On Jun 25, 10:04 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Why does anyone care > > about what this nitwit, this plagiarist, and the liar thinks? > > No, that's wrong. He was the greatest scientist of the 20th Century. Just > read any books on cosmology, quantum physics or statistical mechanics to see > the enormous contribution he has made to modern physics.
Only Einstein Dingleberries would think Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as the greatest scientist in the 20th century. It is totally faith talking. <shrug>
> > This is a totally false. The invariance in the speed of light by any > > observers has nothing to do with the principle of relativity. <shrug> > > That's wrong as well. The principle of relativity demands that there is no > priveleged intertial frame; unless physical object use the same > transformations as electromagnetic radiation (ie the Lorentz transform) this > would be violated.
Your reasoning is correct. However, the MMX does not prove in the validity of the principle of relativity. Voigt?s single postulate is enough to explain the null results of the MMX. <shrug>
> > Besides Maxwell?s equations do not support the principle of > > relativity. The Voigt transform actually fits much better with > > Maxwell?s equations. <shrug> > > > The constancy of the speed of light in > > the medium of Maxwell?s equations is a postulate according to sound > > waves. It is not a manifestation of the equations themselves but a > > permeability-permittivity thing. <shrug> > > No, it is a direct result of Maxwell's equations.
No, it isn?t. <shrgu>
> > Nonsense! Einstein showed nothing. Remember that Einstein was a > > nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar? > > No, that's wrong. Again, if you had studied physics, you would be aware of > his huge contribution, even if you don't understand all of it.
Again, I have studied Einstein?s works. All I see is nothing but plagiarism. Your idol Einstein was indeed a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> > In section 3 of Einstein?s 1905 > > paper, the coordinate transformation was total garbage. > > It was peer reviewed.
Oh, by who? Which peer?
> Perhaps if you provided the exact thing in his paper > you don't understand, then someone can explain it to you.
Hmmm... This is a typical Einstein Dingleberry remark. <shrug>
> > The Lorentz > > transform is linear. Einstein?s plagiarism went non-linear. In > > section 4, the whole business of coordinate transform becomes ever > > more mathemagical. > > Reading Einstein is difficult if you don't have good maths knowledge and > skills. Perhaps you need to brush up on your maths before trying to study > any more physics.
I am very certain that you do not understand Einstein?s 1905 paper. <shrug>
> > That is why no one endorses Einstein?s approach > > ever. <shrug> > > Huh? What exactly is this supposed to mean?
That is why no one endorses Einstein?s approach ever. <shrug>
> > That nobody believes in SR?
There are plenty of Einstein Dingleberries who BELIEVE IN SR. Believe me on this one. <srug>
> > This once again is totally untrue. It is another lame excuse to > > continue worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the > > liar. <shrug> > > He wasn't. If you don't understand Einstein's work, it is probably because > you don't have enough maths and physics background to do so.
This is a typical Einstein Dingleberry remark that the scholar does not have enough mathematical skills to see through the nonsense of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
> > Of course, this does not mean Lorentz or Poincare were right. The > > Lorentz transform is totally rubbish because it manifests the twins? > > paradox. The Voigt transform does not. <shrug> > > Well, SR is tested everyday.
Nonsense. SR is BELIEVED and tested only with biased opionions. <shrug>
> The equations obviously work.
No, it does not work in real life. <shrug>
> If you don't like > them, blame the universe, not Einstein.
I say the equations of the Lorentz transform must be wrong. I did not say I don?t like them. In fact, I actually like them for the beautiful symmetry, but that does not make them valid. <shrug> Liking equations or not has nothing to do with the validity in these equations. You need to get over with this fact. <shrug>