>>14409250>try to logically derive time dilationTry to actually explain how this was done without assuming the existence of that which has no ontology, no actual existence or objectivity (time)?
>and length contraction with either set of postulates.I'm glad you can once again re-describe relativity. I never denied it does either of these things by the way, it's just that it's a complete waste of effort is all because both space and time have no actual properties to put into an experiment and verify.
>Ironically you agree with Einstein and use him as an authority when it suits youNot the poster you're thing of...Irony? No there is no irony, I will never deny the crackpot theory was made by him.
>When Einstein says an observer is a person you politely claim he was mistaken, when he fails to include an observer in his postulates you claim he is beyond correction. I'm not the "observer poster" if that helps. Really both are you are moot because you keep referring to a thought experiment with no actual basis in reality. The very idea any observe can observe instantaneous induction of a medium (let alone a machine that runs on Hertzian waveforms) is complete ludicrous. What would be even more ludicrous is to never actually figure out how it works and instead leave it as a dualism, both definitions never actually being proven to be true.
Basically, he's laughable for arguing over a thought experiment and you're laughable for believing it's an actual one. Not only his thought experiment, but the ones postulated by Einstein himself.
>Which is it? Is he an authority or not?He's not an authority whatsoever unless it involved patents, refrigerator improvements and Zionism.
