On Jul 1, 6:25 pm, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 11:37 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 30, 4:20 pm, artful wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 1, 8:47 am, colp wrote: > > > > > > 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 over simplification. There is more to SR than just clocks > > > > > running slow. > > > > > Nonsense and mysticism. <shrug> > > > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners. > > > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED. > > > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of > > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is > > not required. > > One such test is the test for paradoxes arising from one or more > postulates. For example, the following two postulates lead to a > paradox, meaning that not all the postulates are correct: > > 1. Statement 2 is true. > 2. Statement 1 is false. > > The paradox that arises from the postulates of Einstein's > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be described as follows: > > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to > discover > any motion of the earth relatively to the ?light medium,? suggest that > the > phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no > properties > corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, > as has > already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same > laws of > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference > for which the > equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the > purport > of which will hereafter be called the ?Principle of Relativity?) to > the status > of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only > apparently > irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always > propagated in empty > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of > motion of the > emitting body." > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Introduction) > > This text describes Einstein's postulate that there is no preferred > inertial frame of reference. > > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Section 4) > > The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > A to point B. If there is no preferred frame of reference then it is > just as true to say that > the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. The > conclusion that time for both systems can be dilated with respect to > the other system is paradoxical.
No, it's not paradoxical at all.
In the moving frame, the clocks at A and B were never synchronous. Thus the fact that the clock that remains at B (and therefore moves with respect to your clock which sits while points A and B wash by) is ahead of the other clock makes perfect sense, physically.
There is no paradox.
There is only your superficial and oversimplified understanding of what relativity says.