On Jul 7, 3:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't have any idea > > > how you conclude from his postulate about no preferred frame that time > > > for both systems cannot be dilated with respect to each other. > > > That isn't what I am saying. I'm saying that for time for both systems > > to be dilated with respect to each other constitutes a paradox, > > No, it does not.
Yes it does. If a clock in a moving frame runs slow, then a clock in a stationary frame runs fast when viewed from the moving frame. If that were not the case then you would get paradoxical outcomes.
> > I suspect that you believe that it is because you believe the > statement made by relativity is that "moving clocks run slow".
Relativity makes a statement that means exactly the same thing.
"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
> You > hear this to mean that "Clock A is running slower than clock B, and > clock B is running slower than clock A."
No, B only runs slower than A if there is no preferred frame of reference.
> You furthermore believe that, > logically, "Clock A is running slower than clock B" necessarily > implies that "Clock B is running faster than clock A" and hence the > paradox arises with the combination of sentences "Clock B is running > faster than clock A" and "Clock B is running slower than clock A."
> The problem, you see, is that the comic-book statement you are using > as your launching point belongs in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity.
It's not a comic book statement any more than Einstein's statement that a moving clock lags behind a stationary clock is a comic book statement.
> > Relativity doesn't make that statement as carelessly and loosely as > you're using it.
There is nothing careless or loose about my statement.
> > Instead, it makes a more precise statement about what it MEANS to say > that Clock B is running slower than Clock A. And here is where > identification of particular *events* comes into play. And this makes > all the difference.
So why can't you say what the difference is if it exists? Some vague reference to "events" doesn't cut it.