Changes

:::*GPS satellite clocks have mechanisms to correct for frequency offsets caused by time dilation.  I don't see how this can be disputed, unless you want to stubbornly deny that such devices exist, in which case you can claim that cars don't have engines.

:::*GPS satellite clocks have mechanisms to correct for frequency offsets caused by time dilation.  I don't see how this can be disputed, unless you want to stubbornly deny that such devices exist, in which case you can claim that cars don't have engines.

:::*Newtonian mechanics does not predict ANY time dilation because it regards time as absolute, even in accelerating frames. Again, I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed, outside of winning a Noble Prize.  There are no reputable sources that predict Newtonian time dilation because there is no Newtonian time dilation.

:::*Newtonian mechanics does not predict ANY time dilation because it regards time as absolute, even in accelerating frames. Again, I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed, outside of winning a Nobel Prize.  There are no reputable sources that predict Newtonian time dilation because there is no Newtonian time dilation.

:::*Relativity does predict time dilation.  All reputable physicists (not just a few obscure ones) can attest to that.

:::*Relativity does predict time dilation.  All reputable physicists (not just a few obscure ones) can attest to that.

:::*The predictions of relativity are in good agreement with the frequency offsets on GPS satellite clocks.  Several papers on the topic have been cited on this page.

:::*The predictions of relativity are in good agreement with the frequency offsets on GPS satellite clocks.  Several papers on the topic have been cited on this page.

:::If you want to flat-out deny the above, then I guess I shouldn't waste my time trying to improve the article.  I'll also point out that some significant creationist ideas depend on relativity to explain the starlight problem (God creating the Earth inside a massive gravitational field), so it's not an amoral atheist conspiracy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to flat-out deny the above, then I guess I shouldn't waste my time trying to improve the article.  I'll also point out that some significant creationist ideas depend on relativity to explain the starlight problem (God creating the Earth inside a massive gravitational field), so it's not an amoral atheist conspiracy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)