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.