Path: ...!news.snarked.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Einstein cheated with his fraudulent derivation of Lorentz transforms
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:32:38 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <d458702dac9a945a629bd2f8be3e0ae2@www.novabbs.com>
References: <6eb926ee058330958787e0095602f2b0@www.novabbs.com> <dd838835a5246f47b672d8ff3b86e455@www.novabbs.com> <vnvleh$2ckno$1@dont-email.me> <f0b06654688e0e616a8187f973dd334e@www.novabbs.com> <vo2vvq$32su6$1@dont-email.me> <b3411912fd1535fed8f4dd2a2ee2bf41@www.novabbs.com> <voi70m$2bfg5$1@dont-email.me> <da36ae1456dae8b87eac8dc239f157de@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="798707"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$SrCumM3zsWtQGcRUZ4LrF.GVfZWgKAUlg9i0rcqY7ukbx51.QX6G2
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4750
Lines: 98

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:11:29 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> 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, 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.
>>
>> I see.
>>
>> 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"
Jorma Jormakka