Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 16:06:03 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of [SR]
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <17ee15afea6b29a3$410850$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <17f04b720f77a302$639131$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <e4c869edcf7644d2982936e78ff344ac@www.novabbs.com> <17f04f0aa442b204$602281$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <fefc23dfe9b6c853e4f260e6f9acc2f1@www.novabbs.com> <17f0660d33597e0a$609532$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <ecc1cbf0f484e237b82d312335a771c3@www.novabbs.com> <17f0863c3f05fd66$618168$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <vasjam$e2la$16@dont-email.me> <17f087f24fe0f957$618169$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <vaslcv$e2la$20@dont-email.me> <17f092fe6db35995$760519$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <vav1nd$109ac$2@dont-email.me> <17f0d1c55cdbf285$768488$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <vav4db$109ac$5@dont-email.me> <17f0d32671cd6d37$768491$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <vav69q$109ac$10@dont-email.me> <17f0d4a4078e252f$768492$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <vav7nq$109ac$12@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <vav7nq$109ac$12@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 81
Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-1.netnews.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 14:06:03 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4605
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17f0d54834d96449$659868$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 4949

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 16:01, Python pisze:
> Le 31/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 31.08.2024 o 15:36, Python pisze:
>>> Le 31/08/2024 à 15:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>> W dniu 31.08.2024 o 15:04, Python pisze:
>>>>> Le 31/08/2024 à 15:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>>> W dniu 31.08.2024 o 14:18, Python pisze:
>>>>>>> Le 30/08/2024 à 19:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>> W dniu 30.08.2024 o 16:36, Python pisze:
>>>>>>>>> Le 30/08/2024 à 16:28, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 30.08.2024 o 16:00, Python pisze:
>>>>>>>>>>> Le 30/08/2024 à 15:57, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>> [boring nonsense]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej, did it come to your mind that your "argument" for the
>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistency of SR is soooo damned simple that if it were
>>>>>>>>>>> sound it would have been pointed out for ages by other people
>>>>>>>>>>> than you? If not by scientists (i.e. for you "member of the
>>>>>>>>>>> cult"), by other relativity deniers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, it is  so damned simple and it wasn't pointed
>>>>>>>>>> out, [...] - so your "logic is as worthless
>>>>>>>>>> as always.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, it's a bit amazing that all physicists
>>>>>>>>>> (and wannabe physicists as well) are so lost in
>>>>>>>>>> their pathetic "Laws of Nature!!!!!" delusions
>>>>>>>>>> that they're unable to make such a simple conclusion
>>>>>>>>>> from a basic  definition they have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So all of human beings (at least the part that had thoughts
>>>>>>>>> about Relativity) for more than a century is stupid and lost BUT a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a much longer time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would still be "more than a century" then :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway how much? Two centuries? Three centuries? More.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See, [...] - I've talked to many of you, and
>>>>>>>> the result of asking any of you about the old
>>>>>>>> definition of second is always the same: the
>>>>>>>> asked [...] is "not understanding" the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I doubt it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't give a damn to your doubts, that's how
>>>>>> things are.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are not, and anybody can check.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's try again - with yourself, poor stinker.
>>>>>> The definition  valid in physics in 1905 - was?
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter as Relativity
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See, [...] - your doubts were baseless.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You want me to post the definition of "kebab" Maciej? Really?
>>
>> No, poor stinker, I don't want you to
>> post the definition of "kebab". You're
>> lying like usual.
>> Still, you've provided just  another
>> example that  things were as I said:
>>
>>  >>>>>> the result of asking any of you about the old
>>  >>>>>> definition of second is always the same: the
>>  >>>>>> asked idiot is "not understanding" the question.
>>
>> And anyone can check that.
> 
> Yep! Anyone can check that I didn't write that I do not
> understand the question.

The question was not "does it matter". Or was it?
You obviously "misunderstood" it, poor stinker.