Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation

On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Note that Einstein's derivation is not at all the best approach.

The 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform by Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar was indeed totally ****ed up, and that
nitwit knew he totally ****ed it up. In doing so, the nitwit would
attempt to re-derive the Lorentz transform in his only book on
relativity in 1920 or so. The bull**** continued. The nitwit started
with two equations equating zero with zero and pulled out two
equations of the Lorentz transform in a few short mathemaGical steps.
It was completely bull****, but self-styled physicists are still awed
and bedazzled by that mathemaGical trick. shrug

Today we consider SR to be a theory of spacetime symmetries, with nothing
directly to do with light.

You need to leave out “symmetries”. SR is just nonsense. All the
transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX also lead to a
symmetry around the absolute frame of reference. shrug

Einstein's second postulate is not needed. From the
first postulate alone,

If the invariance of light is not needed, the null results of the MMX
will lead to the Galilean transform and falsify electromagnetism.
shrug

So, either falsify the Galilean transform or electromagnetism, the
self-styled physicists 100 years ago chose to modify the Galilean
transform at first. But seeing the after effect, they also had to
modify electromagnetism to suit their belief. They have been clueless
and a bunch of mindless “curve-fitters”. shrug

[rest of bull**** snipped]

Exactly which experimental predictions of Relativity do you think are wrong?

Do you think that Relativity's predictions with respect to the Twin's
paradox are wrong, and if so what are the correct predictions?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
| Exactly which experimental predictions of Relativity do you think are
wrong?
|
| Do you think that Relativity's predictions with respect to the Twin's
| paradox are wrong, and if so what are the correct predictions?
|
|
Exactly which experimental prophecies of Relativity do you hallucinate are
right?

Do you hallucinate that Relativity's prophecies with respect to the Twin's
paradox are right, and if so what are the wrong fortune-tellings according
to
your crystal ball, gypsy Webb?
DIESPAMDIE, you spamming *******.

On Jul 24, 12:55*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Note that Einstein's derivation is not at all the best approach.

The 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform by Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar was indeed totally ****ed up, and that
nitwit knew he totally ****ed it up.

Well, the thing you have to remember about period in history is
that
Hilbert was far the more famous mathematician in the world, but
Einstein got a
Nobel Prize for discovery the Photo-Electric effect, DeBroglie got
the Prize for predicting matter waves, and Godel was later the
most famous Philosopher in the world, for his discovery
of Recursion Theory.


*In doing so, the nitwit would
attempt to re-derive the Lorentz transform in his only book on
relativity in 1920 or so. *The bull**** continued. *The nitwit started
with two equations equating zero with zero and pulled out two
equations of the Lorentz transform in a few short mathemaGical steps.
It was completely bull****, but self-styled physicists are still awed
and bedazzled by that mathemaGical trick. *shrug

Today we consider SR to be a theory of spacetime symmetries, with nothing
directly to do with light.

You need to leave out “symmetries”. *SR is just nonsense. *All the
transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX also lead to a
symmetry around the absolute frame of reference. *shrug

Einstein's second postulate is not needed. From the
first postulate alone,

If the invariance of light is not needed, the null results of the MMX
will lead to the Galilean transform and falsify electromagnetism.
shrug

So, either falsify the Galilean transform or electromagnetism, the
self-styled physicists 100 years ago chose to modify the Galilean
transform at first. *But seeing the after effect, they also had to
modify electromagnetism to suit their belief. *They have been clueless
and a bunch of mindless “curve-fitters”. *shrug







[rest of bull**** snipped]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:46:45 -0700, jim wrote:

On Jul 24, 12:55Â*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Note that Einstein's derivation is not at all the best approach.

The 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform by Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar was indeed totally ****ed up, and that
nitwit knew he totally ****ed it up.

Well, the thing you have to remember about period in history is
that
Hilbert was far the more famous mathematician in the world, but
Einstein got a
Nobel Prize for discovery the Photo-Electric effect, DeBroglie got
the Prize for predicting matter waves, and Godel was later the most
famous Philosopher in the world, for his discovery of Recursion
Theory.

Since there is not a Nobel prize in Mathematics, it is not interesting
that Hilbert never won the Nobel prize in ... mathematics.

Why is this relevant, anyway?

On Jul 24, 4:08*am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Peter Webb" wrote in message

...
| Exactly which experimental predictions of Relativity do you think are
wrong?
|
| Do you think that Relativity's predictions with respect to the Twin's
| paradox are wrong, and if so what are the correct predictions?
|
|
Exactly which experimental prophecies of Relativity do you hallucinate are
right?

*Do you hallucinate that Relativity's prophecies with respect to the Twin's
*paradox are right, and if so what are the wrong fortune-tellings according
to
your crystal ball, gypsy Webb?
DIESPAMDIE, you spamming *******.

Bravo, Androcles! — NE —

On Jul 24, 6:55*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Note that Einstein's derivation is not at all the best approach.

The 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform by Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar was indeed totally ****ed up, and that
nitwit knew he totally ****ed it up. *In doing so, the nitwit would
attempt to re-derive the Lorentz transform in his only book on
relativity in 1920 or so. *The bull**** continued. *The nitwit started
with two equations equating zero with zero and pulled out two
equations of the Lorentz transform in a few short mathemaGical steps.
It was completely bull****, but self-styled physicists are still awed
and bedazzled by that mathemaGical trick. *shrug

Today we consider SR to be a theory of spacetime symmetries, with nothing
directly to do with light.

You need to leave out “symmetries”. *SR is just nonsense. *All the
transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX also lead to a
symmetry around the absolute frame of reference. *shrug

Einstein's second postulate is not needed. From the
first postulate alone,

If the invariance of light is not needed, the null results of the MMX
will lead to the Galilean transform and falsify electromagnetism.
shrug

So, either falsify the Galilean transform or electromagnetism, the
self-styled physicists 100 years ago chose to modify the Galilean
transform at first. *But seeing the after effect, they also had to
modify electromagnetism to suit their belief. *They have been clueless
and a bunch of mindless “curve-fitters”. *shrug







[rest of bull**** snipped]

Aether not exist , exist only medium as an enviroment in which wave
motion is spread.
Spacetime is a phantasy of 1905. Now is 2011.
See you please
L. Vlcek : New Trends in Physics, Slovak Academic Press, Bratislava
1996
ISBN 80-85665-64-6. Presentation on European Phys. Soc. 10th Gen.
Conf. – Trends in Physics ( EPS 10) Sevilla , E
Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML
Critical examination of fundamentals in physics

http://www.trendsinphysics.info/
Einstein corrected the real difference of light speeds in different
inertial frames (skeletons) by "different times" in a fictitious
"SPACE-TIME". He helped himself with a mixture of "space-time"
mathematically expressed by the Lorentz transformation equations. Then
he helped himself with other new expressions, that rescue what is not
possible to rescue, whereby those notions represent the following
closed vicious circle:

Lorentz transformation equations = local time = covariant equations
= physical definition of simultaneity =

= invariant interval = Lorentz transformation equations

We have shown that the idea of space-time frames is entirely wrong.
All notions in the closed vicious circle, including "mean proper
lifetime of particle" calculated on the basis of the Einstein’s theory
of relativity which was not measured experimentally in fact are
absolutely wrong. Physics is overflown by such anabashed points. It is
necessary to clean the physics. It is necessary to strictly
distinguish the measured values of the particles lifetime from the so
called proper (shorter) Einstein’s doubtful particle lifetimes, which
takes into consideration velocity and shortens the real lifetime to
the shorter fictitious (incorrect) proper lifetime, shown in the
tables. The table proper lifetimes of particles have to be removed
from the physical literature and be replaced by the measured real
lifetimes simultaneously with the measured velocities of elementary
particles. The incorrect notions of Einstein’s closed vicious circle
lead to logical assumptions for the incorrect notions in physics such
as different times in different frames, length contraction, energy-
momentum tensor, paradox of twins, clock paradox, equivalence of mass
and energy etc. That’s why it is necessary to remove this chaos from
physics and to bring the results of classical experiments in the right
proportion (the place they belong to).

See you please

Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML

http://www.trendsinphysics.info/

See you please
Theory and Its Comparison with Experiment

2.1.Form of the Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric and
Magnetic Field

2.1.1.Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field - A New Theory

2.1.2.Kaufmann's Experiment

2.1.3.Electromagnetic field. Maxwell's equations.

2.2.Non-linear form of the interference field

2.2.1.Fizeau's Experiment

2.2.2.Harre's Experiment

2.3.Doppler's principle - correct relations

See you please

Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML

http://www.trendsinphysics.info/


because radius of force reach / as Einstein´s lenght / depends on
velocity.
See you
Introduction to my two articles Physics is easy and Physics is
beautifull PDF

Originally Posted by Lubomir Vlcek

On Jul 24, 6:55*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Note that Einstein's derivation is not at all the best approach.

The 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transform by Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar was indeed totally ****ed up, and that
nitwit knew he totally ****ed it up. *In doing so, the nitwit would
attempt to re-derive the Lorentz transform in his only book on
relativity in 1920 or so. *The bull**** continued. *The nitwit started
with two equations equating zero with zero and pulled out two
equations of the Lorentz transform in a few short mathemaGical steps.
It was completely bull****, but self-styled physicists are still awed
and bedazzled by that mathemaGical trick. *shrug

Today we consider SR to be a theory of spacetime symmetries, with nothing
directly to do with light.

You need to leave out “symmetries”. *SR is just nonsense. *All the
transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX also lead to a
symmetry around the absolute frame of reference. *shrug

Einstein's second postulate is not needed. From the
first postulate alone,

If the invariance of light is not needed, the null results of the MMX
will lead to the Galilean transform and falsify electromagnetism.
shrug

So, either falsify the Galilean transform or electromagnetism, the
self-styled physicists 100 years ago chose to modify the Galilean
transform at first. *But seeing the after effect, they also had to
modify electromagnetism to suit their belief. *They have been clueless
and a bunch of mindless “curve-fitters”. *shrug







[rest of bull**** snipped]

Aether not exist , exist only medium as an enviroment in which wave
motion is spread.
Spacetime is a phantasy of 1905. Now is 2011.
See you please
L. Vlcek : New Trends in Physics, Slovak Academic Press, Bratislava
1996
ISBN 80-85665-64-6. Presentation on European Phys. Soc. 10th Gen.
Conf. – Trends in Physics ( EPS 10) Sevilla , E
Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML
Critical examination of fundamentals in physics

http://www.trendsinphysics.info/
Einstein corrected the real difference of light speeds in different
inertial frames (skeletons) by "different times" in a fictitious
"SPACE-TIME". He helped himself with a mixture of "space-time"
mathematically expressed by the Lorentz transformation equations. Then
he helped himself with other new expressions, that rescue what is not
possible to rescue, whereby those notions represent the following
closed vicious circle:

Lorentz transformation equations = local time = covariant equations
= physical definition of simultaneity =

= invariant interval = Lorentz transformation equations

We have shown that the idea of space-time frames is entirely wrong.
All notions in the closed vicious circle, including "mean proper
lifetime of particle" calculated on the basis of the Einstein’s theory
of relativity which was not measured experimentally in fact are
absolutely wrong. Physics is overflown by such anabashed points. It is
necessary to clean the physics. It is necessary to strictly
distinguish the measured values of the particles lifetime from the so
called proper (shorter) Einstein’s doubtful particle lifetimes, which
takes into consideration velocity and shortens the real lifetime to
the shorter fictitious (incorrect) proper lifetime, shown in the
tables. The table proper lifetimes of particles have to be removed
from the physical literature and be replaced by the measured real
lifetimes simultaneously with the measured velocities of elementary
particles. The incorrect notions of Einstein’s closed vicious circle
lead to logical assumptions for the incorrect notions in physics such
as different times in different frames, length contraction, energy-
momentum tensor, paradox of twins, clock paradox, equivalence of mass
and energy etc. That’s why it is necessary to remove this chaos from
physics and to bring the results of classical experiments in the right
proportion (the place they belong to).

See you please

Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML

http://www.trendsinphysics.info/

See you please
Theory and Its Comparison with Experiment

2.1.Form of the Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric and
Magnetic Field

2.1.1.Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field - A New Theory

2.1.2.Kaufmann's Experiment

2.1.3.Electromagnetic field. Maxwell's equations.

2.2.Non-linear form of the interference field

2.2.1.Fizeau's Experiment

2.2.2.Harre's Experiment

2.3.Doppler's principle - correct relations

See you please

Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML

http://www.trendsinphysics.info/


because radius of force reach / as Einstein´s lenght / depends on
velocity.
See you
Introduction to my two articles Physics is easy and Physics is
beautifull PDF

Thanks you for the post.