On Jul 11, 4:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 1:56 am, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 10, 7:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 8, 8:59 pm, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 10:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 7, 5:43 pm, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 8:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 3:03 pm, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 3:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Not so. Einstein's statement included things that you have discounted. > > > > > > > I haven't discounted them. > > > > > > > > For example, he makes note of specific events, rather than just making > > > > > > > the general statement that "moving clocks" run slow. > > > > > > > The description of the specific events only serves to illustrate that > > > > > > it is the moving clock that runs slow compared to the stationary > > > > > > clock. > > > > > > Then you have misunderstood what he said. The EVENTS do more than > > > > > that. > > > > > How, exactly? > > > So your claim regarding the events is baseless, right? >
The bottom line is that in Einstein's example it is not an oversimplification to say that the moving clock runs slow. Calling that description a "comic-book statement" is like an ad hominem where the attack is against the form of the statement rather than the writer.
> > > > > > > Furthermore, he > > > > > > > makes EXPLICIT mention of the statement that the clocks at points A > > > > > > > and B are initially synchronized IN THE K FRAME. > > > > > > > Assuming that they weren't synchonized in my general description of > > > > > > "the moving clock runs slow" would be arbitrary and illogical. > > > > > > They are synchronized in the K frame. They are not synchronized in the > > > > > K' frame. This is essential and cannot be dismissed. > > > > > If they are not synchronized in the K' frame, then the K frame becomes > > > > the preferred frame of reference, which contradicts Einstein's first > > > > postulate. > > > > Why? Two clocks being synchronized or not synchronized do not > > > determine a preferred frame. > > > Yes they do. By choosing a frame in your theoretical example which > > corresponds to the actual preferred frame, your example gives results > > which conform to reality. If you choose an alternate frame, paradoxes > > become apparent. > > What? No.
Actually paradoxes do become apparent. In my four-clock extension of Einstein's two-clock example, SR predicts the same two clocks are slower than each other depending on whether the observation is make from frame K or from frame K'.
> Do you know what "preferred frame" means? If so, tell me what you > think it means.
What I think it means is irrelevant in the context of showing a paradox. What is relevant is what SR says that it means, specifically that a preferred frame has properties which correspond to the idea of absolute rest, or is a frame in which the laws of mechanics hold good but laws of electrodynamics and optics no longer hold good.
1. "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest". 2. "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
From "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
> > > In Einstein's original example the stationary frame > > is the preferred frame, as is the case for SR measurements made near > > the Earth. > > What ever gave you the impression that Einstein took the Earth frame > to be preferred?
He used the word stationary. In common language stationary means at rest relative to Earth's surface, as typically observers are at rest relative to that frame.
> > > > > > A preferred frame is one in which the LAWS OF PHYSICS are different > > > than in other frames. > > > No, there is more to it that that. Einstien's first postulate assumes > > that: "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics > > possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest" > > Sorry, but that is a conclusion FROM the postulate.
No, there is no indication in the source text that either part of the first postulate is a derivation of the other part.
> The meaning of > "preferred frame" as used by physicists is what I described.
Irrelevant. What is important is what Einstein described, not the qualifications and ammendments made by physicists in order to render the theory useful.
> > > > > If this postulate is true then you have no basis for making your > > observations from the stationary frame; i.e it would make no > > difference whether you made your observations from frame K or from > > frame K'. > > Nor does it make any difference. The laws of physics take the same > form from either frame.
The fact that the laws take the same form does not mean that there is no preferred frame.
> > This does NOT entail that if clocks are synchronized in K, then they > are also synchronized in K'. That is not what the principle of > relativity means.
Straw man. The point is that if Einstein's first postulate is true, then it is possible for the clocks to be synchronized in either frame. For you to argue that they can be synchronized in K but not in K' implies that you do not hold Einstein's first postulate to be true.