A name which is now [post=2949024]synonymous with ignorant, arrogant and wrong[/POST].

See also:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1307.0073v1.pdf which I do not refer to -- the copy I quote is exclusively from chinglu's web site for a fake scientific journal. See also

http://nongeometric.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/sr2.pdf where Andrew has been shown to be [thread=110037]wrong before[/THREAD].

This is not an abstract in any conventional sense which demonstrates that this paper has not been subjected to even cursory editorial review an that the publisher is a

*sham scientific journal* -- in short a poetry vanity press masquerading as a scientific journal to fleece gullible pseudo-scientists and skeptics. An abstract should be exactly long enough to know what a paper is about and what the main conclusions are. Here Andrew Banks begins his exposition, leaving the article without an abstract.

A bold claim, supported by nothing. Also, this would be an excellent place to

*cite* or quote the single Einstein references Andrew Banks lists, but instead he cites it nowhere. What Einstein actually did in part I, section 1, is to establish a system of synchronized clocks in a single stationary frame. Here the use of primed coordinates merely refers to a different time on the same clock (A) as the earlier unprimed coordinate value.

At the bottom of section 2, the relativity of simultaneity is introduced, but again the primed coordinates do not refer to the choice of coordinate system.

So where is this mirror at location (x',0). Well in section 3, Einstein finally derives the Lorentz transformation, but does not use x' coordinates like Andrew Banks claims.

As you see x and x' are in the same coordinate system, the system K which is called "stationary." Basically, Einstein is saying for a particular object moving with constant speed (the same velocity as system k), then it has coordinates in the stationary system as $$x(t) = x' + v t, \; y(t) = y + 0 t, z(t) = z + 0 t$$ so that while x is a function of time, x', y and z are constants of motion in coordinate system K. And since the object moves at the same velocity as coordinate system k, it follows that the linear motion of the object in K must translated to linear non-motion in system k or $$\xi(t) = \xi + 0 \tau, \; \eta(t) = \eta + 0 \tau, \zeta(t) = \zeta + 0 \tau$$. To figure this out, Einstein made $$\tau$$ a function of the constants of motion of this particular object, moving in stationary system K and motionless in stationary system k, and x' is one of those K-system coordinates corresponding to the stationary system X-position of the object at stationary system time t=0.

So already in sentence one, Andrew Banks has botched it by misunderstanding the 108-year-old paper that every physics baccalaureate understands the conclusions of. Einstein was not using primes to distinguish different coordinate systems as is common in relativity textbooks today. He used Latin letters for one system (K) and Greek letters for the other system (k).

Actually Einstein considers a ray of light in the Latin and Greek coordinate systems. Light is used in various ways in Einstein's paper because the whole point was that the Lorentz Transformation could be derived from basic assumptions and the consistency of the speed of light. Then he does the larger part by showing that this coordinate equivalence was also an equivalence of Maxwell's electodynamics and (within then-current experimental limits) Newton's physics. Thus the 1905 paper was an important unification.

Nothing in Einstein's paper can be described as an experiment. Indeed, most of it is an argument from linearity and simple rate equations.

Here, at last, Andrew Bank's butchery of history ends and his beef begins.

Horrible syntax. "The article" can propose nothing. "The author proposes" is better but unnecessary. A paragraph break is needed because Andrew Banks has stopped talking about one subject (Misunderstanding Einstein) and began another (Making a Fool of Oneself). The description of the location and orientation of the mirror is nonsensical.

Better:

**Let a point-like detector exist, stationary in coordinate system k, somewhere to the left of the $$\eta$$-axis and only capable of detecting light to its right (including light originating at the origin of coordinate system k).**
Better:

**Assuming everything stationary in system k moves to the right with velocity v (in the x-direction) in system K, assume the origins of system k and K correspond at their respective zero times. Thus**

$$ t = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \left( \tau + \frac{v}{c^2} \xi \right) \\ x = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \left( \xi + v \tau \right) \\ y = \eta $$

Is it possible that for $$0 < v < c $$ the mirror could have such a large $$\eta$$ value that in the K frame a light flash from the time the origins were at the same position arrives at the detector from the left, preventing detection in one description of reality but not the other, supposedly equivalent one?
Andrew Banks correctly decides that the pulse from $$(\tau, \xi, \eta) = (0,0,0)$$ to $$(\tau_0, -\xi_0, +\eta_0)$$ would be seen in system K as a pulse from $$(t, x, y) = (0,0,0)$$ to $$(t_0, +x_0, +\eta_0)$$ whenever certain geometrical constraints are met, but ignores the question of what "to the right" means in system K.

First, what is the minimum value of v such that in system K the light pulse to the detector in purely in the $$+\eta$$ direction? That would mean $$x_0 = 0$$. Thus

$$v_0 = \frac{c \xi_0}{\sqrt{ \xi_0^2 + \eta_0^2}} < c $$

Then for any v such that $$v_0 < v < c$$ and assuming $$-\xi_0 < 0, \; \eta_0 > 0, \; \tau_0 = \frac{1}{c} \sqrt{\xi_0^2 + \eta_0^2} > 0$$ we have :

$$x_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \left( -\xi_0 + v \tau_0 \right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \left( -\xi_0 + \frac{v}{c} \sqrt{\xi_0^2 + \eta_0^2} \right) { \Large \quad > \quad } \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v_0^2}{c^2}}} \left( -\xi_0 + \frac{v_0}{c} \sqrt{\xi_0^2 + \eta_0^2} \right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v_0^2}{c^2}}} \left( -\xi_0 + \frac{\xi_0}{\sqrt{ \xi_0^2 + \eta_0^2}} \sqrt{\xi_0^2 + \eta_0^2} \right) = 0$$

But that, importantly, still doesn't answer if the light comes into the left or the right of the detector, which is answered by the sign of the cross product of the light ray movement and an extension of the detector (finite or infintesimal) in the $$\eta$$ direction.

This is proof that this paper has not been through ay sort of scientific review. This "book" is a collection of scientific papers published in real scientific journals and therefore cannot be cited as an original source.

What is actual being cited, according to the page numbers I have is "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" which is a translation of "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" by Albert Einstein published in

*Annalen der Physik*, Volume 17, pages 891-921 in 1905. Moreover, as a note in a different translation shows, this book was a Dover reprint of a 1923 Methuen and Company translation by W. Perrett and G.B. Jeffery of the 1922 Teubner-published collection

*Das Relativatsprinzip*, 4th Edition.

http://books.google.com/books?id=S1dmLWLhdqAC&lpg=PA37&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/1905_17_891-921.pdf
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Further, the reference was not actually referred to anywhere in the paper.