The Twins Paradox and the speed of light

Reality does not have to be logical.

it's just an exercise for me in 'gravitational relativity' and its effects on observers.you stand still on Earth, on the moon, on mars.
On every planet you are standing: you hang/stand still and the moon or planet is pushing you. (equivalenceprinciple).The observer always hangs still and any havy object with him/her too.
(Earth, the moon, etc.)Why: because his time is always 'normal' according to him. Wherever he (or she) is.But when he has another time than an other object, that object moves according to him.From a space point of view Earth moves. Because of the timedilation. But the observer in space has a normal time, so Earth must be round and moving. That's the consequence of the timedifference.So: the 'normality' of the time for the observer and his or her position relative to a heavy object will change the observed movements of that object in gravitational relativity.When you are on the moon: you see earth moving forward and going back and the moon stands still and is pushing you. (gravity and equivalenceprinciple)When you are in space, for you: your clock ticks normal. So, other things must change. Earth must move, because the clocks differ.I believe that the observer of space and time will be the cause of dilatation observations and effects.Because wherever he is, time runs normal.So, I think: wherever we are - as observers - in the universe. At the bounderies everything is redshifting. As a relativistic effect of space and time in the universe for any observer.But , it's just a hypothesis.
The observor as the measure of space and time.The observer is always weightless and hangings still.
A vehicle is pushing him/her, or a planet.The observer is always at 0 m/s according to the maximum speed.
At nul time and nul space. That's our position, people.We are outside time and space in 'the actual moment"= zero.That's what I think.
A so called 'reference frame' is always an observer in reality.The fallen observer (in free fall) is always weightless. He/she does not feel acceleration (no accelerated frame of reference)And he (or she) is been observed from earth as 'hanging still'.
But observers on earth feel themselves pushed op by 1 g (equivalenceprinciple). So the 'fallen' observer is always hanging still.So Earth falls towards you in a centripetal way and will become a stable world for you. All heavy objects will become a stable world for you.Black holeI believe that you are weightless above a black hole ande BH is accelerating toward you at a high velocity. Slowed down by its mass it's coming towards you. You and alle the objects 'in the sky' with you are hanging quitley.But from outside this system, we see you circling around it at gigantic speed.That's gravitational relativity to me in real lifeEdited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : English translation (I'm dutch)Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Reality does not care about beliefs.

Jar,When you mean 'believe', you mean: based on nothing.
Then I agree.But reality is 'logic' (as far as I know)
And with "believe" I mean: I have good reasons to believe...
It's based on logic and observations.
And that's what science is.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Then perhaps you need to study more for reality is not logic.Nor must reality be logical.

(I'm dutch, so my English is not very well)yes that's truth. We all must study our whole lives.
But we may also think for ourselves, isn't it?Maybe 'reality' is not logical, science must be logical.I think reality is logical.Can you prove it (logical) that reality is not logical?
No, then reality is not logical.
Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : translation problem

Science must accept reality even when it is not logical.

ok, back on topic.
So, according to my observations and logical explanation and derived from postulates of general relativity: the observer is the measure of space and time.

This is the video I made to explain my theory:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Maartenn100?feature=mhee#p/u...

And if there were 2 people on opposite sides of the black hole - would the black hole accelerate towards both of them at a high velocity?

The other 'body' (because you see another observer just as any other body) accelerates according to your point of view (when you could see it) following a curved path. (like we see when an object is falling towards a black hole)But this is the consequence of the equivalenceprinciple of general relativity:
gravity= acceleration
acceleration means weight
Falling = no weight
so no acceleration.A Blackholian will accelerate with his star towards you.Otherwise you are not consequent with the equivalenceprinciple of GRT.An other observer than you can accelerate towards you from your - frame of reference point of view.But from your point of view (as an observer of space and time): you are always hanging still and your clock is always the norm for timedilation and movements.So, you are just hanging there, when the black hole is coming at you. And then you see the light, and then it's too late Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

So when I fall, I fall at a constant speed?

I think you are talking about frames of reference, but I am not certain as I am having trouble understanding your English.As I cannot easily understand you, I will bow out of this conversation.
Else I will spend 90% of the discussion clarifying what it is you said.

Yes Maartenn is actually just about correct here (or at least I know what he is saying), but he's mixing some very high level concepts with some rather low level, and with some tricky translations/language issues and a bunch of confusion, it's all coming out rather unintelligible. I may have time tonight to try to respond to him.

I look forward to your answer. Check if my logic is correct:The basic principles of general relativity =The difference between an inertial frame of reference and a non-inertial frame of reference = you will measure weight.You can not tell the difference between hanging still or moving at a constant velocity. But you can tell the difference between an inertial frame of reference and a non-inertial frame of reference. (acceleration)Any observer on earth - in our real world and not on paper as 'a cordinatesystem' - is in a non-inertial reference frame. (in the real world). Earth is pushing him or her with 1 g.
In relativity you must say: you are in a non-inertial frame of reference. And that's your starting point to measure movement, weight, light bending etc.So when we draw a cordinatesystem on paper to describe movements on Earth, we loose information about the actual 'reference frame'.
We describe fallen objects as accelerating towards that choosen reference point on Earth, while in reality this 'reference point' is not inertial.And you can measure that: light is bending on Earth, so you are in a non-inertial frame of reference.We are accelerating (equivalenceprinciple and gravity) and the objects are just hanging there. (in relativity).Another example to make my point.You are in a spaceship to Jupiter and you are travelling at 1 g.
All your instruments will measure 1 g, even when you are on the planet "falling" at 2.7 g (+1g).Jupiterians will be in there non-inertial frame of reference, accelerated by 2.7g. The planet is pushing them up by 2.7 g.And you are just measuring, with your measuring devices: constant acceleration towards planet: 1 g.
While you see Jupiter moving towards you at 2.7 g.So you can measure these accelerations by the bending of the light.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.