Re: Einstein cheated with his fraudulent derivation of Lorentz transforms

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 13:20:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 06.02.2025 20:55, skrev rhertz:

As Dono did, you're deviating the attention about the main topic, which
can be read in the title of this thread.
>
>
Using ξ(x') = x' is my way TO ENFORCE that x' is a point on the ξ axis.

>
I see.
>
Einstein derived the Lorent transform:
ξ(x',t') = ξ = (x' - vt')/√(1−v²/c²)
Where x' and t' are coordinates in K(x,t), x = x' and t = t'
>
But Richard Hertz can write ξ(x') = x' TO ENFORCE x' to be
a coordinate in k(ξ,τ), and thereby make Einstein's derivation
fraudulent.
>
The correct transformation is ξ(x',t') = x', ξ = x' !
>
Well done Richard!

Obviously, you're bored. Keep going to the same issue by Nth. time,
because nobody here care about this shit anymore (if ever).
I WAS WRONG using ξ(x') = x', because ξ is the denomination of a
coordinate axis, not A FUCKING FUNCTION. That was NY BAD.
I should have written  ξ = x', in the same way that I can write ξ = 0 or
ξ = 4.
But you DID WORSE, ASSHOLE, writing ξ(x',t') as a function of two
variables. So,
find a new topic, write a new thread with an original idea (WHICH I
DOUBT YOU CAN DO, because you're always parasiting with other's people
threads, never one that started with an OP).
I told the above to you many times in the past. You are close to be Dono
2.0.
If you enjoy more writing using math as a language instead of using the
English language to write an idea (very few here do the first), I
commission a job to you, so I can help you with your BOREDOM.
1) Demonstrate that when the cretin (your pagan god) wrote x' = x - vt,
he WASN'T expressing a pure Galilean transform. If you persist with your
stupid assertion that x' is a fixed point in the stationary x axis, then
EXPLAIN
the rationality of (x - x') = vt. That, without any doubt, express that
x'
IS NOT A FIXED POINT IN THE x axis. Do it. Explain your POV with
clarity.
2) If you NEGATE that Einstein used a Galilean transform as a starting
point,
go to this thread:
How Einstein missed his opportunity to derive Lorentz in Point §3.
https://news.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=140812&group=sci.physics.relativity#140812
And explain HOW a derivation of Lorentz transforms can be made by
starting
with a PROPOSED modification of the Galilean transform:
x' = k (X-vt) , where k is a factor to be found.
No need to wrongfully use Taylor, ray of light bouncing back or mirrors.
This development was the one proposed by Poincaré, who was acquainted
with Minkowski, and it was the starting point for Minkowski to invent
his fucking spacetime.
Put your math work where your mouth is, or SHUT THE FUCK UP upon this
topic.
I give you another idea, so I can put you out of your miserable boredom:
Instead of using rays of light and mirrors, use an electron accelerated
to
v = 0.99999999 c (only 2.99 m/s lower than c), and repeat the thought
experiment from the Point 2. Let's see how do you develop the correct
equations.
You can use the 2nd. Postulate for the electron, instead of using light.
Have fun.