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.

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 00:26:35 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| "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.
|
| So, you can't find that page.

I gave you a citation. If you can't read algebra that's your problem,
****head.
I suppose I'll have to spoon-feed a ****ing moron.
Page 7, line 15:
"a shortening in the direction of motion..."
Since sqrt(1- v^2/c^2) is less than 1, the length is shortened by
multiplication.
Now find Einstein's version on your own, you stupid *******.
You're totally ignorant, immature, egotistical, and a ****in' cretin.
Math-wise, you're totally ignorant.

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

On 7/24/11 4:19 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Damn it!!

Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation.

Wanna bet, Marvin!

The Lorentz transformation was originally the result of attempts by
Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be
independent of the reference frame, and to understand the symmetries of
the laws of electromagnetism. Albert Einstein later re-derived the
transformation from his postulates of special relativity. The Lorentz
transformation supersedes the Galilean transformation of Newtonian
physics, which assumes an absolute space and time (see Galilean
relativity). See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/