Path: ...!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 16:52:21 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <vavan6$109ac$14@dont-email.me>
References: <17ee15afea6b29a3$410850$558427$c2065a8b@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>
 <17f0d54834d96449$659868$558427$c2065a8b@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 16:52:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0bc100f5050f6c852213e21dd186125e";
	logging-data="1058124"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/K53vjoJJLCdoyPKKKcpv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hFigfD1WI3xYMg63UnAQpp7XMQ4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <17f0d54834d96449$659868$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 5412

Le 31/08/2024 à 16:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> 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.

"This question doesn't matter" is a perfectly adequate answer
to a question that actually does not matter in the context
(i.e. consistency of SR).