Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

 No clocks were ever accelerated in any accelerator.
It's an impudent lie believable only by fanatic idiots.
 Anyway, your pathetic lies of zillions of
experiments allegedly confirming the pathetic
mumble of your idiot guru are completely irrelevant
for this thread.
 The thread is about the inconsistent assumptions
of his physics and inconsistent conclusions
derivable from it. You're too dumb to understand
even that, but still it is.

That's right, you're absolutely right, and no clock has ever been placed in accelerators.
Which presents a huge experimental problem.
What must be understood, especially understood, is that I don't believe that a relativistic theory has ever been developed in a native and coherent way.
In this sense, I'm not sure that it's been done like me, with a theory preceding the experiment.
No, I'm not sure at all.
So I gave what I think is the right concept of ALL RR, even in areas where we are far from being able to verify (rotating disks, watches placed on accelerated objects).
What is abnormal, with me, compared to others, is that everything is said in advance, and in a coherent way.
Physicists, and this is very unfortunate, do not practice like that.
They start from the experiment, and try to explain the experiment (Michelson Morley). It is the opposite that had to be done, to build a complete theory, all frames of reference combined, with complete equations, then to check if it holds.
If already 100% of the possible experiments everything holds on 25% of the tested equations, and it is never found wanting, we must ask ourselves the right question. Is the theory entirely valid, even if it predicts strange things or disagrees with the other relativistic predictions. Even more so if it is 50%. We can then think that the 50% of tests still impossible to do risk being in agreement with the rest, because the bases were good.
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.
So yes, there are things that should be done, and we do not have the means to do it (unless we find a new Michelson capable of experimenting things).
But I am sure that it will go my way, and not in the t'=t way.
R.H.