> > Antecedent:
> > > > >      - If  x - c t = 0, then x' - c t' = 0 and vice versa.
> > > > >      - The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear.
> > > > >   Consequent:
> > > > >      x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t)
> >
> > This is not a bijective mapping but it was made to look like one to
> > suit the final purpose of deriving the Lorentz transform.
> >
> > Who said idiot, retarded psychotic, irreducible moron, that  
> >    x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t) is a function?
>
> No one said that anywhere.
>     "The transformation ( x, t ) --> ( x', t' ) is linear."
> is shorthand for:
>     x'( x, t ) = a x + b t
>     t'( x, t ) = c x + d t
>
> >
> > It is simply 0 = lambda x 0 by definition
>
> How stupid.
>

No, you are an imbecile and stupid. You belong to the set of incopetent
physicists that look at mathematical symbols like little dolls they can
play with, feed then, dress them up and then put them to sleep with
their little bear.

x - ct = 0 by definition

x' - ct' is 0 by definition

x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t) makes no sense mathematically in the
domain and range these are valid (i.e. zero). Lambda can be anything,
any number or function of the form f{x,x',t,t') or even any function at
all, of some other variable, like a "hidden variable".

For x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t), for arbitrary x, x' then t, t' are
ill-defined, it is not a unique relationship and largely undefined,
because you have one equation, x' - c t' = lambda (x - c t), with two
unknowns, t, t', even if lamdda is known a priori, for any t, t', x, x'
that do not make x' - c t'  and x - c t zero.

Thus, the Lorentz transform derivation via this approach is based on a
purely mathematical trick than fails elementary algebra. Therefore, it
must be derived some other way.

Don;t you agree that if someone were to submit a paper having this type
of algebra in it and claim some derivation it would be rejected right
away? By that, I do not insist that the Lorentz transform is false,
what I claim is the Einstein forced its derivation in a very
innapropriate, insane, stupid, incopetent way.

maybe you know of a mathematically sound way of deriving the Lorentz
transformations? Do you psychopathetic, impecile, stupit, moron Dirt of
the Motel?

Mike