Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of [SR]

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 17:43, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 17:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 17:16, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 17:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 16:52, Python pisze:

...

"This question doesn't matter" is a perfectly adequate answer
to a question that actually does not matter in the context

>
Python, [...] the context was - the [...]
[scientists] like you to spelling
the old, valid in 1905 (when [Einstein] lived
[...]) definition of second.
>
Of course, your lie of "doesn't matter" is also
ridiculous. Does [SR] make any numeric
predictions with units?

>
It does.
>

if it does - how can
the definitions of these units irrelevant ?

>
For SR certainly.

>
So, [SR] is making predictions like
"the result will be [n] seconds - and
what this second is doesn't matter for it?

 Already answered:
 For SR certainly.

Repeated nonsense is still just a nonsense.
You've got a proof of the opposite; nobody
of course is expecting such a fanatic idiot
to accept proofs he doesn't like.

No more hatred than

See, poor stinker - 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 idiot is "not understanding" the question.
An experiment was even performed on you some
hours ago.