Pentcho
It would be useful if you actually read what Einstein wrote. In respect of SR he said, for example:
Einstein 1916 section 18
"provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion...The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity."
Einstein 1916 section 22
"We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."
Einstein 1916 section 28
"The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists. In this connection a Galileian reference-body serves as body of reference, ie a rigid body...In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity."
So, special relativity, as defined by Einstein, involves:
-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary
-only fixed shape bodies at rest
-only light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed
It is special because there is no gravitational force, or more precisely, no differential in the gravitational forces incurred. As such it is, by definition, correct, though involves such a limited physical circumstance as to be useless. Another way of expressing this is that SR is not what was written in 1905, neither is it the concept of relativity which underpins his conception of physical existence. So attempting to reconcile with SR is a waste of time, especially if one is not using the definition of it that the author specified anyway.
His concept of relativity can be summed up, for example, in Einstein para 4 section 9 1916:
"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, ie that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in section 7) disappears".
That is, his conception of relativity is that, unless existence is in the "immediate proximity" (1905), then any given physically existent entity has 'its own time', ie there is a time difference, and that needs to be reconciled on the basis of the speed of light.
His formulation of the special circumstance was his attempt to resolve what he saw could be seen as a contradiction between the two postulates, "only apparently irreconcilable" (1905). Now, there is a contradiction between these two postulates. He solved the problem with timing, except that he did not, because his conception of timing was, following the concept of simultaneity from Poincaré, incorrect. But the great irony here, as opposed to the lesser irony whereby people are trying to resolve SR on the basis of an incorrect definition, is that there is no dichotomy to resolve. Because whilst Einstein spoke of light, all he had was a constant which he used to measure duration and distance, which he called light. Light does not become light because Einstein calls it so. It becomes light if the entity involved acts as light, ie observers receive it. That is, he did not deploy the second postulate in the way it was defined.
So in sum, you, and many others, are entirely wasting your time, trying to solve a problem which does not exist. The real issue is his flawed underlying concept of relativity, and there is no need to read any further than setion 1 part 1 to establish what is wrong with that.
Paul
