On 7/7/2010 9:06 PM, colp wrote: > 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.
Instead of "reducto ad absurdum" you might want to familiarize yourself with something called "mathematics".
> > 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.
And if that "absurdity" is in fact real then what?
>>> 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. > > Wrong. Nobody can make up truth for any reason.