Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 06:11:24 +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> <17ee716d7c7bfd12$441950$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <5ac85e6c9332ca0bece0023f17f2f442@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <5ac85e6c9332ca0bece0023f17f2f442@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 114
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 04:11:26 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4204
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17ee8ec58ffd13c8$485658$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 4611

W dniu 24.08.2024 o 04:01, gharnagel pisze:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:13:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 23.08.2024 o 20:48, gharnagel pisze:
>> >
>> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:48:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 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.
> 
> 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, as expected from a
relativistic idiot. No such limitations
were included into the definition of
second in the physics of your idiot guru.
You've fabricated them ad hoc.


>> The opinion of an idiot is insignificant.
> 
> It's not an "opinion"that Wozniak lied, as proven by
> his own words.

This is not an opinion indeed, this is an
impudent lie, as expected from a
relativistic idiot. The word "opinion"
I used was referring to something else.

>  Is there "one observer" or are there
> "no observations"? 

Again, I'm talking to an idiot so
repeating must be included.
One observer, no observations.




> And Wozniak shows again that HE is the insulter-in-chief
> and supreme slanderer of this group.  

Talking to relativistic scumbags like Harmagel
I must descend partially to their level, but
it's just partially. I'm not slandering.

>>> 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.
> 
> So Wozniak doubles down on claiming that observations
> are unnecessary :-)) 

I'm not, I'm just claiming they're not
necessary in my example.


> So who confirms that the prediction
> is confirmed?  

An inconsistent prediction, like that of
the physics of your idiot guru, can never
be confirmed.


> I can predict that Wozniak is a turtle.

It's not a prediction, a prediction is
referring to the future, poor halfbrain.


>> And the definition he had in his absurd
>> physics derived the opposite.
> 
> No, that wasn't a definition. 

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, you will just
write more insults, more lies, more
slanders, as expected from a relativistic
scumbag.



  It was a conclusion
> validly derived by assuming certain reasonable
> postulates.  The postulates and the conclusions have
> been confirmed by copious experiments.

Only such an idiot can believe such an
impudent lie, Harrie.