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

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 19:31:31 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:13:45 +0000, rhertz wrote:

>
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.

>
It made perfect sense to me.
>

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.

>
Funny, I thought it's being done all the time on drones and space
probes.
>

IT'S JUST WHAT A COUPLE OF EQUATIONS TELL YOU THAT YOU MUST PERCEIVE
SUCH NON-SENSE.

>
The equations help us to understand what is being measured.  And Paul
points out that a 1.000 GHz signal generated by a moving observer is
received at 1.001 GHz.  This is explained quite easily by the Doppler
equation (the RELATIVISTIC version if the stationary observer wants a
really, really accurate measurement).
>

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.

>
Paul, you're right.  Hertz can't get through a post without profanity
:-)
>

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.

>
Hertz seems to be the one with a deformed self-indoctrinated mind
(that's the worst kind).
>

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.

>
You mean like Paul's explanation of a 1.000 GHz signal sent from a
moving
observer being received at 1.001 GHz?  No wonder Hertz wants to forget
about that little gem that destroys his whole diatribe.  And with a name
like, HERTZ, too :-)

Of course that you support Paul's shit (profanity here). Also support
the widely published daily delay of (45-7) usec that comes from
Schwarzschild applied to GPS. You HAVE TO, BECAUSE YOUR CULT OBLIGES YOU
AND CRITICIZING THE SHIT IS
PUNISHED WITH "MORTE CIVILE" IN YOUR PAGAN CHURCH.
Not even one fucking single time the change in frequency has been
measured, because it is PERCEPTUAL, and Lorentz transforms force you to
accept a MATHEMATICAL outcome. Not a physical reality, just a
MATHEMATICAL result.
But mathematics is not physics, and this can be shown also within QM.
Read my post above about THE PERCEPTION of what one electron is, because
Schrödinger wrote a beautiful equation making electrons behave as WAVES.
Why don't you study Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics, where there are no
waves to describe electron orbitals?. Of course you can't, because you
know shit about matrixes, as 99.99% of the physicists of that epoch, who
were more "comfy" with waves.