On Apr 18, 3:34 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2:04 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 2:26 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 9:17 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:

[...]
 
>>> No, that is an incorrect inference, Ken. That is YOUR thinking, not
>>> that of LET or SR. If you will take the time to actually READ what LET
>>> and SR say, you will find that they EXPLICITLY say in black in white
>>> that this is true for ANY observer in ANY reference frame and NOT just
>>> for the observer in a preferred frame of reference. It does no good
>>> for you to draw an inference from a theory when the theory says in
>>> black and white the exact opposite.
> 
>> Sigh....the assertion that all clocks moving relative to the SR
>> observer are running slow means that the observer's clock is
>> special....or preferred.
> 
> But it's not. For observer A, clock B and clock C are running slow
> relative to clock A. For observer B, clock A and clock C are running
> slow relative to clock B. For observer C, clock A and clock B are
> running slow relative to clock B. You see, none of them is different
> than any of the others. None of them are special. None are preferred.

Sure it is. A asserts that his clock is special. B asserts that his
clock is special. C asserts that his clock is special.