Gravity slows down time.

[Undefined]

Hi chinglu.

...But, I proved the human concept of time relates to the earth's rotation. That is what humans say a clock does. It measures the earth's rotation

Your problem now is to prove that is false...

Fair's fair, mate! I already did that for you in my post #758.

Wherein I removed all the extraneous variables-----ie, I gedankenly removed the earth and all other objects/dynamics EXCEPT for the 'minimum essentials' of the twins and their clocks.

Did you miss that post #758 from me? If you did, then please read that post/example now BEFORE you waste any more of your valuable time and energy on the trivial 'challenges' and 'claims' in this instance; which have been already clarified by 'multiply redundant' logically and physically consistent VALID answers which definitively and in every way imaginable have successfully refuted your particular assertion there; and also your continuing conflation of the philosophical 'live/exist' DURATION concept with the physical ''age/tick' TIMING process (as also already explained via 'multiple redundancy' efforts).

Enough's enough, mate, even for someone as patient and open minded and evenhanded as ME. Why not admit you lost this one and move on to concentrate better on the things you are discussing in the other threads? Save your time and energy for where it will do most good, mate!

OK? Cheers and see you round, mate.

 

[paddoboy]

I also think you need to modify a few of your posts chnglu, you are beginning to contradict yourself.

 

[chinglu]

Again, as has been told to you in near 800 posts, they may see the same number of Earth Orbits, but because one is in another FoR, they see the same number of Earth orbits at different rates both biologically and mechanically.
This has been validated every day since 1905....

It has been explained to you over and over you can't live both 12 earth orbits by astronomical observations and also not live 12 earth orbits according to your clock. This is called a contradiction and only idiots believe in contradictions.

So, the clock is wrong.

 

[Undefined]

CHINGLU! Please stop fart-arrsing about with making more empty posts; and just read my post above! Then you won't have any reason to keep posting such empty posts here. There IS NO "wrong" OR 'right"...just DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUSLY AGREED STANDARD applying when in INITIAL CO-MOVING state. OK? Thanks.

My post # 758 answered your Earth-centric misconception. And my earlier posts answered your philosophical-physical confusions. Any more posting of empty posts like that from you will not do your reputation and integrity any good, OK?

You know I am one of the most objective and fair-minded persons you will ever encounter anywhere, right? So please don't take my advice lightly now. OK?

Enough's enough...please mate. Thanks. Good luck in your other discussions, mate.

 

[paddoboy]

It has been explained to you over and over you can't live both 12 earth orbits by astronomical observations and also not live 12 earth orbits according to your clock. This is called a contradiction and only idiots believe in contradictions.

So, the clock is wrong.

No not at all [as you well know if you were honest enough to admit to it] they are both correct in their own FoRs [this has also been told to you in over 800 posts] and only show the discrepency when brought together again.

In other words, the travelling twin clocks "äppeared" to have gone slower upon return to Earth, and the travelling twin has aged less then his stay at home counterpart.
Why can't you except observational and experimental evidence that has been accepted since 1905?

But anyway, I believe there is no convincing you of the facts [you don't possess the intestinal fortitude to admit when you are wrong] so get your results peer reviewed.

ps: Then come back to us here ya here?

 

[paddoboy]

It has been explained to you over and over you can't live both 12 earth orbits by astronomical observations and also not live 12 earth orbits according to your clock. This is called a contradiction and only idiots believe in contradictions.

So, the clock is wrong.

You need not explain anything to me....You need to explain it to the world.....
Which leaves two possibilities...[1] All the world is full of Idiots... [2] You are the real Idiot.

Common sense and probability makes the answer quite obvious.

 

[chinglu]

Hi chinglu.




Fair's fair, mate! I already did that for you in my post #758.

Wherein I removed all the extraneous variables-----ie, I gedankenly removed the earth and all other objects/dynamics EXCEPT for the 'minimum essentials' of the twins and their clocks.

Did you miss that post #758 from me? If you did, then please read that post/example now BEFORE you waste any more of your valuable time and energy on the trivial 'challenges' and 'claims' in this instance; which have been already clarified by 'multiply redundant' logically and physically consistent VALID answers which definitively and in every way imaginable have successfully refuted your particular assertion there; and also your continuing conflation of the philosophical 'live/exist' DURATION concept with the physical ''age/tick' TIMING process (as also already explained via 'multiple redundancy' efforts).

Enough's enough, mate, even for someone as patient and open minded and evenhanded as ME. Why not admit you lost this one and move on to concentrate better on the things you are discussing in the other threads? Save your time and energy for where it will do most good, mate!

OK? Cheers and see you round, mate.

If you exclude the earth's motion and the observations of it you contradict the OP.

So, that has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[paddoboy]

Chinglu, people are trying to approach you in as much an even handed, bend over backwards attitude as possible....
I see the frustration you are causing people....I'm not one of them by the way but I don't suffer fools and Idiots that keep on keeping on gladly.

I said earlier you should check your posts...You have already admitted time dilation caused by gravity occurs.


You are wrong, 100% wrong, and you know it.
Thats why you are in pseudoscience, OK?
You know what pseudoscience is?'

 

[Undefined]

If you exclude the earth's motion and the observations of it you contradict the OP.

So, that has nothing to do with this thread.

Chinglu, do you remember my GR-only (Mountain altitudes) example (see post #346) where I included the Earth-Sun BUT had the Earth spin once per orbit such that BOTH the twins/clocks atop/at bottom of that mountain STILL SAW THE SAME POSITION FOR THE SUN AT ALL STAGES in the exercise? That included your mountain altitudes AND still had Earth-sun present. It reduced the OP to ITS BAREST ESSENTIALS. Did you understand what that meant for your assertions/claims even just for the initial OP you started with?


Anyhow, chinglu, the discussion of the ESSENTIALS to be teased out of ANY OP has MOVED ACROSS MANY 'scenarios', for obvious reasons. Those being that, as I explained via my variously simplified/cross-contextual scenarios, the ESSENTIALS exist in ALL SUCH SIMILAR SR/GR/OTHER contexts/perspectives.

What is more important to you, mate, adhering strictly to the ONE OP and so 'unscientifically' trying to arbitrarily exclude the CONSISTENT RESULTS explained since, across ALL such exercises?

Are you reduced to wanting to use that above excuse for evading the cross-contextual explanations for ALL such kinds of scenarios INCLUDING the opening OP as merely ONE of a SET of such scenarios?

Will you now use a trivial technicality of 'debating format' to avoid recognizing the actual ESSENTIALS which answer your initial OP as well all the other similar scenarios concerning twins and clocks?

I think you are better than that, chinglu.

Give it up GRACEFULLY, mate. You've lost this one. Concentrate your time and energy to better effect for the other discussions elsewhere. Move on. Good luck in your other discussions, mate!

 

[Lakon]

Chinglu, please define what a clock is/does. Thanks.

 

[chinglu]

Chinglu, do you remember my example (see post #346)where I included the Earth-Sun BUT had the Earth spin once per orbit such that BOTH the twins/clocks atop/at bottom of that mountain STILL SAW THE SAME POSITION FOR THE SUN AT ALL STAGES in the exercise? That covered your mountain altitude and still had Earth-sun present. Did you understand what that meant for your assertions/claims even for the opening OP you posted?


Anyhow, chinglu, the discussion of the ESSENTIALS to be teased out of ANY OP has MOVED ACROSS MANY 'scenarios', for obvious reasons. Those being that, as I explained via my variously simplified/cross-contextual scenarios, the ESSENTIALS exist in ALL SUCH SIMILAR SR/GR/OTHER contexts/perspectives.

What is more important to you, mate, adhering strictly to the ONE OP and excluding the CONSISTENT RESULTS explained across ALL such exercises?

Are you reduced to wanting to use that above excuse for evading the cross-contextual explanations for ALL such kinds of scenarios INCLUDING the opening OP as merely ONE of a SET of such scenarios?

Will you now use a trivial technicality of 'debating format' to avoid recognizing the actual ESSENTIALS which answer your initial OP as well all the other similar scenarios concerning twins and clocks?

I think you are better than that, chinglu.

Give it up GRACEFULLY, mate. You've lost this one. Concentrate your time and energy to better effect for the other discussions elsewhere. Move on. Good luck in your other discussions, mate!

You are a little cornfused.

No one is disputing that they disagree with the earth's position. That would be stupid. So you are getting there.

Now, since the twins cannot disagree that they both lived 12 earth orbits, they cannot believe their different clocks. For example, the traveling twins' clock said he only live 10 earth orbits.

But that is false. So the clock is wrong.

 

[Undefined]

You are a little cornfused.

No one is disputing that they disagree with the earth's position. That would be stupid. So you are getting there.

Now, since the twins cannot disagree that they both lived 12 earth orbits, they cannot believe their different clocks. For example, the traveling twins' clock said he only live 10 earth orbits.

But that is false. So the clock is wrong.

Chinglu, you miss where I explain how you are the 'cornfused' one as long as you keep confusing two logically/effectively entirely different things:

- the philosophical "live/exist" DURATION per se concept;

- the physical "age/tick" TIMING process.

See? It always comes back to that. Your 'cornfusion' based on bringing your EXTERNAL 'philosophy' based abstract analysis expectations/interpretations to the simply 'physical' INTERNAL process results of the twins biology/clocks. If you never get past that 'cornfusion', then you will keep making an invalid 'analysis/interpretation' of everything else the scenarios and the clocks 'tell' you.

Ok, mate. The 'cornfusion' is yours. That is become obvious beyond any more rehashing of essentials that PHYSICALLY matter (as distinct from the PHILOSOPHICAL factors that you inadvertently introduce into your obviously ABSTRACT 'scientific analysis' which includes 'UN-scientific 'overlays' brought from your above conflation of "live/exist" and "age/tick").

Try, mate. Let go your emotional attachment to your 'impression' of 'truth' in this instance which is 'redundantly demonstrably' NOT actually true in any sense in this instance.

Good luck and make better use of your time and energy in other discussions where it will actually achieve better outcomes for you/science, mate! Cheers!

 

[paddoboy]

Just as I predicted a few pages back......
Same old, same old from the forum's number one troll.
The evidence is there for all to see in the whole 41 pages.

 

[Lakon]

.. Try, mate. Let go your emotional attachment ..

There is certainly an effusion of emotion on this thread for sure, Undefined, but I don't think it's from Chinglu.

 

[Lakon]

Chinglu, please define what a clock is/does. Thanks.

Again, Chinglu, please define what a clock is/does. This is a question put to you many times by RW and others but I see no clear answer yet. Is there a problem with you answering it ?

 

[paddoboy]

There is certainly an effusion of emotion on this thread for sure, Undefined, but I don't think it's from Chinglu.

Sure it is......I see it as quite an emotional attitude, to continue with the same rhetoric over and over and over and over again, never answering questions put to him, twisting and reversing the burden of proof, and presenting quite a picture of himself as nothing more then a troll.
Again, I predict more of the same, but would be happy if that prediction was wrong.

 

[arfa brane]

Perhaps chinglu doesn't realise that his absolute frame of reference for all time coordinates has some rather nasty consequences for anyone who wants to move through space and time.

If some astronaut on a space ship wanted to accelerate away from the earth, they would find themselves growing older more quickly than their onboard clock/calendar tells them.
In fact, they could find their spaceship can't accelerate at all, because of time being 'stuck' to the earth's motion. So since the earth is the only object in the universe that moves, the astronaut has to stay on it. In fact, anyone on earth would be unable to move anywhere, because time is fixed by the earth's motion.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Lakon.

There is certainly an effusion of emotion on this thread for sure, Undefined, but I don't think it's from Chinglu.

No mate. I said emotional attachment, not just 'emotional'. There is an important difference there. The latter implies emotionality per se. Whereas the former implies an attachment to one's beliefs due to one's 'passionate subjectivity' in place of 'dispassionate objectivity'. That's all from me for now. Good luck with your calm, patient and evenhanded 'trailing questions' to chinglu, mate.

 

[arfa brane]

Time being fixed by the earth's motion actually has deeper consequences. Not only would we not be able to move around on the earth's surface, nothing on the earth's surface would be able to move independently (since that would mean having an independent 'clock'). So the earth's surface and everything on it would be frozen, so there would be no life.

But of course this is absurd. Obviously we, and lots of other things, can move. This is because we have independent timing mechanisms (biological clocks), in fact anything capable of motion (liquids, gases, solid objects) has an independent clock. A clock is anything capable of periodic motion, which is quite a large set.
The idea that the evolution and expansion of the universe can't be 'timed' using anything other than the earth's motion is clearly ridiculous.

 

[Lakon]

Hi Lakon.



No mate. I said emotional attachment, not just 'emotional'. There is an important difference there. The latter implies emotionality per se. Whereas the former implies an attachment to one's beliefs due to one's 'passionate subjectivity' in place of 'dispassionate objectivity'. That's all from me for now. Good luck with your calm, patient and evenhanded 'trailing questions' to chinglu, mate.

Semantics .. we all have our attachments, some emotionally