Re: Is time dilation real?

"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bKCdnaObVNbCI0renZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:KIOBf.19574$ve.340543@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | Perhaps you think that it's just coincidence that every
> | type of clock tested so far (from subatomic particle
> | decay times to atomic clocks flown on aircraft to
> | GPS clocks in space) show *exactly* the same effect
> | regardless of their composition or mechanism?
>
> Perhaps you have no clue, there is no way that
> those are every type of clock.
> Those are all based on a particle 'ticker'.

Different particles doing different things.
Some are decaying, some oscillating, some are
electron energy transitions in atoms. Very
different things all.

So your objection cannot stand. Unless of course
you just want to be stubborn and insist that by
some wildly improbable stroke of luck this
selection of mechanisms all just happen to be
affected identically.

>
> BTW:
> The hourglass does not agree, along with a sundial,
> and grandfather clocks and they are clocks
> no matter how much you want to believe they are not.

You can, of course, cite references to the actual
experiments that showed deviation from relativity
using these clocks? No?

One can always say: "Yes, yes, all those clocks that
you've tested are affected exactly the same way, but
this other clock that you haven't tested yet won't".
At what point do you admit that an exhaustive search
is unlikely to be fruitful?

If you claim that pigs can fly, do I have to bring
every pig in existence before you to confirm that
every one of them cannot fly, or will you be
willing to accept the evidence of 1) No pig ever
seen so far has been able to fly, 2) There is no
physical mechanism that would allow pigs to fly,
so it is vastly improbable to the point of
certainty that any pig could fly?

>
> | You're arguing against observed facts.
>
> No,
> I am questioning the worshipping that has gone on too long.
> and of course, the ignorance about other clocks.
> And further on,
> even though such particle type clocks do agree,
> there is no physical cause of the clocks faults given
> and that is even more sad than the worhsipping.

Questioning something is fine as long as you're also
willing to accept the answer, even if it's one you
don't like due to personal bias.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: one way light speed
    ... Take two clocks separated by some distance, with a light source and detector at each such that the clocks can record the time of emission and arrival of light pulses. ... In testing a theory applied to a one-way measurement, the method of clock synchronization must be included in the analysis, and for all viable physical theories it will cancel out. ... The fact that rotations come back to the same orientation after an angle of 2pi puts rather strong constraints on how it can vary with orientation. ... a particle would be different in two directions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: one way light speed
    ... Imagine a particle accelerator that is not a circle but a very long ... speed increase, so there is a speed limit, which is not infinite. ... clocks are assumed synchronized. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: one way light speed
    ... Martin Hogbin wrote: ... Imagine a particle accelerator that is not a circle but a very long ... clocks are assumed synchronized. ... You cannot accelerate a particle to the speed of light, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: one way light speed
    ... or two clocks to measure the one-way speed. ... In the case of a one-clock two-way measurement the, ... synchronisation by slow transport. ... a particle would be different in two directions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)