Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 21:05:35 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: <694f454547a8e56961b6896086a119f8@www.novabbs.com> References: <17ee15afea6b29a3$410850$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <17ee1be73899ea88$501522$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <17ee20164a89a38e$476327$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <9580dde8354474f0770030f927756491@www.novabbs.com> <17ee4111f31b308b$545571$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <98212c666b602cbacf2476fc4341c29a@www.novabbs.com> <17ee5fade60d851b$504666$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <17ee716d7c7bfd12$441950$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <5ac85e6c9332ca0bece0023f17f2f442@www.novabbs.com> <17ee8ec58ffd13c8$485658$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <17eeb977c7724ff7$459327$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3765796"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$3Y/ZicJ41aaMIgRn3n/YzOPCwWqe5dGJlJFynvI2vUzrPmBWWHyJe X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155 Bytes: 5767 Lines: 123 On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 17:13:51 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > W dniu 24.08.2024 o 14:08, gharnagel pisze: > > > > On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 4:11:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > > > > > W dniu 24.08.2024 o 04:01, gharnagel pisze: > > > > > > > > Wozniak forgets to include one definition, also. > > > > A definition meant to include only the earth, not > > > > some traveler moving at relativistic speed. > > > > > > A lie, of course, > > > > Nope, Wozniak is definitely wrong about this. > > > > > as expected from a relativistic idiot. > > > > Wozniak demonstrates that he is the insulter-and > > slanderer-in-chief once again. > > > > > No such limitations were included into the definition > > > of second in the physics of your idiot guru. > > > > Saint Albert didn't define the second.  Wozniak is dead > > wrong again. > > Of course he didn't, he was too stupid > for that. So Wozniak asserts that anyone who doesn't define the second is stupid. So he is asserting that he himself is stupid. This guy needs a brain implant! > So what? Will you be impudent enough to lie his physics > (1905-death) had no definition of a second? Why would a theoretical physicist need to define a second? Wozniak is getting crazier and crazier in his insane effort to demean relativity and anyone connected with it. > > > An inconsistent prediction, like that of > > > the physics of your idiot guru, can never > > > be confirmed. > > > > Rather, who confirms that the prediction > > is refuted, as Wozniak claims? > > I don't. A lie again. Wozniak is projecting again. He is the one that lies continually. > > > It's not a prediction, a prediction is > > > referring to the future, poor halfbrain. > > > > Pure obfuscation.  The thought experiment > > said, "Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt > solar system is measuring the length of > > solar day. What is the result predicted > > by the Einsteinian physics?" > > > > The observer "IS MEASURING" -- not WILL > > measure. > > And the result will appear. Or maybe not, > if the observer screw it or get suddenly > killed. In which case, Wozniak's has no argument since the 99766 isn't confirmed. > > So, since I predict that Wozniak is a > > turtle, > > It's not a prediction, a prediction is > referring to the future, poor halfbrain. So if I predict that Wozniak will become a turtle in one minute, he WILL be a turtle in one minute since I don't need to confirm by observation that the prediction is true. Wozniak squirms and twists with distracting inanities to free himself from the traps he himself has set. > > > Lies have short legs, poor trash. > > > So - what was the definition of > > > second in the physics of your idiot > > > guru (1905-his death)? Will you write > > > it? Let me guess, no, > > > > Wozniak's guess is wrong.  I gave the > > definition of the second, and it wasn't > > from Saint Albert. > > Exactly. It wasn't from the idiot and it > couldn't be a part of his absurd physics, > as it was concocted in 1960-ies. > Try again, poor halfbrain. :-)) Not a very good recovery from another trap Wozniak caught himself in, caused by his dishonestly trying to lay "gotcha" traps. It didn't work, so he slanders instead. "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers. -- Socrates So much for his incorrectly claiming that relativity is inconsistent. He refuses to address the elephant in the room, even though he is now covered with peanut butter: He assumes that Newtonian physics with its universal time is true, but experiment proves it is false. Thus a definition cannot trump a thought experiment consistent with experimental evidence. Relativity has copious experimental evidence supporting it in the thought experiment under discussion, so Wozniak's assertion is misguided and dead wrong. He's pretending the elephant is not there even when it has regurgitated peanut butter on him.