Re: Beam me up - trying to get a basic understanding of GR

Dirk,

Thanks again for your input.
I'm ending my participation in this thread for two reasons.
1. Your point about raising only one question at a time is practical,
(thanks), no matter how closely they all relate, because every one
seems to have their own version on everything in relativity.
2. It seems to me that you are not really paying attention to the
issues being raised. This will only lead to an ever-increasing
multiplicity of sub-topics and confusion.
(If you are interested, here are examples:
a. I spoke of "proving an absolute frame of reference".
You call it babble if proven philosophically (this shows me you can't
think logically in the empirical sense of the word)
and relate it to proving the existence of god (an uncalled-for
distraction, and an unverified refutation arrived by a summary
judgement without hearing the case).
I can't resist pointing out here that if you take the premises of a
theory and logically prove them to lead to a contradiction then that
theory cannot be true in its stated form. That's philosophy, and it is
as or more powerful than direct experiment.
b. I spoke of time dilation "in actual fact".
You answered by talking about the optical illusion of perspective.
(Nuff said.)
c. I spoke of time dilation in appearance only.
You then state I clearly do not know SR/GR. (You cannot see that I'm
raising opposites (actual vs apparent), therefore I cannot believe
both.)
The only reason I mentioned time dilation in appearance was because of
your earlier reply to the effect that "Time dilation does not explain
the constancy of the speed of light. Time dilation is one of the
consequences of the way we measure..." A 'consequence of the way we
measure' implies that it is an illusion arising from a method. Either
time dilates, whether or not we measure it, or it only appears to
dilate when we examine it from a certain point of view.
Rhetorically, could you state categorically which you believe:
a. Time actually dilates at speed
b. Time does not actually dilate at speed.
Well, thanks for your sincere input, but please know that I've had a
sufficiency. Sorry for being blunt but I have come to believe in saying
it like I see it when an answer is required.
Guess you're going to have to lump me with the cranks!
Future queries of mine will be more focussed - ta.

.