Re: Is time dilation real?

"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:rOednUrRLbYD-0TeRVn-gw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:ecdCf.24895$ve.506822@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | All rates were correct when measured in their
> | respective frames of reference.
>
> They could not have been.
> If they actually were,
> no different times would be the end result.

James, they were. That's the reality. Wishing it
were some other way won't change it.

It would be really nice if the Universe were Newtonian
rather than Einstienian. There would be no light
speed limitations, mass and length and time would
all be handled simply by the intuitive Galilean
transforms. Things would be mathematically simpler.
But the Universe doesn't care what would make us
happy. We can't cahnge the rules, and we can't
quit the game. So deal with it.

>
> | Why can't you
> | accept experimental evidence? The answer can
> | only be willful ignorance.
>
> There is no experimental evidence that the clocks rate did not change.
> you can scream that all you want to,
> and if you actually used some logic,
> you would know why it would be wrong to conclude
> such at all if the end times were not equal.

Oh James, James. You're sounding more and more like
a spoiled child who doesn't get his way and throws
a tantrum. I've given you the facts, and you choose
to disbelieve them simply because you don't like the
answer. To paraphrase an appropriate quote, I've
brought you an explanation. I cannot bring you an
understanding.

>
> | Not one. Three. And they all performed as predicted.
>
> blah blah

See? You refuse to accept the evidence that reality
provides. This means you're living in a fantasy world.

> The clocks have different end times.
> and you can not have physical proof the clocks kept the same
> physical rates if such an end result occured.

You cannot say that there is not physical proof when
in fact there is. To do so makes you willfully ignorant.
Read the writeups on the experiment. The proof is there.
Period.

> The physical fact is the end result, and that
> shows one or more in certain test etc,,
> had to change rate physically or it
> would have the same time on it, as any other would have.

The end result is only one part of the evidence. If
it were simply a matter of the clocks misbehaving,
that would have been seen in-flight by the local
observers. The clocks performed flawlessly and to
spec. This is a fact, James.

Read the writeups on the experiment. The proof is there.

>
>
> | Tell me james, if an observer stays with each clock
> | and notes that the other clock is running at a different
> | rate than his own, and his own is verifiably running
> | at its correct designed rate,
>
> Bull***,
> The observer could not tell if his clock was running at the
> same rate until he returned.

Nonsense. The clock rates are based upon fundamental
physical processes that have very specific frequencies.
Or do you think that there exists somewhere some magical
clock that every other clock must be compared to?

> How do you say he did such, and proved it was running the same rate
> and not changing rates like what would have to happen
> to end up with different end times?

That's the point, James. Relativity is about reconciling
exactly this conundrum. If the clocks are all demonstrably
flawless at all times in their own frames of reference, yet
they read differently when brought together for comparison,
then the only possible explanation is that time rate changes
depending upon relative motion.


.

Quantcast