🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 14, 11:26 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 11:14 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/030526/26beyond.htm
>
> This is a typical distortion of history.  Actual historic timeline
> regarding the development of relativity is as follows.
>
> **  About 400 years ago, Galileo identified the principle of
> relativity.  The mathematics is the Galilean transform itself.
>
> **  In 1881, Michelson alone set out to measure the drift velocity of
> the earth in the background of the Aether.  The results were null
> based on the Galilean transform.
>
> **  In 1887, Voigt proposed the constancy in the speed of light
> relative to all observers.  The Voigt transform as a modification to
> the Galilean transform becomes the mathematics of Voigt's work.
> Although the Voigt transform explains the null results of Michelson's
> experiment, it violates the principle of relativity.
>
> **  In 1887 a few months after Voigt's work, Michelson and Morley
> conducted their famous experiment (MMX), and the results were also
> null.
>
> **  In 1889, FitzGerald proposed a longitudinal length contraction to
> the travel arm of the MMX.
>
> **  In 1897, Larmor modified the Voigt transform into the Lorentz
> transform.  The constancy in the speed of light still holds for the
> Lorentz transform.  However, the Lorentz transform now obeys the
> principle of relativity.
>
> **  In 1899, Lorentz knowing about Larmor's work wrote the Lorentz
> transform with his ludicrous interpretation now called LET.
>
> **  In 1904, Poincare proclaimed relative simultaneity as a property
> of the Lorentz transform.  His interpretation to the Lornetz transform
> would later be called SR.
>
> **  In 1905, Einstein reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform and
> tried to pass it as he was the first to derive it based on the two
> postulates.  In doing so, he made a series of errors, but the results
> were always what were of expectations.  Einstein was a nitwit, a
> plagiarist, and a liar.
>
> **  In 1908, Minkowski discovered a single equation to represent the
> Lorentz transform.
>
> **  In 1911, Longevin jokingly mentioned the twin's paradox as an
> Achilles heel of the Lorentz transform.  The twin's paradox can be
> resolved in a numerous ways where each one is in direct contradiction
> of the others.  Thus, effectively, the twin's paradox has not been
> resolved.  In fact, it cannot be.

This is a perfect example of a total misunderstanding of how science
develops. It's sort of like saying:

1. Ptolemy devised a way to account for the observed motion of the
planets.

2. Copernicus reverse engineered it by merely moving the origin of
coordinates. Copernicus was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.

This is Koobee's "approach" to physics.

--
Jan Bielawski