[granpa]

Look at the space time diagram that I told you to draw. The x axis represents the line clocks.
Now look at the line representing one simultaneous moment from the point of view of the rocket. It's the diagonal line. Wherever that diagonal line goes below the x axis then the Clarks there will sing from the point of view of the rocket to be earlier. The only way no clock could be hurt earlier would be for the day now I can never get below the x-axis. That's obviously impossible.

[hamdani yusuf]

When the rocket is stationary then 1 simultaneous moment now is represented by the x-axis. When they work it starts moving then the line representing one one moment now becomes a dog and a lion. The faster the Rock and moves them or Tilted the line is. You can obviously see that Clark's further away will seem to be more out of sync. Just consider the case of a park that is millions or billions of light-years away from the rocket. Consider how far out of sync it must become.

if a clock is billions of light years away to the left, then it will not look synchronized with the clock right next to the rocket even when it is not moving.

[granpa]

Which is why it has to be calculated not observed

[IAMREALITY]

Which is why it has to be calculated not observed

Yet your graphic above mentions nothing about calculations, seems to infer observation, and specifically shows a time on the clock face that was to be observed. If you were specifically talking about merely what might be calculated, then you should have just said so.

[jeffreyH]

I must admit skipping most of the discussion but need to address a point made in a post by granpa. No clock will ever appear to run backwards unless the rocket can outrun photons coming from the clock. The clock will appear to slow down and fall behind others but it will NEVER go backwards. It matters not what metric is used the rocket will never exceed the speed of light.

[granpa]

Relativity is much more than just how things appear

Why would you think I was talking about the appearance of the clocks?

[IAMREALITY]

Relativity is much more than just how things appear

Why would you think I was talking about the appearance of the clocks?

Are you for real?  Maybe because in your graphic, you specifically start off with the declaration of how "they appear"?  And the main part of the graphic is specifically how they appear?

You specifically address how 'they appear'.  You further specifically call attention to appearance by showing very specific graphics of their appearance.  You furthermore state from their "point of view", which also is therefore referencing appearance (point of view = what they would see from where they are).  What isn't found anywhere in the details of your explanation within that graphic itself though, is anything specifically mentioning Relativity (I'm not talking about the title of the graphic nor the end line conclusion.  But your actual theory and explanation within the graphic you put forth.  And it was that of which I was in disagreement.  And it is why the graphic is quite simply wrong.  Cause nothing will make the clock go backwards.)

So my advice to you would be to start the graphic over from scratch.  Cause it does a horrible job at making your case.

[granpa]

I don't believe anybody could be that stupid. Why are you harassing me?

[Alan McDougall]

There is no paradox both twins are both advancing in time in the only possible direction into their relative futures, albeit at different rates, depending on their mass, gravity field, or acceleration away or towards each other.

What we do know about the "Flow" of time in our universe is that it is linear like an arrow from the past into the present and then into the future. We are all on the ride into the future, but at different rates, because time is not a fundamental constant and varies fro place to place, indeed time flows slightly faster at your feet which are nearer to the gravity field of the earth, than your head.

Thus; if you could hypothetically stand still for a few billion Earth years, the result would be that your feet would have become much younger than your head .
 
Alan

[Alan McDougall]

I don't believe anybody could be that stupid. Why are you harassing me?

Report him to the moderator he likes to insult people such as calling you "Dude"

Don't let him get away with it, he persisted in insulting me in an exact manner he is doing to you!

From one Granpa to another

Great to make your acquaintance!

Warm regards from a like thinker

Alan McDougall

[IAMREALITY]

I don't believe anybody could be that stupid. Why are you harassing me?

Harassing you?  No.  You asked me a direct question did you not?  Cause it certainly seemed like it was referencing my post!  And all I did was answer you logically.  Try not to take things so personally. 

If you have issues with the context of my reply, however, I'd be interested in seeing what those issues are.  Please reply to content, not the poster.  Thank you.

[granpa]

Ignoring him should be sufficient

[Alan McDougall]

Ignoring him should be sufficient

Not really!

[IAMREALITY]

I just reread my 'harassing' reply to your direct question.  It is logical and sound.  It wages no attack nor is personal in nature.  Instead, it was a direct response to your direct question towards me asking how I could think you were referencing appearance.

I then factually show exactly why, since you specifically mentioned appearance in the graphic, that the graphic itself displays appearance, that you use terms like point of view that also infer appearance, and because though you in multiple ways referenced appearance in the detail of your graphic, not once did you mention calculations or relativity.  Thereby deeming the graphic to be fatally flawed, and I therefore recommend that you scrap it and redo it.

Nothing was exaggerated, everything was logical, everything was backed by fact, and the recommendation was a sound one.  So I ask you, which parts of my reply do you actually disagree with?  Instead of devolving this thread into childish nonsense maybe you would like to address the facts and logic presented to you?  Cause you asked a question, and I gave you an answer to it, that was supported by fact.  That's exactly how discussion is supposed to work.

[Colin2B]

"......

Is suspect there are quite a few viewers of this forum who are unfamiliar with ST diagrams. This description of the twin scenario give a good description http://home.earthlink.net/~owl232/twinparadox.pdf in Fig1.
There are other good explanations on the net, I think you just have to accept that some people are better at explaining things.

[IAMREALITY]

"......

Is suspect there are quite a few viewers of this forum who are unfamiliar with ST diagrams. This description of the twin scenario give a good description http://home.earthlink.net/~owl232/twinparadox.pdf in Fig1.
There are other good explanations on the net, I think you just have to accept that some people are better at explaining things.

I appreciate your link. . Just not sure I quite understand your advice.

I understand well that some are better than others at explaining things.  I guess I'm just of the mind that someone who is not very good at it probably shouldn't make misleading graphics and try to pass them off on the Web as if they're an authority on the subject. . I think when it comes to certain things accuracy matters. And I believe that graphic could give a layman the wrong impression of the issue, and they could walk away thinking that time dilation would somehow allow some of the clocks to go backwards.  And then those people would think they just learned something, and go on to repeat it because they would feel they had learned it from an authority on the subject, especially cause to them the graphic had looked official, and this is how misinformation is spread. I'm of the mind that accuracy matters in science.  There is too much spread of misinformation.  So I just believe that those who are not good at explaining, should make it clear they are not, and leave the official looking graphics up to those who can.