I Does the *First Postulate* Prohibit different time dilations?

[Herman Trivilino]

If I were to say, "All women wear dresses. This person is wearing a dress. Therefore this person is a woman". You might be inclined to say "What if your father wore a dress?" without even blushing over the fact that he never did. It illustrates the flaw in the derivation.

Consider an identical chain of logic applied to the situation involving light beams rather than clothing:

All light beams in a vacuum move at speed $c$. This beam is moving at speed $c$ in a vacuum. Therefore this beam is a light beam.

If I were indeed proposing this as a valid argument your point about clothing would demonstrate the fallacy of my point. But I'm not so it doesn't.

Something has you believing that there is a way to refute the Principle of Relativity, but it was pointed out that the way you've proposed it would require a change in the current laws (laws that describe Nature's behavior) to another set of laws that describe a behavior that doesn't match Nature's behavior.

So just because what you propose is logically valid doesn't mean it matches Nature's behavior. The current accepted proposals are also logical, but they have the added advantage of matching Nature's behavior.

 

[Dale]

So just because what you propose is logically valid doesn't mean it matches Nature's behavior.

I personally doubt that it is even logically valid.

 

[Dale]

The reason that I am so skeptical of the self consistency of the proposition is because of the attached derivation (and other similar derivations referenced in the introduction)
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045

Only two transformations between inertial frames are consistent with the principle of relativity. Specifically, the Galilean transform and the Lorentz transform. In both cases the time dilation is the same for all clock mechanisms.

So I think that the principle of relativity is inconsistent with clocks of different types having different time dilation (as does Greene and several other physicists). A researcher claiming the opposite would need to show a flaw in these derivations, and I have not seen such a paper, nor apparently has anyone else.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

I personally doubt that it is even logically valid.

I agree that the original argument presented by the OP and defended by Justintruth is not logically valid. I was referring to the tangent he took following Nugatory's post.

Anyway, I just don't understand why creationists find it necessary to attack the Principle of Relativity. I at least think I understand their other stances, but not this one. And I suppose it would be off topic to pursue it here.