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

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 16:36:19 +0000, rhertz wrote:

Length contraction is the most important pillar of relativity,
originated in the efforts of Lorentz to disprove the MM experiment.
>
It's, after all, an inseparable outcome of Lorentz transforms, along
with time dilation.
>
How come this stupid part of Lorentz transforms has been abandoned, yet
the twin formula for time dilation is accepted? Both emerged from a
single mathematical framework in 1904/1905 relativity.
>
If one of them has been dismissed (never proved), why its associated
formula for time has been accepted?
>
It's an example of hypocrisy in physics, and also a sample of the
pseudoscience that relativity is.
>
Consider applying length contraction to an electron moving at 0.99999 c.
It should be perceived as a flat disk. This concept caused that Lorentz
(and Einstein's plagiarism) calculated longitudinal and traversal
masses.
>
What is the conclusion? That the 1905 SR paper has only 4 pages out of
26 with some perdurable concepts, as time passed? Or better yet: SR is
only ONE of the two Lorentz transforms?
>
Stupid it is, no matter from which angle you approach to that fucking
paper.

Why does relativity employ length contraction to disprove MMX when it
has no ether? No good reason.
For the two light beams in the MMX, which are both delayed differently
by the ether wind, one needs to add the length contraction to the time
dilation to account for the longitudinal beam. Otherwise, the time
dilation is different for the two beams.
Your discussion would seem to reduce length contraction to reification
fallacy.
Returning to electrons spinning faster than light and ditching
relativity would be better.
"Cracks in the Nuclear Model: Surprising Evidence for Structure"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qynSxOS_HFc