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

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.
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.
If the definitition means no harm to your
moronic religion - why do you (and that means
all of you) keep desperately pretending it
never existed?
No answer? Of course.
Pumped with crap of Nature Herself speaking
to your idiot gurus - not for a century,
but since the beginning - you simply can't
treat the role of definitions seriously.
Too bad for you.