Re: Relativity conundrum

[Pentcho Valev <pvalev@BAS.BG>]

Ken Caviness wrote:

> But in any case it would not be logical for her to trust her own clocks as
> giving "real time" but the station observer's distance measurements as giving
> the "real distance".  It is my impression that most apparent paradoxes in
> relativity turn out to be due to such a mixed-reference-frame treatment of
> some problem.

Then let us avoid this by offering  at least two rigorous deductive developments.
The development I prefer is simple - there are two axioms:

Heretical axiom 1: There is no essential difference between the speed of light and
the speed of any other body (e.g. a bullet). The factors source and frame affect
both speeds in the same way.

Heretical axiom 2: Time does not vary from frame to frame.

This is an easy development but of course the counterargument is that it contradicts
Michelson-Morley experiment. I have to think more on that.

If Einstein's theory is to become rigorous and deductive, there will be only one
initial axiom:

Non-heretical axiom: Lorentz equations are correct.

In my view, the only reliable way to experimentally falsify one of the developments
is to measure the speed of light in a frame NOT CONTAINING THE SOURCE OF LIGHT. This
seems feasible.

Pentcho Valev