Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_I_dare_to_relativists_to_explain_local_time=3A_t-vx?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?/c=C2=B2?=
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 15:23:15 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <vdrefq$p4rf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <8dc9a6eb5ee097da5239175cb7833cd6@www.novabbs.com>
 <vdokav$6m87$1@dont-email.me>
 <d885ef8307d7eb48a4157a4e5eb97ab6@www.novabbs.com>
 <vdpbaq$alks$1@dont-email.me>
 <1e0cdddca00fbd5c020523a0f244d79f@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2024 15:20:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4ba1ab624bed837cb4a9dee8eaeec4e4";
	logging-data="824175"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/tp/vfdAN9vmhafLTJK+Ac"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eEFkMVNwemiYJizO6RhBmmTYxBw=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <1e0cdddca00fbd5c020523a0f244d79f@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 5342

Den 05.10.2024 00:16, skrev rhertz:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 18:17:06 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 03.10.2024 22:23, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
>> Den 03.10.2024 06:18, skrev rhertz:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
>>>
>>> x' = β x  ;  Lorentz Eq. 4
>>> t' = t/β - β vx/c² ;  Lorentz Eq. 5

>> 
>> No, this is not the Lorentz transform.
>> Lorentz used the Galilean transform first, and then he
>> "transform these formulae further by a change of variables".
>> 
>> It's is these two transforms together that make the Lorentz transform.
>> See:
>> https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
>> 
>> He doesn't explain the "change of variables", but the purpose is clear.
>> To "explain" the Michelson-Morley experiment, Maxwell's equation
>> must be invariant. (Idea from Poincare.) So "the change of variables"
>> was what they had to be to achieve that purpose.
>>

> ARE YOU BECOME, FINALLY, FULL RETARDED?? SHAME ON YOU!
> IT COMES DIRECTLY FROM 1904 LORENTZ PAPER:
> 
> H.A. Lorentz, Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
> velocity smaller than that of light
> 
> 1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
> 
> x' = β x  ;  Lorentz Eq. 4
> t' = t/β - β vx/c² ;  Lorentz Eq. 5 (HERE IS LOCAL TIME WITH ETHER)
> 

Quite. Directly from Lorentz.
It is the "change of variables" transform, which is not
the Lorentz transform.

> Making  x = X - vt (Einstein did that, to get rid of ether)
> 

No, Einstein never used the Galilean transform, but Lorentz did.
As I told you above:
Lorentz used the Galilean transform _first_, and then he
"transform these formulae further by a change of variables".

It's is these two transforms together that make the Lorentz transform:

> t' = β (t - vX/c²)
> x' = β (X - vt)

See:
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf

>> 
>> Einstein started with the second postulate, the speed of light
>> is invariant (the same in all inertial frames).
>> 
>> So Einstein didn't copy anything, but since the invariance of Maxwell's
>> equation follows from the invariance of the speed of light,
>> they ended up with the same transform.

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

You will NOT find the "change of variables" transform: (l set to 1)
  c²/(c²-v²) = β²         Lorentz equation (3)
  x' = βx, y'= y, z'= z   Lorentz equation (4)
  t' = t/β - βvx/c²       Lorentz equation (5)

Einstein never plagiarised Lorentz's "change of variables" transform.

and you will NOT find the Galilean transform:
x' = x - vt (or x = X - vt)

so when you said:
"In 1905, Einstein introduced (TRICK, out of the blue)
  x = X - vt, in order to get rid of ether."
you were LYING because you must know that it isn't true.


>>
>> You can see what Lorentz meant by "local time" in chapter 3 here:
>>
>> https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
>>
>> Quote:
>> "Lorentz called the t' coordinate ’local time’, as opposed to
>>   the t coordinate which was the ’absolute time’ inherited from Newton.
>>   But note that this ’local time’ is what it shown by local clocks,
>>   and it is the ’local time’ that can be measured.
>>   The ’absolute time’ t is unobservable."
>>

I wrote: "Lorentz called the t' coordinate ’local time’"

But Richard must have read something else:
> 
> Only a blind, deaf and stupid relativist like you deny WRITTEN HISTORY!
> 
> 
> Here is what Lorentz wrote about "local time" in his 1904 paper (p.813):
> 
> ************************************
> "The variabie t' may be called the "local time"; indeed, tor k = 1,
> 1 = 1 it becomes identical with what I have formerly understood by
> this name,"
> 
> ***********************************
> 
> DID YOU GET IT, IGNORANT?

Sometimes your misinterpretation of the text you are reading
is hilarious! :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/