On Jul 3, 1:04 am, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 3, 2:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > It is paradoxical because time for both systems cannot be dilated with > respect to each other.
This is your assumption about what can and cannot be.
> > > > > In the moving frame, the clocks at A and B were never synchronous. > > There aren't multiple clocks in the moving system in Einstein's > example.
There are at least two clocks. There is one at point A and there is one at point B. One of them moves from A to B, and the other remains at B. In the reference frame K where A and B are at rest, then the clocks are synchronized initially. In the reference frame K' where A and B are moving, the clocks are NOT synchronized initially. When the clock at A ends up next to clock B and we discover that the reading on A is behind the reading on B, the account in the K frame is that the clocks were initially synchronized but that A ran slower than B. The account in the K' frame is that the clocks are NOT initially synchronized, and so even though B ran slower than A, it is STILL true that the reading on A is behind the reading on B when they are next to each other.
As I said, colp, it would help if you would learn what special relativity ACTUALLY SAYS, rather than what your superficial COR says, then you will see that there are no contradictions in SR.