The first relativistic theory in physics

On Jul 9, 7:38 am, "Dono." wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:50 am, Uncle Ben wrote:

But what was the very first relativistic theory in physics? The answer
is -- (wait for it) -- Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. But,
you may say, that came before relativity. Exactly so, and it was what
let Einstein to the discovery of SR. The title of his first SR paper
was "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies." In this paper he
generalized the observation of Lorentz and Poincare that Maxwell's
theory holds under the Lorentz transformation.

So EM was the first theory in physics to be consistent with SR. Do the
deniers want to contest the validity of Maxwell's theory, once it was
shown experimentally that no ether is required for it to work? A
considerable industry has obviously grown up that relies on Maxwell to
work.

Actually this is incorrect. Maxwell and his contemporaries had a heck
of a time reconciling the em equations with Galilei's transforms since
the latter did not leave the former invariant.

Yes, what the heck is going on? Why is a known Einstein Dingleberry
all of a sudden able to understand reality? shrug

So, they had to wait
for Lorentz to recast Galilei relativity in the form of the transforms
that bear his name.

They did not wait. They knew very confidently that the Aether must
exist, and they stood by their convictions. That was what prompted
the MMX to prove so once and for all. Unfortunately, the Aether
proves to be more elusive than when the Galilean transform is applied
to the interpretations of the null results, and this is where the
confusion resides that is shared among the self-styled physicists in
the past 100 years. shrug

The first theory of relativity belonged to Galilei,

Once again, this is absolutely correct. Galileo was the father of the
principle of relativity not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar. shrug

the next valid one to Lorentz 9and Poicaire)

By turning Larmor’s transform (which supports the absolute frame of
reference) into the Lorentz transform (which supports the principle of
relativity) was exactly what Poincare had done. It was his mistake.
The mathematics in a more subtle sense becomes ever so self-
inconsistent. This does not mean all the transforms that satisfy the
null results of the MMX are self-consistent. shrug

and the current one to Einstein,

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had no place in the
development of relativity, for the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar was nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. shrug

there is no place for Maxwell.

This statement is totally wrong, for Maxwell’s model of
electromagnetism whether it is valid or not is still capable of
explaining everything observed including high-speed particles.
shrug

what requireth the speed (not belocity) f light,
to be greater than one?

I know; travelling "in" time.