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: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 12:44:35 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <98212c666b602cbacf2476fc4341c29a@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> <9580dde8354474f0770030f927756491@www.novabbs.com> <17ee4111f31b308b$545571$505029$c2365abb@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="3590421"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$/flTMzmWMpNuezUALns.Fumd2FZ8OSjaUzKEguzuP3Vxnlew5DImO
Bytes: 3156
Lines: 56

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.

> There are still 2 denying themself predictions
> of observation derivable

And he's being inconsistent again.  And he's dead
wrong anyway: a thought experiment can have as
many observers as desired.  He is desiring only
one observer when, in fact, he has set up a sham
situation:  arguing a definition against an
observation.

Once again, he has concealed the devastating
error he has made:  he assumes that Newtonian
physics with its universal time is true, but
experiment proves it is false.  Thus a definition
cannot trump a thought experiment consistent
with experimental evidence.  Relativity has
copious experimental evidence supporting it in
the thought experiment under discussion, so
Wozniak's assertion is misguided and dead wrong.

> in the physics of your idiot guru.

"ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,” attacking
the arguer and not the argument"

https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

Wozniak's responses are shown to be pure baloney.
It's what the loser of an argument does.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the
tool of the losers. -- Socrates

> That's because the moronic mumble of your
>  idiot guru was not even consistent.

That Wozniak is being inconsistent (and wrong)
are the only things being proven here.