Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 01:14:19 +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>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 18:14:17 -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: <hNCdnSsI-fqeP0T6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <xlKdnf7uhNr2h0f6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 92
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zzJiyvtbyOnuLrwmVr1D+OksyeqL1AJNPW4OBHVAKPQmh3/Ky/7bKs1f6vULAzmXZXS0nJoV4v6K2zU!x0NUDe51aN0rq0T0A9139JgevkwBIs0XNTpsSXB06mD96WoQMKalz4CbtJxCAbQUXNwl9XCVGqQ=
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: 4872

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, ....