Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's
 1905 SR.
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 19:31:31 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <9ed9e92086e0d99fde7d81edfced643a@www.novabbs.com>
References: <8d05bbe123c740f2934b31e367a92231@www.novabbs.com> <65006a73bc196736fbec3d54e21fa717@www.novabbs.com> <vr9tmf$q4vi$1@dont-email.me> <0c0b2bb49434e61879858abed2b9d6c2@www.novabbs.com> <vrbtgj$2k1q7$1@dont-email.me> <a1b3bbfca4b1e9797d98903a77f0cf59@www.novabbs.com> <f58a6ba75e73908078c5576f74ffe329@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="751320"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="TRF929uvrTGZYJLF+N3tVBXNVfr/PeoSjsJ9hd5hWzo";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$TlycrqnrutI/FWChquifTOggF7gkewJSLF.9CLnJl7lHRomGCEStq
X-Rslight-Posting-User: cefb4c33981645a229d345bae7bb8942e6b32c35
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3988
Lines: 71

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:13:45 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:04:53 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
> > > Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > >
> ****************************************************************************
> > > > 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.
>
> LIKE ITS LENGTH, TIME LAPSES, MASS? OF COURSE NOT, IMBECILE. AND THIS IS
> WHY I WROTE THAT YOUR COMMENT IS BEYOND IDIOCY.

It made perfect sense to me.

> > > > But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can
> affect
> > > > the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed
> object.
>
> ANOTHER IDIOTIC COMMENT: YOU CAN'T MEASURE REMOTELY WHAT HAPPENS ON THE
> FRAME THAT'S MOVING WRT THE OBSERVER AT RELATIVE REST.

Funny, I thought it's being done all the time on drones and space
probes.

> IT'S JUST WHAT A COUPLE OF EQUATIONS TELL YOU THAT YOU MUST PERCEIVE
> SUCH NON-SENSE.

The equations help us to understand what is being measured.  And Paul
points out that a 1.000 GHz signal generated by a moving observer is
received at 1.001 GHz.  This is explained quite easily by the Doppler
equation (the RELATIVISTIC version if the stationary observer wants a
really, really accurate measurement).

> THAT'S WHY RELATIVITY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE, DEVELOPED FOR ASSHOLES LIKE
> YOU SO YOU CAN PLAY WITH THIS SHIT AS A HOBBY FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS,
> ONLINE.

Paul, you're right.  Hertz can't get through a post without profanity
:-)

> > > > Think about it. Obvious, no?
>
> OBVIOUS IN YOUR DEFORMED, INDOCTRINATED MIND. WHICH OTHER
> PSEUDOSCIENCE/CULT DO YOU SUPPORT? I BET THAT RELATIVITY IS ONE OF MANY
> IN YOUR FRAGILE, GULLIBLE MIND.

Hertz seems to be the one with a deformed self-indoctrinated mind
(that's the worst kind).

> > > > 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.
>
> MORE BULLSHIT NOT WORTHY TO COMMENT.

You mean like Paul's explanation of a 1.000 GHz signal sent from a
moving
observer being received at 1.001 GHz?  No wonder Hertz wants to forget
about that little gem that destroys his whole diatribe.  And with a name
like, HERTZ, too :-)