In article , says...

Problem is, that physics is an experimental science.

Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments.

See here at the 13 min mark -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4962912264988#

Example 1 (contrary example)

I observe a pendulum clock coming straight at me. The point defined by where the pendulum disc is, all the way to
the left, say, of it's swing where it stops for a moment before swinging back, is the point coming straight toward us.
The light successively gets to me faster between these periods so I observe that clock to speed up.

Goodbye time dilation!



Example 2 (proper analysis)

Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together in the same FofR.

I now apply a bit of a force to one for a little while so I have now introduced a bit of a relative v between them.
Let's say I let this go on for a million years or so and then apply the moderate forces necessary to get the clocks
back together in the same FofR. So overwhelmingly, both clocks have been in different inertial FofR for a long time
with a relative v and the force and resultant acceleration can be entirely regarded as insignificant to any change in
the accelerated clock in comparison to the claimed dilation of Relativity due to the relative v.

The conditions of force and mass dictating both clock's periods has been the same, as per relativity's 1st
postulate, so 20 ticks of one clock is exactly the same as 20 tics of the other. Most people think that time dilation
means that time is actually passing at different rates from one observer to the other but it is not. Relativity itself
states that this is "apparent", not actual. Yet some people claim there is no universal time, which is wrong.

Experiments claim to have measured relative velocity time dilation and all are fraudulent lies. Anyone that
understands that time dilation is an apparent thing rather than an actual thing knows that. All others are members of
the sci-fi community.

The stupid part about this is that the theory itself claims that time only "appears" to elapse more slowly, not
that it actually does. So any clocks in an experiment like this should exhibit no difference whatsoever once together
in the same FofR again, aside from the accelerations involved to move them away initially and then bring them back
together later.

How can an experiment measure a difference when both clocks are back in the same FofR when the difference was only
ever claimed to have been "apparent" (not real), due to light speed and geometry, in the first place?


Goodbye 2nd postulate and Lorentz/Einstein hack.