Re: Einstein deduces Lorentz transforms in 1905

From: Androcles (Androcles_at_)
Date: 02/20/05 

Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:05:48 GMT

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdf02d35.0502200515.7c7ea295@posting.google.com...
> What do "tortured derivation", "clumsiness of baby steps" etc. mean?

Shubert wants you to believe he's a genius. He tried to get his paper
published and was politely told to *** off, so he needs his ego
stroked.

His own opinion of his own great opus is that it is the best derivation
of the special relativity available anywhere to date in terms of sheer
elegance, physical intuitiveness and mathematical simplicity. The rest
of us think it is ***.

Androcles.

> Physics is (or should be) a rigorous science. Either the derivation
> rigorously leads from Einstein's two postulates to Lorentz transforms
> or it is no derivation at all. In the latter case we have a case of
> plagiarism plus fraud (the former case can be characterized as
> "semi-plagiarism").
>
> Pentcho Valev
>
>
>
> "Eugene Shubert" <GalileoProject002@everythingimportant.org> wrote in
> message
> news:<1108821428.724812.144780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
>
>> Forget about Einstein's tortured derivation. There's no reason
>> to base special relativity on history's first published paper on
>> the topic or to fixate on the clumsiness of anyone's baby steps.
>> The best derivation of the special relativity available anywhere
>> to date in terms of sheer elegance, physical intuitiveness and
>> mathematical simplicity is given here:
>>
>> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>>
>> Only the mathematically inept believe that Einstein's first
>> paper presents an admirable derivation of special relativity.

Quantcast