Joanna Dark said:
What I believe happened was that Einstein developed an accurate theory that is rather complicated and after he explained time dilation he couldn't quite figure out how to reverse the situation. So instead he went off on a long tangent of reciprocation (or symmetry as you put it) which has no basis in logic.
You seem to think that because something makes no sense to you, that that is somehow an argument against it. (It's actually a famous fallacy of informal logic: The argument from personal incredulity.)
Therefore for the next hundred years this theory got repeated by a whole bunch of people whose specialty is mathematics as opposed to mental visualisation, which is the process by which Einstein's brain worked.
Now you honestly try to tell me that if my time is going faster than yours (based on a previous experiment whereby only your clock experienced time dilation, if you will) that you could possibly see my clocks running slower.
Have you even lifted a finger to actually learn something about relativity and why
both observers
must see the
other's clocks run slow?
I'm now not so sure that the "cranks" as they were so endearingly termed are necessarily nuts. They are just trying to get their heads around a concept that Einstein fans admit can't be logically understood.
Nothing wrong with not understanding something. It's the ranting and railing that gets tedious fast.
I have just offered my theory of the situation based on the best of my knowledge, so please anyone, give me one good reason for the validity of reciprocation, when it makes no sense and Einstein's theory functions perfectly without it?
You are sadly mistaken if you think Einstein's theory "functions perfectly" without the "reciprocity" of time dilation (and other relativistic effects). In fact, one of the premises underlying relativity states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. So if it's true that a moving clock "runs slow" in one frame, that same principle had better apply in every frame.
In order to properly understand how it could possibly be true that both observers see the other's clocks run slow, you first have to understand what it means to measure the rate of a moving clock. You'll see that a full appreciation of time dilation requires understanding length contraction and the concept of simultaneity, as well as just "time dilation". It's tricky, but not that hard. And it's perfectly logical.
Just one good reason and i'll accept it without question.
It's never a good idea to accept anything "without question".
There are many books out there that do a great job of teaching the basics of relativity from the ground up. (If you are interested, just ask.)
Here's a link to one in a series of lectures covering the basics: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/time_dil.html" . This particular lecture explains by example how the symmetry of relativity is consistent and perfectly logical. (To understand it, you'll have to go back and read the earlier lectures in the series.)
If you're interested in learning, by all means stick around. But if all you want to do is rant against your professors or against relativity--take it elsewhere.
) and I'm on the train and my clock is running slow. Why would I also observe your clock to be running slow? That has had me up for nights on end over the past few months. I just figured out this morning that if I didn't see your clock running slow, rather the opposite it was fast, then everything falls into place and alleviates all the confusion I had experienced.