Re: time dilation


"JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125371177.706460.169010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Henry Haapalainen wrote:
| >
| > "Francisco", I understand what you are trying to say, and you are
absolutely
| > right. But for many of these people relativity is a religion, and
you cannot
| > change their mind with any scientific argument.
|
| Where people get this stoopid idea I'll never know. Get real, please.
| Relativity is simply a theory derived from certain postulates.

Bollocks. It's based on a stoopid definition of time.



End of
| story, no religion.

Of course it's a religion, dumb***. You BELIEVE Einstein's
definition of time on FAITH, it's not science, it's religion.



|It's OK to object to those postulates on
| philosophical grounds, as I do for example. It is also true that this
| theory has an excellent experimental and predictive quantitative track
| record.

Irrelevant bull***, the function tau is not linear, the objection is on
mathematical grounds.


|
| In other words: it's fine to object against relativity (or any other
| theory) *honestly*.


So done. You are dishonest in denying your FAITH is a religion.


| What is dishonest is calling relativity "religion"
| just because someone defends the way it's derived from the postulates.
|
Bull***, it is derived from
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

and your BLIND FAITH in that is a religion.

Androcles.

| --
| Jan Bielawski
|

.