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: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 15:21:24 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <9da205dae3661a1709fed8ec149b04d3@www.novabbs.com>
References: <17ee15afea6b29a3$410850$558427$c2065a8b@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> <17eeb977c7724ff7$459327$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <694f454547a8e56961b6896086a119f8@www.novabbs.com> <17eede9524f9dfa3$533525$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <916be12c0817f8d3d361d8265d8c57d5@www.novabbs.com> <17eefed3289d061e$484574$558427$c2065a8b@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="3856589"; 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$10$hubLq7nbjNDn9GMWWQfDnOZXbBfXrEYBJs/nXyDhb/2SLe8iy1U4q
Bytes: 4787
Lines: 88

On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 14:24:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 25.08.2024 o 16:02, gharnagel pisze:
> >
> > :)) Wozniak is caught in his dishonesty again and projects it
> > away from himself.  It is a logical extension of what he
> > deviously asserted:  Einstein was to stupid to define the
> > second; therefore, anyone who doesn't define the second is
> > stupid.
>
> No, Harmagel. It's not any logical extension,
> it's just utterly ridiculous claim o a
> cornered idiot.

Wozniak is projecting again,  He's the one that has painted
himself into a corner.

> So, what was the definition

I gave it, but Wozniak is, apparently, a bit dense.

> > Wozniak is grasping at straws again in a sorry attempt to
> > distract from the elephant in the room.  I gave him a link
> > to the definition of the day, which he dishonestly deleted,
>
> Harmagel is grasping at straws again in a sorry attempt to
> distract from the elephant in the room.

This is infantile copycatting.  Not worthy of any more response.

> I wasn't asking about the current definition of second,

That's the only one there is.

> I was asking about the definition valid in his idiotic
> physiccs in 1905 and up to the death of his idiot guru.
> Will you finally write it?
> Of course, not.

Because there is no such thing.

> Instead you will write more insults,
> more slanders, more idiotic dodges.

:-))  Wozniak is lying.  I haven't insulted or slandered
him anywhere in this discussion.

> > But Saint Albert didn't define the second.
>
> Of course he didn't. Poor idiot was too
> stupid.

And here he is slandering again.

> > His assertion that relativity is inconsistent because it
> > predicts that a moving observer would see a day on earth
> > as 99766 seconds instead of 86400
>
> Not "instead" but "both". That's what inconsistency
> is about.

Wozniak is lying again and studiously ignoring the peanut
butter barf all over himself.

He is assuming 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, dead wrong and
refuted by the fact that he is basing it on Newtonian
(universal) time which is soundly refuted by all
experimental evidence:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.15970

"Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm
that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a
stationary one."

Thus, relativity's prediction accurately matches what
happens in the real world.  Wozniak's vapid assertion
is completely refuted.  But still he insults, slanders
and lies.  Tsk, tsk.