The wiki article is exactly how I understand the concept of time dilation.
Great, so you agree with the following then.
In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.
An accurate clock at rest with respect to one observer may be measured to tick at a different rate when compared to a second observer's own equally accurate clocks. This effect arises neither from technical aspects of the clocks nor from the fact that signals need time to propagate, but from the nature of spacetime itself.
Which is to say that the clocks don't stop keeping accurate time, nor is it a problem of measurement but that people actually experience elapsed time differently relative to velocity (as Einstein predicted).
Desert Reign said:
It is you who are misreading it. The clocks do not measure time, all they do is tick at a constant rate.
This is your understanding, that clocks don't measure time? What in the blue blazes do they measure then? Here I am looking at my watch expecting that it will measure time when all the while I should have been using it to do what, measure height? Should I weigh myself with the clock on the wall?
Don't be absurd. Clocks measure time.
The units of time may be relative (determined by the rate of revolution of the earth) but nobody (except perhaps you) thinks that clocks are designed to measure anything other than time.
Desert Reign said:
The passage of time is merely an inference that you as a being of lesser intelligence cannot divorce from your own thought processes.
Ah, now the Ad Hominem attacks start mounting.
Note to observers, when people realize they are wrong they often resort to insulting their opponent because sound arguments are no longer available to them. We'll see Desert Reign and Lighthouse begin to to this more and more as they see that their arguments can't be scripturally, scientifically or logically supported.
Desert Reign said:
That inference is derived from the fact that the two clocks beat at a constant rate relative to each other but that does not mean that there is some absolute thing in the world called time.
My point exactly. Unfortunately you can't seem to see how this is a big hurdle for the Open View which relies on time being absolute. If Time is not absolute then it must be relative. And if it is relative it must be relative
to something. And the best conclusion to what time is relative to is to say that time is relative to the rest of the physical universe, which is created.
Thus time (at least the time that you and I experience) is created.
Desert Reign said:
Einstein was right (so it seems).
No arguments here.
Incidentally, Godrulz actually gets his own position enough to understand that Einstein being right is a problem for the open view.
