Re: Is time dilation real?

"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:gZednYSYA6H_fEreRVn-og@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Z5QBf.20846$ve.349684@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | "Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | news:FZ6dnVwybYclWkrenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | >
> | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:1138214431.003304.37160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | > |
> | > | If this were true, then the size of the effect would not be
> | > | predictable, independent of the choice of the clock made. This is the
> | > | key point: the prediction of the size of the effect is made *before*
> | > | the clock is chosen and *before* the measurement with that chosen
> clock
> | > | is performed.
> | >
> | > and it fails such on an hourglass.
> |
> | Reference to actual experiment performed, please.
> | If you don't have the reference, then this is not
> | evidence, and means less than nothing for your
> | argument; it becomes a kook-rant.
>
> You are one of the ones that stated it works for all clocks.
> You are the one that needs to show a reference that used
> such a clock.

No, I stated that it works for all clocks tested to date,
that they are of different types and rely on different
physical mechanisms, and show exactly the effect predicted
by theory (which in no way specifies the type or makeup
of the clocks to be used). There is no reason to doubt
that the effect will apply uniformly to any clock of
any desired type or mechanism.

You state that theory fails if the clock is an hourglass,
yet you are unable to produce the literature cite for
such an experiment having been performed. So you are
arguing by assertion, not from fact.

>
> || > Of course it would predict the 'same' type clocks to be the same
> | > changes.
> |
> | There are various types of clocks that have been tested.
> | This has been explained to you on several occasions, yet
> | you seem to want to pose as being willfully ignorant.
> | Why is that?
>
> Various types that are all using the same 'type' of ticker.
> That is simply not 'all clocks' is all I have stated.

Define "type" of ticker. Everything made up of matter
is made up of particles. How can any physical clock
be made of something else? Certainly your hourglass
example is made of particles.

In what way is the nuclear decay of a meson the same as
an electron orbital shift? In what way is the period
of corotating massive stars the same as the frequency
of atomic oscillations? Please state how we can find
a clock based on any more dissimilar mechanism.

>
>
> |
> | > Sheesh!
> |
> | Sheesh indeed.
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > | > Grandfather clock, hourglasses, sundials, etc.
> | > | > time dilation is a clock malfunction that depends on the clocks
> | > | > inner workings and the changes it passes through such as g-force
> | > | > acceleration etc..
> | >
> | > You love to ignore this paragraph above huh?
> |
> | There is nothing in that paragraph that is based upon any
> | observational evidence, theoretical model, or anything
> | else other than your own personal desire. So it is
> | correct to ignore it until you can bring physical
> | evidence.
>
> Actually there is,
> In that paragraph are clocks that have not been tested to see
> how they react to the so called 'all clocks' bull*** that is
> parroted so frequently.
> Hence, all clocks have not been tested.

The mean period between cow farts has also not been
tested for rapidly moving bovines. Are you suggesting
that this must be tested too, even after every other
type of clock has been verified? You are grasping
desperately at straws if you have resorted to insisting
on a practically impossible exhaustive search as the
basis for your position.

You are arguing without evidence, and dismissing what
evidence exists. Why is that? Arguing for argument's
sake (i.e. trolling)?


.

Quantcast