On Jul 8, 1:51 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote: > 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".
Do you have a point to make?
> > > > > 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?
Paradoxes do not exist in nature, hence the absurdity is not real.
> > >>> 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. > > And yet you are trying to.