XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: relativity@paulba.no   
      
   Den 27.10.2025 17:35, skrev Maciej Woźniak:   
   > On 10/27/2025 11:27 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:   
   >> Den 26.10.2025 22:27, skrev Maciej Woźniak:   
   >>> On 10/26/2025 9:58 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But the predictions of a logically consistent theory   
   >>>> do not have to be in accordance with measurements.   
   >>>> Only real experiments can show that.   
   >>>   
   >>> and this is some bullshit too.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> So according to Maciej Woźniak the predictions of   
   >> a logical consistent theory must necessarily be in   
   >> accordance with measurements.   
   >>   
   >> Right?   
      
   >   
   > Right. I've told you some times, your   
   > "falsification" absurd has never really   
   > worked, it's only some wishful thinking   
   > of your primitive gurus.   
      
   So according to Maciej Woźniak both the predictions   
   of NM and SR must necessarily be in accordance with   
   measurements.   
   But the predictions of SR and NM are different for   
   many experiments. So how can the measurements in   
   those experiments be in accordance with different   
   predictions?   
      
   >>>>   
   >>>> Some of the experiments testing SR:   
   >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf   
   >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf   
   >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf   
   >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf   
   >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf   
   >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf   
   >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf   
   >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf   
   >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf   
   >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf   
   >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf   
   >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Fortunately, even such a disgusting piece   
   >>> of lying shit as you are can't lie non   
   >>> stop, so sometimes you admit that the real   
   >>> measurement results have little in common   
   >>> with the delusions of your idiot guru.   
      
   >> What I have or haven't said about the experiments above   
   >> is irrelevant.   
   >>   
   >> Are you claiming that all the experimental physicists who performed   
   >> the experiments above are lying frauds who have faked their results?   
      
   >   
   > No,  I'm claiming what I'm claiming.   
      
   OK.   
   So you accept that the experimental physicists who performed   
   the experiments above not were lying frauds, and did not fake their   
   results.   
      
   That means that you know that all the experiments above   
   confirms SR and most of them falsifies SR.   
      
   Right?   
      
   > And, of course, no surprise that a brainwashed   
   > religious maniac is taking just anything as   
   > "confirmation" of the bullshit  he believes.   
   >   
      
   The experiments above are not "anything".   
   They are experiments performed by experimental physicists   
   who have not faked their results.   
   And it is those results, not me, that show that the predictions   
   of SR, and not NM, are in accordance with the measurements.   
      
   So I don't believe, I know that the experiments confirm SR.   
      
   Read the papers, and you will see for yourself!   
      
   You can read, can't you? Or can't you?   
      
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Paul   
      
   https://paulba.no/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)