- #71
ash64449
- 356
- 15
DaleSpam said:I have read that book multiple times as well as the 1905 paper. They simply do not support your claims.
You claim that relativity of simultaneity (different frames disagree on which events are simultaneous) implies time dilation (moving clocks run slow). That is simply not correct. The texts you refer to never make that claim, and in fact do not even discuss the rate of clocks in the sections you mention.
Here is a post where I provided a mathematical counterexample to a similar claim made by another poster. This transform proves that relativity of simultaneity does NOT imply time dilation: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3751522&postcount=2
I understood daleSpam. Relativity of simultaneity will occur with length contraction or time dilation or not occur or relativity of simultaneity will be there but no length contraction or time dilation.