🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 19, 12:07 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 7:49 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 1:35 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 18, 6:54 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 18, 12:41 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > > > Yes, this I do not dispute.  However, both SR and LET are merely
> > > > > interpretations to the Lorentz transform.  <shrug>
>
> > > > The physical basis is the two postulates, exactly as stated,
> > > > regardless of the inversion that you apply at your whim. <shrug>.
>
> > > Well, only the high priest of a religion would bring two ordinary
> > > assumptions into something really divine.
>
> > It's not divine. No one has ever said it's divine except those who
> > equate relativity with a religion. It is quite ordinary as you note.
>
> > > The ordinary assumptions
> > > are more specifically
>
> > > **  The principle of relativity
>
> > > This very fundamental principle was already discovered by Galileo
> > > about 400 years ago.  That would make it 300 years before Einstein the
> > > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.'
>
> > Yes, the principle of relativity was discovered 300 years earlier.
> > Note that Galileo was not able to do with it what Einstein was.
>
> > > **  Constancy in the speed of light
>
> > > Voigt had already radically proposed that to describe the null results
> > > of the Aether-drift experiment.
>
> > And Voigt was not able to do with it what Einstein was.
>
> > I don't know where you get the idea that a revolution in physics
> > cannot come from the synthesis of *already known* ideas and must start
> > completely from scratch, with postulates that no one previously had
> > dreamed of. The *bulk* of physics revolutions come from a leaping
> > *synthesis* of ideas already established. Newton did the same. Bohr
> > did the same. Da Vinci did the same. Galileo did the same. There is
> > NOTHING wrong with that.
>
> It's been quite obvious for some time that Koobee is not motivated by
> anything science-related but is instead on a kind of personal vendetta
> against Einstein. So he is obviously deaf to the truth. I leave it as
> an exercise for the reader to figure out his motives.
>

People like KW believe that it is unfair that folks like Einstein
should get lauded for "standing on the shoulders of giants" as Newton
said. They have a peculiar view of what should be noted as significant
in science. And they want the practice of science to bend to their
notions of what's fair and right.

PD