🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 14, 9:38 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 4:03 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 11:26 am, Koobee Wublee 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.
>
> You are so ignorant.  Ptolemy's model called out for all planets
> except the earth circling the sun while the sun circling the earth.
> There is no bloody way you can devise a coordinate change to bridge
> Ptolemy and Copernicus.  You are merely whining after your idol
> Einstein has been rightfully identified as a nitwit, a plagiarist, and
> a liar.
>
> > This is Koobee's "approach" to physics.
>
> No, this is what history as it actually happened.  Please stop acting
> like a fairy and accept the history as it actually happened.  <shrug>
>
> Just for your benefit, I have added a few more tidbits to the standard
> timeline.  Please enjoy.
>
> * * * * Historic Timeline of SR * * * *
>
> >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 doing so, a physical Aether is replaced by an
> abstract one where the spacetime becomes its mathematical model.
>
> **  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 can never be resolved because the very
> combination of a time dilation and the principle of relativity form
> this paradox.  To resolve this paradox, one must invalidate either the
> time dilation or the principle of relativity.  In doing so, one also
> invalidates the Lorentz transform along with its ubiquitous
> interpretations such as SR and LET.

What you write above is a mishmash of truth and falsehoods designed
solely to support your thesis about Einstein. As a piece of evidence
and as a piece of science history - it's worthless.

--
Jan Bielawski