Strange

Indeed. That time is the proper time (i.e. in its own frame of reference) for an object in free fall. Photons do not have a (valid) frame of reference. I do wish science popularizers would stop this "photons don't experience time" nonsense...

Feel free to ignore the science and make things up instead. <shrug>

I can't do the required maths. But this is what I am told by a number of people who can do the necessary maths. For example: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html

"404 Error - The Page Cannot be Found" http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html May be related to the variation of length of day. Where does it say that? We no longer use the rotation of the Earth as a reference for time. It is a constant, unrelated to the rotation of the Earth. But it is an interesting article.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/ Can anything like this be reduced to a bullet list?

A photon (or anything else) will reach the singularity in finite time.

That is just a typo in the article. There is nothing to suggest it is not a normal burst of RF. They are just a useful analogy to illustrate when people are talking nonsense. There is absolutely no reason to think it can be. Ever. Your comment makes as much sense as saying: "Chocolate cannot be used for FTL communication ... YET!" It is downplayed by New Scientist (because it wouldn't fit their rather sensationalist agenda) but there are known terrestrial sources which have very similar properties: http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5392

All of those things are true and observed. You can close your eyes to the evidence, but that won't change reality. This is not just due to the distance between them. The corners at the same height will share the same "now" (i.e. their clocks run at the same rate). Time will run slightly faster for the corners at the top. I don't think anyone would disagree. So this seems to be yet another strawman. It may be imaginary but it is based on observation and theory. It is not just "made up" (unlike your ideas).

Why would some unknown faster than light communication method look just like normal light-speed radio waves? Because entanglement cannot be used for communication.

Science only deals with the former. The latter is the stuff of dreams, fantasy and religion. Whatever that reality is (if it exists) is unknowable. All we can know is what we measure. That is why science is practically useful but philosophy and religion aren't. He is. And I don't know why I let myself get dragged into it again. He is convinced that his imagination trumps science. Even though there is no technology based on applied imagining.

So, with a big enough sugar cube, we can convince TAR he is wrong!

There doesn't seem much to say. That might almost be measurable with modern technology. Certainly a difference in time due to a height on the order of metres can be measured. Why would that make any difference? All of the above. Scientific theories, and relativity in particular, are all about what is measured. That is a philosophical or semantic question: what do you mean by "actually change"? it is a real, measurable effect. That sounds "actual" to me.

How do we know that? Only if you are very insecure, I suppose.

So it is exactly the same as if he doesn't exist. So it is his fault I don't believe in him. Shame on him.

Experiments show this to be the other way round. As you are denying reality (see above) you are not in a good position to ask that. But yes. If you are in the same frame of reference as the ball or photon you will see it going straight up and down. If you are in relative motion (it makes no difference who is moving or stationary, or if both a moving) then you will obviously see the ball (or photon) take a longer path.

No I am not. I am merely reiterating out what Galileo pointed out centuries ago: motion is relative. Without some external reference it is impossible to say who is moving and who is not. Therefore, it makes no difference which subjective position you take (that you are moving and the boy stationary or vice versa). In one frame of reference the ball (photon) goes straight up and down, in another frame of reference it also moves sideways. Hence it takes a longer path when seen from the other frame of reference than it does from the boys point of view.

Interesting. Haven't come across these before. Whether it is new physics or aliens (or both!), the explanation will be worth knowing.

Yes. Note that all so-called paradoxes in science (and there a lot related to relativity) are not really paradoxes. They have good, solid explanations. They only appear to be paradoxes when view naively (i.e. without understanding the relevant theory).

OK. Let's try it the other way round. You are on the train, the boy is one the station. As you pass him, the place where he catches the ball is in a different location (in your frame of reference). That has nothing to do with momentum, just Galilean relativity. But you will probably have a hard time getting your head round that and claim it is not equivalent (no doubt you think the boy is "actually" stationary and the train is "really" moving). Yes, photons do have momentum. The relative speed of photons doesn't change depending on the frame of reference, but their momentum (a.k.a. frequency or wavelength or energy) does.

I think it is intended to be irony.

They are different ages. This is rather like the twin paradox, but with rocks.

Imagine a boy on a train throwing a ball straight up and then catching it again when it falls. As the train passes you, the place where he catches the ball is not the same place where he threw it. Did he have to angle his throw to make the ball land in the "new" location (from your point of view? No. As far as I can tell, the contradictions only come from your lack of understanding.

I didn't say anything about "the same moment" (for very good reasons). You said: "If for instance, the both clocks were to be set to 0 the next time they saw a solar flare, then the third time they saw a solar flare, they would see it, at exactly the same clock tick, even though they are positioned however many picoseconds apart." They will not see the third flare at the same clock tick. They will each see a different time because of their different altitudes. I have not used a "universal now". At least, I have tried hard not to; if I have it was in error. But you seem to think that this is just because the light takes longer to reach one of them, if one of the events is further away. Or something. As always, it is hard to know what you think!

And you are wrong. Repeating it doesn't magically make it true. They will calculate the order of the events, taking into account the distance and light travel time. Having done that, they will (or may) disagree on the order of the events. This is true for events at the same location. Congratulations. It is also true if event A (at one location) causes event B (at another location). In this case, all observers will agree that A preceded B. But it is not generally true that observers will agree on the order of spatially separated events.

If they are different altitudes, then their clocks will tick at different rates and so they will each record a different time when they see the second flare. This can be tested pretty easily with off the shelf equipment.