| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<mECdnd-OzKyykHT6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 09:21:51 +0000 Subject: Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR. Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <8d05bbe123c740f2934b31e367a92231@www.novabbs.com> <65006a73bc196736fbec3d54e21fa717@www.novabbs.com> <341650621de6095284213f9c7633aee3@www.novabbs.com> <4QmdnVH0m_Cz_EX6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <hNCdnSsI-fqeP0T6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <xlKdnf7uhNr2h0f6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 02:21:54 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <xlKdnf7uhNr2h0f6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <mECdnd-OzKyykHT6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 101 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-slqU4NBF6qNQBSCHbZuXJOHbwJE8Qbt2wjIBBfgpIea5/be86f3y2MLaGXvSIK900pNNFEd+8lGukzT!ZjtycoXipU9NPxyIZz7bsB507/4MPL6RTYDL/vYMBaiotB/8gpU+q/mUghSlIPww8uhFIvv2g70= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 5172 On 03/18/2025 06:14 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 03/18/2025 09:40 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 03/17/2025 10:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 03/16/2025 08:18 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>> 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" >>> >>> >>> The space-contraction and it's more FitzGeraldian keeps >>> the length-contraction and time-dilation together and >>> furthermore keeps things continuous for Poincare, ... >>> >>> Einstein <- energy >>> >>> Fresnel >>> FitzGerald >>> Faraday >>> FinlayFreundlich <- forces/fields >>> >>> Lorentzians, now again Lagrangians >>> >>> >>> The "energy equivalency" is a "convenient conceit" >>> yet it's "sorta stupid". >>> >>> >>> >> >> I suppose you could add Fizeau, then that Fizeau is >> sort of "weak SR-ians" and Faraday, Fizeau, Freundlich >> sort of make for "schizo E&M SR-ians", while FitzGerald >> is the bit more "proper GR-ians", though of course each >> are sort of proper themselves, that big E is rather mute. >> >> Fermi, I suppose there's Fermi, .... >> >> Of course there's Fatio, for gravity the gravific, >> for example as with regards to De Donder. >> >> > > See, each these has different conditions for the > _spaces_ and _frames_ of the _energy_ its _entelechy_ > thus that the _sources_ and _propagations_ of the > emitters for detectors _varies_ yet as well that > they're all one thing overall governed by GR. > > ... with dynamics. > > > > Schizos, .... > > You just planning to ignore this? Congratulations you're not a physicist.