Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Space and spacetime
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 16:01:28 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <93708b1befdea8fb7c18da1b3d12630d@www.novabbs.com>
References: <v4k05l$3agjr$3@paganini.bofh.team> <8947f1c75ab514fb64386e4f565d0eb1@www.novabbs.com> <17da22baf80d7cc4$38419$437843$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <ea13148eccc2178dd48b8d6a18b74b2d@www.novabbs.com> <17da3a248be65204$38420$437843$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <a5d0f6dada00f540123a2a722395d2dc@www.novabbs.com> <17da75dec0671347$206783$437843$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <665bf2c2f8d8af99ae6b28936ec91eed@www.novabbs.com> <17da7d7a6a39459a$163213$431754$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <972e62f21cba1316f2184b61c6a0c401@www.novabbs.com> <17da9b4080dd35af$266525$441546$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <a4eb8b42ce7499e5ec60bde25e4e865a@www.novabbs.com> <17dab8b50a072746$163214$431754$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <ccf5155edb060554bdacb76d43c78f36@www.novabbs.com> <17dabca9290af769$189571$436234$c2265aab@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="614240"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="2U0RwOYzNU+ijpgbVXd5Zmcos0AIe32+I2dWAQYE4iw";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$DZingFLsizen3tlcJHNkAejdcLHcxaseY9YmgMhu4gauutJtgnMdy
Bytes: 6137
Lines: 140

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 20.06.2024 o 15:45, gharnagel pisze:
> >
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > Just more repetitions and lies.  That's all Harrie has.
> > > Posted the proof dosens of times here and will post
> > > it many times more, be sure, trash.
> > 
> > Wozzie is delusional, pretending he has posted "proofs" when

> OK, trash - an observer going with c/2 through
> Solar system is going to measure the length of
> a day. What is the prediction of the physics
> of your idiot guru for the result? No precision
> better than 1% needed.

A "day"?  What is a "day"?  The observer is in the solar system
and his speed is c/2.  With respect to what?  Are we talking
about a Mars day and relative to Mars, or a Jupiter day, etc.
You leave out a ton of information, Mr. Engineer.

> > > and you can do nothing about it apart of
> > > barking, lying and slandering.
> >
> > Says the repetitious barker, liar and slanderer :-)
> > 
> > Wozzie agrees that he is a barker, liar and slanderer since he


> No, I don't.

You didn't reply, so that implies you agree with what I wrote.

> You'rea barker, liar and slanderer,
> but that was obvious before.

What's obvious is that you began the slandering and lying.
What goes around comes around.

> > > I'm sure you can prove LT are correct where they
> > > are correct; evan such an idiot should be able to
> > > manage such a task.

I doubt if you could :-)

> > > Have nothing against Lorentz and his transformations,
> > > anyway.
> > 
> > They demonstrate that t' <> t

> Nope, they need the interpretation of a relativistic
> idiot for that.

Nope.  They need someone who is adept at algebra.  Does that
leave you out?

> > which explodes Wozzie's "proof."
> > So he has just admitted that he lied.

> No,I didn't.

Yeah, you did.  You are either demented or you're a liar.

> Even such a piece of lying
> shit as Harrie is can't lie 100% of time,
> but it still can lie most of the time.

Wozzie lies ALL of the time.  And he just did it again.
Just like he does here by omission:

> > > I do and it is.
> > 
> > Only partly.  A whole body of information.
> > 
> > > Samely as whole science is.
> > 
> > That's where Wozzie goes off the rails.  He ignores the
> > most important part.

So once again Wozzie admits by default that he is off the rails.

> > > And thus, none of your noble specializations could
> > > mark you as an  invincible expert about it.
> > > You've just self-appointed yourself for that,
> > > as expected from a DK idiot.
> > 
>> Pot, kettle black :-)

> I'm actually an information engineer, poor
> trash.

One who rejects valid information that he is prejudiced against.

> That's the specialization of dealing
> with information and its various constructs.
> No way I'm an invincible expert, of course...
> we could discuss, if you weren't such an
> arrogant not-even-layman idiot.

Nice example of his prejudice again :-))

> > > > and then denies the information of physics. 
> > 
> > > Of course. What is inconsistent in denying
> > > some information concocted by some religious
> > > maniacs?
> > 
> > Wozzie makes a biased judgment on the source of the
> > information rather than the information itself.

> Nope. Another slander from a lying piece of
> shit.


Wozzie is in denial of his obvious character flaws.

> > He says he has no problem with the LT, so does he
> > accept that c + v = c?

> Tell me better, poor trash, whether you accept
> that Lorentz has prepared his transformations for
> his own  ether theory, not  for The Shit of your
> idiot guru?

Ah, Wozzie won't answer the question, deflecting with an
irrelevant question.  But I'll answer anyway.

Lorentz designed his equations, based on an ether concept,
to describe what was actually observed in MM experiment.
The same results were also explained by a particle theory
of light.  The same results are also explained by SR.

So which one is correct must rely on MORE experiments
(information) beyond the MMX.  The particle theory is refuted
by experiments showing that the speed of light is not affected
by the motion of its source.  The ether theory requires a
medium stiffer than the stiffest material in order to propagate
light at such a high speed, which is absurd.  This leaves SR,
which explains much more than LET without an ether.