Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <_51wt7ikRc6yDpws76imaPG0on4@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit
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>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: m6apaU7CtbcIho7JHyJDOXAJTPU
JNTP-ThreadID: 17ee15afea6b29a3$410850$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=_51wt7ikRc6yDpws76imaPG0on4@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 24 15:31:57 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-08-27T15:31:57Z/9002563"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr>
Bytes: 2754
Lines: 21

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?
I am the only one, all relativist scientists combined, to have no internal 
theoretical contradiction (works in apparent speeds, fatal symmetry of 
reciprocities), and the only one who has never been found wanting by any 
experiment for 40 years.
What proof? Theoretical? Experimental?
Jean-Pierre, be serious.

R.H.