Re: Religion vs SR?

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150739260.982135.98900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Julian Becker wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:16:28 +0200, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


So if Einstein writes:
"Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian
mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more
precise and to
distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which
will be
introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary system."

You can probably tell me what that *space* is, Einstein defined his
co-ordinate system in??
Obiously its not Euclidian - that would contradict with his findings.
But
what then? Dont tell me it's Mikowski's space-time, because that
would be circular reasoning.

So you don't understand relativity? That makes it "wrong"?

so you dont see my point?! Alas!
Just answer my question from above: That coordinate system he defined is
about coordinates in _what sort of space_?
Please tell me about this space.

Minkowski space has a metric of the form ds^2 = -c^2dt^2 = dx^2 + dy^2
+ dz^2, or more commonly with c=1 and in matrix form: diag(-1,1,1,1).

Idiot, that isn't an answer, it is a predicate of his question/point.

If Albert assumed classical space and time then the space-time idiocy of a
result is a contradiction of the premises.

If Albert assumed the space-time idiocy then the result is circular
reasoning.



--
(c) eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
http://eleaticus.blog-city.com


You didn't answer my question either: So what does it mean if SR gets
the answer right?



.