Re: Einstein cheated with his fraudulent derivation of Lorentz transforms

Am Samstag000008, 08.02.2025 um 21:14 schrieb rhertz:

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?

This page is wrong and does not represent Einstein's text, because Einstein used small Greek letters for the moving frame k and not ' (prime).
This particular point is VERY important, because if you reinterpret Einstein's variables, you end up with a different story, which Einstein never told.
Therefore, we need to identify, what EINSTEIN himself had written and interpret that VERBATIM.
This sounds harsh, but isn't, because it is simply the way scientific papers had to be understood.
It's simply not allowed to apply 'silent corrections' to a paper and overread, what the text actually says.
Therefore we need to interpret the variables as defined by Einstein and not as we like them to be.
In case of the meant transform from K to k (or vice versa) we have a certain setting, which was meant as physical (thought) 'experiment'.
And we need to take his description of this as verbatim as possible.
Now it is illegal, to assign other variables to certain properties of his setting, because we like that better.
And here in this case we must not use other symbols then Einstein himself used.
That's why x' = x- v*t was NOT the Galilean transform between k and K, because k used xsi instead of x.
What was actually meant is hard to say, because however you turn or twist the equation, it would not fit and it would always violate some other restrictions.
Especially idiotic was this term:
∂τ/∂x'
because τ is a multi-valued function, which shall serve as coordinate transformation between K and k.
But x' does not belong to the arguments of τ, hence a partial derivative ∂τ/∂x' wouldn't make sense.
Most likely x' was meant as (fixed) position of a mirror and most likely belonged to system K.
But if so
" if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,.."
would be nonsense.
So, I cannot say, what x' actually meant, but can say, that 'hyperphysics' got it wrong.
...
TH