The theory of relativity is correct, but there are many dogmas and
misunderstandings in it.

It is not the theory that must be destroyed, but the dogmas and falsehoods
that can be found in it in many cases.

In fact, it should be rewritten, because everything is said upside down.

But for that it would take enormous courage, and above all a great deal of
faith to believe that the "relativist religious" will come and kiss their
feet.

R.H.

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 13:34:17 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> The theory of relativity is correct, but

but in the real world - forbidden by your
insane religion GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

Le 07/06/2022 à 13:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 13:34:17 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> The theory of relativity is correct, but
>
> but in the real world - forbidden by your
> insane religion GPS and TAI keep measuring
> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

No. serious clocks always did :

t'=t.(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

And not t'=t

And not really t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

And serious telescopes did : L'=L.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)

And not L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²)

Nope L'=L.

R.H.

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 13:42:34 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 07/06/2022 à 13:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 13:34:17 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> The theory of relativity is correct, but
> >
> > but in the real world - forbidden by your
> > insane religion GPS and TAI keep measuring
> > t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> No. serious clocks always did :

Anyone can check GPS, TAI, UTC. There is nothing
serious in your gedanken delusions.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 13:42:34 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 07/06/2022 à 13:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 13:34:17 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> The theory of relativity is correct, but
>>>
>>> but in the real world - forbidden by your
>>> insane religion GPS and TAI keep measuring
>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
>> No. serious clocks always did :
>
> Anyone can check GPS, TAI, UTC. There is nothing
> serious in your gedanken delusions.

Kook fight!

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 16:13:09 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 13:42:34 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 07/06/2022 à 13:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >>> On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 13:34:17 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>> The theory of relativity is correct, but
> >>>
> >>> but in the real world - forbidden by your
> >>> insane religion GPS and TAI keep measuring
> >>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> >> No. serious clocks always did :
> >
> > Anyone can check GPS, TAI, UTC. There is nothing
> > serious in your gedanken delusions.
> Kook fight!

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 16:13:09 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 13:42:34 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> Le 07/06/2022 à 13:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>> On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 13:34:17 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>> The theory of relativity is correct, but
>>>>>
>>>>> but in the real world - forbidden by your
>>>>> insane religion GPS and TAI keep measuring
>>>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
>>>> No. serious clocks always did :
>>>
>>> Anyone can check GPS, TAI, UTC. There is nothing
>>> serious in your gedanken delusions.
>> Kook fight!
>
>
> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> and trying to pretend he knows something.
> Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
> a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
> See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
> it has to be formulable in the language of the
> theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
> that, poor stinker?
>

fup to sci.logic