John Kennaugh wrote:
> PD wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 8:03 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 21, 2:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...***gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 21, 6:34 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Einstein got the idea of the second postulate from the Lorentz
>>>>> transformation equations of course - he was Albert the Plagiarist
>>>>> before becoming Divine Albert. See the end of chapter 11 in his
>>>>> "Relativity":
>>>
>>>> ALL physicists build on the foundations of their predecessors.
>>>> There is NO physicist that can claim wholly original work, and
>>>> none do. I don't know where you got the idea that this was claimed
>>>> of Einstein.
>>>
>>>> Newton acknowledged that he owed major debts to Galileo and Kepler,
>>>> and he incorporated their work in his.
>>>
>>>> The same is true for Joule, Gibbs, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Coriolis,
>>>> Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Fermi, Bardeen, and Feynman, and
>>>> they freely acknowledge this.
>>>
>>>> This does not suffice as a criticism. Rather, it is how science
>>>> works.
>>>
>>> No references in Einstein's 1905 paper? Poincaré and Lorentz not
>>> even mentioned? Is it how science works?
>>
>>
>> There were no references in Newton's Principia, either.
>> Einstein acknowledged his debt and the work of his predecessors in
>> many other writings.
>
> He certainly acknowledged Lorentz of whom he said
> " He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a
> wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved this,
> the most important advance in the theory of electricity since Maxwell
> ...." 1920 lecture
>
> What is interesting is that he makes no mention of Poincaré. If one
> wants and unbiased view of who did what then perhaps one should look
> to a historian rather than a physicist.
>
> In the second volume of Sir Edmund Whittaker's The History of
> Theories of Aether and Electricity, published in 1953, there is a
> chapter on relativity, entitled, "The Relativity Theory of Poincare
> and Lorentz." Einstein is mentioned for the first time in a paragraph
> on the thirteenth page.
>
> "(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity
> theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which
> attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the
> constancy of the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light
> in a vacuum is the same in all systems of reference which are moving
> relatively to each other, an assertion which at the time was widely
> accepted. In this paper Einstein gave modifications which must now be
> introduced into the formulae for aberration and for the Doppler
> effect."
>
> My understanding was that Poincaré put forward a number of suggestions
> without being very specific or decisive as to which was superior and
> that Einstein developed one of Poincaré's ideas but I could be wrong
> about that. In the end of course the only thing left of that idea is
> the maths and they were first produced by Lorentz who should get the
> credit rather than Einstein. Had Einstein succeeded in producing a
> theoretical structure without the asymmetry in the theoretical
> structure of Lorentz's theory it would be a different matter but in
> SR the same maths as Lorentz is presented without a theoretical
> structure and SR only became acceptable when physics decided that a
> theory didn't need a theoretical structure.
>
> As far as SR is concerned I am unclear as to what on earth anyone
> thinks that Einstein achieved apart from adding formulae for
> aberration and for the Doppler effect to Lorentz's maths. His maths
> is described by Waldron as "rather clumsy algebra". As far as the
> Doppler equation derivation is concerned it is simply conventional
> Doppler shift with Fo multiplied by the time dilation factor but
> because of his unconventional choice of which direction he considers
> positive (which he fails to make clear) the equation appears strange
> as a result.

It was all a trick of light.
The use of the supposedly dimensionless (1) in the silly
equations should have been a suspect long ago.
lightspeed = ~186,000 miles per second.
The speed of light has 2 dimensions in it. (distance and time)
How can a minimum of 2 dimensions speed be considered to be "dimensionless"
at all is where the trick was pulled from the hat.
In short how does ~186000 miles per second ever equal 1?
Does half that speed equal a dimensionless (unitless) 0.5?


Look inside the hat and you see that lightspeed was not dimensionless
(nor unitless) and should have never been able to be used as such.

The "magician" fooled the audience for 100 yrs.
He used multiple standards for distance and time to make the math
work out. (rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks)


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman

John Kennaugh wrote:
> Spaceman wrote:
>> John Kennaugh wrote:
>>> PD wrote:
>>>> On Aug 21, 8:03 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 21, 2:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...***gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 21, 6:34 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Einstein got the idea of the second postulate from the Lorentz
>>>>>>> transformation equations of course - he was Albert the
>>>>>>> Plagiarist before becoming Divine Albert. See the end of
>>>>>>> chapter 11 in his "Relativity":
>>>>>
>>>>>> ALL physicists build on the foundations of their predecessors.
>>>>>> There is NO physicist that can claim wholly original work, and
>>>>>> none do. I don't know where you got the idea that this was
>>>>>> claimed of Einstein.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Newton acknowledged that he owed major debts to Galileo and
>>>>>> Kepler, and he incorporated their work in his.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The same is true for Joule, Gibbs, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell,
>>>>>> Coriolis, Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Fermi, Bardeen, and
>>>>>> Feynman, and they freely acknowledge this.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This does not suffice as a criticism. Rather, it is how science
>>>>>> works.
>>>>>
>>>>> No references in Einstein's 1905 paper? Poincaré and Lorentz not
>>>>> even mentioned? Is it how science works?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There were no references in Newton's Principia, either.
>>>> Einstein acknowledged his debt and the work of his predecessors in
>>>> many other writings.
>>>
>>> He certainly acknowledged Lorentz of whom he said
>>> " He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a
>>> wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved
>>> this, the most important advance in the theory of electricity since
>>> Maxwell ...." 1920 lecture
>>>
>>> What is interesting is that he makes no mention of Poincaré. If one
>>> wants and unbiased view of who did what then perhaps one should look
>>> to a historian rather than a physicist.
>>>
>>> In the second volume of Sir Edmund Whittaker's The History of
>>> Theories of Aether and Electricity, published in 1953, there is a
>>> chapter on relativity, entitled, "The Relativity Theory of Poincare
>>> and Lorentz." Einstein is mentioned for the first time in a
>>> paragraph on the thirteenth page.
>>>
>>> "(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity
>>> theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which
>>> attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the
>>> constancy of the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light
>>> in a vacuum is the same in all systems of reference which are moving
>>> relatively to each other, an assertion which at the time was widely
>>> accepted. In this paper Einstein gave modifications which must now
>>> be introduced into the formulae for aberration and for the Doppler
>>> effect."
>>>
>>> My understanding was that Poincaré put forward a number of
>>> suggestions without being very specific or decisive as to which was
>>> superior and that Einstein developed one of Poincaré's ideas but I
>>> could be wrong about that. In the end of course the only thing left
>>> of that idea is the maths and they were first produced by Lorentz
>>> who should get the credit rather than Einstein. Had Einstein
>>> succeeded in producing a theoretical structure without the
>>> asymmetry in the theoretical structure of Lorentz's theory it would
>>> be a different matter but in SR the same maths as Lorentz is
>>> presented without a theoretical structure and SR only became
>>> acceptable when physics decided that a theory didn't need a
>>> theoretical structure.
>>>
>>> As far as SR is concerned I am unclear as to what on earth anyone
>>> thinks that Einstein achieved apart from adding formulae for
>>> aberration and for the Doppler effect to Lorentz's maths. His maths
>>> is described by Waldron as "rather clumsy algebra". As far as the
>>> Doppler equation derivation is concerned it is simply conventional
>>> Doppler shift with Fo multiplied by the time dilation factor but
>>> because of his unconventional choice of which direction he considers
>>> positive (which he fails to make clear) the equation appears strange
>>> as a result.
>>
>> It was all a trick of light.
>> The use of the supposedly dimensionless (1) in the silly
>> equations should have been a suspect long ago.
>> lightspeed = ~186,000 miles per second.
>> The speed of light has 2 dimensions in it. (distance and time)
>> How can a minimum of 2 dimensions speed be considered to be
>> "dimensionless" at all is where the trick was pulled from the hat.
>> In short how does ~186000 miles per second ever equal 1?
>
> The speed of light is 1 metricated foot* per nanosecond
>
> A metricated foot is used by timber merchants and equals 300mm as in
> the phrase "its a metricated 6ft length" )


Ouch.
That one hurt my funny bone.