forget the heart beats. Let me try another example, EXACTLY along the lines of what I interpret RW was saying.

Two bicycle wheels spinning at different, constant rates.

The race was run.

One wheel did 10,000 revolutions during the race.

The other, spinning half as fast, done 5,000 revolutions during the course of the race.

IT'S THAT SIMPLE !

So we await Chinglus response .. although .. don't I recall some post back that he did indeed answer '5 sec' to RW's most recent question ?

I think he did, so it's over to RW.

The sockpuppet noise is adding to the confusion, making it extremely difficult to carry through this simple discussion. I think it's deliberate, as a result of some great fear. Only fear makes people act like this. In any event, I understand there's facility to block his posts from my view, so I'm going to do that right now.

Anyhow, I hope my bicycle wheel scenario clarifies what I intended, earlier.

Cheers.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Undefined.

No, I think you read far too much in my example.

RW put to Chinglu a completed race. One clock measured it at 10 seconds. Another clock, ticking at half the rate, measured it at 5 seconds.

Chinglu purported not to understand this, and went off on some tangent about the earth spinning, or wahtever.

I tried to get past this by giving two other measuring devices along a similar argument as RW's those being 2 different heart rates - one beat 25, the other 50.

This has nothing to do with twin biology .. or whatever you've mentioned above. At this stage, it's far simpler than that. I mentioned no time dilated twins (yet) or anything like that.

Forget the heart beats. Let me try another example, EXACTLY along the lines of what I interpret RW was saying.

Two bicycle wheels spinning at different, constant rates.

The race was run.

One wheel did 10,000 revolutions during the race.

The other, spinning half as fast, done 5,000 revolutions during the course of the race.

IT'S THAT SIMPLE !

So we await Chinglus response .. although .. don't I recall some post back that he did indeed answer '5 sec' to RW's most recent question ?

I think he did, so it's over to RW.

The sockpuppet noise is adding to the confusion, making it extremely difficult to carry through this simple discussion. I think it's deliberate, as a result of some great fear. Only fear makes people act like this. In any event, I understand there's facility to block his posts from my view, so I'm going to do that right now.

Anyhow, I hope my bicycle wheel scenario clarifies what I intended, earlier.

Cheers.

Hi Lakon.

Actually, whether you intended it or not, your example did both! This is why free and open discussions are so 'unpredictable' as to possible serendipitous insights to be had/expressed even when unintended/unexpected!

1) Your 'heart beat' variation on the 'race' theme as written/read, effectively presented and extended the simple aspect of independent measuring devices "doing there own thing" (as I already got chinglu to agree with me that was the case for 'clocks/biology' or any 'measuring device' whatsoever that is affected by circumstance which makes it 'do its own thing' in a different way accordingly). Whether that 'measuring/counting' device is a biology process of 'aging' (ie, loss of Telomeres from chromosome ends), or whether that measuring/counting' device is a mechanical process of 'ticking' (ie, clock counting off its internal regular cycles); or whether that 'measuring/counting' is another biological process affected by biological exertion instead of speed through space, it is that principle of it 'doing its own thing 'internally' which your example further demonstrates.

2) It also presented a NON-SR and REVERSE EFFECT scenario which, even if you did not intend it, actually HELPED to highlight the principle of RATE DIFFERENCE involved per se! The reverse effect ('counting rate' speeding up instead of slowing down) because it was the exertion and not the speed that was the effective factor leading to the DIFFERENCE in count/rate. So, that heart beat count DIFFERENCE, irrespective of race duration per se according to an external common standard, STILL represents another example that demonstrates the 'disconnection' between whatever the 'standard external duration is, and the 'non-standard internal 'counts' affected by internal process CHANGES, irrespective of how that change comes about or the example used to illustrate that salient point.

In short, your further use of internal 'heart beat' datasets 'counting off' and comparing to external 'race duration' per se dataset in both 'rest rate' state and 'running-exertion rate' state had a TWO-PRONGED meaning/illustrative insight as written. So I only read into it what you put into it, which apparently was more than you intended, but nevertheless was there when read in the fuller context and insights already expressed throughout the thread explanations from all the contributors/discussion so far!

Again, then, kudos from me at least (and from paddoboy too!...see his #645 post), Lakon, whether you want it or not, mate! Cheers and thanks again for the interesting 'reverse rate take' on the same salient aspect of rate difference from whatever cause! G'night.

 

[Undefined]

Hmmm, yeah I suppose I was a bit hard on Lakon in post 628 for obvious reasons....
I'll give him a cigar.......this time.


cue: ?????

Give and take is what it's all about with us Down Under, Aussie! In science and innovation generally,one never knows whence the next great idea/insight will come. So patience and tolerance and a fair go/hearing is crucial, and discussion should be as unemotional as possible and allowed to 'go to completion' without too much 'control' from dogma or ego tactics, since only when a discussion has followed its natural course will there ever come a proper conclusion which will be apparent to all 'sides' to the discussion because it HAS been 'exhausted naturally' and not 'controlled prejudicially'.

It's good to see you both cooling it and making peace, for the sake of free and open and friendly science and humanity discourse. Kudos to you and Lakon for remembering what being "Aussie" is all about in these days of international mistrust and prejudice etc. Go Aussies!

 

[paddoboy]

edit post

 

[Undefined]

Thanks, paddo

 

[paddoboy]

Give and take is what it's all about with us Down Under, Aussie! In science and innovation generally,one never knows whence the next great idea/insight will come. So patience and tolerance and a fair go/hearing is crucial, and discussion should be as unemotional as possible and allowed to 'go to completion' without too much 'control' from dogma or ego tactics, since only when a discussion has followed its natural course will there ever come a proper conclusion which will be apparent to all 'sides' to the discussion because it HAS been 'exhausted naturally' and not 'controlled prejudicially'.

It's good to see you both cooling it and making peace, for the sake of free and open and friendly science and humanity discourse. Kudos to you and Lakon for remembering what being "Aussie" is all about in these days of international mistrust and prejudice etc. Go Aussies!

The point is undefined, he really has been given a fair go at this. Reading the lengthy thread shows this to be true.
As I have stated many times, I'm just an amateur with a great interest in cosmology and physics, but I do have a basic knowledge which isn't really hard to grasp, if one reads the proper reputable literature.
I also have a thing about people that are anti-establishment, just for the sake of it, and believe me, I aint no 'patsy to just follow the leader so to speak, and have had a barny or two with experts, although not here [as yet! ]

The other point you make, sure, we both need to cool it, but it does take two to tango, so to speak, and in this case, that isn't happening.
But as before, I'll make another effort.
I hope it is likewise returned.

What chinglu will do with what has been presented so far, I don't know, but it does appear that others see it as banging their heads against a brick wall and have dropped out.
My thoughts?? He'll probably keep on keeping on with the same, and that is also evidenced in past forums and threads he has participated in.

I hope he proves us all wrong this time.

 

[paddoboy]

edit double post:

 

[Undefined]

The point is undefined, he really has been given a fair go at this. Reading the lengthy thread shows this to be true.
As I have stated many times, I'm just an amateur with a great interest in cosmology and physics, but I do have a basic knowledge which isn't really hard to grasp, if one reads the proper reputable literature.
I also have a thing about people that are anti-establishment, just for the sake of it, and believe me, I aint no 'patsy to just follow the leader so to speak, and have had a barny or two with experts, although not here [as yet! ]

The other point you make, sure, we both need to cool it, but it does take two to tango, so to speak, and in this case, that isn't happening.
But as before, I'll make another effort.
I hope it is likewise returned.

What chinglu will do with what has been presented so far, I don't know, but it does appear that others see it as banging their heads against a brick wall and have dropped out.
My thoughts?? He'll probably keep on keeping on with the same, and that is also evidenced in past forums and threads he has participated in.

I hope he proves us all wrong this time.

I understand, paddo.

About your concern regarding chinglu's reaction to the discussion so far, I strongly suspect that the thread/explanations 'count' has reached 'critical mass' status, and I think chinglu is now fully aware of the non-sequitur he introduces which leads to the misunderstanding of "lived" and "aged" as being somehow the same concepts/effectiveness in the scenarios already covered. And that no clock/biology etc 'count' is wrong OR right but merely different because of changes process/circumstances involved; and that it is that difference and the comparisons which are the salient points to be understood as to cause and effect irrespective of common external referents.

Re quickly ending your and Lakon exchange, yes, this 'delayed reaction' posting conversation mode has its drawbacks precisely because posts are read and answered with a time-offset aspect which makes the 'trailing post exchange stage almost inevitable UNLESS both parties take great care not to let mere delayed reaction times get in the way of speedy reconciliation and hardy handshake (virtual, that is!).

Good luck to both of you, paddo, Lakon; and to you too, chinglu! Enjoy your other discussions in the spirit of the site and the science and the humanity which is all our concern when all is said and done, yes? G'night all!

 

[paddoboy]

Good luck to both of you, paddo, Lakon; and to you too, chinglu! Enjoy your other discussions in the spirit of the site and the science and the humanity which is all our concern when all is said and done, yes? G'night all!

Take it easy, and have one for me!!

 

[Lakon]

Hi Lakon.

Actually, whether you intended it or not, your example did both! This is why free and open discussions are so 'unpredictable' as to possible serendipitous insights to be had/expressed even when unintended/unexpected!

Well then, you could probably extprapolate 'The Rise And Fall Of The Roman Empire' from it too, if you wanted to.

1) Your 'heart beat' variation on the 'race' theme as written/read, effectively presented and extended the simple aspect of independent measuring devices "doing there own thing" (as I already got chinglu to agree with me that was the case for 'clocks/biology' or any 'measuring device' whatsoever that is affected by circumstance which makes it 'do its own thing' in a different way accordingly). Whether that 'measuring/counting' device is a biology process of 'aging' (ie, loss of Telomeres from chromosome ends), or whether that measuring/counting' device is a mechanical process of 'ticking' (ie, clock counting off its internal regular cycles); or whether that 'measuring/counting' is another biological process affected by biological exertion instead of speed through space, it is that principle of it 'doing its own thing 'internally' which your example further demonstrates.

I haven't much of an idea about what you're talking about. I simply wanted to choose two different clocks beating at different rates recording the same event. Exactly like RW's 'one clock 10 sec, the other 5 sec for the same race'. No more intention on my part than this.

2) It also presented a NON-SR and REVERSE EFFECT scenario which, even if you did not intend it, actually HELPED to highlight the principle of RATE DIFFERENCE involved per se! The reverse effect ('counting rate' speeding up instead of slowing down) because it was the exertion and not the speed that was the effective factor leading to the DIFFERENCE in count/rate. So, that heart beat count DIFFERENCE, irrespective of race duration per se according to an external common standard, STILL represents another example that demonstrates the 'disconnection' between whatever the 'standard external duration is, and the 'non-standard internal 'counts' affected by internal process CHANGES, irrespective of how that change comes about or the example used to illustrate that salient point.

In short, your further use of internal 'heart beat' datasets 'counting off' and comparing to external 'race duration' per se dataset in both 'rest rate' state and 'running-exertion rate' state had a TWO-PRONGED meaning/illustrative insight as written. So I only read into it what you put into it, which apparently was more than you intended, but nevertheless was there when read in the fuller context and insights already expressed throughout the thread explanations from all the contributors/discussion so far!

See my comments above. you are reading too much into it all.

Forget the heart rates. One clock 10 seconds, one clock beating slower, 5 seconds. One bicycle wheel 10,000 revs, the other spinning slower 5,000 revs - same event. That's it.

Again, then, kudos from me at least (and from paddoboy too!...see his #645 post), Lakon, whether you want it or not, mate! Cheers and thanks again for the interesting 'reverse rate take' on the same salient aspect of rate difference from whatever cause! G'night.

Re 'rate ... cause' see above. I have no idea what you are talking about. I only wanted to say what I said. No more than that.

The troll sockpuppet is on ignore. I am not getting any of his posts displaying here, and where I might see a quote of them I ignore them completely. Trust me on this.

I don't think Chinglu or RW will progress the simple discussion that RW set forth initially. The noise and derailment seems to have achieved it's purpose, that being, I think, to stifle any discussion that might lead to anti - relativity considerations.

That in itself is pretty telling.

 

[Lakon]

Undefined, please note;

There is only ONE conversation I am interested in here, and that is the one bewtween RW and Chinglu. A couple of posts up, I said it was RW's turn to reply. It easy to get lost among all the noise and trolling. I just went through the posts and now see it is up too Chinglu, note;


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?


So it is up to Chinglu at this point. I seriously don't expect either RW or Chinglu to continue however, given the extraordinary trolling. It really seems to me that somebody has a great interest in preventing this conversation from proceeding.

Please note this is my only interest in this matter. If you have understood anything else, then that is not the case, and I now clarify that the above conversation is my only interest. I hope you can respect that.

 

[paddoboy]

The troll sockpuppet is on ignore. I am not getting any of his posts displaying here, and where I might see a quote of them I ignore them completely. Trust me on this.

.

That's quite acceptable to me......But just to clear the air on your unsupported allegations against my person.
[1] I am a sock puppet for no one, [2] I do not just accept blindly that which is established science, and by the same token I do not reject out of hand anything that happens to be on the fringe so to speak[3] I do my best to understand any particular situation, which in this case is quite easy to comprehend [and as others have noted in your case] and [3] I will never be bullied into submission, rather the power of common sense and logic will always guide my views and actions.

Do I have you on ignore?? No, not at all.
Mainly so that I can refute any possible statement you may make that is not supported by any evidence, if I feel that necessary.
And I really don't see the ignore button as solving anything.


All the best Lakon, seriously, I certainly hope your problems fade with time.

 

[paddoboy]

So it is up to Chinglu at this point. I seriously don't expect either RW or Chinglu to continue however, given the extraordinary trolling. It really seems to me that somebody has a great interest in preventing this conversation from proceeding.

Please note this is my only interest in this matter. If you have understood anything else, then that is not the case, and I now clarify that the above conversation is my only interest. I hope you can respect that.

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.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Lakon.

Well then, you could probably extprapolate 'The Rise And Fall Of The Roman Empire' from it too, if you wanted to.



I haven't much of an idea about what you're talking about. I simply wanted to choose two different clocks beating at different rates recording the same event. Exactly like RW's 'one clock 10 sec, the other 5 sec for the same race'. No more intention on my part than this.



See my comments above. you are reading too much into it all.

Forget the heart rates. One clock 10 seconds, one clock beating slower, 5 seconds. One bicycle wheel 10,000 revs, the other spinning slower 5,000 revs - same event. That's it.



Re 'rate ... cause' see above. I have no idea what you are talking about. I only wanted to say what I said. No more than that.

The troll sockpuppet is on ignore. I am not getting any of his posts displaying here, and where I might see a quote of them I ignore them completely. Trust me on this.

I don't think Chinglu or RW will progress the simple discussion that RW set forth initially. The noise and derailment seems to have achieved it's purpose, that being, I think, to stifle any discussion that might lead to anti - relativity considerations.

That in itself is pretty telling.

Mate, you have to learn how to accept praise (whether it was earned directly or indirectly) without being embarrassed to do so. You made an insightful variation to the 'counting device' aspect, which further demonstrated the devices 'doing their own thing' irrespective of common external referent 'counters' like astronomical or other third reference frame 'standard' for the overall experiment/race duration. That's it. Whether you implied it or I inferred it is immaterial now, because it was an inherent aspect/insight of the variation you made to the 'race' scenario of RW's. See?

You may not be aware of it yet, but you SUBCONSCIOUSLY added an original novel variation-to-the-theme different from all the other explanation variations from me or others!

So the credit for it is now rightly given to you by me and others, irrespective of whether you want to accept it or not. Just because you don't consciously realize the importance and explanatory power of your 'reverse-rate effect' example, it does not mean others haven't recognized it. So...credit to you anyway (whether you like it or not), mate!

Undefined, please note;

There is only ONE conversation I am interested in here, and that is the one bewtween RW and Chinglu. A couple of posts up, I said it was RW's turn to reply. It easy to get lost among all the noise and trolling. I just went through the posts and now see it is up too Chinglu, note;


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?


So it is up to Chinglu at this point. I seriously don't expect either RW or Chinglu to continue however, given the extraordinary trolling. It really seems to me that somebody has a great interest in preventing this conversation from proceeding.

Please note this is my only interest in this matter. If you have understood anything else, then that is not the case, and I now clarify that the above conversation is my only interest. I hope you can respect that.

I understand, Lakon.

I too just wanted chinglu to make his final comment addressing the full implications of explanations, examples and replies so far, especially that straightforward one you mentioned (and varied so nicely as a further illustration of the essentials) which chinglu should thus better recognize and address as you politely requested of him.

Thanks again for your interesting and constructive inputs to the discussion, mate. Bye and good luck to you and everyone!