On 7/7/2010 5:49 PM, colp wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:05 am, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >> harald says... >> >>> On Jul 7, 6:02=A0pm, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > >>>> If you are asking, not about General Relativity, but the General >>>> Principle of Relativity: that isn't a theory of physics, it is >>>> a heuristic, or a philosophical position, or metaphysics. It has >>>> no physical meaning, except to the extent that it guides us in >>>> coming up with better theories of physics. >> >>> I rarely saw a more aggressive criticism against Einstein's >>> theory. :-) >> >> The generalized principle of relativity is not a theory. > > Right. It is an assumption, and the application of that assumption > leads to contradictions. This is a case of doctrinal annihilation; > i.e. a set of postulates that are collectively inconsistent. > > The relevant postulates are: > > 1. There is not preferred frame of reference. > 2. Moving clocks run slow. (Paraphrased from Einsteins > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") > > Since we know that moving clocks _do_ run slow, the only logical > conclusion is that a preferred frame of reference exists.
How is that a logical conclusion?
> The assertion that a preferred frame of reference exists is a > philisophical one, and points towards the epistemological schism of > natural philosophy which led to the development of science (i.e. > knowledge of the physical realm) and religion (i.e. beliefs about the > theological realm) as separate disciplines.
In other words you don't like it that science doesn't let you get away with making up truths to suit your biases.