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

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:43:57 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 0:58:28 +0000, rhertz wrote:

>
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 21:42:44 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
>
<snip>
>

I only support what I have determined the way the world actually

works.

I do this by studying EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE and adjusting my belief
system to agree with that, rather then having a frozen belief system
like certain people in this "discussion" group.

>
YOUR "EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE" IS JUST BULLSHIT (Warning: mild profanity
here).

>
First of all, it's not "my" experimental evidence, it's experiments
performed by scientists, usually MUCH smarter than you or me.  That
doesn't mean that they're infallible.  They make mistakes and I've
caught them at it.  However, dismissing ALL experimental evidence, as
YOU do, is demented nonsense.
>

Your belief is trapped in circular and fallacious logic. Here is why:
>
- The "evidence" is the result of theoretical calculations, not
measurements.

>
This is total claptrap.  "Theoretical calculations" have been refuted
many times by solid experimental measurements.  Denial of that is YOUR
mental illness.  History is littered with theories have fallen by the
wayside, all due to experimental evidence.
>

- Suppose that the time of the onboard Cs clock is measured by
accumulating counts of cycles of the 10.23 Mhz master TCXO clock.
This, to accumulate pulses with a period of 97.7517 nsec during
86,400 sec, requires an onboard digital counter displaying
883,872,000,000 counts (12 digits). Such data, at the end of the
24 hours period MUST be sent down to Earth station, where a twin
Cs clock is also counting pulses in sync with the onboard Cs
clock.

>
Why do you say it's "in sync"?  That's a canard.
>

Will a comparison differ in 389 LOST PULSES (38 usec)?
I don't think so and even less that such ONLY SOLUTION to the
problem had even implemented to prove the [severe profanity deleted])
relativity.

>
That is a gross distortion of what really occurred.  First you delete
the evidence and then you misrepresent it.
>
"The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure
its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency
measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 faster than
clocks on the ground"
>
There were no "lost pulses" because the frequency received from the
satellites on the ground was HIGHER than the frequency on the ground,
not lower.
>

in 1977. If you think so, you are an imbecile beyond redemption.

>
"In order to insult me, I must first value your opinion…
Nice try though." -- Anon.
>

- The calculation of the 38 usec/day REQUIRES A THEORETICAL
SEPARATION of GR and SR effects using Schwarzschild.

>
You prove once again that you don't understand the physics.  The
calculation CAN be separated but it's not necessary to do so.  The
Schwarzschild metric includes both the gravitational AND the
velocity effects.  You plug the gravitational and the velocity into
the equation and out pops the 38 usec/day.  They are separated so
novices can comprehend what's happening.  Unfortunately, mentally-
incompetent paranoids jump to crazy conclusions.
>

It's the same crap that in the Hafele-Keating 1972 experiment,
where data for SR and GR were calculated theoretically.

>
You seem to have an aversion to comparing experimental results with
a theory.  That's hypocritical since YOU are denying the results
because they disagree with YOUR theory (Newtonian, I guess).
>

- The ALLEGED EFFECT of the 7 us/day due to SR are MISCALCULATED using
  Schwarzschild, because this alleged effect MANIFEST in rectilinear
  trajectories, NOT IN NON-INERTIAL TRAJECTORIES OF AN ELLIPTIC ORBIT!!!

>
"Rectilinear"?  You are wrong again because you don't understand
what a spherically-symmetric solution is.
>
"Non-inertial"?  So you are implying that the astronauts in the ISS
are slammed around inside because they're not in a perfectly circular
orbit?
>

I left this here because I'm tired of throwing FACTS on the table.
You will rationalize and negate what I wrote.

>
You are wrong again.  You throw nonsense and BS, as conclusively
proven above.  And you've been doing nothing but rationalization.
>

This is enough for me. Relativity IS A FARCE, A PSEUDOSCIENCE, A CULT.

>
Says the mathematically and scientifically illiterate blow-hard :-)
>

"Try being informed instead of just opinionated." -- Anon.
>

Not even one [Asinine behavior deleted] single time the change
in frequency has been measured,

>
And in his later post he says it has :-))
>

Denial of reality is a mental disorder.

>
>
<snip>

>
Yep,  Hertz's brain seems to have had a few neurons snipped off.

I'll not address the entire string of idiotic comments that you added to
my post.
I'll just focus on a couple of things that your "BRAIN" fails to
distinguish.
1) In sync means that both Cs clocks start measuring 1 day (86,400 sec)
by
signaling both with an EM beep (could be through an encoded laser shot,
which moves at c speed, you know?).
2) I, specifically and with details, wrote that each pulse of both
master clocks at 10.23 Mhz HAS TO BE ACCUMULATED IN 12 DIGIT COUNTERS!
Hard to understand for you?.
Once the lapse is finished, the GPS satellite TRANSMIT CODIFIED
INFORMATION OF ITS 12 DIGIT COUNTER, while at the same time the Earth's
counter information is stored for comparison.
THE FREQUENCY OF THE CARRIER THAT TRANSMIT THE DATA IS IRRELEVANT,
BECAUSE ONLY THE TRANSMITTED INFORMATION IS WHAT IS WORTH.
Because of the use of digital information (not any ANALOG MEASUREMENT
INVOLVED), your relativistic CALCULATIONS HAVE NO VALUE. Only the data
with the final count is what is used to DISPROVE your (profanity here)
FUCKING RELATIVITY.
If you want a more GROTESQUE WAY to prove my point, build A GIANT
DISPLAY WITH 12 DIGITS on the GPS satellite, so it can be read with a
telescope from Earth.
Do you understand this, or will keep playing the IDIOT ROLE here?
3) The general Schwarzschild solution (the only one used by retarded
relativists) CAN'T PROVIDE SEPARATE RESULTS FOR SR AND GR. Because of
that,
the result IS SPLIT in two parts (GR delay and SR delay). GR result is a
function ONLY of the average height of the satellite, assuming circular
orbits.
BUT, the SR result IS FALSE/FALLACIOUS, because the motion of the
satellite IS NOT INERTIAL. It contains a component of acceleration due
to its elliptic orbit.
THEREFORE, the 7 usec that result from the SR part are completely FALSE
and don't verify the domain of applicability of the 1905 SR CRAP!
Do you understand now, imbecile? (sorry for the profanity, but it
suits).
I can't explain it better than that for a "human" being. My dog, sitting
by me, is approving the explanation. A fucking (sorry) dog digs it, but
you can't?
Go out to make gardening with Paul. You are way to indoctrinated to
think openly and clearly. YOU ARE A FUCKING (sorry) MENTAL SLAVE OF THE
CULT'S NARRATIVE, like Paul is.
I'm not. I don't give a fuck about EVERYTHING WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED in
the last 100 years. I read, REASON FREELY and then adopt a position
without BIASES OF ANY KIND.
You could try to think freely too.