A problem with time dilation help?

[TrickyDicky]

Your disagreement must indeed be subtle as I fail to see where you think I'm incorrect.

The only part of my post about SR is where I agree that the second postulate is indeed a postulate, do you not think the second postulate is a postulate?

 

[harrylin]

Your disagreement must indeed be subtle as I fail to see where you think I'm incorrect.

The only part of my post about SR is where I agree that the second postulate is indeed a postulate, do you not think the second postulate is a postulate?

Sure a postulate is a postulate.
However, you agreed that a definition is a postulate.
My point was that a mere definition isn't a postulate.

A postulate may be open to falsification (as is the case with both SR's postulates); and to be precise it should relate to definitions (as is also the case with both SR's postulates). In contrast, a definition is a human choice that can't be falsified (although it can be poorly chosen).

Is that too subtle??

Cheers,
Harald

 

[TrickyDicky]

Sure a postulate is a postulate.
However, you agreed that a definition is a postulate.
My point was that a mere definition isn't a postulate.

Nope, I agreed with the definition of postulate, which is not the same as agreeing that a definition is a postulate. Hope this is not too subtle.

A postulate may be open to falsification (as is the case with both SR's postulates); and to be precise it should relate to definitions (as is also the case with both SR's postulates). In contrast, a definition is a human choice that can't be falsified (although it can be poorly chosen).

Is that too subtle??

Ugh, I'd say it is, but I think I can agree with this.

 

[harrylin]

Nope, I agreed with the definition of postulate, which is not the same as agreeing that a definition is a postulate. [..]

Evidently it's still not clear to you that you called a mere definition a postulate... Thus I'll have to start it as a topic. Anyway, it should become a FAQ.

Cheers,
Harald

 

[harrylin]

Evidently it's still not clear to you that you called a mere definition a postulate... Thus I'll have to start it as a topic. Anyway, it should become a FAQ.

Cheers,
Harald

PS: On second thought I do agree with you that the way it was formulated here does fall under the second postulate: there was another subtlety in formulation that I overlooked!
I now reiterated this topic in the new thread by rede:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=518005&page=2

Harald