Don Lincoln: "Einstein’s theory of special relativity predicts some crazy phenomena, none more nonintuitive than the idea that moving clocks tick more slowly than stationary ones. As clocks approach the speed of light, they tick ever more slowly, getting closer and closer to not ticking at all. So, this raises an interesting question: Since fast-moving objects experience time more slowly and the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit, does light “experience” time? On online physics chat forums, many answers are given. But what is the truth?" https://bigthink.com/hard-science/photons-light-time/
Einstein's 1905 postulates, true or false, entail the following conclusion:
(A) If two clocks are in relative motion, either clock is slower than the other as judged from the other clock's system.
(A') If two clocks are in relative motion, either clock is faster than the other as judged from the clock's own system.
The conclusion (A) is obviously absurd. It says that, if two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized, then move towards one another and finally meet, either clock lags behind the other as judged from the other clock's system. Still, absurd as it is, (A), together with (A'), is a VALID DEDUCTION of Einstein's 1905 postulates.
Clearly, neither (A) nor (A') implies that "moving clocks tick more slowly than stationary ones". So Don Lincoln has replaced the valid deduction, (A) and (A'), with a non sequitur, "moving clocks tick more slowly than stationary ones", and invites the reader to ponder the implications of the non sequitur.
Pondering the implications of the valid deduction leaves little chance to human rationality - it gets destroyed. But pondering the implications of the non sequitur leaves no chance to human rationality - it gets irreversibly destroyed.
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev