| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<17e96a7d9fab8941$177737$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 12:10:20 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Fantastic ! Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <HzClbiIgV4gWkO-10KDmT1Duo2s@jntp> <v8tt0d$1ppcm$3@dont-email.me> <fecb6bda9d518bd5bceba5bab9732f95@www.novabbs.com> Content-Language: pl From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> In-Reply-To: <fecb6bda9d518bd5bceba5bab9732f95@www.novabbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 31 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 10:10:20 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 1785 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17e96a7d9fab8941$177737$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 2247 W dniu 07.08.2024 o 11:58, JanPB pisze: > On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 19:19:40 +0000, Python wrote: > >> Le 06/08/2024 à 20:34, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >>> This is fantastic! >>> >>> I learned that Python is going to blow away my concepts on uniformly >>> accelerated repositories. >> >> Stupid Lengrand : "repository" means "dépôt". The translation for >> "référentiel" is "frame of reference". >> >>> It's going to be a massacre, from what I hear. >>> Usenet still has a very bright future ahead of it. >>> >>> R.H. >> >> I already posted the proofs that your claims are fallacious. This is >> not that a big deal. It is easy to check that you are contracting >> yourself and the principle of Relativity. It has been pointed out >> to you several times here and there. > > One standard problem is that one usually cannot explain to > someone why that someone is wrong *unless* that person knows enough > already > to understand the disproof (refutation) in the first place. You can't explain anything to relativistic worshippers, sure; but that doesn't change the fact that the mumble of their idiot guru was not even consistent.