"Stephen Speicher" wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.0303021934490.11514-100000@localhost.localdomain...
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, kenseto wrote:
>
> > Any theory that relies on the shifting meaning of a phrase
> > to defense its validity is in trouble. SR is such a theory.
> >
>
> But SR does not rely on any shifts in meaning -- the theory
> is quite precise. Ken confuses the theory for his own
> muddleheaded notions in regard to it. 

But SR does depend on shifting meaning. For example
SR says:
A and B are in relative motion.
From A's point of view:
A sees B's clock runs slow. However this assertion does
not mean that clock B accumulates clock seconds slower
than clock A. What it mean is that "time" itself is stretched
in B's frame due to relative motion. This assertion is symmetric.
In other words, observer B can reach the same conclusion
about A's clock. This is known as mutual time dilation.

SR also asserts that the different rate of accumulation of clock seconds of
the observed clock is due to the different world line
of the observed clock. The different world line of an observed
clock is due to relativity of simultaneity (RoS). The problem is:
RoS does not exit although it has the same designed effect as that
when simultaneity is absolute....namely the time interval between
two identical events occurs at different time in different frames.
In the real world,
simultaneity is absolute. In other words, if two events (two
transitions of the Cs atom) in A's frame are simultaneous, two identical
events (two transitions of the Cs atom in B's frame)
in B's frame are also simultraneous. However, the simultaneity
occurs at a different time interval and that's why the accmulation
of clock seconds is different in A's frame compared to the accumulation of
clock second in B's frame. This is just a
complicated way of saying that the rate of a clock is dependent
on the state of its absolute motion.

I hope that you will note that I took the trouble of explaining
to you how clocks behave in the real world.

Ken Seto