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

Den 18.03.2025 02:22, skrev rhertz:

  Do you read what you write?
What kind of senile imbecile are you?
 I insist in that you have to give up posting here, after 3 decades, and
start doing gardening. Also, invest most of your time watching how
plants grow.
 You are too old to keep your narrative of the relativistic cult, and
it's PAINFULLY EMBARRASSING for others to watch how your brain degrades
at an
increasing pace, Paul.
Read this STUPIDITY that I quote from your shitty post:

Richard, you are making a fool of yourself. Again!

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.
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.
 Think about it. Obvious, no?
 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.
****************************************************************************

 You made a mess with your word's salad. It doesn't make the slightest
sense.
 Poor Paul. I sincerely pity you.

I don't believe that you are quite as stupid as you appear.
I think you didn't read what I wrote properly, and assumed that
it was nonsense.
Read this statement:
--------------------
An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way.
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.
Are you proclaiming to the world that you don't understand that
the statement above is obviously true?
Let's take a concrete example:
-----------------------------
An oscillator is transmitting a radio signal with frequency f = 1 GHz.
You are moving towards the oscillator.
You measure the frequency of the radio signal to be 1.001 GHz
Have your motion towards the oscillator made the oscillator
change its frequency from 1.000 GHz to 1.001 GHz?
Of course not.
Because:
"An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
  affect the properties of the observed object in any way."
So why are you measuring a frequency 1.001 GHz when the oscillator
still is transmitting 1.000 GHz?
Because:
"the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
  the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object."
Same with the length of the rod.
The observer's speed relative to the rod doesn't change
the length of the rod.
Because:
"An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
  affect the properties of the observed object in any way."
The observers speed relative to the rod will according to SR
make the observer measure the rod to be shorter.
Because:
"the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
  the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object."
------------
Make my day:
Proclaim to the world that you think what I wrote above doesn't
make the slightest sense to you.
Add some ad hominem and top it with a profanity.
That will make you look very smart!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/