Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Einstein cheated with his fraudulent derivation of Lorentz transforms
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 22:11:12 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <3777912c6180fd2a8a9b444d296989bb@www.novabbs.com>
References: <6eb926ee058330958787e0095602f2b0@www.novabbs.com> <JcQoP.16994$M7r5.10736@fx16.ams4> <0281fd2aa8b77628745ebcde5118b9a3@www.novabbs.com> <vo368g$344dp$1@dont-email.me> <fc3528c0f1bc2b170c85efcc2a9bbfe1@www.novabbs.com> <vo5m8a$3klph$1@dont-email.me> <6e2be2c7df8226f34eb6ae70a0b3c52a@www.novabbs.com> <vo8ckq$6j7k$1@dont-email.me> <d6fb7ee989291b3dc319768eecd83914@www.novabbs.com> <voa836$l6c7$1@dont-email.me> <c84c8128cb5de5fd70e2f6f4b69111ee@www.novabbs.com> <eiuqP.5084$0V4f.966@fx06.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3645302"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$1GchALlTeKedc9o6idXcPuI4/DDbeZ5fFNYYJaOga/8v6hTna4amW
Bytes: 5414
Lines: 119

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 21:38:15 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 10.02.2025 00:18, skrev rhertz:
>>>> 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.
>
> It is irrelevant that the x' is moving in K.
> The coordinates x' is the position of the mirror in K
> at the time of reflection.
>
> -----------------
>
> 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:
>
> 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).
>
> The function: τ₂ = τ[(0, x'/(c-v) + x'/(c+v)] means that
> the temporal coordinate of k: τ₂ is a function of the event
> with the coordinates in K: x = 0 and t = x'/(c-v) + x'/(c+v).
>
> But you write:
> τ₁ = τ₀ + x'/(c-v)
> τ₂ = τ₀ + x'/(c-v) + x'/(c+v)
>
> That is;
> If we have an event with coordinates (ξ,τ) in k
> and (x,t) in K, you write  τ = t.
>
> How is it possible to fail to understand of ridiculous this is?
>
>
>>
>> Analyze  the attached figure that I've, and try to deny that he didn't
>> use Galilean transforms.
>
> No figure can save your _giant_ blunder!
>
> You have thoroughly demonstrated that you are not competent to
> evaluate Einstein's derivation of the LT.


Paul, I think that you are a lame and pathetic IMBECILE beyond
redemption.

This is the THIRD TIME that you come with this shit as A BLUNDER.

-----------------------------------------
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.

2) I explained to you, VERY CLEARLY, that my use of Δτ₁ = x'/(c-v) and
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.