Re: Einstein cheated with his fraudulent derivation of Lorentz transforms

Am Samstag000008, 08.02.2025 um 01:12 schrieb rhertz:
...

Lorentz transformations are established on the invariance of the speed
of
light, indeed.
More precisely on the invariance of its transverse velocity for any
observer placed in a given frame of reference.
I recall them here as given by Poincaré (in positive form):
x'=(x+v.t)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
y'=y
z'=y
t'=(t+xv/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

 I just realized the weirdest thing that Einstein wrote at the beginning
of Point 3, IF I ACCEPT that x'=x-vt is located IN THE FIXED FRAME K.

Sure, it's weird, but that's how Einstein apparently meant that equation.
The reason to think, that x' means a fixed position in the fixed system K is this: he  wrote about a reflected beam of light, which originated at the center of k and gets reflected back at x'.
This x' can therefore only be a position, where a mirror would make sense.
This could be, for instance, the zero-spot of K.
But a fixed position there would be in the wrong direction of the beam, if that is projected into the positive direction of the xsi-axis of k.
But if x' was behind, than x' could also have negative values.
BUT: the 'infinitely small' (as written in the German version) or infinitesimally small (as written in the English version) wouldn't make sense, because any HUGE negative number would be smaller than zero.
What else was Einstein's intention, I cannot say, because no interpretation is possible, which would not violate one of Einstein's statements.
So: wtf did he mean with x'= x-v*t ???

 Observing the diagram, which looks like if it's a Galilean transform, I
realized that (YES OR YES) x' must be ahead of x. Otherwise the
experiment
is invalid.

No, it must be behind the emitter, because otherwise the emitter at the center of k would soon 'run through the mirror' at x'.
'Looking backwards' would at least prevent that problem.

But the problem I saw is that x' IS MOVING AHEAD OF x. The equation
x'=x-vt
says so.
 So, the problem with x' infinitesimally small, as Einstein proposed,
imply
that it happens at time t=dx'/v + x/v or, directly  t=x/v.
 But even dx' keep moving ahead of x, in order to verify x'=x-vt.
 More yet, x' infinitesimally small means that x' has moved close to the
origin
of coordinates in the moving frame k.
 And this last only x/v seconds.
 QUOTE:
"If we place x' = x − vt, it is CLEAR that a point at rest in the system
k must
have a system of values x", y, z, INDEPENDENT OF TIME".
END QUOTE
 This CONFUSING comment from Einstein, introducing x", is completely out
of place. He NEVER EVER used x" again.
 

In my version there is no x'' but a single primed x'.
It's still confusing, anyhow, and I have still not found a possible interpretation.

We first define τ as a function of x', y, z, and t. To do this we have
to express in equations that τ is nothing else than the summary of the
data of clocks at rest in system k, which have been synchronized
according to the rule given in § 1.
 QUOTE:
 From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time τ₀ along
the X-axis to x', and at the time τ₁ be reflected thence to the origin
of the coordinates, arriving there at the time τ₂; we then must have
 1/2 (τ₀ + τ₂) = τ₁
END QUOTE
 This is confusing as hell, even for the master of deception.

The equation is actually wrong for a moving system, because if either K or k would move, the way back isn't of the same length as the way towards the remote point.
...
TH