I have tried to explain the differences between the OP's absolute time and and relativistic time. There is no contradiction in relativity, only ideas that don't always match preconceptions. I'll try again if I may.
The analogy I tried before was one of distances travelled instead of time experienced. If I travel from A to B and my colleague also goes from A to B, but on different routes, then you are quite happy that the experiences of the two travellers is relative to their experiences, and they may have gone different distances.
You continue to completely miss the point. I'm having a hard time telling whether it is intentional or not!
Your analogy doesn't work because, as I just got through saying in my last post, it isn't just A and B its any two (or more) points you care to talk about! In other words, it's not just the start and the finish, its every single point in between! Any point in time you want to point at can serve as the start and/or the finish. Both parties start together and finish together and they never ever ever never leave the other's present moment.
They start - together.
They cross the mid-point - together.
They cross the point 85.65784% of the way between the start and finish - together.
They then cross the next point and the point after that - together.
Finally, they cross the finish line - together.
They went the entire way from any beginning point you want to pick to any finishing point you want to pick - TOGETHER!
I have no words because there are no words to explain it to you any more clearly than that.
For the two clocks, one experiences time faster than the other, but they do always both exist all the time.
This is the contradiction that you've bought and that you want me to swallow but, to use a little Oklahoma lingo, it ain't gonna happen!
You cannot experience more time and the same amount of time at the same time.
The one with the faster running clock does not 'move ahead in time' of the other clock, because as you say future is not a place you can separately go to. But just because one experiences a ten million seconds and the other ten million and ten seconds the OP and you see a contradiction. There is none, unless you insist that time elapsed cannot be different for different experiences. If the distances travelled between events can be different without one getting 'ahead' of the other, then the same may be true of experienced time.
No, it cannot! And I don't have to assume a damn thing! You are the one making a claim here, I'm simply denying that it can happen, just as I would deny that any contradiction can happen. You cannot have it both ways. More time passed for one than it did for the other or it didn't - it cannot be both! You want it to be both but it's fantasy. Mathematically rigorous perhaps but still fantasy. The only reason you can get away with it is by altering the definition of time and then conflating the two concepts, which is PRECISELY what Relativity does. It alters the definition of time to "whatever a clock reads" and then uses the word "time" as though it still means "the duration and sequence of events" by declaring that the passage of time (the duration of events) has been altered because their clocks run slow.
If time is not relative, then there are a whole load of experiments whose results would have to be different to what they are.
See what I mean?! You've just done it here! It isn't time that is relative, it's the running of clocks. The fact that nothing that exists ever leaves the present moment is PROOF that they are not the same thing! The other proof being that clocks exist while time is an idea.
The MM and the hundreds of repeats are one,
The M&M experiments have nothing to do with clocks or time. It's based on interference patterns shifting to one side on a little plate of glass.
the measurement of muon half lives when at relativistic speeds another.
Muon half lives are nothing than more clocks added to the discussion. I swear it's like speaking to someone who doesn't understand the English language. Are you seriously wanting me to think that you don't understand the point I'm making when I make, remake, state and repeat the same rebuttal to the same exact point over and over and over and over again? Do you talk to anyone else like this? Is this how your conversation go at the dinner table or at work, where you say something and then when the person you're talking to responds, you just repeat yourself like he didn't say anything? I am going to die of boredom, here!
The observation of stellar aberration rules out æther dragging along with the Earth,
Saying it doesn't make it so. You haven't any idea what you're talking about here. Drop it.
and the MM experiments rule out the Earth moving through the æther.
Neat! Seeing as how Michelson acknowledged openly that this is not the case, I'll just say it again...
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Every physical process slows down at the same rate as the clocks. Everything that has ever been measured follows the time dilation rules.
That's because they are all clocks in one form or another. That is to say that the same thing effecting the clock is affecting all other physical processes (a clock is just an arbitrarily chosen set of physical processes). You can have one clock or a billion clocks of an endless variety of type and they will all be effected by momentum. It doesn't matter what kind of clock you introduce into the thought experiment, the result is identically the same. Whether you're counting cesium atom cycles or elephant farts, at the end of the experiment the sun will have risen and set precisely the same number of times for both clocks and both clock observers.
Just how many times do you plan on making me refute that single point?
Relativity has never been known to fail a rigorous examination, either theoretically or empirically.
I doubt that you could substantiate this claim but, in the context of this discussion, it is not relevant. If you think it is, you do not understand the point.
The OP doesn't find a flaw, no matter what the OP claims, because the assertion that each object experiences the same time as all others does not match with the results experiments I have noted.
Name one single experiment that has shown any results different than that described in the Open Post.
Go ahead, just name one. Any one. Doesn't matter which - just pick one and explain to us all how the experiment had one clock that left the present moment or that experience the sun rise at a different moment of time than that in which it actually took place.
Please! I'm curious to read all about these experiments!
Sarcasm aside. The fact that you think that such experiments exist at all means that you do not understand the argument being made. I'm back to wondering whether you have ever bothered to even read the opening post.
The world is wonderful, and physics is one of the most fantastic creations of humanity, validated and tested. The time standard you adhere to, that you assert is true, has failed long ago and can no longer be resurrected.
You very simply cannot possibly understand what is even being discussed here. This comment is simple silliness. The fact is that you live by the standard that I am asserting is true! You can't not! That's the whole damn point here!
Let me try it this way....
GPS satellites have atomic clocks on board (three of them actually for redundancy). When they make adjustments to the time in order to account for the effects of the satellites' speed relative to the surface of the Earth, what are they adjusting the time reading to agree with?
And, as an extention, because I can read your mind...
When they add a "leap second" to an atomic clock's read out, what are they adjusting the clock to agree with?
Why is it valid to adjust any clock at all, for that matter? If you're right then the clock read out is the time, by definition. To adjust it for any reason is to do one or the other of only two possible things. Either your adjustment has made the clock wrong, or time is whatever you want to say it is (i.e. time is an idea not a real thing)!
Hmm? I wonder which you'll concede is the case?
Clete
)