Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Python <python@invalid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:38:25 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <vakrth$2u8l5$17@dont-email.me>
References: <17ee15afea6b29a3$410850$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
 <17ef49d04f9ca728$637458$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <99644ad5bf4316e8ad0c33c2c88186c8@www.novabbs.com>
 <17ef4f5375487563$506650$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
 <6f245833fb3cc5f325c276e2d0ead734@www.novabbs.com>
 <17ef7e11220c8a88$512687$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
 <23cf024421e08236d5d9a53fe6ff1051@www.novabbs.com>
 <17ef9d6e3e1ef923$670188$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <Ibjh1AmAa9PjZiQF-UQX-2NHlQ0@jntp> <vakqra$2u8l5$13@dont-email.me>
 <_51wt7ikRc6yDpws76imaPG0on4@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:38:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f25627d19461a13182a502fc6818a371";
	logging-data="3089061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18isKhYBp6GZse48ybOIHvu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tGiWTzdGQba36mvaCDaQEjGGcsU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <_51wt7ikRc6yDpws76imaPG0on4@jntp>
Bytes: 2376

Le 27/08/2024 à 17:31, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> Le 27/08/2024 à 17:20, Python a écrit :
>> Le 27/08/2024 à 17:15, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
>> ...
>>> Let's take the proper time of accelerated objects. I am sure of my 
>>> move, because everything is of great theoretical coherence from 
>>> beginning to end when I speak of RR. Physicists are not capable of 
>>> it, but they will NEVER say it, they prefer to insult and try to 
>>> discredit.
>>
>> A proof (several proofs as a matter of fact) that your claim violates
>> the principle of Relativity is in no way an insult.
>>
>> It is a discredit, maybe, but that's your fault.
> 
> What proof?

Putting your head in the sand won't help Richard.

> [snip babbling]