Superconductivity at room temperature??

[johanfprins]

This is what you wrote:



You didn't say they probably "fudged" you wrote they must have fudged
Fraud is "deliberate deception, trickery, or cheating intended to gain an advantage" and you wrote "must have fudged their results to obtain what they wanted to obtain". Are you really denying that you accused them of fraud?

If you refrained from resorting to hyperbole you wouldn't be caught out making unsubstantiated accusations.

In my opinion, if the Special Theory of Relativity is correct, they must have fudged their results. This is still not an indictment of having committed fraud. If they did not fudge their results, the Special Theory of Relativity must be wong. This is doubtful, so the probability is high that they did fudge their results.

 

[johanfprins]

That's right, Johan, you are the only person on Earth capable of doing these calculations correctly. If you say that "the Hafele and Keating observation disagrees with SR", well, how could you ever do a physics calculation wrong? An uninterrupted conspiracy of identical 'mistakes' stretching back to 1905, sound much more likely than Johan F. Prins getting confused.

I have explained to you in detail why the time-dilation observed within an inertial refrence frame relative to which a clock moves cannot occur on the clock itself within the reference frame within which the moving clock itself is stationary; but instead of analysing my logic you come with caustic remarks. Well by now I must know that this is the only level on which you can argue. "If for 100 years nobody found a mistake, the interpretation must be right no matter if it turns out to be illogical". Simple logic is totally lost on you. Dogmatic people like you, who are unwilling argue logic reason, should be barred from doing science.

Good night for now.

 

[ben m]

So why do you not derive what I ask YOU to derive, but attack me if I do not want to derive what you want me to derive. Are you having fun? You never derive what I ask YOU to derive, so why must I derive what you want ME to derive.

I spent the first 50 pages of this thread working through extremely detailed derivations for your benefit, Johan. Remember Josephson junctions? Volta potentials? Gauss's Law? Every derivation I have done, you have decided didn't have any impact on your theory since the law in question must not apply, the experiment was fudged, etc. The next time you want a derivation, here's what to do.

a) Open up an undergraduate textbook, in English.
b) Find the derivation you were asking for. Note the page number.
c) Find a Hungarian edition of the same textbook.
d) Spend three days with it. You won't understand a thing, because you don't speak Hungarian. Scribble angrily in the margins.
e) Go back to the English textbook. Read the conclusion. It is obviously wrong, because the derivation was nonsense and the result disagrees with you. Tear the page out and burn it.

Done! And with the desired result. Saves me a lot of time, right?

 

[ben m]

I have explained to you in detail why the time-dilation observed within an inertial refrence frame relative to which a clock moves cannot occur on the clock itself within the reference frame within which the moving clock itself is stationary; but instead of analysing my logic you come with caustic remarks.

You missed the part where I derived this myself (for the muons) and concluded that relativity does predict time dilation. See what I mean? Why did I bother? I get the same insult whether I derive stuff or not.

 

[Reality Check]

We can all make mistakes. At least I am able to admit when I made one and then to correct it. I note that you, Sol and Ben never attacked me after I have posted the correct explanation of Josephson-"tunnelling" on my website which proves that Josephson's model also, and still, violates energy connservation

Can you cite where you published this proof in a peer-reviewed journal?

Because otherwise all we have is a web page from a crank who has demonstrated in this thread that they have forgotten a lot of basic physics. Consider this as the "attack" on your "proof" !

The mistake you made was stating that a charged particle gaining energy through an electrical potential (i.e. qV where q is the particle charge and V is the difference in potential) cannot emit photons up to an energy of qV to lose that energy.
You admited that mistake.

This leaves the experimental data (I forget where this was cited) that the light emitted from Josephson junction has a energy of qV where q is twice that of an electron. That means that the 'particles' tunneling through the junction are the Cooper pairs (responsible for low temperature superconductivity) that you deny exist.

Thus Josephson's model also, and still, obeys energy connservation.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

For the time being I will lower myself and answer you since for the first time on this thread you posted something that is not nonsense: Yes I made a typo: It should have been x^/=L^/. Well done! Although I think that my goldfish could also have picked this up.

Thank you for acknowledging that error with your usual grace.

This is the regular BS that you keep on posting to foul up this thread. I gave you the coordinates, and if you are capable of doing so (which you have demonstrated time and again you are not) you can look up the Lorentz transformation, and if you are capable of doing so (which I sincerely doubt) you can apply the Lorentz transformation to these coordinates: And if you do this ( which I doubt that you are capable of doing) you will find that you, as usual, posted nonsense. Must I send my goldfish to help you?

Although I stated the length contraction correctly in my previous post, johanfprins wants me to derive that length contraction directly from the Lorentz transformation. Very well.

johanfprins has postulated a rod that is at rest with respect to an inertial frame K´ and lies along the x axis of that frame. At time t´ in that frame, one end of the rod is at x´=0; let's refer to that event as e₁. At the same time t´ (as measured in K´), the other end is at x´=L´; let's refer to that event as e₂.

I now need to use the Lorentz transformation to transform the coordinates of those two events, including their time coordinates, into the coordinates of a second inertial frame K that is moving along the x axis of K´ with velocity v (as measured in either frame). According to one of my textbooks for freshman physics, the Lorentz transformation is

[latex]
\begin{align*}
x &= \gamma (x^\prime + v t^\prime) \\
t &= \gamma (t^\prime + v x^\prime/c^2)
\end{align*}
[/latex]​

where

[latex]
\[ \gamma = 1/\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2} \]
[/latex]​

In inertial frame K, therefore, the coordinates for event e₁ are

[latex]
\begin{align*}
x_1 &= \gamma v t^\prime \\
t_1 &= \gamma t^\prime
\end{align*}
[/latex]​

and the coordinates for event e₂ are

[latex]
\begin{align*}
x_2 &= \gamma (L^\prime + v t^\prime) \\
t_2 &= \gamma (t^\prime + v L^\prime/c^2)
\end{align*}
[/latex]​

Note that t₁ and t₂ are different. (That difference illustrates the relativity of simultaneity.) If we were to subtract x₁ from x₂, we would get a wrong answer for the length of the rod in inertial frame K. (That wrong answer may be the wrong answer that Farsight and johanfprins got, but they haven't shown their work so we can't know for sure where they went wrong.)

To calculate the length of the rod as observed in inertial frame K, we have to calculate the positions of its endpoints at some common time. It's convenient to use t₂ as that common time, because we already know the position of the rod's rightmost end at that time.

[latex]
\[ t_2 - t_1 = \gamma (t^\prime + v L^\prime/c^2) - \gamma t^\prime = \gamma v L^\prime/c^2 \]
[/latex]​

so the position of the rod's leftmost end at time t₂ must be

[latex]
\begin{align*}
x_3 = x_1 + v(t_2 - t_1) &= \gamma v t^\prime + v(\gamma v L^\prime/c^2) \\
&= \gamma (v t^\prime + v^2 L^\prime/c^2) \\
&= \gamma (v t^\prime + L^\prime v^2/c^2) \\
\end{align*}
[/latex]​

The length of the rod as observed within inertial frame K is therefore

[latex]
\begin{align*}
x_2 - x_3 &= \gamma (L^\prime + v t^\prime) - \gamma (v t^\prime + L^\prime v^2/c^2) \\
&= \gamma (L^\prime + v t^\prime - v t^\prime - L^\prime v^2/c^2) \\
&= \gamma (L^\prime - L^\prime v^2/c^2) \\
&= L^\prime \gamma (1 - v^2/c^2) \\
&= L^\prime \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}} (1 - v^2/c^2) \\
&= L^\prime \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2} \\
&= L^\prime / \gamma \\
\end{align*}
[/latex]​

That's what I said in my previous post. It is not nonsense. It is correct.

sol invictus and most of the other active participants here are very familiar with relativistic length contraction, so that reasoning probably took us less than two seconds.

Do the Lorentz transformation; or get a high school student to do it for you! Please stop being under the impression that you can think and reason. With all due respect, take it from me, you do not have the intellectual capacity to do so.

What are we to make of this?

johanfprins has given us many convincing demonstrations of his incompetence. He's been wrong time after time, but he hopes to distract us from his errors by insulting the intelligence of those who correct him.

He's been doing that for over a year:

I challenge you to an open debate about Maxwell's equations in front of a learned audience; but of course persons like you are always cowards who hide behind anonymity and then throw unfounded insults around. I would not be surprised if my goldfish knows more about Maxwell's equations than you do.

I accepted that challenge, but nothing came of it. His goldfish must be an anonymous coward.

You are the most dishonest person I have ever come along in my life. Not even Joseph Goebbels could have distorted the truth better than you are doing.

 

[ben m]

I note that you, Sol and Ben never attacked me after I have posted the correct explanation of Josephson-"tunnelling" on my website which proves that Josephson's model also, and still, violates energy connservation.

Did you? Good lord. Do you want me to attack that? Too late.

If you'd accept a substitute, take a look at my metal-metal junction description again. I'm sure you can prove that they violate energy conservation too (which they must do if, as you guessed, the Volta potential doesn't exist).

 

[Reality Check]

These time dilations must be different.

Actually we have 3 inertial reference frames:
Alice who has clock a.
Bob who has clock b and is moving at v1 relative to Alice.
Charles who has clock c and is moving at v2 relative to Alice.

If v1 does not equal v2 then Alice will measure different time dilations for clocks b and c. Likewise Bob and Charles will measure different time dilations for clock a.

Now what you people claim is that time dilation IS ACTUALLY occurring on the moving clock within its own inertial reference frame.

That is gibberish - no clock is moving within its own inertial reference frame. The only movement is relatiive to the other frames.
Inertial frame of reference

In physics, an inertial frame of reference (also inertial reference frame or inertial frame or Galilean reference frame) is a frame of reference that describes time homogeneously and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner.[1]
All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; they are not accelerating (in the sense of proper acceleration that would be detected by an accelerometer). Measurements in one inertial frame can be converted to measurements in another by a simple transformation (the Galilean transformation in Newtonian physics and the Lorentz transformation in special relativity). In general relativity, an inertial reference frame is only an approximation that applies in a region that is small enough for the curvature of space to be negligible.[2][3]

What we people claim is standard SR, i.e. that Alice, Bob and Charles all measure time dilation of the clocks moving relative to their frame.

This will require the clock to simultaneously run at TWO different time-dilated rates

This is where you really go wrong. Alice always measures that her clock runs at a CONSTANT rate. Her velocity relative to her clock is zero.

Bob and Charles measure that her clock runs at different rates. That is expected becuse they are in different frames with different velocities relative to her.

 

[Reality Check]

I did not accuse them of deliberate fraud. It is just human to find what you set out to find even when it is not really what you set out to find.

Actually you did.

Originally Posted by johanfprins
Thus, Hafele and Keating, and those who followed in their footsteps must have fudged their results to obtain what they wanted to obtain

The only way that Hafele–Keating experiment and other experiments that tested the twin paradox (What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?) could get results that match that of SR is if

1. The results measured actually match SR predictions or
2. The results measured were ignored (or changed) and fake values matching SR were fabricated.
   That is what "fudged their results" means.

In the first case these were valid experiments confirming SR.
In the second case it is deliberate fraud (by multiple groups of scientists !)

 

[Reality Check]

Let us rather call the so-called momentum-operator p_op: ...

Sorry, johanfprins, but as sol invictus stated

How many times have we explained to you that the average is NOT the same as values that you measure most of the time? The average of the rolls of a 6-sided die is (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6=3.5. How often do you roll 3.5 on a 6-sided die, Johan?

The momentum operator does not pick out an existing "most of the time" value.


And you are also ignorant of the fact that the momentum operator is actually called a momentum operator. This is because

1. it is a mathematical object which is called an operator and
2. it represents momentum.

 

[Reality Check]

In my opinion, if the Special Theory of Relativity is correct, they must have fudged their results. This is still not an indictment of having committed fraud. If they did not fudge their results, the Special Theory of Relativity must be wong. This is doubtful, so the probability is high that they did fudge their results.

No what you are implying is that every scientist who published a result that you disagree "must have fudged their results"

What you are explicitly stating is that (What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?)

1. Hafele and Keating must have fudged their results.
2. Vessot et al. must have fudged their results.
3. C. Alley must have fudged their results.
4. Bailey et al. must have fudged their results.
5. The UK National Physical Laboratory must have fudged their results on 2005.
6. Every other experiment that giest reilts that agree with SR must have fudged their results!

What you are exposing is your ignorance of SR.
If the Special Theory of Relativity is correct then their results were not fudged because they agree with SR.
If they did not fudge their results, the Special Theory of Relativity must be right because their results agree with SR.
If SR is wrong then the matches must either be accidental or all these scientists must have faked their data.

 

[leonAzul]

p is the momentum operator that acts on physical states (often written with a hat). It determines the possible measurement outcomes, and, together with a given state, the distribution of said outcomes. ‹p› is its expected value, i.e., average over many identical systems. That part is standard probability theory; a common alternative notation in math books is E[...] rather than angle brackets.

In case Vorpal's answer merely whets your appetite, you can find more information about the notation here. But that might be more information, and on a more mathematically abstract level, than you want.

Mathematicians refer to probability-weighted averages as expected values; physicists tend to call them expectation values. Those are two slightly different names for exactly the same thing.

An ordinary arithmetic mean (or average) is a simple case of expected/expectation values. Consider, for example, the possible outcomes of rolling a single die: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. All six of those outcomes are equally likely, so the expected/expectation value for rolling a single die is

(1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) / 6 = 3.5​

Note well that the expected/expectation value for that experiment is not a possible outcome of that experiment.

Thank you all for your clear explanations.

 

[Vorpal]

Let us rather call the so-called momentum-operator p_op: It supposedly means that when you apply it to the wave-function (psi) it is supposedly renders one of the possible momentums that can be measured say: p_n: i.e. p_op(psi)=p_n(psi). The statistical average of these possibilities, as calculated using the wave-function as a "probability distribution", supposedly gives us <p>.

You're taking something way out of context. The equation p_op(psi)=p_n(psi) would be true only for very special psi, the eigenstates of the momentum operator, not arbitrary states. It is simply not even remotely the case that give a state ψ, p_opψ gives you one of the momenta that can be measured.

The statistical average of these possibilities, as calculated using the wave-function as a "probability distribution", supposedly gives us <p>. This is interpreted as follows: If you have a collection of identical wavefunctions (psi) and measure the momentum on each one of them, this is the value that you will measure most of the time.

What? What? What? Excuse me while I go bang my head on the desk for a little while.

Think way back to grade school, Johan. Was there a difference between mean and mode?

Obviously, such waves cannot be stationary waves but must be travelling waves. When applying this concept to a standing wave shoukld only measure one value namely zero unless you live in a paranormal univers in which momentum has no meaning.

Oh here we go again...

The operator which supposedly "measures" the different values of the momentum is interpreted to be the following calculus operator: -i*(del) where i is the imaginary number square root of minus unity and del is the gradient detivative. When you apply it to the ground-state wave function of the s-electron you get an imaginary number.

You never even cracked open a QM textbook, have you?
[latex]$\langle \hat{p}\rangle = \langle\psi|\hat{p}|\psi\rangle = \int \psi^\dagger (-i\hbar\nabla)\psi\,{\mathrm{d}^3}x$[/latex]
That's how you calculate the expected value in QM in the position basis, Johan, and the result for your case is zero, not imaginary. What you don't do is
[latex]$(-i\hbar\nabla)\psi = p_n\psi$[/latex]
because that doesn't even make any sense for arbitrary states. Just try it: (-iℏ∇)ψ is never proportional to ψ for any normalizable function. It doesn't work for anything other than plane waves, which are those aforementioned special states that are the eigenstates of momentum.

It is, however, now incorrectly assumed and vigorously defended by Sol, Ziggurat and Ben, that the product of these imaginary numbers actually does give the stationary wave kinetic energy, even though the wave is not moving at all: ...

This might have been a more forceful indictment of physics if you actually had any idea of how anything whatsoever in QM works. Or didn't you realize that (-iℏ∇)² = ℏ²∇²?

 

[ben m]

The real point of relativity comes out when you take on board the wave nature of matter and appreciate The Other Meaning of Special Relativity. People tend to dismiss this paper, but IMHO they're wrong to do so.

Farsight, this is the third or fourth time this has happened. We're talking about basic relativistic mechanics---"does thus-and-such contraction happen or not"---and you try to introduce waves. You cite a random unpublished paper on a random non-academic web page. When I Google for this paper, its author, or any other information about it, all I find is a poster named Farsight citing it over and over again on random physics forums.

It's like finding an entry in Borges' Anglo-American Cyclopedia referring to one of the well-known physicists of Uqbar on Tlön.

Can I suggest for a third time that, if you want to discuss relativity (wave-dependent or otherwise) you start a new thread?

 

[johanfprins]

Clinger: To calculate the length of the rod as observed in inertial frame K, we have to calculate the positions of its endpoints at some common time. It's convenient to use t2 as that common time, because we already know the position of the rod's rightmost end at that time.

How stupid can you be. The front and rear points of the rod can only have simultaneous positions within the reference frame K^/ within which the rod is stationary. By claiming that they can also have simultaneous positions within the reference frame K relative to which the rod is moving violates non-simultaneity. Only Clinger can be so crazy to claim that the rear end and front end of the rod can also have simultaneous positions within K. But thanks for your attempt, no matter how stupid it i: At least you tried But stop wasting our time. You just do not have the ability to think logically.

If you stop the motion at any instant in time you will find that the rod has the SAME length within K^/ and within K. You can also check the length of the rod within K by using a srop watch which you activate when the front end passes you and stop when the rear end passes you. This is what you have to do when you cannot see OR observe the front and rear end simultaneously. You will then also find that the length within K is the same as the length within K^/. Clinger go and get yourself a goldfish and become wise.

 

[Vorpal]

How stupid can you be. The front and rear points of the rod can only have simultaneous positions within the reference frame K^/ within which the rod is stationary. By claiming that they can also have simultaneous positions within the reference frame K relative to which the rod is moving violates non-simultaneity.

What? The rod has simultaneous endpoints in every inertial frame. That's kind of an essential part of what inertial frames do in STR: among other things, they define which events are simultaneous. Events of constant t are simultaneous in K and events of constants K' are simultaneous in K'. The worldlines of the endpoints intersect both the surfaces of simultaneity in K (t = const) and the surfaces of simultaneity in K' (t' = const).

This is about as obvious as it gets.

Only Clinger can be so crazy to claim that the rear end and front end of the rod can also have simultaneous positions within K.

I assure you: it's not just Clinger.

But thanks for your attempt, no matter how stupid it i: At least you tried But stop wasting our time.

...
You know what? You're absolutely right. Clinger, what the hell were you thinking? You should've known the man wouldn't listen to a sound, logical argument. The attempt was stupid from the get-go.

But then, what am I still doing here? I could be doing much more productive things, like getting drunk.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

why respond at all?

Only Clinger can be so crazy to claim that the rear end and front end of the rod can also have simultaneous positions within K.

I assure you: it's not just Clinger.

But thanks for your attempt, no matter how stupid it i: At least you tried But stop wasting our time.

...
You know what? You're absolutely right. Clinger, what the hell were you thinking? You should've known the man wouldn't listen to a sound, logical argument. The attempt was stupid from the get-go.

Yes, the main reason for responding to johanfprins has been to demonstrate that he won't listen to a sound, logical argument. That's been true for about a year now.

This thread went quiet for a while. When johanfprins came back, several newcomers tried to understand the thread without reading it from the beginning. (We know this from the number of times the thread has been viewed, and from the several readers who delurked.) Because the topics are fairly exotic for non-physicists, and because Dr Prins has a plausible-looking research biography, it's easier for those of us who've been here all along to explain the situation than for newcomers to figure it out for themselves.

johanfprins likes to dismiss his opponents as anonymous cowards. That amuses me (I've been using my own name on the Internet and its predecessors since 1975), so I tend to post more when he's trying to use that silly argument.

You just do not have the ability to think logically.

If you stop the motion at any instant in time you will find that the rod has the SAME length within K^/ and within K.

There you have it, folks: an explicit denial of relativistic length contraction.

As I wrote a few days ago:

I can no longer pretend that johanfprins understands anything about relativity.

johanfprins went on to write something sensible:

You can also check the length of the rod within K by using a srop watch which you activate when the front end passes you and stop when the rear end passes you. This is what you have to do when you cannot see OR observe the front and rear end simultaneously.

Okay, let's do that. Define e₄ as the event (with coordinates <t₄, x₄> in K) in which the rear end of the rod reaches the position x₂ that was occupied by the front end of the rod at time t₂. All we have to do is solve for t₄ and calculate the length of the rod as v(t₄-t₂).

Obviously x₂=x₄. From my previous post, we know the position x₁ of the rod's rear end at time t₁, and the velocity of the rod (as measured in K) is v, so

[latex]
\[ x_4 = x_2 = x_1 + v (t_4 - t_1) \]
[/latex]​

Solving for t₄ and plugging in the times and positions calculated in my previous post, we get

[latex]
\begin{align*}
t_4 &= t_1 + (x_2 - x_1) / v \\
&= \gamma t^\prime + (\gamma (L^\prime + v t^\prime) - \gamma v t^\prime) / v \\
&= \gamma t^\prime + \gamma L^\prime / v
\end{align*}
[/latex]​

The length of the rod (as measured in K) is therefore

[latex]
\begin{align*}
v (t_4 - t_2)
&= v ((\gamma t^\prime + \gamma L^\prime / v) - \gamma (t^\prime + v L^\prime / c^2)) \\
&= v (\gamma (L^\prime / v - v L^\prime / c^2)) \\
&= L^\prime \gamma (1 - v^2 / c^2) \\
&= L^\prime \frac{1 - v^2/c^2}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}} \\
&= L^\prime \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2} \\
&= L^\prime / \gamma
\end{align*}
[/latex]​

which is exactly the same answer I got in my previous post.

Who could have guessed?

That is, of course, the length contraction that's derived in every freshman-level textbook that covers special relativity, but really....Who could have guessed?

Not johanfprins. He guessed wrong:

You will then also find that the length within K is the same as the length within K^/. Clinger go and get yourself a goldfish and become wise.

No, Johan, that is not what I found when I did the math.

Now that johanfprins has given us two explicit denials of relativistic length contraction within a single post, I'll have to update my partial list of basic topics in undergraduate physics that Dr Johan F Prins does not understand:

• Dr Prins has rejected basic principles of quantum mechanics, such as the Born rule.
• Dr Prins has rejected the very definition of expectation value, and does not even understand that the arithmetic mean of a sequence of numbers does not have to be one of the numbers in the sequence.
• Dr Prins has rejected several basic consequences of special relativity, including length contraction and Einstein's lucid explanation for the relativity of simultaneity.
• Dr Prins has made several arguments that violate conservation of energy. In at least some of those cases, he has come to realize his mistake and replaced his faulty argument with a different faulty argument that also violates conservation of energy.
• Dr Prins has rejected Isaac Newton's definition of acceleration, even for situations that Dr Prins himself proclaims to be classical.

That's a partial list, limited to matters I'm qualified to evaluate. The real physicists here (such as ben m, sol invictus, and Ziggurat) could make a much longer list.

 

[johanfprins]

Farsight, this is the third or fourth time this has happened. We're talking about basic relativistic mechanics---"does thus-and-such contraction happen or not"---and you try to introduce waves. You cite a random unpublished paper on a random non-academic web page. When I Google for this paper, its author, or any other information about it, all I find is a poster named Farsight citing it over and over again on random physics forums.

It's like finding an entry in Borges' Anglo-American Cyclopedia referring to one of the well-known physicists of Uqbar on Tlön.

Can I suggest for a third time that, if you want to discuss relativity (wave-dependent or otherwise) you start a new thread?

Farsight: Do not let Ben, Sol or Ziggurat intimidate you. They are just typical bullies: Lots of brawn but little ???.

 

[D'rok]

Farsight: Do not let Ben, Sol or Ziggurat intimidate you. They are just typical bullies: Lots of brawn but little brain.

There is precisely one bully on this thread Johan. And if you don't tone it down, you are likely to face moderator action.

Instead of hurling abuse and insults, why don't you actually try to check your predictions by deriving them mathematically. Clinger just did it. Others have been doing it all along. Why won't you? Is it because you know that the results won't support you?

 

[johanfprins]

Not johanfprins. He guessed wrong:

Originally Posted by johanfprins
You will then also find that the length within K is the same as the length within K/. Clinger go and get yourself a goldfish and become wise.

No, Johan, that is not what I found when I did the math.

I knew that I should not engage with you. Only a person who is not intellectually capable will do a calculation in SR without first choosing an origin for the time that befits the problem being analysed: i.e. without first synchronising the clocks within K^/ and K. Now, before I show you how wrong your calculation is, let us see if you can answer the following SIMPLE question:

I synchronise the clocks in K^/ and K when the origins of K^/ and K coincide: After a time interval of t on the clock within K, what is the position coordinate x₀ of the origin of K^/ as measured within K? Added later: Not to add to your chronic confusion: K^/ moves with a constant speed v along the positive x-axis of K.

You will most probably also get this wrong!