The correct result, applying Taylor, is
v/(c² – v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
This equation is QUITE DIFFERENT from the one published by Einstein:
∂τ/∂x′ + v/(c² – v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
Now, considering that he started with Galilean transform x' = x-vt, the
final
result
v/(c² – v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
is actually
∂τ/∂t = 0
This result proves fully the use of Galilean transforms:
x' = x-vt
τ = t
which he TRIED TO FORCEFULLY MODIFY to obtain Lorentz transforms.
He shot on his foot with the scam of x' infinitesimally small being
equal to x'=0.
The correct result, applying Taylor, is
v/(c² – v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
This equation is QUITE DIFFERENT from the one published by Einstein:
∂τ/∂x′ + v/(c² – v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
Now, considering that he started with Galilean transform x' = x-vt, the
final
result
v/(c² – v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
is actually
∂τ/∂t = 0
This result proves fully the use of Galilean transforms:
x' = x-vt
τ = t
which he TRIED TO FORCEFULLY MODIFY to obtain Lorentz transforms.
He shot on his foot with the scam of x' infinitesimally small being
equal to x'=0.
But legion of relativists dismissed this FRAUD because, after all, the Lorentz transforms were obtained by Lorentz and modified by Poincaré to
its current form.
As this FAILURE invalidates only Point 3, the rest of the paper holds
still. However, what really is from Point 4 onwards is A BLATANT
PLAGIARISM of Lorentz and Poincaré (1904-1905).
Den 04.02.2025 22:54, skrev rhertz:
" 1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
x' = β x ; Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ; Lorentz Eq. 5
Paul
Den 04.02.2025 22:54, skrev rhertz:
The correct result, applying Taylor, is
v/(c² – v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
This equation is QUITE DIFFERENT from the one published by Einstein:
∂τ/∂x′ + v/(c² – v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
Now, considering that he started with Galilean transform x' = x-vt, the
final
result
v/(c² – v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0
is actually
∂τ/∂t = 0
This result proves fully the use of Galilean transforms:
x' = x-vt
τ = t
which he TRIED TO FORCEFULLY MODIFY to obtain Lorentz transforms.
He shot on his foot with the scam of x' infinitesimally small being
equal to x'=0.
But legion of relativists dismissed this FRAUD because, after all, the
Lorentz transforms were obtained by Lorentz and modified by Poincaré to
its current form.
As this FAILURE invalidates only Point 3, the rest of the paper holds
still. However, what really is from Point 4 onwards is A BLATANT
PLAGIARISM of Lorentz and Poincaré (1904-1905).
I have told you before, but you are incapable of learning.
But I will repeat in anyway:
You have not understood anything of Einstein's text,
< big snip - let's start at the beginning >
I'll try to explain systematically the steps that he did in the first
part of §3:
1) RIGHT: He used the equation 1/2 (τ₀ + τ₂) = τ₁ for times registered
in the moving frame k. No problem here, as long τ is the time MEASURED
in the moving frame.
2) WRONG: Immediately after, he WRONGFULLY mixed perceptions of time (as derived in §2 for the STATIONARY FRAME K, FORCING a relationship between
t, τ and x' = x - vt, which is A FALLACIOUS ASSERTION. The he came with
a modified equation from 1) as follows:
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)]
Simplyfing it by eliminating y=0 and z=0, this equation changes (with no errors) to
1/2 [τ(0,t) + τ(0,t + x'/(c - v) + x'/(c + v)] = τ[(x',t + x'/(c-v)]
Using the following relationships (developed in §2 for PERCEPTION in
frame K)
Δτ₁ = x´/(c – v)
Δτ₂ = x´/(c – v)+ x´/(c + v)
He shot on his foot with the scam of x' infinitesimally small being
equal to x'=0.
But legion of relativists dismissed this FRAUD because, after all, the
Lorentz transforms were obtained by Lorentz and modified by Poincaré to
its current form.
As this FAILURE invalidates only Point 3, the rest of the paper holds
still. However, what really is from Point 4 onwards is A BLATANT
PLAGIARISM of Lorentz and Poincaré (1904-1905).
I have told you before, but you are incapable of learning.
But I will repeat in anyway:
You have not understood anything of Einstein's text, which is
very obvious from your ridiculous claim that §3 is a plagiarism
of Lorentz. You can't even have read §3 properly, you have only
scrutinised the text to find "x' = x − vt", and when you found
it, you got an orgasm, shouting:
"EINSTEIN USED GALILEAN TRANSFORM TO DERIVE LORENTZ WITHOUT ETHER!!"
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Read §3
Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and
Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former
On the first page (page 5) Einstein defines the coordinate systems.
The "stationary system" K(t,x,y,z) coordinates are Latin letters
The "moving system" k(τ,ξ,η,ζ) coordinates are Greek letters >>
So the Galilean transform is: ξ = x - vt
NO, innoble animal! ξ is the name of the horizontal axis in the movingcorrect (without the insult, of course).
frame k.
ξ(x') = x' in the moving frame. I attached a graphic to clarify this
but, with your "dog vision" you missed it.
x' = x - vt is the well known Galilean transform, along with τ = t' = t.
You will _not_ find this anywhere in Einstein's paper.
The x' is a point in the stationary system K, it is NOT
a coordinate in the moving system k.
So x' = x - vt is a _moving_ point in K.
And since x' is moving with the speed v, it will be stationary
relative to k.
relative to k.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 12:29:56 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 04.02.2025 22:54, skrev rhertz:
Now, considering that he started with Galilean transform x' = x-vt
You can't have read §3 properly, you have only
scrutinised the text to find "x' = x − vt", and when you found
it, you got an orgasm, shouting:
"EINSTEIN USED GALILEAN TRANSFORM TO DERIVE LORENTZ WITHOUT ETHER!!"
NO, innoble animal!. I didn't write that claim.
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Read §3
Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and
Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former
On the first page (page 5) Einstein defines the coordinate systems.
The "stationary system" K(x,y,z,t) coordinates are Latin letters
The "moving system" k(ξ,η,ζ,τ) coordinates are Greek letters
So the Galilean transform is: ξ = x - vt
NO, innoble animal! ξ is the name of the horizontal axis in the moving
frame k.
ξ(x') = x' in the moving frame. I attached a graphic to clarify this
but, with your "dog vision" you missed it.
x' = x - vt is the well known Galilean transform, along with τ = t' = t.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 20:55:56 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 04.02.2025 20:10, skrev rhertz:
< big snip - let's start at the beginning >
I'll try to explain systematically the steps that he did in the first
part of §3:
1) RIGHT: He used the equation 1/2 (τ₀ + τ₂) = τ₁ for times registered
in the moving frame k. No problem here, as long τ is the time MEASURED
in the moving frame.
2) WRONG: Immediately after, he WRONGFULLY mixed perceptions of time (as >>> derived in §2 for the STATIONARY FRAME K, FORCING a relationship between >>> t, τ and x' = x - vt, which is A FALLACIOUS ASSERTION. The he came with >>> a modified equation from 1) as follows:
In §1 light is emitted from a point A at the time tA,
reflected from a mirror at point B at the time tB,
and is back at the point A at the time tA'.
The light uses the same time forth and back, so
tB - tA = tA' - tB
or
(tA + tA')/2 = tB
Note that all the times are in the same stationary system.
In §3 the light is emitted at an event with the coordinates
(0,0,0,t) in K, it is reflected at an event with coordinates
(x',0,0,tB) in K, and is back at the event with the coordinates
(0,0,0,t') in K.
Since the the point x' is moving with the speed v in K,
tB = t + x'/(c-v) (the light must catch up with x')
t' = t + x'/(c-v) + x'/(c+v) (t + time forth + time back)
The point is to find the function: τ(x,y,z,t)
Now we have three instances of this function with three different
sets of coordinates:
τ₀(0,0,0,t), τ₁(x',0,0,tB) and τ₂(0,0,0,t')
Knowing that (τ₀ + τ₂)/2 = τ₁ gives the equation:
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)]
Simplyfing it by eliminating y=0 and z=0, this equation changes (with no >>> errors) to
1/2 [τ(0,t) + τ(0,t + x'/(c - v) + x'/(c + v)] = τ[(x',t + x'/(c-v)]
OK.
Using the following relationships (developed in §2 for PERCEPTION in
frame K)
Δτ₁ = x´/(c – v)
Here is your giant blunder!
x'/(c - v) is a time in the the stationary system K.
Innoble animal! I used Δτ₁= x´/(c–v) and Δτ₂ = x´/(c–v)+ x´/(c+v) ONLY
TO SIMPLIFY THE EQUATION
1/2 [τ(0,t) + τ(0,t + x'/(c-v) + x'/(c+v)] = τ[(x',t + x'/(c-v)]
before applying Taylor. If you didn't like it, you should have changed
them to Δt₁ and Δt₂. This would have changed NOTHING in the following
analysis!
Now, simplified, it has the form
1/2 [τ(0,t) + τ(0,t + Δt₂)] = τ[(x',t + Δt₁]
Happy now?
As you said: "The point is to find the function: τ(x,y,z,t)"
What is missing to add is that such function τ represents the time in
the moving frame k, which has to verify the equation
1/2 (τ₀ + τ₂) = τ₁
Now, you have TWO TIME VALUES to consider for each instance 0,1 and 2:
Time τ₀: Ray of light depart from ξ(0)=0, in the moving frame k. Set τ₀=0.
Time τ₁: Ray of light reaches ξ(x')=x', in the moving frame k.
τ₁ = [ξ(x')-ξ(0)]/c = x'/c
Time τ₂: Reflected ray of light reaches ξ(0)=0, in the moving frame k. τ₂ = τ₁ + [ξ(x')-ξ(0)]/c = τ₁ + x'/c = 2 x'/c
These values, in the moving frame k, satisfy 1/2 (τ₀ + τ₂) = τ₁
Now, as PERCEIVED from the stationary frame K:
Time t₀: Ray of light OBSERVED to depart from ξ(0)=0, from the frame K. Set t₀=0.
Time t₁: Ray of light OBSERVED reaching ξ(x')=x', from the frame K.
t₁ = [ξ(x')-ξ(0)]/(c-v) = x'/(c-v)
Time t₂: Reflected ray of light IS OBSERVED reaching ξ(0)=0, from the frame K.
t₂=t₁ + [ξ(x')-ξ(0)]/(c+v) = t₁ + x'/(c+v) = x'/(c-v) + x'/(c+v) = 2cx'/(c²-v²)
These values, PERCEIVED FROM THE STATIONARY FRAME K, don't satisfy 1/2(t₀+t₂)=t₁
Einstein FORCED/FUDGED a function τ(x,y,z,t) by mixing results from the moving frame k and the stationary frame K. This wrongful decision to
obtain Lorentz AT ANY COST is EXPOSED in the FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION of Taylor expansion, in particular by forcing that x' be ZERO instead of
the infinitesimal dx' and by making dx' to appear, magically, to obtain
the equation:
1/2 [(1/(c - v) + 1/(c + v)] ∂τ/∂t = ∂τ/∂x' + 1/(c-v) ∂τ/∂t
There is no place for ∂τ/∂x', which was INSERTED in a fraudulent way. Otherwise, the equation would have been ∂τ/∂t = 0, meaning that τ = t,
which is THE REAL RESULT.
You are becoming more and more stupid as you age. Retire and do
gardening.
So the Galilean transform is: ξ = x - vt
NO, innoble animal! ξ is the name of the horizontal axis in the moving
frame k.
And x' is a coordinate in k ? :-D
ξ(x') = x' in the moving frame. I attached a graphic to clarify this
but, with your "dog vision" you missed it.
What kind of transform is ξ(x') = x' ?
Did you possibly mean: ξ = (x - vt)/√(1−v²/c²) ?
But at this point we don't know this yet, we only know: ξ = ξ(x,y,z,t)
x' = x - vt is the well known Galilean transform, along with τ = t' = t.
So τ is a coordinate in k, but ξ is not a coordinate in k,
because the coordinates in k are (x',η,ζ,τ), right?
This is fun, isn't it? :-D
There is only one meaning of x', right?
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.
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 TO OBTAIN THE
DENOMINATOR
(c²-v²), which is the KEY FACTOR TO OBTAIN THE GAMMA FACTOR!
Check the 1904 Lorentz paper if you doubt.
Den 06.02.2025 22:59, skrev rhertz:
But you can't dispute the 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.
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 ??: Ray of light reaches ?(x')=x', in the moving frame k.
?? = [?(x')-?(0)]/c = x'/c
Sorry, this doesn't work.
If the light is moving from the event (?? = 0, ?? = 0) to
the event (??, ??), then we know: ??- ?? = (??-??)/c or ?? = ??/c.
But we don't know ?? or ??, ?? = ?(x', ?t?) and ?? = ?(x', ?t?)
We don't know these transforms yet.
You assume that ?(x', ?t?) = x' which quite certainly is wrong.
You assume that we know the transform we are trying to find.
The EVENT ?(x', ?t?) = x', with arbitrary t=0, OR ?(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, ?(x', ?t?) = x' is STUPIDLY FALSE, that's what I said above.
But Einstein never wrote that, you did.
You wrote ?(x') = x' which is even more STUPIDLY FALSE, because
? 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 TO OBTAIN THE
DENOMINATOR
(c?-v?), which is the KEY FACTOR TO OBTAIN THE GAMMA FACTOR!
Check the 1904 Lorentz paper if you doubt.
:-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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Le 08/02/2025 à 18:03, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
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.
You are confused by IA (i.e. LLM)
recent sources. What it says is true when it comes to modern conventions
when it comes to frames and coordinates names choices but was not the
case in 1905, Einstein used *different* conventions. If you had a clue
you would have noticed.
LLM are useless if you have NO clue on a given subject. You have no clue
in physics, especially Relativity. By dialoguing with LLM on such a
subject you are polluting your own mind with nonsense.
This is quite pathetic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 19:54:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
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.
I REPEAT MY LATEST POST, IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, ASSHOLE!
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
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?
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 19:54:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
You keep behaving as a relativistic cornered rat.
When Einstein wrote x'=x-vt, it's CLEAR that x' is a "point at rest" in
the moving frame k (he wrote so), and does the Galilean transform for a
point P(x,y,z,t) that exists only in K. It's crystal clear that x' IS
not a FIXED POINT in K but it's moving away from the origin of K at v
speed.
Analyze the attached figure that I've, and try to deny that he didn't
use Galilean transforms.
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 21:38:15 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 10.02.2025 00:18, skrev rhertz:
You keep behaving as a relativistic cornered rat.
When Einstein wrote x'=x-vt, it's CLEAR that x' is a "point at rest" in >>> the moving frame k (he wrote so), and does the Galilean transform for a
point P(x,y,z,t) that exists only in K. It's crystal clear that x' IS
not a FIXED POINT in K but it's moving away from the origin of K at v
speed.
The function: τ₁ = τ[(x', x'/(c-v)] means that
the temporal coordinate of k: τ₁ is a function of the event
with the coordinates in K: x = x' and t = x'/(c-v).
This is the THIRD TIME that you come with this shit as A BLUNDER.
-----------------------------------------I was quoting you, so
You wrote:
Δτ₁ = x'/(c-v)
Δτ₂ = x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)
τ₁ = τ₀ + Δτ₁
τ₂ = τ₀ + Δτ₂
If you really don't understand why this is ridiculous,
I will have to explain:
-----------------------------------------
1) Shove your explanations VERY DEEP INTO YOUR ASS, ASSHOLE.
Δτ₂ = x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v) IS IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE TIME τ, but was expressed
in that way TO SIMPLIFY THE READING. I also told you to replace Δτ₁ and Δτ₂
with Δt₁ and Δt₂ if you liked, because they don't have a physical meaning. It was only a way TO WRITE A COMPACT EQUATION.
You can use ΔT₁ and ΔT₂ or ΔQ₁ and ΔQ₂, fucking asshole.
I don't know why are you locked on this issue, but I think that it's
because
you are being mean, devious and beyond stupid.
If you think that because you're drooling your shit for 30 years, you
are better
than me, either in MATHEMATICS, PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY or whatever you can
think about, you are DELUSIONAL. I ace you on every field, only that I
don't need to TROLL OTHERS OR TO SHOW OFF MY KNOWLEDGE LIKE YOU, STUPID NARCISSIST.
Stop BREAKING MY BALLS with this shit, and better FOCUS ON ANALYZE WHY I WROTE THE OP AND WHY THE EVIDENCES OF CHEATING AND HACKING BY EINSTEIN
ARE AT PLAIN SIGHT.
If you can't, retire from this forum and do gardening, before it's TOO
LATE FOR YOU and you can't differentiate a plant from a part of your
fucking body.
As Dono did, you're deviating the attention about the main topic, which
can be read in the title of this thread.
Using ξ(x') = x' is my way TO ENFORCE that x' is a point on the ξ axis.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:10:48 +0000, rhertz wrote:
This can be a long and complex post, because calculus and deep reasoning
are neccesary. The analysis is based on everything he wrote in the
points §2 and §3 of his famous 1905 paper.
It's almost 120 years since Einstein wrote this paper and
you still understand almost none of it.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 13:20:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 06.02.2025 20:55, skrev rhertz:
As Dono did, you're deviating the attention about the main topic, whichI see.
can be read in the title of this thread.
Using ξ(x') = x' is my way TO ENFORCE that x' is a point on the ξ axis. >>
Einstein derived the Lorent transform:
ξ(x',t') = ξ = (x' - vt')/√(1−v²/c²)
Where x' and t' are coordinates in K(x,t), x = x' and t = t'
But Richard Hertz can write ξ(x') = x' TO ENFORCE x' to be
a coordinate in k(ξ,τ), and thereby make Einstein's derivation
fraudulent.
The correct transformation is ξ(x',t') = x', ξ = x' !
Well done Richard!
Obviously, you're bored. Keep going to the same issue by Nth. time,
because nobody here care about this shit anymore (if ever).
I WAS WRONG using ξ(x') = x', because ξ is the denomination of a
coordinate axis, not A FUCKING FUNCTION. That was NY BAD.
I should have written ξ = x', in the same way that I can write ξ = 0 or
ξ = 4.
But you DID WORSE, ASSHOLE, writing ξ(x',t') as a function of two
variables. So,
find a new topic, write a new thread with an original idea (WHICH I
DOUBT YOU CAN DO, because you're always parasiting with other's people threads, never one that started with an OP).
I told the above to you many times in the past. You are close to be Dono
2.0.
If you enjoy more writing using math as a language instead of using the English language to write an idea (very few here do the first), I
commission a job to you, so I can help you with your BOREDOM.
1) Demonstrate that when the cretin (your pagan god) wrote x' = x - vt,
he WASN'T expressing a pure Galilean transform. If you persist with your stupid assertion that x' is a fixed point in the stationary x axis, then EXPLAIN
the rationality of (x - x') = vt. That, without any doubt, express that
x'
IS NOT A FIXED POINT IN THE x axis. Do it. Explain your POV with
clarity.
2) If you NEGATE that Einstein used a Galilean transform as a starting
point,
go to this thread:
How Einstein missed his opportunity to derive Lorentz in Point §3. https://news.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=140812&group=sci.physics.relativity#140812
And explain HOW a derivation of Lorentz transforms can be made by
starting
with a PROPOSED modification of the Galilean transform:
x' = k (X-vt) , where k is a factor to be found.
No need to wrongfully use Taylor, ray of light bouncing back or mirrors.
This development was the one proposed by Poincaré, who was acquainted
with Minkowski, and it was the starting point for Minkowski to invent
his fucking spacetime.
Put your math work where your mouth is, or SHUT THE FUCK UP upon this
topic.
I give you another idea, so I can put you out of your miserable boredom:
Instead of using rays of light and mirrors, use an electron accelerated
to
v = 0.99999999 c (only 2.99 m/s lower than c), and repeat the thought experiment from the Point 2. Let's see how do you develop the correct equations.
You can use the 2nd. Postulate for the electron, instead of using light.
Have fun.How about this guy? "THE ULTIMATE REFUTATION OF THE RELATIVITY THEORY"
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:39:58 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 18.02.2025 o 23:47, JanPB pisze:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:10:48 +0000, rhertz wrote:
This can be a long and complex post, because calculus and deep
reasoning
are neccesary. The analysis is based on everything he wrote in the
points §2 and §3 of his famous 1905 paper.
It's almost 120 years since Einstein wrote this paper and
you still understand almost none of it.
The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent, after all.
It's very consistent but you never understood it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 495 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 47:37:47 |
| Calls: | 9,745 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,742 |
| Messages: | 6,184,389 |