On Jul 8, 12:01 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote: > 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?
It's a form of reducto ad absurdum that relies on the established fact that in some cases moving clocks run slow.
Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/
The contention that is established is that a preferred frame of reference exists. The denial of that contention is Einstien's first postulate of relativity, and the absurdity that results from it is the twin paradox in its various forms.
> > > 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.