Re: Is time dilation real?

"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:6cWdnYTeyLxhl0XeRVn-pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:zCTBf.23276$ve.370033@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | A famous quote says that, "Things should be made as
> | simple as possible, but no simpler." That things
> | aren't in reality as simple as you would like does
> | not argue against reality, but rather your simplicity.
>
> I have not made mine simpler,
> I could, yet I stopped at the crucial point that should be known
> It is your simplicity that can not grasp such.
> Or maybe, it is complications in the logic portion of your brain
> either way. you seem to now be able to grasp the simple.
> and that is in no way, my fault.

You must be losing it. I can't seem to parse anything
meaningful from the above. Care to tryu again?
>
>
> | What conditions? You haven't stated what conditions can
> | affect every tested clock in exactly the same manner,
> | nor what these supposed "fundamental faults" are.
>
> I have to,
> you are such a bull*** artist it is getting really sad you need to pull
> such bull*** to keep your rubber ruler worshipping alive.

I note that you don't respond to the question, but simply
invoke another personal attack. So I must assume that
you don't have an answer. Is that correct?

>
> | Now you're just treading water. Admit it, you've got
> | nothing.
>
> I have cause,
> the cause I give is backed up by your worship material.
> You are to lost in the complicated to see the simplicty anymore.
> The clock malfunctioned and if it did not, then you have a perfect clock
> that screws up when accelerated.. lol

As I said, you've got nothing.

Every clock that's been tested has undergone different
rates of acceleration and velocity. Yet they all show
the same effect as predicted by relativity. Your
argument is not an argument, it's a display of personal
bias.


.

Quantcast