Re: Einstein cheated with his fraudulent derivation of Lorentz transforms

Am Dienstag000004, 04.02.2025 um 22:54 schrieb rhertz:

The correct result, applying Taylor, is
 v/(c² – v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
 This equation is QUITE DIFFERENT from the one published by Einstein:
 ∂τ/∂x′ + v/(c² – v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
  Now, considering that he started with Galilean transform x' = x-vt, the
final
result
 v/(c² – v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
 is actually
  ∂τ/∂t = 0
 This result proves fully the use of Galilean transforms:
 x' = x-vt
τ = t

The equation for the Galileo transform used the wrong variables here, because the system K had Latin letters and the system k Greek letters.
Now the equation in Einstein's text used variables from K, but apparently addressed k.
What was actually meant, that is hard to say, because Einstein didn't say. Also 'silent corrections' don't help, because however you turn or twist it, the variables don't fit to any setting.
Most likely x' was actually a coordinate in k and had to have xsi' as name.
That point in k has also K-coordinates, but obviously not at x-vt, because x was the position of an event, hence x is a fixed value in K.
Then the equation of "If we place x'= x − vt" describes a position moving to negative values in K with velocity v (which would make no sense whatever).
So: how should one interpret his statement:
"If we place x'= x − vt..."  ???
What does 'x' mean here?
And were is x' and for what purpose?

which he TRIED TO FORCEFULLY MODIFY to obtain Lorentz transforms.
  He shot on his foot with the scam of x' infinitesimally small being
equal to x'=0.
 

I have complained about this particular line several times.
"Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small..."
But what is actually x'?
As I had deciphered the text, he meant with x' the position of a mirror on the x/xsi axis, which should reflect a light beam emitted in the center of system k back to its origin.
That x' could have therefor any real value, which includes negatives.
But how could you find an infinitely (as used in the German version!) small negative number?
'Infinitesimally small' would also be wrong, because there is no obvious limit (like e.g. zero).
...
TH