I think you’re projecting.
Right, but we aren’t talking about how much time it takes to get wrinkles on your face. A clock is a mechanical device, that measures time fairly accurately on Earth. A clock is not the arbitrator of time, the light sphere is, because we DEFINED light speed to be 299,792,458 Meters Per Second.
With current technology severely limiting the velocity of space travel, however, the differences experienced in practice are minuscule: after 6 months on the International Space Station (ISS), orbiting Earth at a speed of about 7,700 m/s, an astronaut would have aged about 0.005 seconds less than those on Earth.[10] The cosmonauts Sergei Krikalev and Sergei Avdeyev both experienced time dilation of about 20 milliseconds compared to time that passed on Earth.
WIKI
Look it up and stop wasting time!
Pun intended
What do the stop watches read when the light returns to their position??
I think you are wrong.
People who lived in the space station gained 20 milliseconds less aging.
What does that have to do with time?
I am arguing with the BS theory you have faith in. Your belief is religion, not science!
Your gate keepers make sure Einstein’s theory stays in place. They are CORRUPT!
Fucking hell a conspiracy moron!
The “gatekeepers” happen to be every single physicist capable of reading the proofs.
It did not take very long to witness the worst example of ILP “style”.
If you don’t understand it decler the whole world corrupt.
Conspiracy?
It effectively becomes “we can’t know ANYTHING about the ethics of abortion and Communism” because Biggus doesn’t specify what can be known and how it can be known. He invokes “the gap” and Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns at every point. Everything then becomes doubtful, uncertain, unknown and unknowable. We can never say “we know that”.
None of them have answered a single question of mine, or explained why it takes .65 seconds for light to travel the distance of .5 light seconds. The speed of light in the box from the center, to the Z receiver is .5/.65 = 0.769 c, PERIOD!
…and the speed of light from the center to the x receiver is .5/1.384930 = .361 c.
BOTH of those distances in the box are the same from center to receiver, and yet it took light two different amounts of time to travel the same lengths in the box!
You have FAITH in a BS theory!
Philosophy James S. Saint Style.
In other words, “you’re necessarily wrong because I’m necessarily right”.
Only some of these insufferably arrogant bastards [and they are almost always men here] take this frame of mind over to the is/ought world in turn and insist that others are necessarily wrong because they are necessarily right about moral and political and aesthetic and spiritual value judgments as well.
I call them the fulminating fanatic objectivists.
What do you call them?
You’re taking the opportunity to berate past forum members (who are most likely dead.) I don’t think that’s an acceptable behavior.
On the other hand, phyllo took the opportunity to create a thread (this one) with the sole purpose to make fun of you. That too is unnacceptable in my book.
My purpose was to bring these fallacies and logic errors together and into the open.
Maybe Biggus would learn something from people’s reactions.
Maybe I would learn something.
Noted.
Do you also believe that this point of view is rooted more in dasein or in the capacity of philosophers to determine if all rational men and women are obligated to think as you do?
On the contrary, I suspect his motive was less to make fun of me and more to point out those tendencies on my part that devalue philosophy itself.
At least that was my own subjective reaction to the OP.
So, given that, I responded to his points one by one above.
But now, in my view, the thread has been “highjacked” by the James S. Saint wannabes who insist that even in regard to either/or world interactions, only their own conclusions actually nail them.
Again, point by point, I responded to your claims. So, point by point, note those fallacies and logic errors. There must be dozens of them at least, right?
Now I’m dealing with the “vastness of the universe”.
When that’s exhausted, I may proceed to another point.
Again, he can blame me for reducing him down to “clever’” retorts like this, but I’m still inclined to place the onus squarely on him.
You know, in a free will world. 
What “clever” retort???
I’ve been talking about this point for several posts now:
WTF is the problem?
“Clever”
Exactly! 
The problem in my view resides squarely in your head.
And I responded to that above:
Note the fallacies and logic errors on my part here.