Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 19:13:51 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity 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> Content-Language: pl From: Maciej Wozniak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 84 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 17:13:51 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 3620 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17eeb977c7724ff7$459327$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 4027 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: >> > >> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:13:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >> > > >> > > It is my example. One observer, no >> > > observations. >> > > Period. >> > >> > 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 what? Will you be impudent enough to lie his physics (1905-death) had no definition of a second? >> 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. >> 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. > So, since I predict that Wozniak is a > turtle, It's not a prediction, a prediction is referring to the future, poor halfbrain. >> 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.