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: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 16:46:38 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <vasm0f$e2la$21@dont-email.me>
References: <17ee15afea6b29a3$410850$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
 <45fd375adfc18f18878cefa21e4f4b95@www.novabbs.com>
 <17f03370b4565f4b$579417$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
 <d9c926a6c9fcb082495c9bd118e9bf08@www.novabbs.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 16:46:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f01e2221d99b21c0754b16fe041d7c3a";
	logging-data="461482"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+hL9FGT67+szIk5GfxWKhR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/mr2nJB896yBmXhe3ZYIENuxoF4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <17f087f24fe0f957$618169$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 3017

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.

This is not worthless logic.

Let's define:
P:"The argument is damned simple"
Q:"The argument is sound"
R:"It has been pointed out before Maciej Wozniak enlightment"

P is true

(P and Q) => R is extremely and strongly plausible: 99.99999%
Would you admit it?

You admit that P and (not R) is true.

My claim is that Q is false and that the plausibility is
a strong argument for that (among many many others that
does not rely on "plausibility" but hard facts).