Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <GJV9qXRqd8YR9_jKHPyTEFOBplg@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Relativistic aberration
References: <QsysQnpetTSlB_zDsjAhnCKqnbg@jntp> <65a73d72df3e6413ef3bd691f93dfa8a@www.novabbs.com>
 <17eb0d581e6ab05b$286747$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <03d91192917665366eed4777e19eeaba@www.novabbs.com>
 <v9e72s$3fish$3@dont-email.me> <28e6191fe1b0d86de8d155cedeb6592c@www.novabbs.com> <v9fmve$3t7j7$2@dont-email.me>
 <1ba79173ec9450b5c84be28c9f1964c0@www.novabbs.com> <v9fojc$3t7j7$5@dont-email.me>
 <964f235bdecde9d651c4352ec86d1fea@www.novabbs.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: 0ONE-AoDkj4ryFAmsapsEBt1yPY
JNTP-ThreadID: XgGFOrcTXd5ZDEX07aa-LTy0U04
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=GJV9qXRqd8YR9_jKHPyTEFOBplg@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 24 16:29:48 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-08-13T16:29:48Z/8985544"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From:  Richard Hachel   <r.hachel@jesauspu.fr>
Bytes: 3698
Lines: 35

Le 13/08/2024 à 17:15, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

  Should we believe EVERYTHING scientists say?
There is something quite strange about human beings from a behavioral 
point of view. They say that we must form our own ideas, have free will, 
and not swallow everything we hear.
But I have often noticed that they do the opposite.
I have never understood this discrepancy.
Don't laugh, friends, but it is quite logical, in the human system, that 
people like the buffoon Python accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, 
because I am immensely more Cartesian than him insofar as I practice 
methodical doubt (which has saved my life at least once).
Let's take the case of Python. What could be less scientific than this guy 
who swallows everything? The guy, you tell him that four days after its 
first outing, the Titanic hit a flying saucer, he swallows it, and those 
who doubt, he attacks them, he humiliates them, he harasses them, he beats 
them up like an Orwellian police bob.
Incapable of questioning an idea that was instilled in him (he read it in 
the newspapers) he swallows it without even making a face.
Should we believe what scientists say? Should we believe what the media 
say? For him, yes, we must swallow everything and not think.
Personally, I am a conspiracy theorist and damn, I love it.
I think we must apply methodical doubt.
And me, when someone tells me that the Titanic hit a flying saucer, I 
don't believe it at all. The ship was poorly designed enough not to break 
apart in half on its own in the middle of the ocean just hours after it 
was launched.
Problem: it's too inexpressible. What will entire nations think of us if 
we reveal that Royal Navy ships break apart on their own as soon as they 
are launched? We had to invert a flying saucer, and millions of little 
Pythons would not only swallow it all, but declare total war on conspiracy 
theorists and other doubters.

R.H.