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: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 23:31:09 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <9580dde8354474f0770030f927756491@www.novabbs.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3524503"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$0WOhCPEG.xQeIKmSGwMwL.PPC3JLjfgdRkhTvg9yHUPlPJ1GvGMkG
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
Bytes: 4444
Lines: 97

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:23:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 22.08.2024 o 19:56, gharnagel pisze:
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:06:27 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > W dniu 22.08.2024 o 18:47, gharnagel pisze:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:12:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> > > > > As seen, the definition of second loved so
> > > > > much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> > > >
> > > > Proof here that Wozniak is the one who slanders.
> > > >
> > > > > wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> > > > > lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> > > > > 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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?
> > > > > One prediction is - 99766. From the
> > > > > postulates. The second prediction is -
> > > > > 86400. From definition.
> > > > > And similiarly with the prediction of
> > > > > a measurement of a meridian.
> > > >
> > > > Is this supposed to be Wozniak's so-called
> > > > "proof" that relativity is "inconsistent?
> > > > Wozniak conflates a moving observer with a
> > > > stationary observer
> > >
> > > A lie,
> >
> > No, it's not a lie.  Wozniak is projecting his
> > own dishonesty.
>
> 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.  Wozniak's
assertion falls apart.

> > > as expected from a relativistic idiot in
> > > general and from Harrie especially,
> >
> > And proof that Wozniak is the one who slanders
> > and insults.
> >
> > > one observer present here, a moving (wrt
> > > Solar System) one.
> >
> > Nope.  The moving observer doesn't see two
> > different results.
>
> He doesn't see anything, he is gedanken,

If he doesn't see anything then Wozniak's assertion
falls completely apart.  So why is he posting complete
nonsense?

> you know, poor halfbrain.

Wozniak just can't help himself from slandering
and insulting.

> The matter is not what he sees, the matter
> is what the physics of your idiot guru
> is predicting he would see, and it is
> providing 2 denying itself values, because
> it is inconsistent.

No, it isn't "inconsistent."  Wozniak has dishonestly
ignored my refutation of this assertion:

relativity proclaims that clocks in relative
motion won't agree and, furthermore, experiment
demonstrates that they don't.  So Wozniak is
stuck in the 17th century, believing that
time must be universal.  This is an outdated
Newtonian concept and Wozniak is the one who is
"inconsistent" with reality.  Experiment predicts
that 99766 and 86400 is exactly what a moving
observer and an observer on earth, respectively,
would see.

Wozniak tries to twist meanings in a hopeless
attempt to defame Saint Albert and to slander
and insult anyone who supports the experimental
record.  That is truly irrational.

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use
of reason is like administering medicine to the
dead.” – Thomas Paine