From: tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net   
      
   On 6/23/18 11:15 AM, Ed Lake wrote:   
   > Einstein's thought experiments produced papers which showed that time is   
   > variable: The faster you travel, the slower time advances for you, i,e., the   
   >  slower your clocks will tick, the slower you will age, the slower your hair   
   >  will grow, etc.   
      
   This is just plain not true, and Einstein's thought experiments and papers show   
   no such thing.   
      
   These thought experiments describe Special Relativity (SR), which predicts that   
   no matter how you might move (relative to anything), your clocks tick at their   
   usual rate, you age at your usual rate, your hair grows at its usual rate, etc.   
   -- all as measured BY YOU (as your words say).   
      
   The underlying reason for this prediction is very basic: the first postulate of   
   SR says that the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame. So the   
   laws that govern the ticking of your clocks, your ageing, and the growing of   
   your hair, are ALWAYS THE SAME in your rest frame, regardless of how your frame   
   might be moving (relative to anything). Since the laws are the same, the   
   ticking, ageing, and growth rates must all be the same, TO YOU (i.e. as   
   measured   
   in your rest frame).   
      
   > It took a long time for actual experiments to confirm that.  But they did.   
      
   Hmmm. Experiments have NOT confirmed what you said above, but they have   
   confirmed many times the ACTUAL predictions of SR. This includes "time   
   dilation": clocks tick at their usual rate when measured in their rest frame,   
   and are observed to tick more slowly by observers relative to whom they are   
   moving.   
      
        [Note that in SR this is due to the geometrical relationship   
         between relatively-moving inertial frames, and not any effect   
         on the intrinsic tick rate of clocks.]   
      
   > [... further confusions and incorrect claims]   
      
   These thought experiments describe and illuminate Special Relativity. In order   
   to improve the quality and accuracy of your paper about them, first you must   
   learn what Special Relativity ACTUALLY predicts. At present, your paper is   
   completely useless because it describes YOUR mistakes and confusions, not   
   Einstein's thought experiments and theory.   
      
        [A major error is thinking that some observations are "correct"   
         and others are "incorrect" (in your unusual sense that they are   
         consistent with the laws of physics). So for a stone dropped from   
         a moving train, on page 5 you claim the embankment observation is   
         "correct" while the on-train observation is "incorrect". You have   
         failed to grasp the first postulate, and the FACT that the relevant   
         laws of physics are INDEPENDENT of frame -- BOTH descriptions are   
         "correct" (in your unusual sense of consistent with the known laws;   
         it's just that you did not apply the ACTUAL laws as they are known).   
         How can an observation possibly be "incorrect"?? -- after all,   
         observers observe what they observe. Even with your unusual   
         meaning of "correct", how can an observer possibly violate the   
         laws of physics???]   
      
   Tom Roberts   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)