Re: A typical conversation with a relativistic idiot

Den 08.10.2024 03:05, skrev rhertz:

Read my last post about local time.
 The imbecile PRETENDED to teach me about how GALILEO'S TRANSFORM IS NOT
THE BASIS of the fraudulent derivation of the Lorentz transforms.

I am not trying to teach you anything.
I am only pointing out that your are making a fool of yourself
when you claim:
"GALILEO'S TRANSFORM IS THE BASIS of the fraudulent derivation of
  the Lorentz transforms" in §3 of
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

 I HAD TO MAKE A DRAWING INCLUDING EVERY RELEVANT TEXT OF THE POINT 3,
WHERE THE SLICKY VIPER (EINSTEIN) USED MANY RETORTED WORDS TO HIDE THE
FACT THAT x' = x-vt IS ESSENTIAL FOR HIS MATHEMATICAL DERIVATION.

x' = x-vt is obviously very essential in Einstein's derivation
of the Lorentz transform.
But it is not the Galilean transform.
In Einstein's notation, the Galilean transform is:
  ξ = x - vt
See if you can find it in §3 of
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

 Regarding his last post, and his idiot interpretations, IT IS A SAMPLE
of the behavior of a liar, deceiver, fraudulent and IMBECILE relativist.
 Paul prefers to DIE LYING AND DISTORTING FACTS before REASON A BIT.
 I've cut any interaction with that cretin since today.

I can understand why you won't respond to me. :-)
----------------
The DISTORTED FACTS again:
You have not understood anything of Einstein's text, which is
very obvious from your ridiculous claim that §3 is a plagiarism
of Lorentz. You can't even have read §3 properly, you have only
scrutinised the text to find "x' = x − vt", and when you found
it, you got an orgasm, shouting:
"EINSTEIN USED GALILEAN TRANSFORM TO DERIVE LORENTZ WITHOUT ETHER!!"
But you are yet again making a fool of yourself, and yet again
you are demonstrating that you are unable to read a text and
understand what you read.
I could leave it at that, but since you are such a nice person,
I will explain.
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Read §3
  Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and
  Times from a Stationary System to another System in
  Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former
On the first page (page 5) Einstein defines the coordinate systems.
The "stationary system"  K(t,x,y,z) coordinates are Latin letters
The "moving system"      k(τ,ξ,η,ζ) coordinates are Greek letters
So the Galilean transform is: ξ = x - vt
You will _not_ find this anywhere in Einstein's paper.
The x' is a point in the stationary system K, it is NOT
a coordinate in the moving system k.
So x' = x - vt is a _moving_ point in K.
And since x' is moving with the speed v, it will be stationary
relative to k.
And as you quoted above:
" We first define τ as a function of x', y, z, and t", τ(t,x',y,z)
This is the first step in finding the functions:
τ(t,x,y,z) = β(t - (v/c²)x)
ξ(t,x,y,z) = β(x - vt)
η(t,x,y,z) = y
ζ(t,x,y,z) = z
Read the math in §3!
There is no resemblance to anything you find in Lorentz's paper.
Lorentz didn't even write the Lorentz transform in that paper!
He only used the Galilean transform first, and then the
"change of variable" transform. These two transforms together
is the Lorentz transform.
See:
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
"For a reader who is not very skilled in mathematics,
  it may not be obvious that the Lorentz transformation
  is defined in that paper."
Richard Hertz is obviously in this category, because he thought
the "change of variables" transform was the Lorentz transform.
" 1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
   x' = β x  ;  Lorentz Eq. 4
   t' = t/β - β vx/c² ;  Lorentz Eq. 5
"
-----------
Remember that x', like any symbol, may have different meaning
in different texts. 😂
You have a lot in common with Dilbert:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Dilbert.pdf
I will repeat it again if you repeat your ridiculous claim:
"EINSTEIN USED GALILEAN TRANSFORM TO DERIVE LORENTZ WITHOUT ETHER!!"
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/