Re: Einstein cheated with his fraudulent derivation of Lorentz transforms

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 8:39:12 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Samstag000008, 08.02.2025 um 21:14 schrieb rhertz:

<snip old text>

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.

I understand your concerns deciphering Einstein's text, because he was a
master of wording fallacies and deceits amid some text that made sense.
I always recognized his genius ONLY in the ART OF MAKING TEXT HYPNOTIC
when it was read by anyone else. His M.O. was quite simple, and based on
two techniques (to hide his fallacious assertions): 1) Skip intermediate
explanations and 2) Plant equations with no traces for its derivations,
but with comments like "Has it has to be", "obviously", etc. He learned
from the biggest scammers, like Planck.

I invite you to read the Planck's paper from Dec. 1900, where he
invented the quantum of action h, and I defy you to decipher HOW HE
DERIVED IT. Along the last part of the paper, he inserted equations and
numbers WITHOUT EXPLANATIONS.
It seemed to be a trend within the European physics community for more
than 150 years (the same with Euler, Lagrange, Kirchoff and even
Maxwell).

But don't let that such ambiguous ways to present their papers (it
seemed to be a game between professional physicists, challenging others
to fill in the blanks).

Einstein didn't write the Bible or the Talmud, full of parables,
hyperboles and mystic references that have been challenging erudite for
millennials. His text is (or has to be) based in mathematical physics,
and this is a language that can't be misinterpreted.

The scenario is QUITE SIMPLE: Two coordinate systems (K and k), with a
differential motion at speed v. AND THIS IS ALL WHAT YOU NEED TO
UNDERSTAND
THAT

x' = x - vt  (being x' and x FIXED POINTS in k and K)

only express this simple fact:  THE DISTANCE BETWEEN x' and x INCREASES
LINEARLY WITH TIME, because both points (in k and K) are moving
inertially (no acceleration) at a given speed v.

The above clearly state, in algebraic language, that x' and x are
located in TWO DIFFERENT FRAMES (in this case k and K). Nothing more and
nothing less.

And if you have problems to understand this, you can resort to a graphic
where such equation is EVIDENT. It doesn't matter that coordinates are
written in Greek on Latin languages. Don't let the confusion gain your
understanding.

It's quite simple. Analyze AGAIN the attached graphic. It has been used
for centuries.


And regarding ∂τ/∂x', which is FAKE and inserted into the Taylor
expansion to
avoid THE FAILURE of the proposed derivation:


QUOTE: ------------------------------------------------------

1/2 [τ(0,0,0,t) + τ(0,0,0,t + x'/(c-v) + x'/(c+v)] = τ[ (x',0,0,t +
x'/(c-v)]

Hence, if x' be chosen INFINITESIMALLY SMALL

1/2 [(1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)] ∂τ/∂t = ∂τ/∂x' + 1/(c-v) ∂τ/∂t

END QUOTE --------------------------------------------------

I propose you to read carefully the OP in this thread, where I explained
several CHEATS (like pretending that dx'=0, for x' being infinitesimally
small) or HACKS (like FALSELY inserting ∂τ/∂x').

Hadn't he done these tricks (cheats/hacks), he would have finished with
∂τ/∂t=0, which means that τ = t (a pure Galilean transform of time).