Re: Space and spacetime

Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Le 17/06/2024 à 11:13, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

>
On 2024-06-16 21:28:01 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
 

Le 16/06/2024 à 22:46, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :

>

Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:07, Roeidi Hegedüs a écrit :

>
Luigi Fortunati wrote:

>
Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a

fact.

 no shit Sherlock.

 

Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a

fact.

 Nonsense.
--
Jan

 Lorsqu'on accuse quelqu'un, il faut des preuves concordantes et acceptées de tous.

  Have you convinced anyone at all that your analysis is correct? Who?

>
I don't know.
I do not think so.
But this is not a counterargument.
Raël, the guru of the Canadian sect, has made thousands of followers,
explaining that he had spoken to the Elohims.
De Gaulle was not followed by anyone in explaining that occupied France
 had not yet lost the war as long as the Russians, the English, and the Americans continued the fight.
The fact of convincing or not convincing is not proof of lie or truth.
It is often even the opposite.
This is also what the Christian religion, Eastern philosophers, Western
 fabulists, and sociological evidence tell us.
We must therefore judge on what is said, and on what is written, and
not
 on what is claimed.
>
R.H.

Neither is this an argument, counter or otherwise.  Science is NOT
based
on what is said or written.  It is based on whether the analysis agrees
with what occurs, i.e., the outcomes of experiments.