On Jan 14, 11:38 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> * * * * 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.

Agreed.

>
> ** 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.

The results were null, period. There was no signal. This could be
interpreted any number of ways, but the experimental result is in all
cases null.

>
> ** 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.

Agreed.

>
> ** In 1887 a few months after Voigt's work, Michelson and Morley
> conducted their famous experiment (MMX), and the results were also
> null.

Agreed.

>
> ** In 1889, FitzGerald proposed a longitudinal length contraction to
> the travel arm of the MMX.

Agreed.

>
> ** 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.

Agreed.

>
> ** In 1899, Lorentz knowing about Larmor's work wrote the Lorentz
> transform with his ludicrous interpretation now called LET.

Agreed.

>
> ** In 1904, Poincare proclaimed relative simultaneity as a property
> of the Lorentz transform. His interpretation to the Lornetz transform
> would later be called SR.

Not quite. Poincare did land on one of the features of SR. However, SR
is not an interpretation of the Lorentz transform.

>
> ** 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.

Einstein was the first to insist that the priniciple physics facts
were those stated in the two postulates, and showed that all the
results that had been guessed by others before him (including Lorentz,
Poincare, Voigt, Fitzgerald, and Larmor) were the direct consequences
of these two fundamental principles. The two fundamental principles
also led to a number of other conclusions that his predecessors had
not guessed. While Einstein's work was not singular in its
originality, as you note, he did figure out what the real underlying
physics was, rather than getting it ass-backwards as so many of his
predecessors did. This is not uncommon. Many of the results of QCD
were guessed well before QCD (a theory based on SU(3) symmetry) was
formulated, but QCD was the first to get the fundamental physics
right. Fermi and Yukawa and others guessed many of the features of the
weak interaction, but it wasn't until Weinberg, Glashow, and Salam
that the real basis for the weak interaction was understood. Credit is
often given not to those who guess some of the features first, but to
those who make the breakthrough to provide the fundamental
understanding.

> In doing so, he made a series of errors,

There are no errors.

> but the results
> were always what were of expectations. 

Agreed.

> Einstein was a nitwit, a
> plagiarist, and a liar.

These are value judgements based on how YOU think science should be
credited. As I've indicated above, your metrics are not commonly
shared, and there's no sound reason to think that your metrics SHOULD
be used.

>
> ** 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.

Agreed.

>
> ** 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

Agreed.

> where each one is in direct contradiction
> of the others.

That is in error. Each of the resolutions can be derived from each of
the others. This would not be possible if they were in direct
contradiction. Your fond desire that there should be one and only one
way of looking at the resolution to the puzzle, for the sake of your
clarity, is not commonly shared.

> 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.

The principle of relativity does not demand what you apparently think
it should.

> To resolve this paradox, one must invalidate either the
> time dilation or the principle of relativity.

The principle of relativity as YOU understand it is certainly invalid.
That has been recognized here for a long time. However, the principle
of relativity as correctly stated stands.