Re: Einstein cheated with his fraudulent derivation of Lorentz transforms

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 19:20:33 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 06.02.2025 22:59, skrev rhertz:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 20:35:17 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

>

Richard Hetz wrote:

Time τ₁: Ray of light reaches ξ(x')=x', in the moving frame k.
τ₁ = [ξ(x')-ξ(0)]/c = x'/c

>
Sorry, this doesn't work.
>
If the light is moving from the event (ξ₀ = 0, τ₀ = 0) to
the event (ξ₁, τ₁), then we know: τ₁- τ₀ = (ξ₁-ξ₀)/c or τ₁ = ξ₁/c.
>
But we don't know τ₁ or ξ₁, τ₁ = τ(x', Δt₁) and  ξ₁ = ξ(x', Δt₁)
>
We don't know these transforms yet.
You assume that ξ(x', Δt₁) = x' which quite certainly is wrong.
>
You assume that we know the transform we are trying to find.

>

>
The EVENT ξ(x', Δt₁) = x', with arbitrary t=0, OR  ξ(x', x'/(c-v)) = x'
is a PATHETIC ATTEMPT made by Einstein to FORCE the adoption of the
value
obtained in Point 2 (perceived in K) AS IF IT MAY HAPPEN in frame k,
which is STUPIDLY FALSE.

>
Yes, ξ(x', Δt₁) = x' is STUPIDLY FALSE, that's what I said above.
But Einstein never wrote that, you did.
>
You wrote ξ(x') = x' which is even more STUPIDLY FALSE,  because
ξ is a function of both x and t in K.
>

>
I've been writing here FOR YEARS that the time lapses t_B-t_A =
r_AB/(c-v) and t'A-t_A = r_AB/(c-v) + r_AB/(c-v) ARE ESSENTIAL
DENOMINATOR TO OBTAIN THE (c²-v²), which is the KEY FACTOR TO
OBTAIN THE GAMMA FACTOR!
Check the 1904 Lorentz paper if you doubt.

You keep insisting with my older post, where I used ξ(x', Δt₁) = x' as
an EVENT
in k, to which I recognized that lacks FORMALISM but NOT MEANING!
This alone allow me to double down calling you Dono+ or an EINSTEIN'S
POSSESSED
malignant being. This is because you punch below the belt instead of
REASONING.
Naming the event at reflection point as ξ(x', Δt₁) = x' is a way to
conjugate the two parameters that exist in such event. I said that it
doesn't mean that
ξ(x', Δt₁) IS A FUNCTION!
But you insist being cheap and low. It's your nature, not mine. I don't
TROLL anyone here in the way you do. What are you? An stupid 7 y.o. kid?
Idiot.
I didn't read a fucking word about my new post above yours, where I
changed x'
as being a fixed point in the K frame. What? Did you panic, relativist?
Such change of position from me, because I can be flexible when
reasoning, shows CLEARLY that SUCH ASSUMPTION (x' fixed in K) has MUCH
WORSE CONSEQUENCES than x' being fixed in k.
Two major FLAWS are present with that:
1) It proves that Einstein FORCED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN K AND k
EVENTS, by using k with ξ=0 as the point of emission in k, and x' as the
reflection point in K. He mixed, without shame, events in k and K.
2) Being x'=x-vt, as he stated, the roundtrip of the ray of light ends
at
time τ₂, when the reflected ray of light reaches ξ=0 again. This means
(see
the graphic) that THE TIME DURATION for the thought experiment is x/v,
when
the origin ξ=0 of the moving frame k passes by x'. After that interval
window,
the experiment FAILS TO BE TRUE and can't be repeated.
But, of course, as a relativistic Einstein's possessed cretin that you
are, you opted for a Dono MOVE, dismissing my latest post and trolling
me with old shit.
Say something about the new post, cretin!

  :-D
>
The transform that follows from the postulates of GR contains
the GAMMA FACTOR with mathematical necessity.
>
It is a _fact_ that the Lorentz transform follows from
the postulates of SR.
>
This is proven many times by several physicists.
Einstein was the first to do it, but he did it in a rather
cumbersome way which, as you have demonstrated, may not
be simple to understand.
In the more than a century since Einstein did it, it has
been done many times in much more elegant ways which are
simpler to understand.
>
You can, and do, claim that SR and its postulates are wrong,
and that the vast amount of experimental evidence confirming SR
is made by fraudulent physicist who are members of a MAFFIA.
>
But you can't dispute the fact that the Lorentz transform
follows from the postulates of SR.
>
Enough now. Have a nice day.

Thanks, I'm having a nice day. But it seems that yours is not that much.
This is because I write with HONESTY, and you write as THE DISHONEST
CRETIN
that you are (were, will be). Your mind can't be purged enough of your
decades
invested here writing bullshit.
Comment about my latest post or go to the garden to work, senile elder!