Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<341650621de6095284213f9c7633aee3@www.novabbs.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's
 1905 SR.
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 03:18:54 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <341650621de6095284213f9c7633aee3@www.novabbs.com>
References: <8d05bbe123c740f2934b31e367a92231@www.novabbs.com> <65006a73bc196736fbec3d54e21fa717@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="515264"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$K6pxapklaufrXTtsqwTBteWIA8JJKDiQHROkbGlbB/j/evGHLwaOO
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
Bytes: 3027
Lines: 39

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 16:36:19 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> Length contraction is the most important pillar of relativity,
> originated in the efforts of Lorentz to disprove the MM experiment.
>
> It's, after all, an inseparable outcome of Lorentz transforms, along
> with time dilation.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Stupid it is, no matter from which angle you approach to that fucking
> paper.
"I attach special importance to the view of geometry which I have just
set forth, because without it I should have been unable to formulate the
theory of relativity. Without it the following reflection would have
been impossible:- In a system of reference rotating relatively to an
inert system, the laws of disposition of rigid bodies do not correspond
to the rules of Euclidean geometry on account of the Lorentz
contraction; thus if we admit non-inert systems we must abandon
Euclidean geometry. The decisive step in the transition to general
co-variant equations would certainly not have been taken if the above
interpretation had not served as a stepping-stone." - Einstein in
"Geometry & Experience"