On Jul 2, 2:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 5:47 pm, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: >
> > <quote> > > > > > At best, all you've done is show the > > > > fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. > > > What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. > > > Sure. You've used the statement from COLP's Oversimplified Relativity > > that moving clocks run slow (which you've said is true even for blue- > > shifted clocks), and you've used the statement that COLP's > > Oversimplified Relativity makes no provision whatsoever for a > > compression of time for a clock turning around. This immediately leads > > to several paradoxes, and this is ample reason to chuck Colp's > > Oversimplified Relativity. > > </quote> > > > The statement that "moving clocks run slow" isn't an > > oversimplification, it is directly inferred from Einstein's > > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". > > It IS an oversimplification. If you've inferred this from his 1905 > paper, then you've oversimplified.
No, inferring something from a paper does not constitute an oversimplification.
> The statement in SR is actually > quite a bit more precise.
Are you referring to Einstein's 1920 statement about rotating bodies?
> > Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the > > compression of time for a clock turning around. > > That's correct, but the Lorentz transforms are there, and though the > *application* of those to the twin puzzle is not addressed in the 1905 > paper, this does NOT mean that SR contains no provision for it. The > 1905 paper is not a complete reference for SR in any way, shape, or > form, nor should you construe it to be. The twin puzzle was not even > formulated until 1911, where it was provided as a useful exercise in > fleshing out something that was not addressed in the 1905 paper. > > Your statement that SR makes no provision for the compression of time > for a clock turning around is an oversimplification on your part.
No, it isn't. You could make your point by simply quoting Einstein if he had actually made such a provision.
