On Jul 1, 7:56 pm, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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.
It does if it's an oversimplification of what's presented in the paper!
> > > 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.
I don't see why you feel that the whole development of special relativity is entirely due to, and can be found in the writings of, Einstein.
Special relativity has been worked on and developed by hundreds of physicists, many of which have found aspects of special relativity that Einstein never dreamed of.
The same thing goes for "Newtonian mechanics", which involves a great deal more than what Newton wrote, or "quantum mechanics" which involves a great deal more than what Heisenberg, Pauli, or Bohr wrote.