Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 7, 11:11 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 7, 10:35 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The absence of an absolute and undetectable frame of reference is not
one of Einstein's postulates. Do you need the postulates reiterated
for you? Be sure you don't confuse a postulate from what you consider
an implication of a postulate; that would be the equivalent to
confusing an axiom with a theorem.
The original relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz most certainly
agreed with the constancy of light postulate
Yes.
and affirmed the
undetectability of any absolute frame of reference.
Sorry, that's not part of the postulate.
Since the original
theory of relativity is self-consistent, the theorem in Einsteinian
relativity, wherever it came from, that there is no absolute frame of
reference, is either false or a hidden third metaphysical postulate.
BS.
Moreover, metaphysical postulates have nothing to do with *physical*
postulates that have measurable consequences.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: Shubee
- Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- References:
- Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: mluttgens
- Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: Shubee
- Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: PD
- Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: Shubee
- Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: PD
- Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: Shubee
- Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: PD
- Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- From: Shubee
- Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Prev by Date: Re: GR and Magnetostatics?
- Next by Date: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Previous by thread: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Next by thread: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|