Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 21:13:41 +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> <b1b968956f794d0e91a151e2c1647f4b@www.novabbs.com> <17ee1be73899ea88$501522$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <afa7609a0e7b5f7d66e1e874b551ccfb@www.novabbs.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> <b50bb10aa2dd5727a1bf8ff9bf88a049@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <b50bb10aa2dd5727a1bf8ff9bf88a049@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 74
Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:13:42 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 3179
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17ee716d7c7bfd12$441950$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 3601

W dniu 23.08.2024 o 20:48, gharnagel pisze:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:48:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 23.08.2024 o 14:44, gharnagel pisze:
>> >
>> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 4:27:34 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > >
>> > > W dniu 23.08.2024 o 01:31, gharnagel pisze:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:23:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yes, it is. There is just one observer in the
>> > > > > example.
>> > > >
>> > > > If there's only one observer, then there is no
>> > > > observation of two intervals of time.
>> > >
>> > > Sure there is no observation. Like usually in a
>> > > gedanken.
>> >
>> > Wozniak just asserted that there is ONE observer
>> > and now that there is no observation, so HE is
>> > being inconsistent.
>>
>> Harrie mumbles some delusions
> 
> All that is needed is to look at what Wozniak wrote:
> 
> "There is just one observer"
> "there is no observation"
> 
> to see who is mumbling and having delusions.

It is my example. One observer, no
observations.
Period.
Sorry, trash.

>> > ..  He is desiring only
>> > one observer when, in fact, he has set up a sham
>> > situation:  arguing a definition against an
>> > observation.
>>
>> The thread is not about any observations. They
>> are irrelevant.
> 
> So if observations are discounted, then the moving
> observer is irrelevant. 

The opinion of an idiot is insignificant.
Sorry, trash.


> That removes the 99766
> observed by the moving observer

Harrie, even such an idiot should
understand, that if your idiot guru's
physics is able to PREDICT a result of
an observation - it must do it
before, and if it is done before -
the observation itself can't be
necessary for that.

>> Its about claims of The Shit of your idiot guru,
>> spoken directly by the idiot or derivable other
>> way, for instance from definitions.
> 
> Disregarding Wozniak's blatant and despicable
> insults and slanders, Einstein said t' <> t, not

And the definition he had in his absurd
physics derived the opposite.