Discussion:
A typical conversation with a relativistic idiot
(too old to reply)
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-06 10:26:25 UTC
Permalink
- It's not just me and my idiot guru saying!
It's MUONS!!! And EXPERIMENTS!!! And the
overwhelming majority saying!!!!!

- but experiments can't speak and the
overwhelming majority is not even aware
of your idiocies...

- UUUU!!! UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!! UUUUUUUUUU!!!!
PLONK!!!!!

It was Jim Penino, a really poor halfbrain,
but could be any of you as well. You imagine
you're the elite of rational thinkers. Well,
you're mistaken.
rhertz
2024-10-07 01:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
- It's not just me and my idiot guru saying!
It's MUONS!!! And EXPERIMENTS!!! And the
overwhelming majority saying!!!!!
- but experiments can't speak and the
overwhelming majority is not even aware
of your idiocies...
- UUUU!!! UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!! UUUUUUUUUU!!!!
PLONK!!!!!
It was Jim Penino, a really poor halfbrain,
but could be any of you as well. You imagine
you're the elite of rational thinkers. Well,
you're mistaken.
Ask the ignorant of Paul Anderson about the Mount Wilson muon's
experiment in the 60s.

Another GIANT HOAX, in the decade of relativity HOAXES (1961-1971).

He will use his known tactics of deception, lies and twisted truth.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-07 07:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
- It's not just me and my idiot guru saying!
It's MUONS!!! And EXPERIMENTS!!!  And  the
overwhelming majority saying!!!!!
- but experiments can't speak and the
overwhelming majority is not even aware
of your idiocies...
- UUUU!!!  UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!! UUUUUUUUUU!!!!
PLONK!!!!!
It was Jim Penino, a really poor halfbrain,
but could be any of you as well. You imagine
you're the elite of rational thinkers. Well,
you're mistaken.
Ask the ignorant of Paul Anderson about the Mount Wilson muon's
Poor fanatic has stopped to answer my questions
years ago. But, anyway, their precious experiments
are not especially interesting for me. I'm rather
interested in their "logic", allowing them to
believe that those experiments are supporting
somehow not even consistent babble of their
idiot guru.
rhertz
2024-10-08 01:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
- It's not just me and my idiot guru saying!
It's MUONS!!! And EXPERIMENTS!!!  And  the
overwhelming majority saying!!!!!
- but experiments can't speak and the
overwhelming majority is not even aware
of your idiocies...
- UUUU!!!  UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!! UUUUUUUUUU!!!!
PLONK!!!!!
It was Jim Penino, a really poor halfbrain,
but could be any of you as well. You imagine
you're the elite of rational thinkers. Well,
you're mistaken.
Ask the ignorant of Paul Anderson about the Mount Wilson muon's
Poor fanatic has stopped to answer my questions
years ago. But, anyway, their precious experiments
are not especially interesting for me. I'm rather
interested in their "logic", allowing them to
believe that those experiments are supporting
somehow not even consistent babble of their
idiot guru.
Read my last post about local time.

The imbecile PRETENDED to teach me about how GALILEO'S TRANSFORM IS NOT
THE BASIS of the fraudulent derivation of the Lorentz transforms.

I HAD TO MAKE A DRAWING INCLUDING EVERY RELEVANT TEXT OF THE POINT 3,
WHERE THE SLICKY VIPER (EINSTEIN) USED MANY RETORTED WORDS TO HIDE THE
FACT THAT x' = x-vt IS ESSENTIAL FOR HIS MATHEMATICAL DERIVATION.

Regarding his last post, and his idiot interpretations, IT IS A SAMPLE
of the behavior of a liar, deceiver, fraudulent and IMBECILE relativist.

Paul prefers to DIE LYING AND DISTORTING FACTS before REASON A BIT.

I've cut any interaction with that cretin since today.

My post, with the drawing (retarded-proof) is my last attempt with this
asshole.
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-10-08 08:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Read my last post about local time.
The imbecile PRETENDED to teach me about how GALILEO'S TRANSFORM IS NOT
THE BASIS of the fraudulent derivation of the Lorentz transforms.
I am not trying to teach you anything.

I am only pointing out that your are making a fool of yourself
when you claim:
"GALILEO'S TRANSFORM IS THE BASIS of the fraudulent derivation of
the Lorentz transforms" in §3 of
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Post by rhertz
I HAD TO MAKE A DRAWING INCLUDING EVERY RELEVANT TEXT OF THE POINT 3,
WHERE THE SLICKY VIPER (EINSTEIN) USED MANY RETORTED WORDS TO HIDE THE
FACT THAT x' = x-vt IS ESSENTIAL FOR HIS MATHEMATICAL DERIVATION.
x' = x-vt is obviously very essential in Einstein's derivation
of the Lorentz transform.

But it is not the Galilean transform.
In Einstein's notation, the Galilean transform is:
ξ = x - vt
See if you can find it in §3 of
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Post by rhertz
Regarding his last post, and his idiot interpretations, IT IS A SAMPLE
of the behavior of a liar, deceiver, fraudulent and IMBECILE relativist.
Paul prefers to DIE LYING AND DISTORTING FACTS before REASON A BIT.
I've cut any interaction with that cretin since today.
I can understand why you won't respond to me. :-)

----------------

The DISTORTED FACTS again:

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!!"

But you are yet again making a fool of yourself, and yet again
you are demonstrating that you are unable to read a text and
understand what you read.

I could leave it at that, but since you are such a nice person,
I will explain.

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

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.

And as you quoted above:
" We first define τ as a function of x', y, z, and t", τ(t,x',y,z)

This is the first step in finding the functions:
τ(t,x,y,z) = β(t - (v/c²)x)
ξ(t,x,y,z) = β(x - vt)
η(t,x,y,z) = y
ζ(t,x,y,z) = z

Read the math in §3!
There is no resemblance to anything you find in Lorentz's paper.
Lorentz didn't even write the Lorentz transform in that paper!
He only used the Galilean transform first, and then the
"change of variable" transform. These two transforms together
is the Lorentz transform.

See:
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
"For a reader who is not very skilled in mathematics,
it may not be obvious that the Lorentz transformation
is defined in that paper."

Richard Hertz is obviously in this category, because he thought
the "change of variables" transform was the Lorentz transform.
" 1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
x' = β x ; Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ; Lorentz Eq. 5
"

-----------

Remember that x', like any symbol, may have different meaning
in different texts. 😂

You have a lot in common with Dilbert:

https://paulba.no/pdf/Dilbert.pdf

I will repeat it again if you repeat your ridiculous claim:
"EINSTEIN USED GALILEAN TRANSFORM TO DERIVE LORENTZ WITHOUT ETHER!!"
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
rhertz
2024-10-08 18:16:34 UTC
Permalink
zsnip>

*********************************************************************>
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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
"EINSTEIN USED GALILEAN TRANSFORM TO DERIVE LORENTZ WITHOUT ETHER!!"
But you are yet again making a fool of yourself, and yet again
you are demonstrating that you are unable to read a text and
understand what you read.
I could leave it at that, but since you are such a nice person,
I will explain.
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,Ο,η,ζ) coordinates are Greek letters
So the Galilean transform is: Ο = x - vt
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.
" We first define τ as a function of x', y, z, and t", τ(t,x',y,z)
τ(t,x,y,z) = β(t - (v/c²)x)
Ο(t,x,y,z) = β(x - vt)
η(t,x,y,z) = y
ζ(t,x,y,z) = z
Read the math in §3!
There is no resemblance to anything you find in Lorentz's paper.
Lorentz didn't even write the Lorentz transform in that paper!
He only used the Galilean transform first, and then the
"change of variable" transform. These two transforms together
is the Lorentz transform.
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
"For a reader who is not very skilled in mathematics,
it may not be obvious that the Lorentz transformation
is defined in that paper."
Richard Hertz is obviously in this category, because he thought
the "change of variables" transform was the Lorentz transform.
" 1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
x' = β x ; Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ; Lorentz Eq. 5
"
-----------
Remember that x', like any symbol, may have different meaning
in different texts. 😂
https://paulba.no/pdf/Dilbert.pdf
"EINSTEIN USED GALILEAN TRANSFORM TO DERIVE LORENTZ WITHOUT ETHER!!"
***************************************************************
Paul, you are a sort of mental retarded plus a liar and a deceiver.

I made a drawing with the MOST IMPORTANT items of the point §3, prior
his FRAUDULENT DERIVATION OF LORENTZ (because it's full of deceptions
that an imbecile like you CAN'T/DON'T_WANT_TO understand):

§ 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



The drawing contains what HE NARRATES WITH A VIPER TONGUE:


1) What the observer at rest PERCEIVES what's happening.

2) The formulae derived from §2:

τ₁ - τ₀ = x’/(c + v)
τ₂ - τ₁ = x’/(c - v)

3) The GALILEAN TRANSFORM x' = x - vt

Then, Einstein wrote this CRAPPY FORMULA, which is used INSERTING A
FUNDAMENTAL ERROR: That x' can be INFINITESIMALLY SMALL, which IS NOT
POSSIBLE, because visible light is used. So, NEVER COULD x'≈ 0. In the
best case (near UV), x' could be about 400 nanometers, NOT ZERO!!

The CRAPPY FORMULA that follows the above considerations, derived from:

1/2(τ₀ + τ₂) = τ₁

He wrote:

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))


to finally write, assuming x'≈ 0 (NOT POSSIBLE. FATAL MISTAKE)


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

OR

∂τ/∂x' + v/(c² - v²) ∂τ/∂t = 0


-------------------------------------------------

I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT YOU, PAUL, WILL UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE OR TO CONCEDE
THAT YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG, CORNERED RELATIVISTIC RAT.

EINSTEIN USED GALILEO TRANSFORM AS THE HEART OF THE ABOVE DERIVATION.


DEAL WITH IT, IMBECILE, AND TAKE A DEEP LOOK AT THE DRAWING + ORIGINAL
1905 TEXT.

Loading...