Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.

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"