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

Den 18.03.2025 18:13, skrev rhertz:

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.

So you call my statement "BEYOND IDIOCY" because you are
not a moron and have realised that it is obviously true. :-D

 

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

You know of course that this statement is equally true in NM and SR.
Remember this?
An oscillator is transmitting a radio signal with frequency f = 1 GHz.
You are moving towards the oscillator.
With your frequency counter you measure the frequency 1.001 GHz.

 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.

What are you talking about? It's very simple:
With your frequency counter you measure the frequency 1.001 GHz.
Because:
"the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
  the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object."
My comment is obviously true, and that's why you have to call it
"ANOTHER IDIOTIC COMMENT".  :-D

 

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.

Now you have realised that both my statements are true,
and MUST be true in NM as well as SR.
Does that mean that your mind is another DEFORMED, INDOCTRINATED 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.

It is a fact that SR predicts this.
And it is possible because:
"the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
  the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object."

>
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.

This is true because:
"An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
  affect the properties of the observed object in any way."

 MORE BULLSHIT NOT WORTHY TO COMMENT.

And it is BULLSHIT because SR do not predict that moving
rods will be contracted as you thought the LT predict
they would?
"Length contraction is .. after all, an inseparable outcome of
Lorentz transforms,"
Remember? :-D

 

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

This is one of your more hilarious posts, Richard. :-D
Since you are not a moron you have realised that both of my
quoted statements are obviously and trivially true.
But since you previously called my statements STUPIDITY which
"doesn't make the slightest sense." , you now have to call my
statements "BEYOND IDIOCY" and  "IDIOTIC COMMENTS" _because_
they are obviously and trivially true.
Nobody can admit that they are wrong with such a well
formulated elegance as you can.
Well done, Richard! :-D
--
Paul, still laughing
https://paulba.no/