Unidirectional character of 1905 Einstein Relativity Transformation

On Nov 21, 8:20 am, Rafael Valls wrote:

tau=beta(t-vx/c^2),
xi=beta(x-vt),
eta=y,
zeta=z,
where beta=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

t=beta(tau+v(xi)/c^2),
x=beta(xi+v(tau)),
y=eta,
z=zeta.

We can see then that the inverse transform is NOT equal to the direct
transform...

Actually, one is not the inverse transform of the other. Calling it
the inverse transform is very misleading and actually wrong. This
also applies to the Galilean transform not just the Lorentz
transform. shrug

All these transforms involve 3 points, parties, objects, or frames of
references whatever you want to call them. They are 2 observers and 1
observed where each observer is observing the same observed. The
transforms then relates how the observations of each observer
observing the same observed are related. shrug

Of course, you can have a system where each observer is observing the
other observer, and each observed is the observed of the other
observer. In this case, there are actually 2 transformations to
describe this phenomenon. For over 100 years, Einstein Dingleberries
have attempted to resolve the twins’s paradox with just one single
transformation with its so-called inverse, and that is wrong. Despite
how simple the Galilean and the Lorentz transforms are, the self-
styled physicists with their phd’s are completely clueless about how
they work. Fvcking sad no? shrug

On Nov 23, 9:20*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 21, 8:20 am, Rafael Valls wrote:

tau=beta(t-vx/c^2),
xi=beta(x-vt),
eta=y,
zeta=z,
where beta=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

t=beta(tau+v(xi)/c^2),
x=beta(xi+v(tau)),
y=eta,
z=zeta.

We can see then that the inverse transform is NOT equal to the direct
transform...

Actually, one is not the inverse transform of the other. *Calling it
the inverse transform is very misleading and actually wrong. *This
also applies to the Galilean transform not just the Lorentz
transform. *shrug

All these transforms involve 3 points, parties, objects, or frames of
references whatever you want to call them. *They are 2 observers and 1
observed where each observer is observing the same observed. *The
transforms then relates how the observations of each observer
observing the same observed are related. *shrug

Of course, you can have a system where each observer is observing the
other observer, and each observed is the observed of the other
observer. *In this case, there are actually 2 transformations to
describe this phenomenon. *For over 100 years, Einstein Dingleberries
have attempted to resolve the twins’s paradox with just one single
transformation with its so-called inverse, and that is wrong. *Despite
how simple the Galilean and the Lorentz transforms are, the self-
styled physicists with their phd’s are completely clueless about how
they work. *Fvcking sad no? *shrug


Not as fvcking sad as your nonsensical antisemite rambling
stupidities.
Keep off mathematical forums, foreskin head!