Re: Relativity and the nature of light. Waves or particles?

Den 17.10.2024 03:29, skrev rhertz:

 The second part is A BLATANT PLAGIARISM OF 1904 LORENTZ PAPER!. Even the
addition of velocities was plagiarized from Poincaré (1905).

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.
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.
Einstein wrote:
" 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.
He wrote:
" 1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
   x' = β x  ;  Lorentz Eq. 4
   t' = t/β - β vx/c² ;  Lorentz Eq. 5
"
----------------------------------
I will repeat it again if you repeat your ridiculous claim:
" §3 IS A PLAGIARISM OF 1904 LORENTZ PAPER!"
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/