XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: relativity@paulba.no   
      
   Den 28.10.2025 13:29, skrev Maciej Woźniak:   
   > On 10/28/2025 10:52 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > That's simple. We can make a lot of measurements   
   > using many different methods and have a lot of   
   > different results.   
      
   So since you can measure many different things   
   and get many different results, that means that   
   the speed of light can be both invariant and frame   
   dependent.   
      
   Right?   
      
   >>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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?   
      
   >   
   > Nope. No surprise, however,  that a brainwashed   
   > religious maniac will take just anything as   
   > a "confirmation" of some bullshit he believes.   
      
   The question was not what I believe, it was you must know.   
      
   You have stated that you know that the experimental   
   physicists who performed the experiments above were not   
   faking the results of their experiments.   
   So you must accept the results of the experiments.   
      
   If you still claim ignorance of the fact that   
   the experiments confirm SR and falsify NM,   
   then you demonstrate that you don't understand   
   the consequences of your own words.   
      
   >>> 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?   
   >>   
      
   I suspect that you are unable to read any scientific paper.   
      
   > Right. They performed some experiments, they've   
   > got some results, they imagined that the results   
   > are somehow "confirming" their bullshit, simple.   
   >   
   When you know that SR is a thoroughly tested and never   
   falsified theory, why do you call SR "bullshit"?   
      
   Are you so naive that you think you can falsify SR   
   by calling it shit? :-D   
      
   But keep trying! That makes you look very smart!   
      
   --   
   Paul   
      
   https://paulba.no/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)