Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:43:57 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <b216582f371ee9c22456535c6fc58393@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> <9ed9e92086e0d99fde7d81edfced643a@www.novabbs.com> <0082c223a6c8e6952b11ec32b83c473b@www.novabbs.com> <d38ac7fb8de3a1e3c8f08908a6e1953a@www.novabbs.com> <40f0e2c10ed1e2c2d24989b4c7917802@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="865891"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="TRF929uvrTGZYJLF+N3tVBXNVfr/PeoSjsJ9hd5hWzo";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$VVWGu/oyjo6kfYTM/RT1wevw5Hx5zmsuEoYaFyn871wli5vr1BXZO
X-Rslight-Posting-User: cefb4c33981645a229d345bae7bb8942e6b32c35
Bytes: 6222
Lines: 115

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 0:58:28 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 21:42:44 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I only support what I have determined the way the world actually
> works.
> > I do this by studying EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE and adjusting my belief
> > system to agree with that, rather then having a frozen belief system
> > like certain people in this "discussion" group.
>
> YOUR "EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE" IS JUST BULLSHIT (Warning: mild profanity
> here).

First of all, it's not "my" experimental evidence, it's experiments
performed by scientists, usually MUCH smarter than you or me.  That
doesn't mean that they're infallible.  They make mistakes and I've
caught them at it.  However, dismissing ALL experimental evidence, as
YOU do, is demented nonsense.

> Your belief is trapped in circular and fallacious logic. Here is why:
>
> - The "evidence" is the result of theoretical calculations, not
> measurements.

This is total claptrap.  "Theoretical calculations" have been refuted
many times by solid experimental measurements.  Denial of that is YOUR
mental illness.  History is littered with theories have fallen by the
wayside, all due to experimental evidence.

> - Suppose that the time of the onboard Cs clock is measured by
> accumulating counts of cycles of the 10.23 Mhz master TCXO clock.
> This, to accumulate pulses with a period of 97.7517 nsec during
> 86,400 sec, requires an onboard digital counter displaying
> 883,872,000,000 counts (12 digits). Such data, at the end of the
> 24 hours period MUST be sent down to Earth station, where a twin
> Cs clock is also counting pulses in sync with the onboard Cs
> clock.

Why do you say it's "in sync"?  That's a canard.

> Will a comparison differ in 389 LOST PULSES (38 usec)?
> I don't think so and even less that such ONLY SOLUTION to the
> problem had even implemented to prove the [severe profanity deleted])
> relativity.

That is a gross distortion of what really occurred.  First you delete
the evidence and then you misrepresent it.

"The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure
its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency
measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 faster than
clocks on the ground"

There were no "lost pulses" because the frequency received from the
satellites on the ground was HIGHER than the frequency on the ground,
not lower.

> in 1977. If you think so, you are an imbecile beyond redemption.

"In order to insult me, I must first value your opinion…
Nice try though." -- Anon.

> - The calculation of the 38 usec/day REQUIRES A THEORETICAL
> SEPARATION of GR and SR effects using Schwarzschild.

You prove once again that you don't understand the physics.  The
calculation CAN be separated but it's not necessary to do so.  The
Schwarzschild metric includes both the gravitational AND the
velocity effects.  You plug the gravitational and the velocity into
the equation and out pops the 38 usec/day.  They are separated so
novices can comprehend what's happening.  Unfortunately, mentally-
incompetent paranoids jump to crazy conclusions.

> It's the same crap that in the Hafele-Keating 1972 experiment,
> where data for SR and GR were calculated theoretically.

You seem to have an aversion to comparing experimental results with
a theory.  That's hypocritical since YOU are denying the results
because they disagree with YOUR theory (Newtonian, I guess).

> - The ALLEGED EFFECT of the 7 us/day due to SR are MISCALCULATED using
>   Schwarzschild, because this alleged effect MANIFEST in rectilinear
>   trajectories, NOT IN NON-INERTIAL TRAJECTORIES OF AN ELLIPTIC ORBIT!!!

"Rectilinear"?  You are wrong again because you don't understand
what a spherically-symmetric solution is.

"Non-inertial"?  So you are implying that the astronauts in the ISS
are slammed around inside because they're not in a perfectly circular
orbit?

> I left this here because I'm tired of throwing FACTS on the table.
> You will rationalize and negate what I wrote.

You are wrong again.  You throw nonsense and BS, as conclusively
proven above.  And you've been doing nothing but rationalization.

> This is enough for me. Relativity IS A FARCE, A PSEUDOSCIENCE, A CULT.

Says the mathematically and scientifically illiterate blow-hard :-)

> > "Try being informed instead of just opinionated." -- Anon.
> >
> > > Not even one [Asinine behavior deleted] single time the change
> > > in frequency has been measured,

And in his later post he says it has :-))

> > Denial of reality is a mental disorder.
>
>
> <snip>

Yep,  Hertz's brain seems to have had a few neurons snipped off.