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

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:04:53 +0000, rhertz wrote:

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.

LIKE ITS LENGTH, TIME LAPSES, MASS? OF COURSE NOT, IMBECILE. AND THIS IS
WHY
I WROTE THAT YOUR COMMENT IS BEYOND IDIOCY.

But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.

ANOTHER IDIOTIC COMMENT: YOU CAN'T MEASURE REMOTELY WHAT HAPPENS ON THE
FRAME THAT'S MOVING WRT THE OBSERVER AT RELATIVE REST. IT'S JUST WHAT A
COUPLE OF EQUATIONS TELL YOU THAT YOU MUST PERCEIVE SUCH NON-SENSE.
THAT'S WHY RELATIVITY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE, DEVELOPED FOR ASSHOLES LIKE
YOU SO YOU CAN PLAY WITH THIS SHIT AS A HOBBY FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS,
ONLINE.

Think about it. Obvious, no?

OBVIOUS IN YOUR DEFORMED, INDOCTRINATED MIND. WHICH OTHER
PSEUDOSCIENCE/CULT DO YOU SUPPORT? I BET THAT RELATIVITY IS ONE OF MANY
IN YOUR FRAGILE, GULLIBLE MIND.

>
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.

MORE BULLSHIT NOT WORTHY TO COMMENT.

****************************************************************************