| Line 460: |
Line 460: |
| | | | |
| | :::*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. |
| | + | |
| | + | :::: It hasn't been proven that the frequency offsets are due to "time dilation." Instead, you assume what you claim to prove. Your logic is circular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | :::*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. | | :::*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. |
| | + | |
| | + | :::: No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation. This is a strawman argument. What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects the operation of clocks in accelerating frames.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | :::*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. |
| | + | |
| | + | :::: OK, this is true, but purely theoretical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | :::*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. |
| | + | |
| | + | :::: A few papers by obscure physicists have made this claim, but these papers raise questions like disagreements among relativists and a failure to address Newtonian effects on the clocks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 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) | | :::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) |
| | + | |
| | + | :::: Relativists love to exaggerate relativity. Earlier, someone here claimed (based on what he had been taught by relativists) that only relativity predicts the bending of light from gravity. Wrong again. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT) |