Quote:
Starhawk said:
As far as "time" goes by the way you explain if it I just set every clock in my house to run slower then every clock in your house then time is moving slower in my house then in yours when in fact time is moving along steadily at the same pace for both of us, the mechanism of the clock is not what makes time "time".
|
Clocks are no more or less than devices that measure the passage of time. If you set your clocks to run slow, the difference is a result of you messing with the measuring mechanism, not time slowing down. In all experiments relating to relativity involving clocks, the scientists have very carefully calibrated the clocks to make sure their mechanisms are in good working order and not tampered with, so that isn't an issue.
Quote:
Starhawk said:
I am speaking of TIME as in the foward motion of us, clocks can be adversly effected now if you shove a grape in there and see if the grape in the high grav/high speed environment aged slower then that outside THEN you will have "PROVEN" time has aged slower for that grape then the one in normal gravity and environment.
|
How is observing the grape's aging process any different than a clock? It's a very unusual kind of clock, and not likely to be very precise and accurate, but it is a clock. So what makes this particular kind of clock any preferable to the most accurate and precise clocks scientists are capable of building today? Would it help if I described things without using the word "clock" at all? Scientists have taken cesium atoms to places with various strengths of gravity and sent them moving around at very different speeds and very carefully observed the rate at which they aged. These rates have consistently differed from the rates predicted by relativity by an amount so small it can reasonably be attributed to inaccuracy in measurement, even though the expected inaccuracy is far less than the expected and observed differences in aging rates. Happy now?
Quote:
Starhawk said:
Try and understand what i am saying, SCIENCE can NEVER be fully PROVEN quickly and thus many THEORIES can be adhered to and thought on, just because someone else has a THEORY that is different then yours does not mean you are superior or even correct for that matter.
As I stated before for all you know you me and all the rest of us will be proven totally and unbeleivably WRONG some day in the future.
Understand now?
|
Relativity has been tested very thoroughly and to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the scientific community. It has yet to make a testable prediction that has been proven wrong, and it's made a lot of predictions. Did you know that GPS systems would be off by a few meters if they didn't take relativity into account? With a complete lack of evidence against relativity and a very long and very good track record of its predictions being found true, it seems entirely reasonable to assume that any other predictions it makes are also true until proven otherwise. It is, of course, reasonable to consider other models as well, but until and unless the other model can make better predictions than the current one, there is no reason to prefer it over the current model. Find an experiment where relativity was tested and found wrong, or an alternative theory that accurately predicts the results of all experimental tests of relativity to date but does not predict black holes, and then I'll start considering the idea that black holes don't exist.