I don't know if someone has already posted this or not, so if so, I apologize.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html#c2

Summary:
Extremely accurate clocks have been flown on jet aircraft. When compared to identical clocks at rest, the difference found in their respective readings has confirmed Einstein's prediction. (The clock in motion shows a slightly slower passage of time than the one at rest.)




>Hi Hilmar,
>
>This is all theoretical since no one has proved the theory.
>
>It seem quite illogical to me that speed would effect the reality of the universe, or time; although, I can understand how the speed of an object could distort our perceptions of the universe, and make the universe appear very different than it really is. This is the limitation of using light as an absolute upper range to everything. light is very inadequate in preceiving a universe that is vastly infinite.
>
>I noticed that velocity is used in the equation (e.g. v^2) I believe Newton discoverd that an object's velicoty or speed sqares as it drops to earth, but I never study physics, and don't have the equation. I'm not sure why the speed of light is squared, but I do know it is also squared in determining the energy of an object (e.g. e = mc^2) so I don't doubt it.
>
>There is too much we do not know.
>
>There is nothing that I know of that states that life cannot exist in pure structured energy state, so it could be possible for life to travel at the speed of light, or beyond the speed of light. This would be impossible for us to observe natively, but maybe someone will find a way to explore this with special equipment.
>
>So far as the theoritical equation, I do not understand it, but I think it is flawed based on common sense. If speed effect time, it would be nice if someone proved it, and then was able to explain it to use in way that could be easily understood.
>
>Just about everything else that has be proved, seem to conform to common sense.
>
>Regards,
>
>LelandJ