Re: Einstein cheated with his fraudulent derivation of Lorentz transforms

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 19:54:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 07.02.2025 21:59, skrev rhertz:

>
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!

>
An "event" is a "point" in space and time.
It is not "in" a specific frame of reference, but the event
has a set of coordinates in each frame of reference.
>
When you write ξ(x', Δt₁) = x' it means that it is an event E
with the coordinates x', Δt₁ in frame K, and  ξ(x', Δt₁) is
the functions that transforms the coordinates of the Event E in K
to the spatial coordinate in k.
>
You claim:
ξ₁ = ξ(x', Δt₁) = x'
>
In other words, you claim that the spatial coordinate
always is the same in K and k.
>

>
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.

>
So even a stupid 7 y.o. kid could point out your errors? :-D
Even if your errors are rather glaring I think this is an exaggeration.
>

>
I didn't read a fucking word about my new post above yours,

>
I am using the USENET provider Eternal-september, and there is no
"new" post above mine. So I hadn't seen it when I wrote the response.
>
However, I have also access to another provider (Eweka) where I
found your post. I also found the reason why it didn't show up on
Eternal-september.
>
Traditionally, the USENET discussion groups, like the sci.* groups,
are text-only groups, and posts to these groups should not have
attachments. Most text-only USENET providers will _not_ accept posts
with attachments. Eternal-september does not. And since this is
the most used free USENET provider, few people will see your posts
with attachments.
>

where I
changed x'
as being a fixed point in the K frame. What? Did you panic, relativist?

>
-----------------------
[ remark begins
  Information to lurkers before they read the rest:
  There are three events, E₀ , E₁ and E₂.
>
  The coordinates of  E₀ are:
  in K: x₀ = 0,  t₀ = 0
  in k: ξ₀ = 0,  τ₀ = 0
>
  The coordinates of  E₁ are:
  in K: x₁ = x',  t₁ = x'/(c-v)
  in k: ξ₁ = ? , Δτ₁ = ?
>
  The coordinates of  E₂ are:
  in K: x₂ = 0,  t₂ = x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)
  in k: ξ₂ = 0 , Δτ₂ = ?
>
  (ignore the Δs, ? are unknown)
] remark ends
--------------------
>
I have now read your attachment, and I didn't panic.
I was however mildly shocked by the extent of your confusion.
>
What I found was this:
  Δτ₁ = x'/(c-v)
  Δτ₂ = x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)
  τ₁ = τ₀ + Δτ₁
  τ₂ = τ₀ + Δτ₂
>
I won't bother to yet again explain why this is nonsense,
because you are unable to learn.
>
No point in going on.
>
----------------------------
>
I will however repeat:
>
It is a _fact_ that the Lorentz transform follows
from the postulates of SR.
>
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.

And you keep repeating this old shit AGAIN?
Are you insane, old creep?
If you can't read posts correctly in your Eternal August, try this site
with a browser.
Maybe you'll be able to observed my last posts and graphics and
enter in reason. But I doubt it.
Try:
https://news.novabbs.com/tech/post.php?id=140807&type=reply&group=sci.physics.relativity
I REPEAT MY LATEST POST, IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, ASSHOLE!
https://news.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?group=sci.physics.relativity&id=140679&first=26&last=50#start
From: rhertz
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 14:03
******************************************************************
Asked to Google:
What is x' in Einstein's derivation of Lorentz transforms?
Answer from Google AI (which is a resume of many documents):
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AI Overview
In Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformations, "x'" represents
the position of an event as measured in a moving reference frame
(denoted as S'), while "x" represents the position of the same event in
a stationary reference frame (S); essentially, it's the transformed
x-coordinate in the moving frame, taking into account the relative
velocity between the two frames.
Key points about x':
Relative to x:
"x'" is related to "x" through the Lorentz transformation equation,
which includes the relative velocity (v) between the reference frames
and the Lorentz factor (γ).
Interpretation:
If an event occurs at position "x" in the stationary frame, "x'"
indicates where that same event would be observed in the moving frame.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Also: Galilean transform in Einstein's paper:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW, WHAT ABOUT THIS PAPER?
Einstein’s Derivation of the Lorentz Transformations
in the1905 Paper is Internally Inconsistent
Jon C. Freeman
https://www.nikhef.nl/~h02/deriv_lt_freeman.pdf
CONCLUSION
The results of the analysis show that the derivation given in
the 1905 paper is invalid. It is flawed for several reasons.
The most serious is the contradictory requirement that the
partial of τ with respect to x´ must be zero to arrive at the
partial differential equation for determining τ.
But the solution for τ from that equation does not allow this
to be the case. The only way it could be satisfied is for v
to be zero. Another problem is that with a Taylor expansion
attempting to get the defining partial differential equation,
one must divide by x´ while starting with x´ equal to zero.
A third problem is the inconsistent reassignment of independence
and dependence between the three variables x, t, and x´.
The derivation starts with x and t as independent, then defines
x´ as being dependent on both. Then later treats x´ and t as
independent so x is then dependent. Later after determining
τ(x´,t) he writes x´ in its original form and goes back to x
and t being independent. The reason for this switching back
and forth is supposedly justified by stating that in some places
in the derivation one is following a fixed point, while in others one
is no longer doing that. Another problem is the interpretation of x´...
[THE CONCLUSION IS LARGER THAN THIS EXCERPT]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm done with this thread. Those who deny accepting the truth of this
invalid derivation of Lorentz are biased ignorants beyond repair.
Relativity is a pseudoscience that gain control of the ability to reason
for those "Einstein's zombies" with no brain. Freaks possessed with
Einstein's demons, that have a herd mentality. Poor people.
******************************************************************