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)

:::: 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)

Yes, that's correct. If you wanted to make an anti-relativity statement, I think that here is the most that you could say correctly is this:

You state, ''"No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation...What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects [sic] the operation of clocks in accelerating frames."''  Those sentences are contradictory.  Newtonian mechanics does NOT predict any difference in the operation of clocks. Furthermore, what do the frequency offsets do if they don't compensate for time dilation??  Are they decorative??  Clock frequencies have to be adjusted ''because the clocks run at different rates''. And whatever extrapolations "relativists" come up with have nothing to do with the science.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

* Being able to calculate the relativistic corrections is not truly essential to making GPS work. Nowadays the satellite clocks are synchronized so frequently that predicting the clock drift is not necessary. If relativity were never discovered, then the satellite corrections could be made without anyone realizing that the system was just adding relativistic corrections. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)