Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Quote:

Then knowledge is impossible and chaos ensues.

I swear you're an unusual case, FBM. Generally speaking, people who are truly "new" to SR have a great deal of trouble accepting its (inherently conflicting) premises. You appear to be the exact opposite. It appears to me that you try to INSIST that SR is "somehow" right, even to the point of interpreting experiments in an idiosyncratic fashion, fully accepting illogical assertions such as "both are correct," and denying every day "common sense" (e.g., that it is the guy on the train or plane, rather than the guy on the ground that is (the one) relatively moving).

Maybe the ignorance and chaos you fear is caused by the acceptance (rather than the rejection) of SR as in any way representative of "reality." Ever think of that?

To begin with, traveling twins has no bearing on anything that's connected with time.

But that same theory would say that his measurement, though carefully and accurately made within that frame, could still be wrong. In fact such a theory would say that the person doing the measuring IS wrong, if he fails to take his own relative motion into account before arriving at his "final" conclusion.

Quote:

In fact such a theory would say that the person doing the measuring IS wrong, if he fails to take his own relative motion into account before arriving at his "final" conclusion

Note that this does NOT require an absolute rest frame, just as it did not require an absolute rest frame to determine that the travelling twin was the one really moving (and hence aging more slowly) in the twin paradox. It does, however, require one to resort to a "preferred" frame (which needn't be "absolute").

Since you can't point to the one true motionless frame of reference, your argument would mean EVERY measurement in every reference frame in AST must be wrong because none can be shown to be the motionless one.

So the preferred frame is the correct time?

In theoretical physics, a preferred or privileged frame is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames.....Although there is no preferred inertial frame under Newtonian mechanics or special relativity, the set of all inertial frames as a group may still be said to be "preferred" over noninertial frames in these theories, since the laws of physics derived for inertial motion only work exactly in this special category of frames.

If you don't allow them to select their own frame then you must be arguing...

You are assuming that an ABSOLUTE frame is required. I will address this more below. But, if you want to apply your own reasoning to SR, then "EVERY measurement in every reference frame in SR must be wrong because none can be shown to be the motionless one." So, at best, your argument, assuming that it proves anything, "proves too much."

Then you choose a frame and insist that the frame you chose is the correct one. You could just as easily choose the other frame and insist that one is correct.

You keep making the same mistake over and over

Parados, you never respond to any particular posts of mine, you just come back with some vague non sequitur. I proposed an $10,000 bet to you. You have yet to tell me if we are "on" with that bet. Are we?

Do you dispute anything that I said in this post (just for one example of a post you refuse to confront)?

http://able2know.org/topic/265997-51#post-5902650

. However it will be impossible to prove either of us right

You will still insist you are right without evidence.

Do you dispute anything that I said in this post (just for one example of a post you refuse to confront)?

http://able2know.org/topic/265997-51#post-5902650

You insist that you can only use one frame of reference. You fail to see that you are using that one frame even though that error has been pointed out to you repeatedly.