Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the LorentzTransformation

Damn it!!

Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.

Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation.

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
| Damn it!!
|
| Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
|
| Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation.
|
.... without any time vector. Nor did he divide length by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), he
multiplied.

But the lying ignoramus Einstein CLAIMED

"The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the
Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts of
experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support the theory
of relativity."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html
Such a blatant lie is instantly detected by anyone capable of reading
algebra.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:50:12 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
... | Damn it!!
|
| Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. |
| Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. |
... without any time vector. Nor did he divide length by
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), he multiplied.

Cite.

But the lying ignoramus Einstein CLAIMED

"The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the
Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts of
experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support the
theory of relativity."

Other than the misspelling, what is not true about that statement?

http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html
Such a blatant lie is instantly detected by anyone capable of reading
algebra.

Not sure I know what you're on about. Not sure you know what you're on
about.

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:50:12 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
| ... | Damn it!!
| |
| | Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. |
| | Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. |
| ... without any time vector. Nor did he divide length by
| sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), he multiplied.
|
| Cite.

Certainly:
http://tinyurl.com/6go8no5


|
| But the lying ignoramus Einstein CLAIMED
|
| "The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the
| Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts of
| experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support the
| theory of relativity."
|
| Other than the misspelling, what is not true about that statement?

****ing hell, I just told you.
Einstein divides length by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Lorentz multiplies length by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
What are you, ****ing thick?

|
| http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html
| Such a blatant lie is instantly detected by anyone capable of reading
| algebra.
|
| Not sure I know what you're on about. Not sure you know what you're on
| about.
|

I'm 100% certain you are ****ing stupid and don't know multiplication from
division
even when it is shoved in your face. You are not sure.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:54:46 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
... | On Sun, 24 Jul
2011 22:50:12 +0100, Androcles wrote: |
| "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message |
... | Damn it!! | |
| | Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. | | |
Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. | | ... without any time
vector. Nor did he divide length by | sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), he multiplied.
|
| Cite.

Certainly:
http://tinyurl.com/6go8no5

I have a couple of editions of that book.

What page has the problem that confuses you?

|
| But the lying ignoramus Einstein CLAIMED |
| "The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the |
Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts of |
experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support the |
theory of relativity."
|
| Other than the misspelling, what is not true about that statement?

****ing hell, I just told you.
Einstein divides length by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) Lorentz multiplies length by
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) What are you, ****ing thick?


Cite?

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:54:46 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
| ... | On Sun, 24 Jul
| 2011 22:50:12 +0100, Androcles wrote: |
| | "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message |
| ... | Damn it!! | |
| | | Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. | | |
| Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. | | ... without any time
| vector. Nor did he divide length by | sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), he multiplied.
| |
| | Cite.
|
| Certainly:
| http://tinyurl.com/6go8no5
|
| I have a couple of editions of that book.
|

Then read one and throw the other away, imbecile.

On Jul 24, 5:54 pm, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in messagenews:HcCdnYCANIzVA7HTnZ2dnUVZ5s2dnZ2d@gigan ews.com...
| On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:50:12 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
| m... | Damn it!!
| |
| | Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. |
| | Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. |
| ... without any time vector. Nor did he divide length by
| sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), he multiplied.
|
| Cite.

Certainly:
http://tinyurl.com/6go8no5

|
| But the lying ignoramus Einstein CLAIMED
|
| "The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the
| Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts of
| experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support the
| theory of relativity."
|
| Other than the misspelling, what is not true about that statement?

****ing hell, I just told you.
Einstein divides length by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Here is a quote from Einstein's 1905 paper as given at:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

in the equations at the end of section 3:

"xi = beta * (x - vt),

where beta = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)."

Which means,

x - vt = xi * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).

Is this the root of your problem? Confusing the transformation with
its
inverse???

Marcus.

Lorentz multiplies length by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
What are you, ****ing thick?

|
| http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html
| Such a blatant lie is instantly detected by anyone capable of reading
| algebra.
|
| Not sure I know what you're on about. Not sure you know what you're on
| about.
|

I'm 100% certain you are ****ing stupid and don't know multiplication from
division
even when it is shoved in your face. You are not sure.

"marcus_b" wrote in message
...
| On Jul 24, 5:54 pm, "Androcles" .
| 2011 wrote:
| "Marvin the Martian" wrote in
messagenews:HcCdnYCANIzVA7HTnZ2dnUVZ5s2dnZ2d@gigan ews.com...
| | On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:50:12 +0100, Androcles wrote:
| |
| | "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
| | m... | Damn it!!
| | |
| | | Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. |
| | | Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. |
| | ... without any time vector. Nor did he divide length by
| | sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), he multiplied.
| |
| | Cite.
|
| Certainly:
| http://tinyurl.com/6go8no5
|
| |
| | But the lying ignoramus Einstein CLAIMED
| |
| | "The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the
| | Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts
of
| | experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support the
| | theory of relativity."
| |
| | Other than the misspelling, what is not true about that statement?
|
| ****ing hell, I just told you.
| Einstein divides length by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| Here is a quote from Einstein's 1905 paper as given at:
|
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| in the equations at the end of section 3:
|
| "xi = beta * (x - vt),
|
| where beta = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)."
|
| Which means,
|
| x - vt = xi * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
|
| Is this the root of your problem? Confusing the transformation with
| its
| inverse???
|
| Marcus.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/x'=x-vt.gif
Clearly x-vt is defined as the length of the moving rod AB, or it would
not contain the term vt. The scalar beta lengthens the moving rod.

Here is a quote from the idiot Einstein's 1905 paper as given at:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
in the middle of section 3.

"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. "

This means the length of a rod, car or train doesn't change from day to day,
but it's position, x, does.
Thus when the train has traveled from Brighton (0) to London (x) it still
has the same number of carriages and is still the same length. A passenger
on the train remains at rest in his seat, snoozing, reading a newspaper or
gazing at sheep and horses rushing past the window at 60 mph on their way
back to Brighton whilst grazing as time passes. He is a point at rest in
system k even if the train is late, which it often is.

The coordinate transformation maps the position of the passenger, 10 miles
from Brighton at 8:10 am, to his position on the train, 4 carriages from the
tail light at 8:10 am and indeed 20 miles from Brighton at 8:20 am, to his
position on the train, 4 carriages from the tail light at 8:20 am unless the
train has stopped at Gatwick Airport, in which case he is 4 carriages from
the tail light independent of time.

Is this the root of your problem? Confusing length with position? Suckered
in by the idiot Einstein's broken logic and bull****?
Oh wait, I forgot to add enough question marks for the illiterate.
Is this the root of your problem? Confusing length with position???
Suckered in by the idiot Einstein's broken logic and bull****????????????

Here is a quote from Einstein's 1905 paper as given at:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
in the definitions in section 1.
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from
A to B
[magenta dotted line in
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/x'=x-vt.gif]
equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."
[green dotted line in
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/x'=x-vt.gif]

Is this the root of your problem? Confusing "time" with time? Suckered in
by the schizophrenic Einstein's obviously insane definition???????????????


|
| Lorentz multiplies length by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| What are you, ****ing thick?
|
| |
| | http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html
| | Such a blatant lie is instantly detected by anyone capable of
reading
| | algebra.
| |
| | Not sure I know what you're on about. Not sure you know what you're on
| | about.
| |
|
| I'm 100% certain you are ****ing stupid and don't know multiplication
from
| division
| even when it is shoved in your face. You are not sure.
|

Marvin the Martian wrote:
Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.
Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation.

I disagree. Lorentz obtained the transform equation via an ansatz, without
justification or explanation. He did not even display them in the form we use
today until after 1905. Einstein derived them from his two postulates, and
displayed them in the form used today. I believe Einstein was instrumental in
christening them "Lorentz transformations". The earlier paper by Voigt that
displayed an equivalent transform was not (re-)discovered until the name
"Lorentz transform" was well established.


Tom Roberts

ansatz, great. that was good one,
"throw the other, where I can find it."

this one really believes in the null results
of the Mmx, insofar as they are.

thus quoth:
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. sh