Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's
 1905 SR.
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 01:22:46 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <0c0b2bb49434e61879858abed2b9d6c2@www.novabbs.com>
References: <8d05bbe123c740f2934b31e367a92231@www.novabbs.com> <65006a73bc196736fbec3d54e21fa717@www.novabbs.com> <vr9tmf$q4vi$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="645580"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$anOnXrBs.bgloeJAQPU7/efd7fGtxYby1k/GQ5x4r8yJSRubRl4HC
Bytes: 7276
Lines: 168

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:42:04 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 16.03.2025 17:36, skrev rhertz:
>> Length contraction is the most important pillar of relativity,
>> originated in the efforts of Lorentz to disprove the MM experiment.
>
> "disprove the MM experiment"?
> I suppose you mean "explain the MM null result".
>
> According to Lorentz, it is a real contraction of the arm that
> is moving longitudinally through the ether. If you rotate
> the arm, its real length will change.
>
> But in SR, there is no contraction of the arms.
> The arms don't change their lengths when the interferometer
> is rotated, and the speed of light is isotropic in the rest
> frame of the interferometer. That's all!
> Nothing changes when the interferometer is rotated,
> so the null result is obvious.
>
> Why do you insist that a contraction of the arms are
> necessary to explain the null result?
>
>>
>> It's, after all, an inseparable outcome of Lorentz transforms, along
>> with time dilation.
>
> This indicates that you share the most idiotic misconception
> of all, namely:
>   "According to SR, an arbitrary moving observer will make
>    the length of rods contract and make clocks run slow."
>
> If that had been true, you would never have heard about SR,
> because it would have been dead before birth.
>
> All but morons should be able to understand the following:
>
> An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
> affect the properties of the observed object in any way.
> But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
> the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.
>
> Think about it. Obvious, no?
>
> According to the Lorentz transform will an observer _measure_
> the length of a moving rod to be shorter than its proper length,
> and she will _measure_ the rate of a moving clock to be slower
> than its proper rate.
>
> But this does obviously not mean that the moving rod has changed
> its proper length, or that the proper rate of the clock has changed.
> Due to her speed relative to the observed objects, her measurements
> are distorted.
>
> If you study how the measurements are made, it becomes quite obvious.
>
> See:
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
>
>
>>
>> How come this stupid part of Lorentz transforms has been abandoned, yet
>> the twin formula for time dilation is accepted? Both emerged from a
>> single mathematical framework in 1904/1905 relativity.
>
> What are you talking about? The Lorentz transform is what it always
> has been, nothing is "abounded".
> "Length contraction" and "time dilation" are two sides of the same coin.
> You can't have one without the other.
> (In flat spacetime where SR applies.)
>
> The twin paradox is that the proper times of the twins are different.
> It is not that each twin will measure the length of the other
> twin's spaceship to be shorter than his own.
>
> See:
> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
> Which "contraction" do you miss in the calculations of
> the proper times?
>
>>
>> If one of them has been dismissed (never proved), why its associated
>> formula for time has been accepted?
>>
>> It's an example of hypocrisy in physics, and also a sample of the
>> pseudoscience that relativity is.
>
> You are babbling. :-D
>
> Nothing in the LT is abounded.
>
>>
>> Consider applying length contraction to an electron moving at 0.99999 c.
>> It should be perceived as a flat disk. This concept caused that Lorentz
>> (and Einstein's plagiarism) calculated longitudinal and traversal
>> masses.
>
> And you mean SR is nonsense because electrons are
> not "perceived" as flat disks in real accelerators? :-D
>
>>
>> What is the conclusion? That the 1905 SR paper has only 4 pages out of
>> 26 with some perdurable concepts, as time passed? Or better yet: SR is
>> only ONE of the two Lorentz transforms?
>
> Doesn't the fact that you have to claim that all physicist
> who accept SR as the only valid theory within its area of
> applicability are:
> " members of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is
>   because the different results are COOKED with the help of
>   statistical manipulations, fraud, cooking and peer complicity"
>
> .. . make you wonder if you could be wrong ?
>
> No?
> If you had understood the consequence of your claim,
> you wouldn't have made it.
>
>>
>> Stupid it is, no matter from which angle you approach to that fucking
>> paper.
>
> There!
>
> For a moment I wondered if you were able to write a post with
> no profanities.
>
> I didn't have to wonder. You can't.


Do you read what you write?
What kind of senile imbecile are you?

I insist in that you have to give up posting here, after 3 decades, and
start doing gardening. Also, invest most of your time watching how
plants grow.

You are too old to keep your narrative of the relativistic cult, and
it's PAINFULLY EMBARRASSING for others to watch how your brain degrades
at an
increasing pace, Paul.

Read this STUPIDITY that I quote from your shitty post:

****************************************************************************
All but morons should be able to understand the following:

An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way.
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.

Think about it. Obvious, no?

According to the Lorentz transform will an observer _measure_
the length of a moving rod to be shorter than its proper length,
and she will _measure_ the rate of a moving clock to be slower
than its proper rate.

But this does obviously not mean that the moving rod has changed
its proper length, or that the proper rate of the clock has changed.
Due to her speed relative to the observed objects, her measurements
are distorted.
****************************************************************************

You made a mess with your word's salad. It doesn't make the slightest
sense.

Poor Paul. I sincerely pity you.