🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 20, 12:32 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 7:49 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 19, 1:35 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Denial of divinity is fruitless.  After all, you have been worshipping
> these two ordinary assumptions, have you not?

No, no worship necessary. It is sufficient to provisionally accept
them without proof (which is what "to postulate" means), see what
develops from assuming they are true, and then comparing those
developments against what is actually measured in experiment. If the
comparison is favorable, then one can be reasonably sure that the
assumed postulates are in fact correct. This is how science is done,
by the way. No worship involved.

>
> > > 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.
>
> What did Einstein do?  He tried to derive the Lorentz transform as if
> he had never heard of it in 1905.

He *never* maintained that he had never heard of it in 1905. Wherever
did you get that bonehead idea?

> The Lorentz transform also
> manifests the twin's paradox that is not observed in our world.

Sure it is. Does it have to be two human twins in rocket ships to
consider it observed?

And what do you think of Newton's 1st law? Is it ever observed in
nature or not? (Where is there an object with absolutely no net force
acting on it?)

> You
> are very religion to say what you said above.  <shrug>
>
> > > **  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.
>
> Oh, because of Voigt's insight, the null results of the MMX are
> explained.  <shrug>

That's right. And Einstein makes note of the same insight. Mind you,
he didn't use it to explain the MMX -- others did. Einstein used it,
plus the *other* postulate, to make a number of *other* predictions,
which were later validated in experiment. You ignorant of those?

>
> The Voigt transform is the result of the MMX.  The Lorentz transform
> is also another one that explains the MMX based on the constancy in
> the speed of light.  The point is that the Lorentz transform is not
> unique in the constancy in the speed of light.  <shrug>

Of course not. But the Voigt transform doesn't *also* preserve the
invariance of the laws of electrodynamics regardless of inertial
reference frame. Only the Lorentz transform does. As I said, prior to
Einstein, there were a *number* of guesses as to ways to either make
the laws of physics (the ones known to date, anyway) invariant
regardless of inertial reference frame -- the Galilean transform is an
example of one such guess. There were also a *number* of guesses as to
ways to make the speed of light invariant -- the Voigt transform is an
example of one such guess. But Einstein showed that in order to make
*both* true, the Lorentz transform is uniquely selected. And
furthermore, he showed a great deal more results from these than just
the Lorentz transform.

>
> > 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.
>
> This is your excuse to describe me in that matter.  <shrug>
>
> > The *bulk* of physics revolutions come from a leaping
> > *synthesis* of ideas already established.
>
> This is absolutely nonsense.  Any idea without mathematical basis is
> merely philosophy.  Any revolutionary physical idea must have a
> mathematical basis.  <shrug>

Sorry, KW, your familiarity with the history of science is abysmal.

>
> > Newton did the same.
>
> Newton's works are backed up by sound mathematics.  Please study
> Newton, and don't claim you have discovered the principle of
> equivalence afterwards.  Einstein did.  <shrug>

Newton's 1st law is Galileo's, and he acknowledged it.

>
> > Bohr did the same. Da Vinci did the same. Galileo did
> > the same. There is NOTHING wrong with that.
>
> All these have mathematical bases to their hypotheses.  <shrug>

Really? What is the mathematical basis for the Schrodinger equation?
What is the mathematical basis for the quantization of angular
momentum?

>
> > > Just because you are given with a title of a professor from some
> > > higher priests in the religion of SR and GR, that does not make you a
> > > sage.  <shrug>
>
> > I'm not a sage.
>
> Thank God.  I can breath now.
>
> > I happen to have a little more familiarity with
> > experimental data than you do.
>
> You sound like someone talking to the walls in an asylum.  <shrug>
>
> > In physics, this happens to be important.
>
> In any hypothesis without any mathematical basis, you are merely
> discussing philosophy.  <shrug>
>
> > This is not uncorrectable on your part. It just takes a
> > little work.
>
> So, now, you are endorsing doing physics without math.

Nope. I didn't say don't do the math. Einstein did the math, too. But
the physics doesn't *start* with the math. Never has, never will.

> You are a
> philosopher.  You are no better than that kid I have brought up
> below.  You still remember that kid, don't you?
>
> > > Remember that kid who was sent to you that possessed fantastic wacko
> > > ideas without any mathematical backup.  You are no better than that
> > > kid.  He did no math, and you embrace matheMagics.  What is the
> > > difference?  He was a younger version of you if you have not
> > > recognized it already after all these time.  However, hopefully that
> > > kid would not be nurtured into another Einstein Dingleberry like so
> > > many supposed-to-educated ones around here.  <shrug>
>
> > > It is very sad that this is what modern physics is all about.  You are
> > > no different from the great reverend Hammond.  It is a pity that you
> > > are not intelligent enough to realize that.  <shrug>- Hide quoted text -