Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
ken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:32 pmWhat is 'time', itself, to you?
Don't really know, lacking hard evidence one way or another.
Do you want to take a guess?
Have you NOT made any presumption at all about what 'time' actually IS?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amNoax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmThe measure of it between two events is frame dependent.
When you say the measure of "it", did you mean the word 'time'?
If so, then what do you mean by, "The measure of time between two events"?
Yes and yes.
Yes does NOT answer the second question.
What is "it" that you say can be measured between two events?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amIf, for example, you had said, "The measure of THE time between two events", then I could better understand this. Although it does sound clumsy it makes more sense, to Me anyway. I understand the words 'the time' usually refers to the actual measurement, itself, taken. But when you say, "The measure of time between two events" I do NOT understand what is it EXACTLY that is being measured? How does one measure 'time', itself?
Clocks are nice, and a selection of frames is needed to give the figure meaning.
And, what is 'it' [time], itself, that one is measuring?
I gave no answer to this. It doesn't matter to this discussion.
This sounds very familiar, especially when asking some people about what 'God' actually is when they absolute certainty that God created every thing. They also are unable to explain and answer what 'God' is, although they insist God does things.
You insist, with absolute certainty, that 'time' does things, like, dilates with speed, but you are clearly unable to explain and answer what 'time' actually is.
Does the answer to what 'God' is, matter to the discussion of what 'It' could do?
Even after thousands upon thousands of years I find it hilarious that some human beings still TRY TO argue for some things, like God creates things or that time dilates YET still have NO clue as to what 'IT' is that they are actually talking about. What is even more funny and humorous is to sit back and observe some people even try to insist that KNOWING what the actual thing is that they say does certain things does NOT even matter to the discussion. Observing some of human being practices is hysterical to watch some times.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amOf course mars is NOT west of jupiter. In the Universe there is NO west, nor east, nor south, nor north, nor up, nor down, nor left, nor right, et cetera, et cetera. Only a human being's perspective, relative to earth, would consider and ask such a meaningless question.
But if one chose an arbitrary direction for north, and one more orthogonal for west, then the question can be answered.
I NEVER said the question could NOT be answered. I just said, WHAT I SAID.
Human beings can pretend any thing they like. They can also conceptualize any thing they like. I am NOT here to stop them doing that.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am That's what a frame is. An arbitrary assignment (human or otherwise) of a coordinate system, without optional specification of an origin.
So, let Me see if I have this right, human beings assign certain things 'arbitrarily', or
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am How far west of Mars is Jupiter?
I have already told you that there is NO west.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am The answer is frame dependent, on which way you arbitrarily decided was west.
But I do NOT arbitrarily decide. You may do that, but I do NOT. I much prefer to just look at and observe
what IS, instead. From this perspective I can see HOW, WHEN, and WHY human beings are still so very confused and puzzled about what Life actually IS.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am In one possible frame, Mars is straight north of Jupiter and is zero distance to the west.
In another arbitrarily decided possible frame, there will be yet ANOTHER answer. What that causes and where that leads to is already very obvious to see and understand.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am Nobody magically brought Jupiter closer. We just moved the coordinate system.
Yes, human beings, at the present event of when this is written, truly love to
move things around to fit in nicely with their already preconceived ideas and conceptions of what the "world" really is, or should be, like.
A 'theory' is more or less a made up version of what thing SHOULD be like.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am Time dilation is no more magical than that.
Very true there. Moving coordinated human made systems around so as they fit in nicely, especially so they fit in nicely with already predicted results, made by those that are worshiped and/or followed is NOT magical at all. Although some people would find it very "magical" that some things come about exactly how they were predicted.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amHow many actual and real spatial frames are there?
None or infinite, depending on what you mean by actual and real.
I was meaning actual and real in the sense that they actually exist, and are NOT just human conceived systems that can be moved around or juggled depending on an observer, and/or how they are feeling and/or thinking at any particular moment.
Does the answer have to none or infinite? Is there NO in between here?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amBy the way are 'frames' actual real things, or just words used to fathom things in conceptual thinking?
Probably the latter. They are reference systems, not objects, but if a different direction is considered west, then Jupiter really is more or less west than some other choice of orientation. So it is real in that sense.
So, it is ONLY real in the sense if you consider it real?
If you CONSIDER west to be in a certain direction, then to you it is real, is that what you are saying?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amWhat does 'relativity' hinge on, to you?
Knowledge of it hinges on empirical observation, much in the same way that knowledge of it does not hinge on the ontological status of what time is.
So, to you, 'time' might NOT actually be real in any sense at all, other than in conceptualized thinking only, but knowledge of relativity hinges on the "empirical evidence" that "time dilates with speed", is this some what correct?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amIt would also be easy if the sphere is expanding. Also, what do you mean by the 'hubble sphere' is shrinking? Is that what is really happening, or is that only how it appears to be happening?
The radius of it is getting smaller.
Do you KNOW this for absolute certainty?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am Stuff out that far passes beyond the sphere as the radius shrinks and no longer includes them.
Does ALL stuff supposedly "out that far" passes beyond the sphere? Could some stuff pass into the sphere?
If so, then could that make the so called radius enlarge, or appear to enlarge, and would thus obviously include them?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amThe reason I asked, Could that even be done?, is because it would be virtually impossible for a human being to leave the 'visible universe' because wherever the human being is the size of the 'visible universe' would be roughly the exact same, depending upon deterioration of eyesight and of visibility of course, right?
Yes, human have no way of getting out there, so it isn't possible for us, but this is from a race still incapable of reaching the nearest planet.
What do you mean by "human have no way of getting out there"?
Do you mean forever more, or, for some limited existence that you know of or imagine of ?
Who is the 'us' you are referring to?
How do you KNOW what human beings are capable of?
In your era human beings may have not yet reached the nearest planet, but only looking from that perspective you will ONLY see a very narrow and small view of reality.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amBy the way is the 'visible universe' the same as the 'observable universe'? If it is, then the 'observable universe' is larger than the 'hubble sphere', so objects could move from inside the hubble sphere to outside of it and still be in the observable or visible universe.
The Hubble Sphere is defined as the distance where a comoving object increases its particular velocity at the rate of c.
Do ALL dictionaries, textbooks, literature, teachings, and people who talk about the hubble sphere have the same as, agree upon, or accept your version of the definition here?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am The visible universe is larger than that since light can come from not far outside the sphere and travel inside it, eventually reaching us. The most distant visible thing is defined by the past light cone at time=infinity. Objects beyond that can never be detected in any amount of time from here.
Are you absolutely sure about the "in any amount of time from here" prediction?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Hardly local to who?
Close enough that adjustments for bent or expanding space are insignificant. SR is bunk as uwot points out. It works locally, but GR totally dominates if you start talking of distances to galaxies not part of our cluster.
You seem to have missed the whole point in My questioning.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amIn physics, 'local' often means 'from with a box', but the box can get pretty big. A million light-years is fine.
That's why I put our control twin in a ship nearby Earth. It puts him in the same sort of box as his twin.
You are really missing the mark again now.
You really can NOT yet get out of only being able to look from the human being perspective, correct?
Are you fully aware that NOT ALL THINGS revolve around human beings, and their tiny little made up conceptualized "world" of things?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Sounding more like special relativity really does have bugger all to do with reality more and more.
Yes, exactly. It just doesn't cover that non-local case.
And, just as obvious, is general relativity does NOT cover much, at all really, relative to the big and true picture of ALL-THERE-IS.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amThat answer is subject to either the still-moving stationary traveler or the object "traveling" at .999c, right? It is just that it was not properly qualified in THIS quote here.
Yes. I forgot. The answer was not qualified. The distance that AC moves is about 70 light days in the traveler frame, and the traveler moves 4.3 light years in about that time in the Earth/AC frame.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amAlso, before the traveler set off the distance they were about to "embark" on was just over for light years and not just under 70 light days, right?
Only in Earth frame, which the traveler is in before he's shot out of his cannon or however it is done. After that, he's stationary in a different frame.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amBut the traveler can only verify this when the traveler is with one of the clocks, correct?
That is the only time the comparison is not frame dependent, yes.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amThat is right, the traveler's clock is not one of the two OTHER clocks. The traveler has their own clock, a third clock, right?
If we want to describe his elapsed time, it would be nice to say he has a clock, yes.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amConsidering we were talking about the traveler's clock being synchronized with earth's clock at departure event, the traveler's clock and earth would have been synchronized and in the same frame on earth
No, they're not in the same frame, so cannot be synchronized to either frame. They're in each other's presence at the departure event and synchronize to that event (time zero). They don't stay in sync because each clock is dilated in the frame of the other.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amand the earth and alpha centauri clocks are synchronized together in the earth frame, then that would mean the travelers clock, earth's clock, and alpha centauri's clock would have been synchronized the same also, correct?
The traveler clock is synced at one event, unable to continue to be synced to any moving clock that runs at a different pace.
I thought you said before that ALL clocks run at the SAME pace, that is one day per one day, did I think wrong here?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amIf the three clocks are the same at departure event, then when did the earth and alpha centauri clocks differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler?
Different events are simultaneous in the traveler frame. This is super important to understanding it all. In the traveler frame, the A-C clock already reads 4.3 years (minus 3 days) at traveler time zero which is Earth time zero. This is what is meant when the say that simultaneity is relative, or frame dependent. Different frames define different spatially separated events that are simultaneous with any given event.
So, when you say earth's clock is synced with alpha centauri's clock, what do both clocks read at the event of syncing?
The exact same time? Or,
Different times?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amWas it just after departure, during acceleration, during "rest" at .999c, during deceleration, or at some other point or time?
It is the frame in which the simultaneity is considered. It is not something that happens or is caused.
When is simultaneity considered?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amAlso, if at acceleration (and/or deceleration) the traveler is not in 'inertial frame' does that mean that the traveler is ageing slower than the people on earth and the traveler's clock is "ticking" slower than the earth and alpha centauri clocks?
GR covers accelerating (non-inertial frames). For simplicity, we assume high enough acceleration that it is a negligible computational overhead. He's in an unpowered box shot out of a cannon. If a trip like this was actually done, GR computations would need to be made because acceleration takes time. Going .999c would kill a human even at slow steady acceleration. Would not survive the first second of that.
If it is NOT possible, then WHY do we talk about?
When I question what would happen if, and only IF, a traveler could travel at the speed of light? I am almost inevitably told that that is impossible so there is no use in talking about it.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amIf so, then what happens if the traveler is only in an inertial frame of reference for say 1 minute or 30 days for example, then how does that effect the ageing and/or physical dilation processes, relative to the differing frames of references?
The math gets more complicated then. The trip takes a little bit longer, and he comes back still a bit over 140 days older than when he left. No, I'm not going to do the math when the simple example suffices. Nobody can survive the scenario anyway, instantaneous acceleration or not.
I find it funny when people want to talk about some thing, then it does not matter if it is impossible. But if they do NOT want to talk some thing, then the "it is an impossible scenario anyway so I will NOT even attempt to answer your question" responses come out.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amFor example earth and alpha centauri would be in "stationary" or inertial frame during the traveler's acceleration and deceleration periods, right?
Right. Only the traveler is accelerating, so only his frame is non-inertial.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amBut when the traveler was constantly still-moving .999c, then the traveler would be in constant still-moving inertial frame? If this is right, then we would have to be changing our 'frame of reference' and views of what is happening, right?
Yes.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amI was SAYING and ASKING, if the travelers clock is synchronized to earths clock, at the start of the trip in the traveler frame, and alpha centaur's clock is synchronized to earth's clock also, then the three clocks must be synchronized the same, right?
Not if the traveler frame is different than Earth frame. Said this above. His clocked was synced to an event, and A-C clock is not synced to time zero in the traveler frame.[/quote]
But the "travelers" is NOT different than earth frame at the start of the trip or departure event. We had already gone through this.
If earth clock, alpha centauri's clock, and so called "travelers" clock, were synced when "traveler" was present on the earth at departure event, and earth clock and "travelers' clock are synced to zero time, what is the time on alpha centauri's clock?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amWHY is the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock reading a bit over four years ahead in traveler frame if the traveler clock is synchronized to the exact same as the earth clock BEFORE the trip begins?
The frame defines which event is simultaneous with the departure event. That event on A-C happens to be 3 days short of time 4.3 years on their clock.
WHAT EVENT, and WHY does that event, on alpha centauri JUST HAPPEN TO BE 3 days short of time 4.3 years on "their" clock?
Also, who is "their"?
Noax wrote:... if they do, between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock if at some stage from the "traveler's" frame there was zero difference between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock?
There is only negligible discrepancy between those two clocks in Earth frame if we synced them in that frame. They stay synced.
What do you mean by "negligible discrepancy"? In other words "by how much"?
What "two" clocks in earth frame if we synced "them" in that frame? Does "that" mean earth frame?
And, WHAT is "they" that stay synced?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amSo, when and why does traveler's clock become out of sync?
He's moving in Earth frame. His clock logs less time in Earth frame. A clock that logs 70 days in 4.3 years is not able to stay synced.
And, according to you, earth's clock logs less time in "travelers" frame. A clock that logs 3 days in 70 days is not able to stay synced, is that right?
Remember the traveler's clock was synced with the earth clock when the traveler and earth were in the same frame, which was also synced with alpha centauri's clock, which you just stated stays synced with earth's clock.
Yes, but only in Earth/AC frame.[/quote]
But why ONLY in earth/alpha centauri frame?
Why not in earth/"traveler" frame or in alpha centauri/earth frame?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amNoax wrote:That's not a frame dependent question because the traveler is present at that event.
What do you mean by that answer?
I think the comment above spoke of the departure event. Clocks were synced to zero there, in all frames, since both were present at that event. No frame redefines an event. It might redefine the order in which two different events occurred.
How many frames are there, since both were present at that event?
If earth's clock and travelers clock were synced to zero at the departure event, then what was alpha centauri's clock synced to at the same departure event?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amIf you can give Me an answer from traveler's frame regarding the change on earth's clock, then why can you NOT give Me an answer from earth's frame regarding the change on traveler's clock?
The traveler clock changes 70 days between the two events because that's how much time elapses for the traveler.
But that is FROM the "travelers" frame. I am NOT asking about that. I am asking about WHY you can NOT give Me an answer as to what the "travelers" clock changes by between the two events from the earth's frame?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am He ages 70 days.
Again, that is from the "travelers" frame. What does the clock read from the earth's frame?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am 140 if he comes back, defining a 3rd event of being reunited with his older brother.
But how come now the "travelers" brother is older when you said before the time passed on the earth's clock would only be 6.2 days from the "travelers" frame, of which would be 140 days on the "travelers" clock?
How could the one who, you say, aged less, from the "travelers" frame, now be the older of the two brothers?
Are you proposing some thing magical happened? Is the "travelers" frame magically completely erased and "come back" into earth's frame? Or, is there some purely logical reason for what happens here that you will now explain to us?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm His clock reads 70 days in any frame at that second event.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amI thought the traveler's clock would read just over 4.3 years from earth's frame and/or alpha centauri's frame because from those frames that is how long it would take a traveler to take a trip from earth to alpha centauri at .999c, is this right?
The traveler clock is dilated due to high speed in the Earth frame.
Are you absolutely 100% positively sure that this would be the case?
Also, is earth's clock and/or alpha centauri's clock dilated due to high speed in the traveler frame?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am His clock logs only 70 days during the 4.3 year time it takes in that frame.
So, in earth's frame the time the trip takes is 4.3 years, right?
If so, is this 4.3 years the same length of time from alpha centauri's frame?
And, what about from the moon's frame, jupiter's frame, this solar system's frame, the galaxy this solar system is in's frame, do they measure the time the trip took was about 4.3 years also? Or, do they read completely different readings, like maybe 70 or maybe 3.1 days too?
Are you saying that earth's clock logs only 3 days during the 70 days time it takes in "travelers" frame?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am It's 4.3 light years away and he can't go faster than light.
If I recall correctly this is just about EXACTLY what I have been saying.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amNoax wrote:No, if those two clocks were synchronized in Earth frame, they'd not be synchronized in travler frame.
But both were synced with traveler clock at departure event.
Both Earth and AC clocks are synced with each other in Earth frame, not with traveler clock in any frame since the clocks don't run at the same pace in any frame we'd find useful.
But "travelers" clock WAS synced with earth's clock in earth's frame when they were present at departure event, which you also say earth and alpha centauri's clock are ALSO synced with each other.
What do you mean by 'we'?
I am finding ALL of this useful, to better explain, eventually.
I am finding your words describing that clocks run at the same pace, that is one day per day, AND also saying that clocks do NOT run at the same pace in any frame very helpful and useful. Looking at ALL the frames you talk about and the different and same paces that clocks do or do not run at and at all the conflicting figures I find useful, so I am not sure who is the 'we' you are referring to.
Clocks, themselves, and frames are NOT very useful at all for day-to-day living and staying alive, but both clocks and "frames" have become very useful for Me to better describe and explain what it is that I want to describe and explain.
So, what does earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock read now at arrival event, from traveler's frame?
3.1 days, 1/22nd of the 70 days the trip took. 70 is 1/22nd of 4.3 years. The dilation factor at .999c is pretty close to 22.[/quote]
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amNoax wrote: but if the Earth and AC clocks were syncronized in Earth/AC frame, AND time was zero at the first even (departure), then the traveler clock reads about 70 days at the 2nd event and the AC clock reads 4.3 years plus about 40 hours.
But why would the traveler's clock read about 70 hours, from alpha centauri frame, and alpha centauri clock reads 4.3 years plus from alpha cenatauri frame, when before, and correct Me if I am wrong here, which no doubt you will anyway, you said that only 3.1 days past on alpha centauri because it was the traveler who was at rest and alpha centauri was moving?
The traveler is present at the event of arriving at AC so what is clock says at that event is not frame dependent. It reads 70 days at that event, and a frame specification is unnecessary.
When you say "It" reads 70 days at that event", what is the "it"?
Remember, if, as you say, only 3.1 days pass, from travelers frame, on alpha centauri, then WHY would alpha centauri clocks read 4.3 years?
WHEN "traveler" is present at the event of arriving at alpha centauri what does the "traveler" read on the clock on alpha centauri?
1. 3.1 days
2. 70 days
3. 4.3 years
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amYou're not in need of correction. Only 3 days passed on AC in traveler frame during the trip. In that frame, the clock on AC already read about 4.3 years at the departure time.
So, what does alpha centauri's clock read when the so called "traveler" is present at the event of arrival on alpha centauri?
Did you just NOT go through saying that earth clock and alpha centauri clock WERE synced at zero time at the departure event and stayed in sync?
But now are you suggesting that alpha centauri clock was NOT synced with earth's clock, as alpha centauri clock supposedly already read about 4.3 years at the departure time?
Or, did alpha centauri clock "jump" 4.3 years as soon as the "traveler" started moving or staying "stationary", however you want to word it?
When you say "synced" what do you actually mean? If for example two clocks are "synced", do they read the exact same time, or, do they read different times, depending on their distance apart from each other, or, some thing else?
If your answer is some thing else, then will you explain that?
And, if your answer is only part of the other two, then will you explain that?
When you write, "In that frame" what is 'that'? In other words, in which frame are you now talking about?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amNoax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm That's 75 hours the clock logged and about 4.296 years of Earth and AC being out of sync.
What is "THE" clock, which has logged 75 hours?
The AC clock (the Earth one as well), in the traveler frame.
How can earth clock and alpha centauri's clock now be out of sync, when they were synced at departure event?
And when you say both alpha centauri clock and earth clock have logged 75 hours, "in the traveler frame", is that while the "traveler" was in its own frame or when the "traveler" was present at the event of arrival on alpha centauri?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amAnd, how can earth and alpha centauri clocks now be out of sync when you have said, they stay synced?
They're still in sync in Earth/AC frame. Earth clock also reads 4.3 years in Earth frame, since the trip took that long.
But is that not a "frame dependent" answer?
Are you now saying the trip actually took 4.3 years?
Also how can earth clock "ALSO" read 4.3 years when you said alpha centauri clock reads 3.1 days?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am AC is 4.3 light years away in that frame, remember?
In 'WHAT' frame?
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amThe twin back home is 4.3 years older now in Earth frame, but only 3 days older in traveler frame.
And if the "stationary traveler" returns to earth, at the same "stationary speed" will the twin back home be older or younger?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 amzero at the departure event, and reading 70 days at the arrival event.
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amNoax wrote: Yes, you actually expressed that correctly. Time is dilated for moving things. In the traveler frame, it is the other clocks that are moving.
Therefore, the clock on alpha centauri would read about 3.1 days, from the traveler's frame, but would be reading 4.3 years plus, from alpha centauri's frame, right?
It traveler frame, Both Earth and AC clocks advance by 3 days during the 70 day trip, but AC clock already was at 4.3 years at departure time.
But you also just said the twin back home had advanced by 4.3 years, so what did the earth clock advance by? 3 days or 4.3 years?
When the so called "traveler" is present at arrival event on alpha centauri what does earth clock read? 3 days or 4.3 years
Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 amAnd, the traveler's clock would read about 70 days, from the traveler's frame, and you have already stated that the traveler's clock would be reading about 70 days from alpha centauri frame also, right?
Not frame dependent question since the traveler is present at that event, so yes to all.
So, the "traveler" when present at the arrival event would see the "travelers" clock reading 70 days had passed.
What would the "traveler" when present at the arrival event see alpha centauri's clock reading?
And, what would the clock on earth be reading when the "traveler" is present at the arrival event on alpha centauri?