You seem to think that these are independent. If c is invariant* then time dilates. One is logically implied by the other.Akriel said:i don't see why i should conclude that it is due to the nature of time itself, rather than it just being a result of the constant of c.
Akriel said:It seems so that when you make the calculation you get a different values for t in each of the observers with each flash, but i don't see why i should conclude that it is due to the nature of time itself, rather than it just being a result of the constant of c.
Mister T said:It can't be one without the other, that's the point of the exercise. And if you don't think it has anything to do with the nature of time itself, you had a lot of company. Many if not most physicists didn't buy into it when it was first presented to them. But that was over 110 years ago, now we know for sure that time dilates and simultaneity is relative. It's demonstrated every time an engineer has to calibrate GPS clocks, or when technicians send particle beams through tunnels. It's done every minute of every day at hundreds of places worldwide. It's a fact of modern life!
Yes, we have many. See sections 4 and 5 here:Akriel said:for sure I'm not starting to argue against experiementally confirmed facts. Do we have confirmed the time dilation in sub speed of light experiements as well?
Dale said:Yes, we have many. See sections 4 and 5 here:
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
FYI, my favorites are the particle lifetime experiments. Those show that it is not just EM (light) but also the strong and weak nuclear forces.Akriel said:Thank you for your time, going to read the article.