Path: ...!news.mixmin.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 [SR]
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 15:04:43 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vav4db$109ac$5@dont-email.me>
References: <17ee15afea6b29a3$410850$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
 <17f038d71e55acff$584760$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
 <ad841da0a6ecd1268af33e012b996cd3@www.novabbs.com>
 <17f0447be1dca708$639122$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com>
 <ac8e79f3bfccf996ed94acec6c9d056d@www.novabbs.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 15:04:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0bc100f5050f6c852213e21dd186125e";
	logging-data="1058124"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wVVjNL1APjB9rOtHhUdYP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T+OZqbaDe7JhqE2xRctR/qWAk/c=
In-Reply-To: <17f0d1c55cdbf285$768488$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4004

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 (or Newtonian dynamics) does
not rely on the definition of a second. Neither it relies on
the definition of "Kebab".