James R said:
Young-Earth Creationists argue that evolution is false based on their faith that the God exists and the Earth is only 6000 years old. They provide no actual evidence for either claim, and in fact there is a wealth of evidence which is in direct conflict with the second claim.
You argue that relativity is false based on your faith that universal time exists. You provide no evidence for that claim, and in fact there is a wealth of evidence which is in direct conflict with you claim.
False. I base my view on facts. Facts which you choose to ignore. t = d/v is not faith it is mathematics.
You do the math. Fair comparison? I think so.
That shows further failure of your mental processes. To think an opinion based on shown mathematical relationships is noting but unsupported faith is ludricrus slander.
I gave you the SR answer. I have hidden nothing. Everything is out in the open. If you had anything to dispute my answer then you would have presented it by now. But you don't.
WHAT. Are you deaf also? You must be blind to not see that you wrote that "A" SEES B's time as dilated and to then argue that it is physical reality when "SEES" is a perception on top of having shown that mathematically t = d/v leaves NO room for a dilated clock tick rate.
You are simply being hard headed and refusing to admit that time dilation is therefore illusion and not physical.
At the end of the test, clock A reads 10 hours and clock B reads 4.35 hours. They both agree on all events which occurred. They agree that both clocks started ticking at the end of the acceleration phase, as specified. They agree on the final readings, when the clocks are brought together. There is an actual discrepancy in the readings when they are brought back together. That is no illusion.
Correct but the descrepancy is not a dilated tick rate of the slow clock. It is accumulated time at a normal tick rate and a shorter distance traveled at the same relative velocity.
I've told you in detail how relativity accounts for the discrepancy, but you have not given your alternative explanation. So, since you never come forward with your alternative, let me ask you directly.
Only as many times as you have made the unsupportable arguement that A's view is physical change in B's tick rate.
1. Do the clocks have the same reading, or different readings when they are brought back together?
Different: 10 hours and 4.35 hours.
2. Can you justify your answer to (1)? Please show the mathematics.
Already have numerous times. 3.92 LHr/0.9c = 4.35 hours. 9 LHr/0.9c = 10 hours. Both times are a function of clocks having a common tick rate but traveling different distances at the same relative velocity.
I've already shown you that your claims about what relativity says are false,
Flase. You have shown no such thing. Just the opposite. It has been shown that I was absolutely correct and that you simply refuse to acknowledge the simple truth.
so there's no need to continue that argument. We have established what relativity has to say about the matter.
And we have established that what Relativity says is false.
The only remaining thing to do is to compare what relativity says to what your brilliant theory says. So far, we have nothing from you, and full detail from relativity.
Your continued effort to ignore the mathematics does not make them go away. Please explian how a clock that goes 3.92 LHr in 4.35 hours at a velocity of 0.9c has a tick rate other than unity.
Do your math here:________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
There is no inconsistency in my views. Moreover, the "indisputable fact" that you refer to here is precisely the matter which is the centre of our dispute.
It is indisputable. You have yet to refute it. You simply attempt to sweep it under the rug and ignore it. It will not go away, so now address it.
How does a clock that accumulates 4.35 hours time having gone 3.92 LHr at 0.9c have a tick rate other than unity?
All we have here is a FIAT declaration from you about so-called "indisputable facts" which, in fact, are very much disputed.
Your definition of dispute does not fit the dictionary definition of dispute. You cite SRT and ignore the issue. That is not a dispute. It is entrenchment, blind faith and fiat.
Surely you know you look foolish here.
What's to explain. A person co-moving with a clock never sees the clock rate change. The number's you quote here refer to B's distance and B's time, and are calculated in a frame co-moving with B's clock. Therefore, there is no time dilation of B's clock in this frame. (There is, however, time dilation of A's clock.)
No there is not. There is only an illusion of motion in the jperception of B'sa clock. A's view did not alter B's clock. A's view that B's clock dilated is just that a false view created by the fact that A does not see the distance that B traveled correctly.
This is your incorrect idea, not mine. It's up to you to explain it.
I have and you have not addressed it. You have failed. Your view of reality and claims of relativity are false.
My view is solid mathematically and logically. In your view you refer to frames of referance and views and don't even realize that "View" means perception. I have never said "A" doesn't have that view or jperception I simply point out that A's VIEW does not alter B's tick rte. B's tick rate is physical. A's view is perception of B's tick rte distorted by a failure to see the correct bases of that dispaly which was shorter distance.
In one frame you claim the cause as length contraction and a constant tick rate and in the other frame you claim fixed (false distance) and the cause as dilated tick rate. You are mixing physical reality and causes with no basis for having done so.
Your declartion that both are physical realities is nonsense and is unsupported period. Yours is the fiat which runs counter to the evidence, even of Relativity.
