Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Time Dilation as I understand it Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 03:21:20 +0000 (UTC) Organization: The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989 Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <4310de1b-7a86-4596-b9cc-1d69755db119@googlegroups.com> <7cd145e8-b6b4-40a5-af2c-c809ff6fce78@googlegroups.com> <091ea2bf-2e4b-458f-bc45-1c431f64778d@googlegroups.com> <143019e5-cc02-4db0-8e37-333fa57a50d3@googlegroups.com> <76da28c7-a412-4f86-ae92-10c0226188d0@googlegroups.com> <1759b3c3-a8ed-47b7-ac9f-5ae3990b1d29@googlegroups.com> <2f76eb62-39b4-4bcb-8bcb-2f12bba7225e@googlegroups.com> <07246ad6-a522-4e3d-a763-d561b695dc8a@googlegroups.com> <7d5ca318-bf6e-42fc-9989-5ec864e1387a@googlegroups.com> <70f1dbc5-8f48-49ea-b11a-52a58bd25693@googlegroups.com> <9c83b812-4f67-4ae5-a5c6-e1efba5460a2@googlegroups.com> <8ef8c01b-4f07-44df-ad50-e07b3617aed4@googlegroups.com> <06c91306-ee20-4a7c-b674-2e7ae9511a54@googlegroups.com> <3c7809f9-aee8-407e-87d3-3fc7c44bc146@googlegroups.com> <4b0f2852-850b-4386-9e99-d4fb28b0f74d@googlegroups.com> <474f8d3d-5e9b-42c6-8384-49d67912d2a1@googlegroups.com> <92218409-3a08-407b-996d-5b7b19e41ebe@googlegroups.com> <6de994a1-abe6-4428-9c39-e8ca33adbd6a@googlegroups.com> <3ae4a30a-41c1-49f8-a5c7-ed69389b5f8a@googlegroups.com> <310e7cf2-43b7-4ffb-af28-c50c3bcfed2d@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1538450480 1440 192.74.137.71 (2 Oct 2018 03:21:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 03:21:20 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: nn/6.6.5 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:473754 Ed Lake writes: >> > He's saying, I will raise this controversial idea which I will call the >> > "Principle of Relativity" to be the subject of this discussion. >> > The word "raise" is used as in "raising a question." >> This is just another example of you, Ed, not understanding the written >> word. Einstein clearly wrote... "We will raise this conjecture ... to >> the status of a postulate" He was obviously not raising a question, he >> was raising the status from a lower level of 'consensus' to the higher >> plane of 'a postulate'. >> You have once again painted yourself into a corner. >No, he was raising a question by changing it from simple conjecture >(an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information) >to a subject for discussion. No, he was raising it to a POSTULATE so instead of being a conjecture (seems to be true based on incomplete info) to ASSUMED TO BE TRUE for the following. The whole idea of the paper was that if both postulates really are true, this (SR) is what happens. It was NOT a subject for discussion, it was ASSUMED TRUE for the purpose of the paper.