🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

>
> > > Without mathematics, discussing physics is merely discussing
> > > philosophy.  So, if you are trying to divorce SR from the Lorentz
> > > transform, you are not discussing philosophy.  In that case, you are
> > > on your own.  Thus, the rest of philosophical discussion is snipped.
> > > You can talk yourself to believe in anything you want.  This also
> > > includes the snobby impression that because you are given the title of
> > > a physicist you understand physics better than anyone else.
>
> > Likewise, you being an iconoclast and an amateur does NOT guarantee
> > that your "fresh perspective" is protection against misinformation due
> > to ignorance and errors due to lack of practiced skills.
>
> Well, you are even more amateurish than I.  <shrug>
>
> 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. I happen to have a little more familiarity with
experimental data than you do. In physics, this happens to be
important. This is not uncorrectable on your part. It just takes a
little work.

>
> 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>