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.

How come it didn't happen?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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, poor stinker - 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.

Still, that's a fact, and I'm not going to fight them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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
single individual, pretending to be an "information engineer" (whatever
that means :-) ).

Very, very realistic :-D

Oh, and no, when it comes to SR the definition of a second is
definitely not something we "have" or even need.

Still, that's a fact, and I'm not going to fight them.

Well, you are here (at least). With very very poor results.

poor stinker

Nice signature Maciej. Unfortunately you put it in the middle
of your post.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

This is not worthless logic.

Let's define:
P:"The argument is damned simple"
Q:"The argument is sound"
R:"It has been pointed out before Maciej Wozniak enlightment"

P is true

(P and Q) => R is extremely and strongly plausible: 99.99999%
Would you admit it?

You admit that P and (not R) is true.

My claim is that Q is false and that the plausibility is
a strong argument for that (among many many others that
does not rely on "plausibility" but hard facts).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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 (or Newtonian dynamics) does
not rely on the definition of a second. Neither it relies on
the definition of "Kebab".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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, poor stinker - your doubts were baseless.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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?

--
poor stinker

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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. AAMF I do. I can publish several
definition of a second that had been used.

The point is that neither Relativity or Newtonian Dynamics
rely on such definitions.

So posting such definitions would be as relevant as posting
defintions of kebab. This is still a big fight between Germany
and Turkey btw.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 16:52, Python pisze:

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

Python, poor stinker, the context was - the hatred
of the Shit's worshippers like you to spelling
the old, valid in 1905 (when their idiot guru lived
and mumbled) definition of second.

Of course, your lie of "doesn't matter" is also
ridiculous. Does The Shit make any numeric
predictions with units? if it does - how can
the definitions of these units irrelevant,
poor stinker?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 17:16, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 17:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 16:52, Python pisze:

...

"This question doesn't matter" is a perfectly adequate answer
to a question that actually does not matter in the context

Python, [...] the context was - the [...]
[scientists] like you to spelling
the old, valid in 1905 (when [Einstein] lived
[...]) definition of second.

Of course, your lie of "doesn't matter" is also
ridiculous. Does [SR] make any numeric
predictions with units?

It does.

if it does - how can
the definitions of these units irrelevant ?

For SR certainly.

So, The Shit is making predictions like
"the result will be [n] seconds - and
what this second is doesn't matter for it?

Well, sorry, trash. Mistaken as always,
it absolutely does matter and with
"second" defined as it was in 1905 - The
Shit is not just insane mumble of some
insane crazie, it is self-denying insane
mumble of some insane crazie.

Thus, of course, your hatred for spelling
that definition can't be a surprise.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 31/08/2024 à 17:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 16:52, Python pisze:

...

"This question doesn't matter" is a perfectly adequate answer
to a question that actually does not matter in the context

Python, [...] the context was - the [...]
[scientists] like you to spelling
the old, valid in 1905 (when [Einstein] lived
[...]) definition of second.

Of course, your lie of "doesn't matter" is also
ridiculous. Does [SR] make any numeric
predictions with units?

It does.

if it does - how can
the definitions of these units irrelevant ?

For SR certainly. For experiments the definition and the
practicality of measuring devices is relevant.

This is why experiments usually use calibrated clocks of
some kind instead of building a full copy of the Solar System.

Such clocks being calibrated according to the current definition
of time, i.e.
- Decades ago against duration of a day
- Now using cesium atoms

Another question, Maciej?

--
poor stinker, poor poor stinker

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 17:43, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 17:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 17:16, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 17:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 16:52, Python pisze:

...

"This question doesn't matter" is a perfectly adequate answer
to a question that actually does not matter in the context

Python, [...] the context was - the [...]
[scientists] like you to spelling
the old, valid in 1905 (when [Einstein] lived
[...]) definition of second.

Of course, your lie of "doesn't matter" is also
ridiculous. Does [SR] make any numeric
predictions with units?

It does.

if it does - how can
the definitions of these units irrelevant ?

For SR certainly.

So, [SR] is making predictions like
"the result will be [n] seconds - and
what this second is doesn't matter for it?

Already answered:

For SR certainly.

Repeated nonsense is still just a nonsense.
You've got a proof of the opposite; nobody
of course is expecting such a fanatic idiot
to accept proofs he doesn't like.

No more hatred than

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.

An experiment was even performed on you some
hours ago.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 31/08/2024 à 18:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

[snip boring nonsense and lies]

An experiment was even performed on me some hours ago.

Polish scientists doing research on mentally ill patients?

Glad to hear that you've participated to the progress of Science Maciej!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 31/08/2024 à 17:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 17:16, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 17:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 16:52, Python pisze:

...

"This question doesn't matter" is a perfectly adequate answer
to a question that actually does not matter in the context

Python, [...] the context was - the [...]
[scientists] like you to spelling
the old, valid in 1905 (when [Einstein] lived
[...]) definition of second.

Of course, your lie of "doesn't matter" is also
ridiculous. Does [SR] make any numeric
predictions with units?

It does.

if it does - how can
the definitions of these units irrelevant ?

For SR certainly.

So, [SR] is making predictions like
"the result will be [n] seconds - and
what this second is doesn't matter for it?

Already answered:

For SR certainly. For experiments the definition and the
practicality of measuring devices is relevant.

This is why experiments usually use calibrated clocks of
some kind instead of building a full copy of the Solar System.

Such clocks being calibrated according to the current definition
of time, i.e.
- Decades ago against duration of a day
- Now using cesium atoms

Well, sorry,

I'm sorry too that you are too dumb to understand my answer.

Thus, of course, your hatred for  spelling
that  definition can't be a surprise.

No more hatred than about spelling the definition of kebab.
As a matter of fact I mentioned above two definitions of a second.

No need to provide details, they are public you know?

--
trash, insane crazie

Nice signature !

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 31/08/2024 à 19:04, Python a écrit :

Le 31/08/2024 à 18:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

- Wozniak posts nonsense and lies

J'en connais d'autres.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 18:09, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 18:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

[snip boring nonsense and lies]

An experiment was even performed on me some hours ago.

No, I didn't write it, poor stinker Python
is lying impudently as expected from a
piece of relativistic shit.

Polish scientists doing research on mentally ill patients?

Glad to hear that you've participated to the progress of Science Maciej!

A slander. Of course.
Your fellow trash Harrie is often writing
an adequate quoting from Socrates, you know.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 31/08/2024 à 18:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 18:09, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 18:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

[snip boring nonsense and lies]

An experiment was even performed on me some hours ago.

No, I didn't write it, poor stinker Python
is lying impudently  as expected from a
piece of relativistic shit.

Polish scientists doing research on mentally ill patients?

Glad to hear that you've participated to the progress of Science Maciej!

A slander. Of course.

Wozniak's cycle completed:

- Wozniak posts nonsense and lies
- Wozniak receives sound answers
- Wozniak posts more lies and nonsense
- Protagonist makes fun of Wozniak, because he/she is
fed up of trying, in vain, to educate moron Wozniak
- Wozniak whine about slandering
- Repeat!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 19:04, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 18:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 18:09, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 18:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

[snip boring nonsense and lies]

An experiment was even performed on me some hours ago.

No, I didn't write it, poor stinker Python
is lying impudently  as expected from a
piece of relativistic shit.

Polish scientists doing research on mentally ill patients?

Glad to hear that you've participated to the progress of Science Maciej!

A slander. Of course.

Wozniak's cycle completed:

- Wozniak posts nonsense and lies

I've posted a direct proof of the inconsistency
of the physics of your idiot guru.

- Wozniak receives sound answers
- Wozniak posts more lies and nonsense
- Protagonist makes fun of Wozniak, because he/she is
  fed up of trying, in vain, to educate moron Wozniak

No, protagonists whine, rave, insult and
slander. As expected from fanatic idiots
blinded with hatred.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 31/08/2024 à 19:08, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 31/08/2024 à 19:04, Python a écrit :

Le 31/08/2024 à 18:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

- Wozniak posts nonsense and lies

J'en connais d'autres.

Yes, you know yourself for sure :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 31/08/2024 à 19:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 19:04, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 18:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 18:09, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 18:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

[snip boring nonsense and lies]

An experiment was even performed on me some hours ago.

No, I didn't write it, poor stinker Python
is lying impudently  as expected from a
piece of relativistic shit.

Polish scientists doing research on mentally ill patients?

Glad to hear that you've participated to the progress of Science
Maciej!

A slander. Of course.

Wozniak's cycle completed:

- Wozniak posts nonsense and lies

I've posted a direct proof of the inconsistency
of the physics of your idiot guru.

- Wozniak receives sound answers
- Wozniak posts more lies and nonsense
- Protagonist makes fun of Wozniak, because he/she is
   fed up of trying, in vain, to educate moron Wozniak

No, protagonists whine, rave, insult and
slander. As expected from fanatic idiots
blinded with hatred.

Q.E.D.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)