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

Le 31/08/2024 à 16:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 16:01, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 15:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 15:36, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 15:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 15:04, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 15:01, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 14:18, Python pisze:

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.

>
Don't give a damn to your doubts, that's how
things are.

>
They are not, and anybody can check.
>

Let's try again - with yourself, poor stinker.
The definition  valid in physics in 1905 - was?

>
It doesn't matter as Relativity

>
>
See, [...] - your doubts were baseless.
>
>

>
You want me to post the definition of "kebab" Maciej? Really?

>
No, poor stinker, I don't want you to
post the definition of "kebab". You're
lying like usual.
Still, you've provided just  another
example that  things were as I said:
>
 >>>>>> 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.
>
And anyone can check that.

>
Yep! Anyone can check that I didn't write that I do not
understand the question.

 The question was not "does it matter". Or was it?
You obviously "misunderstood" it, poor stinker.

"This question doesn't matter" is a perfectly adequate answer
to a question that actually does not matter in the context
(i.e. consistency of SR).