Eleaticus wrote:
Subject: 1. Purpose

Einstein violated simple logic (many times), common sense,
the basic principles of analytic geometry, vector algebra,
and elementary measurement theory in deriving the transfor-
matin equations at the heart of Special Relativity.

He did violate common sense and *Euclidean* analytic geometry.
But it is impolite to flame a man after he is dead.
As to what he used in the derivation, who cares? The physical
predictions are correct to the level of tests we have been
able to perform. THAT my friend IS the theory, what it
predicts.

I would also point out that Einstein did not invent the Lorentz
transformations, Lorentz did. His derivation is IMNSHO quite
elegant and shows that the transformation rules do not need
a mysterious aether affecting clocks and measuring rods to
explain away the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

We explicate many of his absurdities.

Pluralizing yourself won't give your word more credence.
Calling them absurdities won't make them so.

Isn't Special Relativity silly?

Sticks and stones... (and since Einstein's already dead,
not even sticks and stones matter!)

As far as the rest of your post goes....
Einstein correctly derived the properties of space-time
given his assumption that observers traveling at
different relative velocities will see the same speed of
light. His 'geniuss' was in the physics where he
did not impose our 'common sense' prejudices but
rather simply asked how we know two events occur at
the same time and how far apart they are given we
all see light traveling at the same speed.

Again if you disagree suggest an alternative set
of *experimental predictions* which will invalidate
his theory. Arguing that his form doesn't suit
your sensabilities won't change anyone elses
mind as we all have different asthetic tastes
and personal opinions about what is silly.

I for one am finding it hard to withhold my
strong opinion about some sillyness since
it is my own opinion and not relevant.

Einstein was a theoretical *physicist* not
a mathematician per se. You may disagree
with his *axioms* but your opinion doesn't
hold any weight. Your arguments don't hold
any weight (and neither in the end did Einstein's).
What holds weight is the ability to predict
phenomena more accurately than the next guy.

Where's your experimental predictions
in all your rantings...pardon my
crassness, your disertation?
There ain't no such thing as how the Universe
"should behave" only how it does behave.
Show me, don't lecture me.

regards,
J.B.