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

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. The various definitions of a second are
quite well documented.

If the [definition] means no harm to [SR] - why do you (and that means
all of you) keep desperately pretending it
never existed?
No answer? Of course.

Again, you've got answers. And no, these answers were
not to pretend that such definitions never existed.
You lies are quite exposed here.

poor stinker, idiot, moronic, crap

Nice signature Wozniak. Even if you scattered it all
along your rant.