# more relativity gibberish

roger
roger
Jerry Gorline, MS Physics, University of Louisville (1988) : “Let’s say that you are in an elevator traveling upward near the speed of light. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that your elevator is equipped with internal inertial dampeners to allow for extreme acceleration without injury. You shine a laser beam from your hand onto the ceiling and find that the beam hits the ceiling normally, at the speed of light.”

--so, for “you” the speed of light is constant c. Then he continues:

“But if an outside observer in a non-accelerating reference frame was able to monitor your laser beam’s trip, that beam would take an extremely long time to hit the ceiling, maybe near the end of time.”

- WTF is being said here (?) Is it being said that for the outside observer the light is going slower (?) so that it can’t reach the ceiling.
Continues:

“The relativistic effect of time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- WTF other relativists say that for “you” (i.e. the traveller) it is the outside universe that has stopped/slowed down and “you” experience time normally, not that “would speed up time for you”.

And he continues to talk more gibberish.

Going with the bit said: “…time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- So, the way he thinks of time dilation is that for the traveller time is going faster, so looks at rest of universe and events go by outside very fast, which conforms to the outside observer saying time in the spaceship passes slower, and then therefore based on this there is an absolute/preferred frame; but relativity is supposed to deny absolute/preferred frame. So, this MSPhysics doesn’t believe relativity, although he thinks he believes relativity.

Ref:https://www.quora.com/

roger
roger
Going with the bit said: “…time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

-- if this were true, then you can tell if you are moving or not:

Given observer A and B:

if A observes B's clock as slower then he knows B is moving

if B observes A's clock as faster then B knows he is moving

and that would violate relativity, where you are not supposed to know if you are moving or not

according to relativity A and B are supposed to be saying the other person's clock is slower.

BUT MScPhysics doesn't believe in relativity, despite thinking he does believe in relativity.

Joined: January 29th, 2018, 10:13 pm
Jerry Gorline, MS Physics, University of Louisville (1988) : “Let’s say that you are in an elevator traveling upward near the speed of light. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that your elevator is equipped with internal inertial dampeners to allow for extreme acceleration without injury. You shine a laser beam from your hand onto the ceiling and find that the beam hits the ceiling normally, at the speed of light.”

--so, for “you” the speed of light is constant c. Then he continues:

“But if an outside observer in a non-accelerating reference frame was able to monitor your laser beam’s trip, that beam would take an extremely long time to hit the ceiling, maybe near the end of time.”

- WTF is being said here (?) Is it being said that for the outside observer the light is going slower (?) so that it can’t reach the ceiling.
Continues:

“The relativistic effect of time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- WTF other relativists say that for “you” (i.e. the traveller) it is the outside universe that has stopped/slowed down and “you” experience time normally, not that “would speed up time for you”.

And he continues to talk more gibberish.

Going with the bit said: “…time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- So, the way he thinks of time dilation is that for the traveller time is going faster, so looks at rest of universe and events go by outside very fast, which conforms to the outside observer saying time in the spaceship passes slower, and then therefore based on this there is an absolute/preferred frame; but relativity is supposed to deny absolute/preferred frame. So, this MSPhysics doesn’t believe relativity, although he thinks he believes relativity.

Ref:https://www.quora.com/

Thank You for pointing out problems with statments I posted to Quora. As a result I have edited my answer. it was confusing for me to suggest that time speeds up for the traveler. I hope that this edit is satisfactory: The relativistic effect of time dilation would make it seem to an outside observer that time for you (the traveler) has slowed down or even stopped.

The speed-of-light is constant everywhere, for the traveler, for the outside observer, for any arbitrary frame of reference. For the record, I never stated "for 'you' the speed of light is constant c." I can't find that statement in my post. But to clarify, I was trying to explain that for 'you' the traveler, shining a light or a laser beam would seem normal (the light hits the ceiling as if you were in a non-accelerating reference frame, even though you are in an elevator traveling upward near the speed-of-light). Light travels about one foot per nanosecond. But for the outside observer, a clock in the elevator may take hours, years or decades for one nanosecond to tick by. It's the same for an observer watching another traveler pass through the event horizon of a black hole. The unfortunate traveler experiences passing through the event horizon in an instant. But to the observer watching from a distance, the traveler's thrusters gradually become redder and dimmer, eventually disappearing over a long period of time. I hope my comments here clear up any apparent discrepancies. I think that Quora is an excellent venue for sharing knowledge and communicating complicated ideas in a manner that is easier to understand. Um, can I get an A for effort? Thanks for your help.

BTW, here's a question I submitted to Quora. Maybe this forum can provide insight.
Q: In the 1998 type 1a supernovae study: what if the type 1a's farther away are intrinsically brighter than the closer ones? Would this new discovery concerning varying inherent brightness invalidate the study? Please keep in mind that the type 1a’s farther away would come from metal poor white dwarfs that explode after reaching the 1.4 solar mass limit. The closer 1a’s would be metal rich because heavier elements would have been more plentiful from recent supernovae. Is it possible that metal poor type 1a’s would be intrinsically brighter because they lack the metals found in the closer type 1a’s.

roger
roger
Jerry Gorline, MS Physics, University of Louisville (1988) : “Let’s say that you are in an elevator traveling upward near the speed of light. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that your elevator is equipped with internal inertial dampeners to allow for extreme acceleration without injury. You shine a laser beam from your hand onto the ceiling and find that the beam hits the ceiling normally, at the speed of light.”

--so, for “you” the speed of light is constant c. Then he continues:

“But if an outside observer in a non-accelerating reference frame was able to monitor your laser beam’s trip, that beam would take an extremely long time to hit the ceiling, maybe near the end of time.”

- WTF is being said here (?) Is it being said that for the outside observer the light is going slower (?) so that it can’t reach the ceiling.
Continues:

“The relativistic effect of time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- WTF other relativists say that for “you” (i.e. the traveller) it is the outside universe that has stopped/slowed down and “you” experience time normally, not that “would speed up time for you”.

And he continues to talk more gibberish.

Going with the bit said: “…time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- So, the way he thinks of time dilation is that for the traveller time is going faster, so looks at rest of universe and events go by outside very fast, which conforms to the outside observer saying time in the spaceship passes slower, and then therefore based on this there is an absolute/preferred frame; but relativity is supposed to deny absolute/preferred frame. So, this MSPhysics doesn’t believe relativity, although he thinks he believes relativity.

Ref:https://www.quora.com/

Jerry

>>Thank You for pointing out problems with statments I posted to Quora.

That’s ok, thankyou for not getting upset.
I was quoting you with “” and commenting with --.

>>…I think that Quora is an excellent venue for sharing knowledge and communicating complicated ideas in a manner that is easier to understand. Um, can I get an A for effort? Thanks for your help.

I am sorry, I still find a lot of problems with what you say. The main thing I have issue is when you say:

“…..Your clock is running slower using the mass of the rest of the universe as an absolute reference frame…..”

I have argued with a lot of people about relativity, and many of the people who claim to believe in relativity say to me there is no “absolute reference frame” and here you are saying it exists. Of course, I believe in the absolute frame, just those who believe in relativity say it does not exist, so I think you are not stating relativity properly. I think you don’t really believe in relativity, even though you might think you believe it.

As for your question, I am not the person to ask if you want a mainstream answer. I think Halton Arp (seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp) and others like him have been badly treated by the Science establishment.

Joined: January 29th, 2018, 10:13 pm
Jerry Gorline, MS Physics, University of Louisville (1988) : “Let’s say that you are in an elevator traveling upward near the speed of light. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that your elevator is equipped with internal inertial dampeners to allow for extreme acceleration without injury. You shine a laser beam from your hand onto the ceiling and find that the beam hits the ceiling normally, at the speed of light.”

--so, for “you” the speed of light is constant c. Then he continues:

“But if an outside observer in a non-accelerating reference frame was able to monitor your laser beam’s trip, that beam would take an extremely long time to hit the ceiling, maybe near the end of time.”

- WTF is being said here (?) Is it being said that for the outside observer the light is going slower (?) so that it can’t reach the ceiling.
Continues:

“The relativistic effect of time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- WTF other relativists say that for “you” (i.e. the traveller) it is the outside universe that has stopped/slowed down and “you” experience time normally, not that “would speed up time for you”.

And he continues to talk more gibberish.

Going with the bit said: “…time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- So, the way he thinks of time dilation is that for the traveller time is going faster, so looks at rest of universe and events go by outside very fast, which conforms to the outside observer saying time in the spaceship passes slower, and then therefore based on this there is an absolute/preferred frame; but relativity is supposed to deny absolute/preferred frame. So, this MSPhysics doesn’t believe relativity, although he thinks he believes relativity.

Ref:https://www.quora.com/

>>Thank You for pointing out problems with statements I posted to Quora.

:That’s ok, thankyou for not getting upset.
I was quoting you with “” and commenting with --.

There is no need for me to get upset. In science we must be open to constructive criticism. An objective assessment of criticism may save a scientist from publishing an article where the methods and results are not correct. In this case I tried to make the complex more understandable but kinda got into the weeds. Maybe it’s better to compare clocks. Light travels about one foot per nanosecond. To the traveler, his clock ticks normally. But to the observer in a non-accelerating frame of reference, the traveler’s clock may take thousands of years to tick one nanosecond. Here’s an example,
How old would your friends at home be if v = 0.99999c? Here T’ = T𝜸, where 𝛄(gamma) = 1/[√[1 - (v/c)^2]
T’ = T/[√[1 - (v/c)^2] = T/[√[1 - (0.99999)^2]
T’ = T/(1.99999E-5), or T’ = 50,000T.
A one year trip at 99.999% of (c) ages your friends at home by 50,000 years. Notice that when v=c, 𝜸=∞. So “traveling at the speed of light” is not possible because the laws of physics at this speed are undefined.
For length contraction, we use L’ = L/𝜸, or L' = L∙√[1 - (v/c)^2]. If v=c, L' = 0, but that would be impossible.

>>…I think that Quora is an excellent venue for sharing knowledge and communicating complicated ideas in a manner that is easier to understand. Um, can I get an A for effort? Thanks for your help.

:I am sorry, I still find a lot of problems with what you say. The main thing I have issue is when you say:
“…..Your clock is running slower using the mass of the rest of the universe as an absolute reference frame…..”

: I have argued with a lot of people about relativity, and many of the people who claim to believe in relativity say to me there is no “absolute reference frame” and :here you are saying it exists. Of course, I believe in the absolute frame, just those who believe in relativity say it does not exist, so I think you are not stating relativity properly. I think you don’t really believe in relativity, even though you might think you believe it.

I don't "believe" in general relativity on faith. I accept it as being a valid theory because it has been verified via observation. The atomic model has been firmly established via observation. I accept the standard model, the four forces, the Higgs boson, quarks, gluons, fermions, hadrons, baryons, QED, QCD, color charge, etc. because this model is a best fit with the observational evidence. For example, a top quark decays into a bottom quark very quickly after emitting a high energy W boson. The top quark has been studied in high energy physics experiments. Here the weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces merge into an electro-weak force. But radioactive decay is a low probability event in nature because the unstable nucleon must wait for a very low energy W boson to be emitted for the decay process to proceed (at the low end of the wings of the probability distribution). I agree that there is an absolute frame of reference, the rest of the mass of the universe, for one. I arrived at this conclusion in grad school after discussions with physics professors and fellow grad students. I don't know why you have encountered such resistance. Perhaps this is a philosophical disagreement, relativists vs. absolutists, like deterministic vs. probabilistic. I am more deterministic. I accept the idea that matter waves exist at the microscopic world, described by quantum mechanics. But it’s possible that the fuzziness we observe at the microscopic level is due to our inability to measure these quantities with high precision. But the probabilistic approach works for now. I wrote an assessment of cosmic inflation in 1987, just a few years after Alan Guth published his ground breaking work in 1983. My advisor, other professors and fellow students endorsed the idea. It did address many problems with observational evidence and the big bang theory, the horizon problem, the isotropy problem and the large scale homogeneity problem. Cosmic inflation is now widely accepted after the results from the COBE, WMAP and PLANCK mappings of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). One caveat, the theory of inflation can not be verified using the scientific method. New evidence suggests that maybe inflation was not what we thought it was. Inflation predicts that Omega is unity. The value of Omega is an example of an absolute frame of reference. The universe is open, closed or flat. Flat seems to be the leading candidate. That means that most of the mass in the universe is not from observable matter. This is probably a review for you but it’s good to compare scientific ideas that are well established from those that are, shall we say, less certain. There's dark matter and dark energy (if the 1998 1a supernovae survey is correct). These quantities are dark because we do not yet understand them. Maybe dark energy is Einstein’s “cosmological constant,” a form of negative gravity that acts in the voids between galaxy clusters. There is evidence of a multiverse, see dark flow and a cold spot in the PLANCK data. There seems to be an apparent preferred orientation of light’s electric field in the PLANCK maps. If true this preferred orientation may be another example of an absolute frame of reference. I have a feeling the standard model of particle physics is incomplete. Perhaps a thorough understanding of these dark entities will provide for a more complete picture of both the world of the very small (microscopic) and the world of the very large (macroscopic). I encourage you to keep asking critical questions because “science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” (Richard Feynman)

:As for your question, I am not the person to ask if you want a mainstream answer. I think Halton Arp (sehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp) and others like him have been badly treated by the Science establishment.

I will add your Halton Arp link to my reading list. I admired Arp for his research of peculiar galaxies in the face of fierce criticism. He insisted that these galaxies were interacting and later was proved to be correct. We have simulations that illustrate these interactions (using a fudge factor for dark matter) over billions of years and snapshots are remarkably similar to galaxies in Arp’s catalog, Antennae Galaxies, for example.
Here an interesting read from The Guardian,https://www.theguardian.com/science/acr ... -universes

Cheers, JerryG∞

roger
roger
Jerry Gorline, MS Physics, University of Louisville (1988) : “Let’s say that you are in an elevator traveling upward near the speed of light. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that your elevator is equipped with internal inertial dampeners to allow for extreme acceleration without injury. You shine a laser beam from your hand onto the ceiling and find that the beam hits the ceiling normally, at the speed of light.”

--so, for “you” the speed of light is constant c. Then he continues:

“But if an outside observer in a non-accelerating reference frame was able to monitor your laser beam’s trip, that beam would take an extremely long time to hit the ceiling, maybe near the end of time.”

- WTF is being said here (?) Is it being said that for the outside observer the light is going slower (?) so that it can’t reach the ceiling.
Continues:

“The relativistic effect of time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- WTF other relativists say that for “you” (i.e. the traveller) it is the outside universe that has stopped/slowed down and “you” experience time normally, not that “would speed up time for you”.

And he continues to talk more gibberish.

Going with the bit said: “…time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- So, the way he thinks of time dilation is that for the traveller time is going faster, so looks at rest of universe and events go by outside very fast, which conforms to the outside observer saying time in the spaceship passes slower, and then therefore based on this there is an absolute/preferred frame; but relativity is supposed to deny absolute/preferred frame. So, this MSPhysics doesn’t believe relativity, although he thinks he believes relativity.

Ref:https://www.quora.com/

Jerry

Ideally when we engage in science we shouldn’t get emotional, but many people are emotional orientated.

>>>How old would your friends at home be if v = 0.99999c? Here T’ = T𝜸, where 𝛄(gamma) = 1/[√[1 - (v/c)^2]

My issue with that is why put the gamma term on time T, and why think ageing has anything to do with clocks going at the wrong rate.

>>I don't "believe" in general relativity on faith. I accept it as being a valid theory because it has been verified via observation.

My problem with that is: are the experiments being correctly interpreted, especially when they start talking of empirically equivalent theories (EETs); why go with GR when one could for instance go with a suitable modified Newtonian model of one of these EETs. Why chose one EET over another EET.

Talking about atomic model is I think a diversion, but similar problems with EETs occur.

>>I agree that there is an absolute frame of reference, the rest of the mass of the universe, for one. I arrived at this conclusion in grad school after discussions with physics professors and fellow grad students. I don't know why you have encountered such resistance.

I talk to people from lots of disciplines : experimentalists, theorists, teachers, engineers, philosophers, chemists, historians,… I don’t limit myself to what they nowadays call an echo chamber. Various people say absolute frame invalidates relativity because relativity is about relative and not absolutes (other than lightspeed). Similarly, cosmic inflation sounds like it invalidates relativity ( as it has been so far known), with being a bodged add-on; so all this talk of Omega is unity et al sounds more like you have invalidated relativity, or do you think you have validated it?

Personally, I go by unified field theory. I checked the history of what Einstein was working from and went from that; and then I collect what others have done working on this. Latest things I publish are:

From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory: Prof Dragoslav Stoiljkovic

Unified field theory Hector Munera July 2016

An Analytical Form of the Boscovich Curve with Applications
Augustus Prince
Using an analysis from a physical and phenomenological viewpoint employing the renowned and recognized continuity of Boscovich’s force curve, a new paradigm is formulated to explicate various physical phenomena in both the microworld and the macro-world. Within this paradigm, an algorithm is established which produced a functional representation of the atomic spectra of hydrogen and a temperature dependent blackbody energy distribution of radiation which compares very favorably with the experimental data. Further representations afford suggestions for the predictions of the specific heat of solids, photoelectric effect, etc. The Boscovichian points are assumed to move under the action of a force (acceleration) that varies inversely proportional to the cube of the radius from the point center, which leads to an orbit described by an equiangular (logarithmic) spiral. This spiral is subsequently used to simulate the concepts used in phyllotaxis (a constituent of plant morphology) and the gnomonic growth of mollusk shells (e.g. nautilus). The intercepts for the stable and unstable points on the Boscovich curve, which are the roots of the equation used, are calculated via the application of Fibonacci-type sequence of integers. In addition, utilizing the shape of Boscovich's "extended" curve of force (acceleration), the prospect of interpreting the mysterious attractive force beyond the visible Newtonian region of space (e.g. black holes, dark energy, etc.) is proposed. It is hoped that this phenomenological approach will serve as a beginning for description of both the micro-universe and the macrouniverse.
http://vixra.org/abs/1801.0116?ref=9750308

etc.

regards
Roger

Joined: January 29th, 2018, 10:13 pm
Jerry Gorline, MS Physics, University of Louisville (1988) : “Let’s say that you are in an elevator traveling upward near the speed of light. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that your elevator is equipped with internal inertial dampeners to allow for extreme acceleration without injury. You shine a laser beam from your hand onto the ceiling and find that the beam hits the ceiling normally, at the speed of light.”

--so, for “you” the speed of light is constant c. Then he continues:

“But if an outside observer in a non-accelerating reference frame was able to monitor your laser beam’s trip, that beam would take an extremely long time to hit the ceiling, maybe near the end of time.”

- WTF is being said here (?) Is it being said that for the outside observer the light is going slower (?) so that it can’t reach the ceiling.
Continues:

“The relativistic effect of time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- WTF other relativists say that for “you” (i.e. the traveller) it is the outside universe that has stopped/slowed down and “you” experience time normally, not that “would speed up time for you”.

And he continues to talk more gibberish.

Going with the bit said: “…time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- So, the way he thinks of time dilation is that for the traveller time is going faster, so looks at rest of universe and events go by outside very fast, which conforms to the outside observer saying time in the spaceship passes slower, and then therefore based on this there is an absolute/preferred frame; but relativity is supposed to deny absolute/preferred frame. So, this MSPhysics doesn’t believe relativity, although he thinks he believes relativity.

Ref:https://www.quora.com/

Corrected typo in original question:
BTW, here's a question I submitted to Quora. Maybe this forum can provide insight.
Q: In the 1998 type 1a supernovae study: what if the type 1a's farther away are intrinsically dimmer than the closer ones? Would this new discovery concerning varying inherent brightness invalidate the study? Please keep in mind that the type 1a’s farther away would come from metal poor white dwarfs that explode after reaching the 1.4 solar mass limit. The closer 1a’s would be metal rich because heavier elements would have been more plentiful from recent supernovae. Is it possible that metal poor type 1a’s would be intrinsically dimmer because they lack the metals found in the closer type 1a’s?

Update:
I was reading about this new study that detected the first stars to shine 180 million years after the big bang. It’s amazing that scientists could find the 21 cm spin-flip of electrons in neutral hydrogen red shifted to 3.85 meters, just when the first stars began to shine. The sweet spot was 78Mhz, very exciting news. This research ties in with another question concerning the 1998 type 1a supernovae study that concluded the expansion on the universe is speeding up. I’ve always wondered if the total luminosity of type 1a’s varied with distance and composition, perhaps the metal poor 1a’s were intrinsically dimmer. I stumbled on research about Ni-56 recombination and type 1a supernovae, Ni-56-> Co-56->Fe-56. For low-luminosity type Ia supernovae, it seems the Ni-56 recombination process and associated light curve suggest detonation before a White Dwarf (WD) reaches the Chandrasekhar limit [1], affecting the width-luminosity relation. I’ve read that simulations of detonations of WDs with low carbon/oxygen ratios are intrinsically dimmer [2]. My search continues. Cheers.
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-secrets-universe.html
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.01901
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.02339.pdf

Bill Geist
Bill Geist
Jerry Gorline, MS Physics, University of Louisville (1988) : “Let’s say that you are in an elevator traveling upward near the speed of light. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that your elevator is equipped with internal inertial dampeners to allow for extreme acceleration without injury. You shine a laser beam from your hand onto the ceiling and find that the beam hits the ceiling normally, at the speed of light.”

--so, for “you” the speed of light is constant c. Then he continues:

“But if an outside observer in a non-accelerating reference frame was able to monitor your laser beam’s trip, that beam would take an extremely long time to hit the ceiling, maybe near the end of time.”

- WTF is being said here (?) Is it being said that for the outside observer the light is going slower (?) so that it can’t reach the ceiling.
Continues:

“The relativistic effect of time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- WTF other relativists say that for “you” (i.e. the traveller) it is the outside universe that has stopped/slowed down and “you” experience time normally, not that “would speed up time for you”.

And he continues to talk more gibberish.

Going with the bit said: “…time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- So, the way he thinks of time dilation is that for the traveller time is going faster, so looks at rest of universe and events go by outside very fast, which conforms to the outside observer saying time in the spaceship passes slower, and then therefore based on this there is an absolute/preferred frame; but relativity is supposed to deny absolute/preferred frame. So, this MSPhysics doesn’t believe relativity, although he thinks he believes relativity.

Ref:https://www.quora.com/

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Simultaneity.htm

Bill Geist
Bill Geist
Jerry Gorline, MS Physics, University of Louisville (1988) : “Let’s say that you are in an elevator traveling upward near the speed of light. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that your elevator is equipped with internal inertial dampeners to allow for extreme acceleration without injury. You shine a laser beam from your hand onto the ceiling and find that the beam hits the ceiling normally, at the speed of light.”

--so, for “you” the speed of light is constant c. Then he continues:

“But if an outside observer in a non-accelerating reference frame was able to monitor your laser beam’s trip, that beam would take an extremely long time to hit the ceiling, maybe near the end of time.”

- WTF is being said here (?) Is it being said that for the outside observer the light is going slower (?) so that it can’t reach the ceiling.
Continues:

“The relativistic effect of time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- WTF other relativists say that for “you” (i.e. the traveller) it is the outside universe that has stopped/slowed down and “you” experience time normally, not that “would speed up time for you”.

And he continues to talk more gibberish.

Going with the bit said: “…time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- So, the way he thinks of time dilation is that for the traveller time is going faster, so looks at rest of universe and events go by outside very fast, which conforms to the outside observer saying time in the spaceship passes slower, and then therefore based on this there is an absolute/preferred frame; but relativity is supposed to deny absolute/preferred frame. So, this MSPhysics doesn’t believe relativity, although he thinks he believes relativity.

Ref:https://www.quora.com/

https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4253

Bill Geist
Bill Geist
Jerry Gorline, MS Physics, University of Louisville (1988) : “Let’s say that you are in an elevator traveling upward near the speed of light. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that your elevator is equipped with internal inertial dampeners to allow for extreme acceleration without injury. You shine a laser beam from your hand onto the ceiling and find that the beam hits the ceiling normally, at the speed of light.”

--so, for “you” the speed of light is constant c. Then he continues:

“But if an outside observer in a non-accelerating reference frame was able to monitor your laser beam’s trip, that beam would take an extremely long time to hit the ceiling, maybe near the end of time.”

- WTF is being said here (?) Is it being said that for the outside observer the light is going slower (?) so that it can’t reach the ceiling.
Continues:

“The relativistic effect of time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- WTF other relativists say that for “you” (i.e. the traveller) it is the outside universe that has stopped/slowed down and “you” experience time normally, not that “would speed up time for you”.

And he continues to talk more gibberish.

Going with the bit said: “…time dilation would speed up time for you but to an outside observer it would seem that time for you has stopped.”

- So, the way he thinks of time dilation is that for the traveller time is going faster, so looks at rest of universe and events go by outside very fast, which conforms to the outside observer saying time in the spaceship passes slower, and then therefore based on this there is an absolute/preferred frame; but relativity is supposed to deny absolute/preferred frame. So, this MSPhysics doesn’t believe relativity, although he thinks he believes relativity.

Ref:https://www.quora.com/

The speed of light is NOT constant.

http://bryangwallace.dreamhosters.com/book/index.html