Re:ahahaha... (Score 1)

Though the page you refer to states some true facts, it is filled with FUD. I dont trust relativity, but the reasoning of the author seems a little questionable to me. The main problem with those theories as I had seen them formulated concern the definitions of the physical and meta-physical entities they try to describe: in many places they try to look like Newtons mechanics in some limit, and use a procedure that actually is a definition as if it where a deduction (obscure nevertheless: although in that page it assaults righteously at the bondage between newtons gravity and relativitys gravity).

All the way the author of that page makes his point by refrasing in a funny way what it is usually told about Relativity, and ignoring some of the easiest proposals for making up a consistent axiomatic set for the theory. Such as forgetting the HUGHE difference between proper time and what he calls t.