Existence

Hi oni, Then why post?That is involving yourself.Listened to the the lecture and I have one question for you.Is there anything outside of our present universe?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

To provide the video. It falls back to the is there anything north of the north pole question. The question doesn't make sense, nor does your question. If you understood the topology of the universe, like you understand the shape of the earth, you would understand why "outside of the universe" is as nonsensical as asking "what's north of the north pole."But to understand the topology of the universe requires a shitload of schooling, so it's better to just accept that the question is nonsensical and move on to other questions.- Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi NoNukes, You proposed a light beam leaving my wife on day 1095.7275 of my journey. At which time I am 2,934,796,536,000 miles from the end of my journey, traveling towards the origin of my journey at 93,000 mps.I can not see the light until it reaches me and neither can the light see me even if it could see.So I do not observe the light traveling towards me as I don't know it even exists. I will not know it exists until it reaches my location 1217.475 days into my journey.At the distance 1,956,531,024,000 miles traveled by the light beam at c which takes 121.7475 days.So what I was trying to say is the light does not exist until I observe the light as far as I am concerned in my frame of reference.You don't see light coming. It is dark until the light gets to your location. How can they be in the same reference frame? I thought I would be in at least 7 frames of reference. First an inertial frame then a non-inertial frame then an inertial frame and then the non-internal frame (or frames) then an inertial frame then a non-internal frame and ending in an inertial frame. You and that mouse you have in your pocket might believe the pulse travels in the saw tooth path as presented but no one else would agree.You mounted the clock parallel to the direction of travel thus there is no effect of velocity on the clock. No I had an instant start and stop. I will get to this one later. If you can look at the two pictures and get two different pictures you need to get your glasses changed. Isn't the magnetic steering sections throughout to keep the particles in a tight beam so they can be forced to collide?Wouldn't those magnetic forces be an outside force applied to the particle?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi oni, I asked the question because I have been told that there is no thing outside of the universe.I have been told that the universe was a self-contained universe that expanded into what we have today.I have been told space, and time are a part of the universe.If you watched the lecture you know the speaker said there was space in which particles poped into existence in.Therefore the universe has to exist in this existence of space, or whatever you want to call it.That space is not an absence of anything, it is the presence of something.So the speakers assertion that space is nothing is just that an assertion.So back to my question in the OP.

quote:

---

Can anyone present a case for existence without it being brought about by existence?

---

God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

Gish Gallop

​

The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised. Usually this results in many involuntary twitches in frustration as the opponent struggles just to decide where to start. It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish.

---

Prime example of the above can be found throughout this thread.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

As you wish, I guess; that kind of curved travel requires acceleration. I don't know anything at all about calculating time dilation in an accelerating reference frame when the acceleration is centrifugal. Elaborate. Are you asking what happens when you stop swinging? Or when you let go of the bucket altogether? In the first case, the bucket's inertia forces it to continue on its circular path until friction brings it to a rest. In the second case the bucket takes off in a straight line tangental to its circular path at the point where you let go. Yes, exactly. Circular motion requires constant acceleration; a constant-velocity object can only travel in a straight line, by definition. Its engine, presumably; to force a rocket to take a circular path it's necessary to fire the engine laterally to the direction of travel. Or, you would have to briefly orbit a massive object like a planet, but that's also a form of acceleration.Either way it takes acceleration of some form for you to travel in a curved path. A constant-velocity object - one on which there are no forces acting - can travel only in a straight line.

Hi CANT,I'm visiting in-laws and my internet connection will be a little dodgy this week. My responses will be less numerous. That's inane. The fact that you cannot see event X does not mean that event X did not happen or that you cannot infer with confidence that it did happen using indirect methods. Nixon did resign.If it helps, we can add to your thought experiment any type of audio and video capture equipment spaced along the route and not moving relative to earth. The equipment can frame stamp our captured video to reflect earth time as well. We'll collect that equipment and the captured data at our leisure. The captured data will confirm that the light clock works as I described.Hopefully we won't need to spend too much time with this pointless line of argument. We can keep adding equipment and observers at rest relative to your wife who can see/record anything you are worried that wife will miss. Sigh,I said "at rest in a single reference frame" and not "in the same reference frame", the latter being essentially meaningless. I've explained this countless times. I'll take one last shot.We seem to agree that there is no such thing as an absolutely stationary object. So think of a reference frame as establishing a base line for measuring velocity. If we say for the sake of some problem that the wife's observatory on earth has zero velocity, then we can express the velocities of other objects relative to the wife's observatory. For the purpose of this problem we have assumed that planet X maintains a constant position relative to earth. The wife measures the velocity of planet X to be zero relative to earth (or essential zero), and the velocity of the rocket ship to be 0.5c.In fact, objects of any given distance from earth could conceivably be stationary relative to the earth. For example, we can add to the thought problem an observer who is 0.5 light years from earth, moving at zero mph relative to earth who observes your space cycle as it zooms past at 0.5c. This observer can see things that your wife cannot. You speak only for yourself. You, ICANT, are not convinced that the photon would travel between the mirrors as described. I sincerely doubt that many people having an understanding of high school physics would have the same problem.I asked you to explain how the beam manages to strike the bottom mirror despite the fact that the mirror has moved forward after the light beam reflects off of the top mirror. Can you attempt to do that? At the time of the collision, the particles are simply coasting at constant velocity. Whatever. I hope that you'll understand when I don't answer physics questions about what occurs during these instantaneous starts and stops. Most of the questions we've addressed deal with events as measured/observed from one or more of the coordinate systems I listed.

Hi NoNukes, Not a problem just gives me more time to study.So have a wonderful vacation and fourth of July. What is stupid about saying I can not see a light beam or light of any kind until it reaches my eye?If you are standing looking at a street light the light has already reached your eye.If you are totally blind you never see the light. Yes and you can read about Nixon resigning.But where am I going to read about a light beam chasing me or coming towards me if I never see the beam? I can't see the light beam until it reaches my eye. I trully doubt that. Lets examine this clock deal a little.In Message 419 fearandloathing installed an example of a light pulse/mirror clock. You agreed it was a good picture and animation.I bring it here: Now in the clock in the top the beam is going straight up and down.This is what would be happening in the clock on my handlebars on my cycle that you mounted parallel to the travel of the cycle.But this would mean the light beam had to be in a tube of some kind, because if it wasn't the beam would never hit the mirror on top as the bike would be moved 93 miles in 1 Millisecond and it takes 500 milliseconds for the beam to reach the top mirror.

quote:

---

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

​

As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

---

SourceThe light beam would be traveling in a verticle direction and could not take on the velocity of the cycle.I will now turn the clock to match the direction of travel of the cycle and discuss what the clock will look like.The light beam would have to be in a tube of some kind or it would miss the top mirror and never bounce off it, according to SR.If it was in a tube it would run up and down against the back of tube due to the fact the light beam cannot take on the speed of the cycle.Now pay close attention to the second clock.How does the clock know what angle to send the light beam in to make it contact the top mirror?The light does leave the source at an angle.It is easy to think up and diagram the clock. But it is not reality, it is just a diagram of what someone thinks happens.In Message 644 you said:

quote:

---

In your thought problem, we have assumed that both earth and planet X are at rest in a single reference frame,

---

Earth and planet in a single reference frame, sure sounds like one frame to me. I agree there is no stationary object in the universe that we know of. According to postulate #2 referenced above it is impossible for the photon to travel between the mirrors as described.But maybe you can explain to me why postulate #2 is not wrong, if the light clock pictured is correct. It is impossible for the light beam to hit the first mirror in the bottom light clock if postulate #2 is correct.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANT,I'm actually visiting fearandloathing's neck of the woods. My in-laws live in Durham NC. Nothing stupid about the statement above. What is nonsensical is the statement that the light does not exists because you did not see it. I was perfectly clear about what I considered to be folly. In fact, let me quote a little more of the exchange. I think it is clear that I objected to the doesn't exist till ICANT sees it part of your statement. These are the questions I was expecting when I introduced the light clock. No tube is required. In fact the photons do not strike anything but the two mirrors.There are a number of ways to show that your description of things is incorrect.It is certainly possible to direct the light beam from the top mirror at an angle so that it would hit that second mirror regardless of cycle speed. If that were done, as long as hubby's velocity remained constant, we would expect the light ray to return to the top mirror and to continue along the saw tooth path. Surely you are not saying that is impossible to direct light beams at an angle. Thus, your suggestion that a saw tooth path is impossible is most assuredly wrong. Further, there would additionally be a frame of reference in which the clock with "angled" trajectory has zero velocity. From that frame the mirrors would appear to be stationary. Since that second observer is seeing the exact same light clock and the exact same light clock events, it cannot be true that the light beam both hits and misses the mirrors. The question is how to reconcile the two sets of observations.An alternate argument:You say that the light clock is moving at 0.5c. But is the clock really moving at 0.5c in any absolute sense? It is true that the light clock is moving away from earth at 0.5c, but the earth is not a stationary reference. In fact we don't know of any stationary reference. According to your logic, is it not true that a light beam could never bounce back and forth between the mirrors? After all, there are always an infinite number of inertial frames in which the light clock is moving, but only a single frame in which the light clock is stationary.While you ponder the above, let's consider a second thought experiment. Let us imagine that the wife has a light clock. Assuming that you have no problem with the wife's light clock behaving as shown in the first figure, is it your position that hubby zooming past the light clock at 0.5c would cause the light beam to stop hitting the mirrors? After all, from hubby's coordinate system, the light clock mirrors are moving at 0.5c and the light must therefore travel in a diagonal path to travel between the mirrors. What would a third observer whizzing past the light clock at 0.8c detect?I think it's fairly clear that there is something amiss with your description. The light clock does not "know" what angle to travel at in order to hit the mirror. The light clock is designed to hit the mirrors when they are at rest in a particular inertial frame. Observers in every other frame, inertial or not, and moving at differing velocities relative to the light clock, must agree that the light hits the mirrors. The observers will disagree on the path taken and the required travel time. Any observer who claims to see the light beam misses the mirrors is simply wrong. So we agree that the question quote below from Message 648 has been answered? Thanks for small things. That was explained in part 2 of my first light clock post. I explicitly applied the postulate on several occasions. As I recall, I was quite obnoxious and showy about it.The short answer is that if the light clock light beam hits the mirrors in any inertial reference frame, there cannot be a reference frame, inertial or non-inertial, from which observers looking at that same light clock will say that the light beam does not hit the mirrors. There may be vantage points from which events are hidden from them. There is no relative reality in our universe in which Tricky Nixon did not resign.The above statement is not unique to special relativity. Newton and Galileo would have accepted the statement to be true as well. I rather suspect that you do too. What makes special relativity unique is applying postulate #2 along with that statement.

Hi NoNukes, I have to say as Festus said to Paul:

quote:

---

Act 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

---

Much learning has muddled your understanding.I did not say the light beam did not exist until I see it.I did say: "the light does not exist until I observe the light as far as I am concerned" emphasis added.There is no way I can know the light beam exists until it reaches my eye. If it or someone sent me a message it was on the way I would not receive the message until after the light beam had reached me.So what you are objecting to was something I did not say, it only existed in your assumptions. No you can aim the light beam in any direction you want to by placing the source at an angel to the mirrors.But now you have modified the clock and I can't see it keeping time going straight up and down, as the beam is set to leave the bottom at an angle. Please explain how that is possible according to SR.Now when you change the angle from a 90 angle to the angle required to hit the top mirror some 46,500 miles from the location that the light beam was emitted you have added that distance to the distance for the light beam to hit the top mirror.Total time of the travel period of the light beam from the bottom mirror to reach the top mirror at a 45 angle is 1000 milliseconds which equals 1 second.When the clock has traveled another 46,500 miles the light beam reaches the lower mirror, which takes another 1000 milliseconds to travel the distance to the intersection point.Now I have a real problem.It takes the cycle 1,000 milliseconds to travel the 93,000 miles.Yet the light would take 2,000 milliseconds to reach the top mirror and return to the bottom mirror.Now either the light beam is going verticle and reaches the top mirror in 500 milliseconds and returns to the bottom mirror in 500 milliseconds or the speed of light is not c. I am not suggesting anything of the sort.I am suggesting that the light takes 500 milliseconds to reach the top mirror and 500 milliseconds to return to the bottom mirror.Due to the forward motion of the cycle anyone capable of viewing the beam going from the bottom to the top would see an optical illusion due to the fact they could only process where the light was each nanosecond as the light data came to their eye.The eye has to receive the light data to be able to process it.How can you make this statement:

quote:

---

In fact we don't know of any stationary reference.

---

And in the same paragraph say:

quote:

---

but only a single frame in which the light clock is stationary.

---

So you are saying there is no stationary frame except the one the clock is in.That statement can not be true, as there are no stationary frames. And anyone who claims it takes longer than 500 milliseconds for the light beam to reach the top mirror is confused by the optical illusion they see. Here is a clock that shows what happens to two clocks passing each other.They are designed where mechanical points start and stops the clocks which shows the clocks keep the same time. No because you are saying they are in their own individual frame when you said they were in one frame not individual frame's. But we can drop this as it is irrelavant.But I do have a question about my wife being in an inertial frame.The frame my wife is in is an accelerated frame which makes it a non-inertial frame.The earth is spinning in relation to the center of the earth and is never without acceleration. So you can't explain it.If postulate 2 is true and the light beam is aimed at the top mirror at a 90 angle to the travel direction of the mirrors on my cycle the beam will never hit the top mirror as it will miss it by 46,500 miles from the location that the light beam was emitted.According to postulate 2 the light beam travels at c regardless of the motion of the source and can not take on the motion of the source.If the light beam hits the top mirror postulate 2 is false.If you have to aim the light beam at a 45 angle for the light beam to hit the top mirror postulate 2 is false because I would see the light beam miss the mirror by passing in front of the top mirror. Since SR is derived from Newton which was derived from Galileo, why wouldn't they agree?But that does not make either one of them correct.What can physically be observed is what determines what is right or what is wrong.Since I can observe my clock with the beam reaching the top mirror in 500 milliseconds and returning to the lower mirror in 500 milliseconds anything anyone else see's that does not agree with what I see is due to a problem they have with viewing my clock. It has nothing to do with my clock keeping perfect time. If you apply postulate #2 to the clock on my cycle the light beam will miss the top mirror and fly off into space.Yet I will see the light beam of the clock hit the top mirror and return to the bottom mirror in 1 second.Observation says postulate #2 is false.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Even if we assume they have perfect, illusion-proof vision and are able to see photons with which they can't interact - perhaps God has bestowed them with this power - we know by simple logic that they nevertheless must see the photons travelling a longer distance between the mirrors that you do, and we know from irrefutable experimentation that they see the photons covering that longer distance at the same speed that light has in any vacuum anywhere in the universe - c.Ergo we know as a matter of fairly simple logic that they must be observing the clock tick at a slower rate than you are. Ergo we know that you're experiencing time dilation - that it's not just an optical illusion or an effect limited to the mechanisms of clocks.

Hi ICANT Yes, you did say that, and it is inane. Even if the wife cannot see some event, we can still postulate an observer at rest with respect to your wife who can see the event. Nobody with any understanding of frames of reference would be complaining about time delays and vantage points interfering with an observation. Those things are non issues.Further, if you re-read part 2 of my original post describing the light clock, I mentioned the six month delay before the wife could compare clocks. The delay is of absolutely no consequence. Not quite. The truth is that the clock does not need to be modified as you suggest. I merely indicated that your conjecture that a light beam cannot travel in a sawtooth pattern was wrong.Further, you are wrong about the time keeping part. We can still compare the time travel between mirrors as viewed from different inertial frames even if in a particular frame the beam is angled. The angle will be different for other observers who are moving at different speeds relative to the first observer but all observers will agree that the light beam is traveling between the mirrors. We can calculate the different angles, and the different amounts of time required for each given relative speed using the Pythagorean theorem, and the simple fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.Rather than attempt a point by point address of your post on a dodgy internet connection, let me explain the principle using a simpler experiment.Let's imagine that while traveling in an enclosed space cycle at a constant speed 0.5c and at constant velocity, that you attempt to aim a dime size diameter laser pointer beam through a quarter sized window in the ceiling above you. The hole can be, but need not be, directly above you.If the hole was directly above you, the light beam would travel in a vertical line in the coordinate system in which the space cycle was stationary. Other observers moving at different speeds relative to the space ship would detect the beam exit at respectively different angles, because in their coordinate systems the hole must move during the time the beam travels to the hole. But every observer in position to detect the beam would agree that the beam did exit the hole. I never said they were in different frames. I said that saying that something was "in a frame" was merely a colloquial expression meaning that the something was at rest in that frame. If you think I said something different, then quote me.And given that you were the one who asked me how earth and planet X can be in the same frame ...The "stationary frame" is any inertial frame you chose to be stationary for the purpose of doing the problem. The stationary frame is any frame so designated. As long as you announce which inertial frame you mean to be the stationary frame, I can live with any choice you wish to make. Wrong ICANT. As I stated, I have explained it. Go back and re-read Message 418 and Message 425, and you'll see where I have required the speed of light to be constant in every inertial frame and where I have reconciled that requirement with the operation of the light clock. You should recall that your own response to Message 425 was to repeatedly deny that the speed of light was constant. See, for example Message 438.I have posted extensively regarding the point you are asking about, and I am simply not going to attempt to explain it again.Why in the world do you think the relativity deniers invariable attack what you call postulate #2? Special relativity follows essentially inescapably when postulate #2 is presumed to be true. Postulate #2 has been verified experimentally as well.I want to thank crashfrog for dealing with the "optical illusion" stuff. I was still recovering from the face-palming of myself that I did while I was reading it.

Hi NoNukes, Can you please explain to me how I can know the light beam is coming my way before the data from the light beam enters my eye and is processed? I agree that they beam does not need to be set at a angle to produce an optical illusion of the beam going at an angle.SR postulate #2 states that light can not take on the speed of the source.Let me present a diagram of what has to happen for SR to be correct if it was possible to see a light beam moving between the mirrors this is what it would look like.

fig 1
              |                              |
              |                            |   |
              |                          |       |
              |                        |           |
              |                      |               |
              |                    |                   |
              |                  |                       |
Local observer      Observer at a distance 

The local observer 'me' views the light going up and down.The observer at a distance observes the light traveling at an angle due to the transmission of the data being delivered from the light if it was possible to be seen by the observer at a distance.The view of the observer at a distance would record the same amount of duration for the light to reach the top mirror even though the optical illusion is that it takes longer for the light to reach the top mirror.The light beam is streached out by the observers reception of the data from the different forward locations the light beam data would be received from if it were possible to see the light beam. Maybe, maybe not. I thought of an easy way to test your proposal.I preformed an experiment using a 3/16" laser pointer beam with the pen in a tube out of a roll of paper towels which has an opening about the size of a 50 cent piece.With the top of the tube at eye level at a 90 angel I can not see the beam exiting the opening. I can see the reflection off the ceiling.With the tube 6" from my eye and 6" below my eye I can not see the beam exit the tube. I can see the reflection off the ceiling.With the tube 1" from my eye and 1" below my eye I can not see the beam exit the tube.When I get the eye close enough to the tube to see the beam I still can not see the beam exit the tube as I see it at its source.So could you explain how anyone at a distance can see the beam exit the opening in your proposed experiment?Then explain how anyone could see the beam travel at an angle from the opening in the roof of the cycle?If I use the same source's white light I can see the light hit the exit edge of the tube but I can not see it above the tube only the reflection off the tube.I can see the reflection of the light off the ceiling but I can not see the beam anywhere between the top of the tube and the ceiling.I can see the beam when I get close enough to the exit of the tube to see the source of the beam.So explain how someone at distance can see the beam exit the opening in the roof of the enclosed cycle When I can't see it 6" away at a 90 angle to the exit opening.While I am on light let me say this concerning a light:A carbon arc searchlight was built to illuminate enemy aircraft at over 20,000' during World War II. It is still the strongest searchlight yet as the newer ones are very weak.It has a 5' 5 mile beam and the reflection off the clouds or water in the atmosphere can be seen for 35 miles. The output of the light is 12 KW at 800 million candle power.If this light with 12KW of power can only produce that much light how much will your little light in a clock produce. How far can it actually be seen? You do realize that no frame on earth can be an inertial frame as the earth is rotating on it axis in reference to the center of the earth. That means it is under constant acceleration which makes it a non-inertial frame. The planet would be the same.So no you can't just choose any frame you want to choose and say it is a stationary inertial frame.Explain to me how I can be in a stationary inertial frame when I am traveling .5 c in reference to the earth or the planet I am approaching I am not stationary. I am getting 93,000 miles further from the earth every second. I am also getting 93,000 miles closer to the planet every second. I am not stationary I am moving at the rate of 93,000 miles per second, that is not stationary.Just saying I can choose to be a stationary inertial frame does not stop my motion or the distance decreasing between me and the planet. Well no you have not explained how the light in the open clock can take on the speed of the source of the light without invalidating SR postulate #2.Let me try to explain what I am talking about when I say the light can not hit the mirror on top.I propose the following thought experiment.Build a frame that contains a mirror at the top and bottom facing each other. The mirrors are to be 18" long with 1 meter distance between them. The unit is not closed, but open.Mount a laser pen in the center of the bottom mirror flush with the mirror surface, that has a sensor on the bottom to receive a signal to cause the laser to emit a pulse of light.Mount the frame on a flatcar of a minature train with the sensor on the pen exposed under the flatcar.Build a track as long as you need to conduct the experiment placing sensors 1 meter apart to turn the laser on when it passes over it.Move the train forward until the sensor causes the laser to emit a pulse of light, and the light will hit the top mirror.Lets extend the track to the planet I am on my journey too or any other planet. Then lets speed the train up to 74,948,114.5 meters per second (0.25 c). The laser light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.Each sensor the laser sensor passes over sends a pulse of light towards the mirror in the top of the frame.The laser pulse of light is traveling at a 90 angle to the direction of the train so the pulse of light will go straight up from the source's position at the time emitted at 4 times the speed of the train.According to postulate #2 the pulse of light can not acquire the forward motion of the source of the light.Since the train has to move only 9" to reach the position the beam was when released the top mirror will pass the point of release before the pulse of light can reach the top mirror. Thus the pulse of light will miss the top mirror.If the pulse of light hits the top mirror SR is invalidated.If the pulse of light does not hit the top mirror your clock is invalidated, along with the assertion that observers at a distance would see the beam go forward in a sawtooth pattern.Now if the observer at a distance could see what you have presented postulate #2 is invalidated.You are describing an event like a basketball player running down the court dribbling the ball which someone on the sideline at center court would see the ball going with a sawtooth pattern. For this to take place the ball has to add the effect of the player running down the court.The light pulse can not act like the basketball according to postulate #2. If it does postulate #2 is invalidated. I don't blame you for pulling a gish gallop, since you can not explain how SR postulate #2 can be true and your clock operate as you say it does. Both can't be true. Then you should have no problem disputing my train with the light pulse not hitting the top mirror.You should also not have any problem convincing me why I see the laser beam from my laser pen between the end of the tube and the ceiling, when it is not visible to my eyes if your assertion that observers from a distance would see the beam exit the hole in the top of the modified space cycle is true.Question:Do you believe the pulse of light can add the forward motion of the train as the basketball does of the player bouncing the ball?Do you believe the light beam from my laser through the tube can be seen from 10' away mounted on a frame 1' off the floor and reflecting off the ceiling?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi crash, Well actually if postulate #2 is valid I can not see the light going up and down. The clock is open and the light pulse could not take on the motion of the source of the light thus the light pulse would miss the top mirror and not bounce at all. Could you take one of those irrefutable experiments and present it here explaining how the time dilation takes place? Maybe you can take the GPS system and explain to me how the clocks run much faster in the satellites due to gravity potentional than they are slowed by the velocity of the satellite. The clock actually runs 39 nanoseconds a day faster than a clock on earth at sea level. Yet you tell me my clock is running slower as observed by my wife.Can you help me out there?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Where the satellite's orbit, the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. GR predicts that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick slower than those located further away.- Oni