Fun that the paper uses a lot the argument "this is clearly unphysical" while for anyone before Einstein it was clearly unphysical to consider solutions that yield to Lorentz transformations
Yeah, I was disappointed that the paper claims to use only so many premises up front, and then proceeds to smuggle in a few extra ones under the "clearly unphysical" line. I'd like to see a full and rigorous treatment of exactly what are the axioms which produce Lorentz transformations and no alternatives.
