For references, no I don&#x27;t have anything other than email conversations with FAA engineers, but I&#x27;ll see if I can find it somewhere else too. Both of us will have to do better than he said she said, but since you&#x27;re with consensus the burden is on me.<p>One thing I&#x27;m not disputing is that the clocks run at a different rate. What I guess I haven&#x27;t made clear is that any rational extension of classical physics would presume the clock rates would be different. Bear in mind that Lorentz&#x27;s Aether theory was ultimately classical in nature because even though he had the Lorentz transform and all the time effects, light speed constancy was modeled as an illusion within a preferred frame.<p>IE from a purely newtonian perspective, there is a &quot;catching up&quot; that light would have to play in a moving apparatus such as an atomic clock. This naturally lends itself to time dilation from motion. Furthermore Newtonian mechanics also predicted deviation of starlight and therefore gravitational time dilation of exactly one half that predicted by Relativity. Einstein mentions it in his book &quot;Relativity&quot;.<p>So what I&#x27;m talking about is a little more nuanced than it seems. I&#x27;m simply talking about the actual difference between Einstein&#x27;s theories and what classical theory would have come up with is insignificantly small.<p>I&#x27;m not saying that the whole time effect is insignificantly small.