Theoretical Concepts and Empirical Equivalence: Will the Real Concept Please Stand Up

Conversation Side Conversation
,
64

No need to reject relativity. Relativity is about measuring time, not the nature of time. Whether it’s clocks slowing down, or time itself, either way doesn’t make any real difference to the theory of relativity, at least as far as the equations are concerned.

I guess I would just repeat what I said above. Relativity is about measuring time, not about the nature of time.

I’m having a hard time making any sense of what you are saying here, but I suspect it’s not at all representative of my position. I guess maybe I wasn’t clear on what exactly you were asking about my position, or I wasn’t clear in my answer. Maybe you could elaborate on exactly what you are trying to clarify about my position?

Going by what I wrote above, I suspect there is some confusion as to what my position actually is. I disagree that my position is anti-realist. As I understand it generally anti-realism is the position that only verifiable reality exists, or if unverifiable reality does exist we cannot know anything about it. I’m not taking either of those positions.

It’s not clear to me what you are getting at here. For me questions about the nature of time are about what time is. There are many possible answers to that question. However, what I’m concerned with here is the question of whether or not time has causal powers. And my position is that there isn’t any evidence of any significance that I’m aware of to suggest it does.

No, not that time is fundamentally unverifiable at least in the normal sense of the word verify. But I might be persuaded to change my position about time not having causal powers. If it were possible to rule out any of the options supporting the claim that the clock is slowing down, it would be less evidence to support that claim. If it were possible to rule out all of those options, then the only option left would seem to be time itself slowing down.

That would create a deductive inference and, if verification includes deductive inference, then it would be verification in that sense of the word that time has causal powers. But I don’t see how it could ever be verified in the usual sense of the word of objective observation or detection.

That’s not at all how I see it. By acknowledging the statement I posed as your position, I would say you are claiming that we cannot know about things which are unverifiable with any degree of certainty even when we have empirical evidence reasonably suggesting what most likely is true about them. If I’m not mistaken, that view would be an anti-realist position.

I’m leaning towards defining time as a change dependent abstract object. It’s independent of minds, but causally effete, similar to numbers. But there are other ways it could be defined that I would be open to. But regardless, even if it does exist as an actual entity of some kind, I don’t think it’s possible to verify its nature. We can only infer its nature from relevant evidence.

So that takes us back to the question of whether clocks, or time itself is slowing down. If time is simply a matter of ratios, as you suggest, then it seems we would be talking about clocks slowing down, or whatever ratio the measurement was derived from, since by your definition it seems time would not exist as an independent entity of the physical universe.

1 Like
65

That makes a HUGE difference to the theory. If there is some physical force that is interfering with with the normal operation of a clock and making it output false readings then it matters, BIGLY. Relativity is saying that the very nature of time is different between inertial frames. I have presented the evidence that verifies this theory.

66

Sorry, I disagree. Relativity, as far as I can tell, is about measuring time. It says nothing about its nature. That has to be inferred from the theory based on its concept being representative of reality, unless you take the position that the theory entails such. Is that your position?

67

Then what do you think time contraction is, according to relativity?

If relativity is using empirical measurements to arrive at conclusions about the nature of time then the theory of relativity is trying to say something about the nature of time. Wouldn’t you agree?

68

Time has no nature, apart from what we humans ascribe to it.

69

I’m trying to clarify whether empirical evidence has any bearing on your position and thus whether it makes any sense to keep talking about things like the muon experiment.

By anti-realism, I mean that you don’t straightforwardly affirm the existence of things and processes that physicists widely accept based on empirical measurements - such as time dilation. You have a skeptical outlook towards these things, emphasizing the “fundamentally unverifiable” nature of things in reality. I’m not sure what you mean that it is possible to know some things about unverifiable reality. Perhaps you think that it is possible to get knowledge from intuition about them, instead of the senses. In other words, Plato instead of Aristotle.

At this point, the main thing I can say is: yes, physicists working in this field do investigate all sorts of spurious effects that can affect their measuring instruments. I’m from that community, and dealing with these effects (which we call systematic effects) takes up a huge chunk of our time.

Speaking about atomic clocks, physicists are well aware of the various systematic effects that can affect them and study them obsessively when characterizing them. Here, for example, is a well-known 2010 paper (by 2012 Nobel Prize winner Dave Wineland’s group) which saw a frequency difference between two aluminum ion clocks when one clock was elevated by 33 cm relative to the other. This shift they attributed to the gravitational shift predicted by general relativity. Differences in gravitational potential (at different distances from the center of the Earth) causes time dilation.

Now, were these physicists just naive in readily attributing the observed frequency shift to time dilation due to gravity when it could have been something else? No! If you read the paper carefully, they had previously published papers characterizing the various systematic effects which can affect the frequency of the clock. This is one of them. I quote here a table of the different systematic effects they accounted for:

image

For example, “blackbody radiation shift” refers to the well-known effect that thermal radiation surrounding the clock can affect the energy levels of the aluminum ion, which they had characterized previously in a different paper. The amount of the frequency shift might be different for different transitions in aluminum, which is why you need careful theoretical and experimental characterization. (If you can’t access any of these papers and are interested to read them, PM me.)

To wrap up, I think that you have the epistemic responsibility of learning more about physics and what the evidence actually looks like before making sweeping statements about how much physicists have “verified” about reality. By that I don’t mean that you need to have a PhD in physics; but just learning on your own and asking relevant experts (such as we have in this forum) would be very helpful. What I’m trying to show is that there are relevant bits of technical knowledge that could affect your position, yet from my past interactions with you, you seem averse to actually learning more about the science, preferring to insist that scientists are no better than other people in thinking philosophically, so anyone has a right to do philosophy. If you really care about the truth, then you should try to learn at any opportunity you can. A lot of this information is freely available online, and there are many scientists who would be happy to explain and break it down to you if you are curious.

70

In regards to measurements simply accounting for changes in clock rates due to some kind of external effect.

I think relativity is primarily aimed at questions about the measurement of verifiable physical reality, not at the nature of unverifiable physical reality. Regarding unverifiable reality, its nature has to be inferred from relevant evidence, of which I do consider the success of relativity theory as a piece of evidence in suspecting its concepts as real that should be considered in coming to a conclusion about such. However, it’s only one piece of evidence, not the only evidence.

I might agree with you there. However, if so I would imagine that would mean that there could be no such thing as time slowing down if it’s just a humanly constructed convention.

I think what you want to know is where empirical evidence fits into my position. Depending on the question, as long as the empirical evidence is relevant to the question it should be taken into consideration as much as any other type of relevant evidence.

As for the muon experiment, the relevant aspect of it to answer the question of whether time slowing down or clocks slowing down is the cause of time dilation is that relativity theory is the theory that is successful, which is evidence that the concepts it employs are possible candidates for what unverifiable reality is truly like. But as I’ve said multiple times now it’s just one piece of evidence, but not all the evidence.

Not sure how you get antirealism from that? But maybe it’s a definition of antirealism that I’m not aware of. Regardless, that doesn’t accurately reflect my position. Again, I do affirm things like time dilation as accurate methods of measurement of verifiable physical reality.

I just don’t accept the conclusion that the cause of time dilation is time slowing down. In my view that’s a question about a fundamentally unverifiable aspect of reality that can only be inferred. And I think the evidence leads to the simpler explanation that the clocks are slowing down, not time.

It’s not about just intuition and excluding the senses, but about both intuition and the senses. It’s about looking at all relevant evidence. I suspect the real problem centers around accepting or rejecting abductive reasoning based on evidence as a justifiable means to reach a reasonable degree of certainty about what we can know of unverifiable reality.

If abductive reasoning is being rejected, which seems to be the case, I see that as an anti-realist position, because as far as I can tell, that’s really the cornerstone of that position, to reject abductive reasoning.

Right. But how does that rule out the gravitational potential effecting the clocks which would explain why the equations of time dilation give the correct results? To say the cause is time itself slowing, or the clocks slowing has to be inferred either way.

And unless it’s claimed that to verify relativity entails that the concepts it employs are true representations of reality, then all options would still be on the table, and any conclusion would have to be reached by looking at all the evidence.

There’s no way around it. It’s either one or the other. If the claim is that the conclusion is entailed by relativity, then that’s the starting point of our disagreement. If not, then the jury would still be out until all the evidence is examined and weighed in the balances to determine the best of the available options.

The way I see it, the experiment strongly suggests that clocks are effected when moved around in the gravitational field which supports the claim that the clocks themselves are slowing down due to the effects of gravity.

So the same experiment can be used to support either of those claims depending on what aspect of the evidence from the experiment is being focused on. But looking at all of the relevant evidence is the only way to reach a reasonable conclusion. Again, what’s in question is not an aspect of reality that can be verified, but one that has to be inferred.

The only other thing I can think of is that the word cause is not being used the same by all parties. It may be that it’s being used in the sense of the mathematical cause by some, and in the sense of the physical cause by others. Mathematically the cause for the theory giving the correct results without question would be the equations of time dilation.

The physical cause, however, being unverified is not without question and could be any number of things from gravitational effects to time actually slowing down. But unless a position is taken that getting the correct results mathematically entails that the concept employed for the equations is true of physical reality, it only serves as evidence for the truth of the concept as the cause of the physical effects.

These are what I generally see as the crucial points of contention to what I’m arguing for.

  1. Whether or not the concepts employed by mechanical theories in physics entail what fundamentally unverifiable reality is like, if it exists,
  2. whether abductive reasoning is a justified epistemological method to reach reasonable conclusions about fundamentally unverifiable reality, if indeed such does exist,
  3. what qualifies as relevant evidence, and
  4. a possible confusion of how the term cause is being used, i.e., physical vs mathematical.

Why those points would require learning more about physics seems questionable to me. I personally don’t see any real justification for it. However, it’s up to you if you want to use that line of reasoning.

And if you’re suggesting that we end the conversation here, as seems to be the case, I’m OK with that. If so, I just want to say that I do appreciate all of your valuable input and for taking so much of your valuable time to discuss this with me. :slight_smile:

71

Let me explain how I think learning more about physics is relevant to at least 3 of your 4 questions.

You’ve shown in this conversation that you have an imperfect understanding of what “mechanical theories in physics” say and what concepts they employ. You seem unaware that physicists incorporate many different quantities other than mass, position, and velocity in their mechanical equations - such as charge, spin, and energy.

How can you make a judgment about something you have only a very basic knowledge of?

You seem to open the possibility that scientific evidence can qualify as relevant evidence. At least, you can’t rule that out until actually looking at the scientific evidence itself. So how can you do this without learning about the scientific evidence?

You’ve shown in your last post that you don’t understand how scientists use the word “cause”. For example, I don’t even understand what you mean by a “mathematical cause”:

Scientists generally don’t actually think that equations “causes” a theory to be true. Now, I agree that studying what “cause” means in physics and comparing that to what philosophers refer to as “cause” is an interesting topic of inquiry. However, if you want to clear up confusions in terms, how can you do that without actually studying how scientists use certain terms and comparing it to how others do so? Again, studying science would help immensely with this.

Finally, I’m not sure what your goals for coming here are. After hundreds of posts, I see that you are mostly saying the same things that you did in the beginning. Initially, I thought that as a physicist who knows a few things about the “relevant evidence”, I could help explain to you some of it, and you could actually wrestle with it and actually perform this so-called “abductive reasoning” process so we can all examine and critique it. Instead, you only keep saying that you will “consider” the evidence if it’s “relevant”. But in the 67 posts of this thread, and the hundreds of posts on previous threads, I haven’t seen active consideration of this evidence. Why don’t you lay out all the relevant evidence as you see it and actually perform this “abduction”?

72

I’m not quite sure what you are saying there.

Time can be slowing down for me, but not for thee. The Newtonian conventions established the same time for all. But the relativistic conventions tie time to the inertial frame.

And then there’s intuitive time (or psychological time). But we know that’s not the same as clock time. Intuitive time goes faster when we are doing something that we enjoy, while it drags on ever so slowly when we are doing something unpleasant.

73

Relativity accounts for changes in clock rates by pointing to changes in time itself. Relativity does not say that there is some force that changes clock rates independent of time.

You are contradicting yourself. If reality is unverifiable then there can be no evidence that we could use to infer what reality is really like. When you claim that the nature of time is unverifiable you are saying that we can never present any evidence to you that would change your mind about your untestable beliefs about time.

1 Like
74

I think the key point in determining how much knowledge of physics is required is what role the equations of the theory play in establishing whether or not the concepts employed by the theory are true or imaginary conceptions of reality. And what I’m arguing is that the only role played by the equations is in confirming the success of the theory.

So for my argument all I need to know about the theory is if it’s successful, and understand the ideas behind the concepts. So based on that I contend that the knowledge I do have of physics is sufficient. Knowledge of the equations doesn’t enter the picture really at all other than knowing whether or not they are successful.

Of course. Don’t know why that’s even in question? What have I said that would suggest I’m not open to scientific evidence? I think I’ve made it clear that I’m open to any evidence that is relevant.

I suspect that what’s holding things back is not so much a matter of a lack of knowledge of physics on my part, but that what I’m arguing is not being fully understood.

If scientific evidence is defined as facts established by science, i.e., objective and verifiable observation and/or detection, then there’s nothing complicated about that. All that involves is just knowing what the evidence is relevant to the question, i.e., what’s been observed or detected. What’s there to learn about that? Am I missing something?

And if you want to broaden it to information like the fact that certain mechanical theories in physics are successful and therefore can be evidence that the concepts they employ are true to reality, that only requires a knowledge of which theories are successful and what the concepts are that they employ.

There’s no reason that I can see a need for having an in depth knowledge of the equations and their applications. You seem to think otherwise. But so far as I’m aware, there isn’t any justifiable reasons to think that’s the case?

As a layperson I want to investigate for myself as best as I can the questionable claims of science to see if they hold water or not. From what I’ve seen so far it looks to me like there are some that don’t. But I’m happy to be persuaded otherwise as long as I’m presented with justifiable reasoning that make sense.

I think I’ve already done something previously, but in case I haven’t here it is.

There seems to be only one piece of scientific evidence that a successful mechanical theory in physics can provide in the case of questions about unverifiable reality, namely that its success is evidence that the concept it employs may actually capture a true depiction of unverifiable reality.

But to reach an informed conclusion there are also relevant observations and experiences that provide evidence that need to be considered as well. For example, the success of SR provides one piece of evidence that the concept of “time slowing down” actually represents a true depiction of what is actually causing the observed effects that the equations of SR accurately describe.

However, our perception of time is as a measurement composed of units of hours, minutes, seconds, etc., to keep track of when events happen in relation to the past, the present, and the future.

Also we observe that clocks run slower at different altitudes. Intuitively we would perceive that clocks running slow wouldn’t effect time itself, but simply affect the outcomes of measurements made being altered to some degree by the clocks not being able to remain in sync with each other at different altitudes.

Considering the one piece of evidence to support the actual slowing down of time itself as the explanation of time dilation, and the other evidence from observation and experience that supports clocks slowing down as the explanation, it seems the simplest and more reasonable explanation would be the latter.

That’s my argument. What’s yours?

The mechanical theories don’t address the unverifiable aspects of reality. They simply deal with verifiable reality. Time itself slowing down is not verifiable.

Concepts are not observations, simply conceptualizations of reality that may or may not be real. You can’t see time itself slowing down. So no matter what concept is being used in a theory, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t entail that it’s a true representation of unverifiable reality. The fact that the formulas work only provides evidence that the concepts may be true to reality. But that’s only one piece of evidence.

I never said reality is unverifiable. The existence of the sun is verifiable reality. I’m talking about proposed reality that isn’t verifiable. Time itself slowing down is an example of this. And if you could present me with relevant evidence to support your untestable belief about time itself being able to slow down that outweighs the evidence to the contrary, I would be compelled to change my mind about it.

75

Then what observations would you expect to see if time itself passed at different rates in different inertial frames?

You said that the nature of time could be inferred from relevant evidence. What is that relevant evidence? Why can’t we use clocks to measure time? Why can’t we use clocks as relevant evidence?

76

I think what you’re asking is what observation would support the claim that time itself can slow down. And my answer is, I don’t have a clue. The only reason to suspect that time can slow down is it’s a concept employed by a successful mechanical theory. Other than that, there is no other evidence. And it makes no sense to me. The view that the clock rates are being affected by physical forces in some way seems like the most obvious answer to me.

If you are asking in respect to time dilation, this is something I posted above that would apply.

Never said we couldn’t.

If you’re talking about clock rates changing at different altitudes, that’s evidence that the clock rates slowing down are causing the discrepancy, not time itself slowing down. Otherwise I’m not sure what you’re asking?

77

I disagree. The major reason is that clocks measure time passing at different rates between different inertial frames.

That answer has no evidence to back it. Can you name this force that would affect all clocks, many operating through different mechanisms, in exactly the same way?

Then you are saying that clocks can not reliably measure time, correct? What evidence do you have that altitude affects clocks independent of time itself?

1 Like
78

Umm, no, not really. How shall I say this differently from the many different ways I’ve already said it? Time passing at different rates between different inertial frames is just a mechanical equation.

Mechanical equations are generalized mathematical descriptions generally for tracking how matter moves through space and time. These movements are either observable or detectable.

However, the equations say nothing directly about questions concerning the unverifiable reality the concepts they employ conceptualize, like time itself slowing down. I don’t think anyone thinks the concepts are entailed by the success of the equations.

So at best the success can be viewed as evidence that these concepts, whether actually real or just imagination, are in fact real. If you think they are entailed, then present your argument for why you think so. Otherwise you may need to rethink whether or not what you stated above is relevant to questions of unverifiable reality.

Sure it does. As I pointed out in my argument our experience of time and the observation of clock rates slowing at different positions in the gravitational field is evidence in support of that claim.

No. I’m saying two clocks at different altitudes cannot be relied upon to get an accurate measure of time at each location cause they aren’t in sync. It’s just one of those human limitations that, as far as I cant tell, can’t be overcome.

I think we’ve already had this discussion.

[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:58, topic:10701”]
These are also the types of clocks that are used to test relativity. When these clocks are in different positions with respect to Earth’s gravitational field they record different rates of time. The physical state of the clock mechanism doesn’t change because the same input is exciting the caesium atoms and the laws of physics determine the output frequency.
What part of this process are you rejecting or doubting?
[/quote]

[quote=“Jim, post:60, topic:10701”]
The cause of the clocks recording different rates. I would argue that the fact that the clocks are in different positions within the Earth’s gravitational fields strongly suggests that those fields are affecting the clocks readings in some form or another.
[/quote]

[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:61, topic:10701”]
In what way does gravity affect atomic clocks? If you don’t know of a mechanism by which gravity affects atomic clocks, then why reject relativity?
[/quote]

[quote=“Jim, post:64, topic:10701”]
No need to reject relativity. Relativity is about measuring time, not the nature of time. Whether it’s clocks slowing down, or time itself, either way doesn’t make any real difference to the theory of relativity, at least as far as the equations are concerned.
[/quote]

[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:65, topic:10701”]
That makes a HUGE difference to the theory. If there is some physical force that is interfering with with the normal operation of a clock and making it output false readings then it matters, BIGLY. Relativity is saying that the very nature of time is different between inertial frames. I have presented the evidence that verifies this theory.
[/quote]

[quote=“Jim, post:66, topic:10701”]
Sorry, I disagree. Relativity, as far as I can tell, is about measuring time. It says nothing about its nature. That has to be inferred from the theory based on its concept being representative of reality, unless you take the position that the theory entails such. Is that your position?
[/quote]

Looking at the first of your comments on this post and my response, it seems we may be going around in circles. Maybe you could at least acknowledge your position on the entailment of concepts in mechanical theory. Do you or don’t you think that they are entailed?

Not sure what you meant by this?

79

You could describe the force and mechanism that causes all clocks, many of which operate through different mechanisms, to unreliably measure time in different intertial frames.

We can sync them in one place, and then change the altitude of one of them. When they are brought back together they are no longer in sync. How do you explain this? If you are saying that something affects the clocks so they no longer accurately measure the passage of time then you need to tell us what this mechanism is and how it works. You need to describe the physical operation of the clocks and how your proposed explanation would affect the specific operations of the clock.

80

This is false. I gave you proof and examples that they can be synced - by applying the relevant corrections from various systematic effects, including gravity itself. We understand very well how different physical conditions affect clocks. See my post #69.

81

Well, you don’t seem to be interested in searching for scientific evidence which might be relevant to your view. Someone who is actually interested in truth would try to find out whether there are good counterarguments, alternative explanations, or relevant facts which have not yet been considered. Instead, people like me and @T_aquaticus have to thrust it in front of you (e.g. the muon experiment, atomic clocks, etc.), and you refuse to engage with it in a non-superficial manner.

Why do you think you’re not well understood? My suggestion is that better knowledge of physics will make you able to express whatever it is that you’re trying to express in more intelligible language.

Physics is not just about “knowing equations”. It’s learning about what the equations signify, and why they’re even possible in the first place. The equations, which we’ve verified empirically to be true, constrain the range of concepts that are permissible. This is the problem. You don’t know what you don’t know.

It’s hard to make that judgment credibly when you barely know what science claims.

OK, let’s take a look at the abduction:

No, there’s not only one “piece” of scientific evidence. There’s tons and tons of experiments in different situations that supports the claims of special and general relativity, and you can’t just regard those as just “one piece”.

Sure. But the idea of time slowing or speeding up is not entirely alien to our perception, either, is it? For example, when we sleep, time seems to fly by. When we’re doing a repetitive, arduous task, time seems to pass by very slowly. I’m not saying that this is the result of special relativity (of course not), but just saying that the idea of time slowing or speeding up is not absolutely unheard of even from the standpoint of our own perception.

As I’ve said, physicists have studied how different altitudes affect atomic clocks and quantified their effects very rigorously, such that they are able to distinguish between the effects of altitudes and the effects from time dilation. Read the papers I mentioned.

It is only a “more reasonable” explanation because you haven’t actually investigated the details of what that explanation entails. When you do, you’ll find that it’s not reasonable at all. It fails to explain all of the facts.

82

Keep in mind that under SR, in any given inertial frame, the experience of time does not slow down so far as its inhabitants are concerned. Their days are as long, their summers as short, their clocks as accurate, the heartbeats of their lives exactly as counted, their experiments as expected, as any other given frame. For them, time is as constant as a metronome. Before an Einstein emerges in their society, they may regard as self evident that time is a fundamental, absolute temporal aspect of the universe which their clocks only register. Two such civilizations could pass each other at relativistic velocities, each convinced that their metric of time is correct, and wondering at the strange tardiness of the other.

83

I think the clocks we’re concerned with are the atomic clocks which are the most accurate, are we not? And can you tell me the force and mechanism or anything at all about what physically causes time to slow down at different altitudes?

I don’t think you’re saying that syncing them is no longer possible. So I’m not sure what exactly your point is here?

Let me see if I understand correctly. The reason for applying relevant corrections is that the physical effects don’t allow for the clocks to be in sync. That’s what I understand time dilation to be, equations applied to account for the rates slowing.

But as far as I can tell, that’s not the same as making clocks that physically stay in sync despite being placed at different altitudes. As I’ve said before, that seems to suggest a problem with clock rates changing, not time itself changing.

Hmm. That’s precisely what I’m doing, presenting my view in order to hear any counterarguments, alternative explanations or relevant facts that I’m not aware of. And I would argue that it’s not me that isn’t engaging.

I’ve given what I view as reasonable responses to the objections that have been raised so far, and it seems to me that those same objections just keep being repeated without addressing the responses I’ve already given to them.

And I’m not sure what you mean by a superficial manner, but I think the issue is more likely to do with matters being brought up that aren’t directly related to what’s being addressed.

I think I’ve sufficiently responded to this issue being raised about a lack of knowledge of physics, for which I haven’t yet seen any reasonable counter response. However, I suspect that it’s more to do with overcoming a lot of past history in science with views like logical positivism and other similar views that have yet to be completely purged from present scientific thinking. That’s what I suspect is the real obstacle. Not my lack of understanding of how to express my view.

OK. But I’ve already conceded that successful theories are evidence for the truth of the concepts. So unless you’re point for saying that is that it would show that their truth is entailed, I’m not sure what your point is here?

The equations of special and general relativity are not in question here. And as far as I can tell, those experiments are not supporting the truth of the unverifiable reality of the concepts, but verifying the verifiable reality of what the equations describe.

The questions I’m raising are about unverifiable reality, and that requires relevant evidence to support an explanation about such. And I’m still waiting for someone to present relevant evidence for the claim of time slowing down other than the one piece of evidence I’ve already mentioned.

OK. I would accept that as possible evidence for time slowing down. But I would say the amount of weight it adds to the claim is pretty insignificant, especially since we can see from clocks that it’s not really tied to physical reality, but most likely just a psychological phenomenon.

Effects of altitudes I can understand, but effects of time dilation? If you’re talking about the equations I’m having a hard time making sense of that. The equations just describe the effect, they don’t play any role in the cause. Are you referring to something physical when you say time dilation? If so, what physical thing are you referring to?

Which facts? The only relevant facts I’m aware of are the ones I presented in the argument. And as far as I can tell, those are best explained by slowing of clock rates. I’m still waiting for someone to come up with other relevant facts besides the ones I mentioned. Until that happens, I believe the most reasonable conclusion is the one I’ve reached.

If I’m understanding correctly, you seem to suggest that I don’t accept relativity theory as an accurate description of verifiable reality. If so, what is it that I’ve said that gives you that impression? Is it cause I question whether or not the concepts of the theory are true reflections of unverifiable reality? If not, then I’m a little lost as to what the point is you’re making here?