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> <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> <17ee8ec58ffd13c8$485658$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <c519bd5f0f4086da711ede104860ed8e@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <c519bd5f0f4086da711ede104860ed8e@www.novabbs.com>
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.