Your edits to relativity
I have reverted what you wrote. I think it is likely that you are simply trolling (and I might add that most people around here would block you instantly if they believed you were trolling, but I'm more patient and, in any case, do not have block powers), or perhaps that you are profoundly confused or ignorant. There has been a lot of ignorant writing about relativity here at Conservapedia, and I don't have a lot of patience for it.
Aside from the fact that the whole thing is what my 4th grade teacher would have called a "run-on sentence", the various phrases in that sentence do not make logical or grammatical sense. What does "is not accurate to describe" mean? What does the rising of the Sun have to do with the nanosecond accuracy with which relativity observations are made? The "possibility of multiverses" is largely driven by quantum mechanics, though it's all in the context of relativity. There are a lot of books on the subject, written for the lay public. Eclipses are typically separated by years, and the timing of them, at various altitudes, can be readily worked out. Worldlines are not the same. My worldline is different from yours. SamHB (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
God prevent me from trolling ! Each rising sun is a synchronization of time, every eclipses synchronize altitudes together from eclipse to the other. Synchronization of events is incompatible (not accurate) with desynchronization of clocks. I prefer to believe in synchronization of eclipses than in desynchronization of clocks. But that is a choice. If you believe eclipses are desynchronized, it is God will, but you are not in the truth. If there were some nanoseconds more at high altitudes between eclipses (slower rate), it would mean events happens quicker at low altitude (quicker rate of events in a time dilated frame???). Sincerely yours.Geocentric (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2017 (EDT)