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: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 12:08:46 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <c519bd5f0f4086da711ede104860ed8e@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> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3714966"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$FcaFwgBUPKXmBQUcJ1x1Ue0Id.FhNoNNSwyGbuSMNeM5Th1UKz9Oy
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7347
Lines: 189

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

> You've fabricated them ad hoc.

Actually, Wozniak is fabricating a connection between
relativity and the second ... and the day (86400
seconds).

> > > The opinion of an idiot is insignificant.
> >
> > It's not an "opinion "that Wozniak lied, as proven by
> > his own words.
>
> This is not an opinion indeed, this is an
> impudent lie, as expected from a
> relativistic idiot. The word "opinion"
> I used was referring to something else.


> >  Is there "one observer" or are there
> > "no observations"?
>
> Again, I'm talking to an idiot

Wozniak must be talking to himself.  There
are no other idiots here.

> so repeating must be included.
> One observer, no observations.

So the observer didn't make any observations,
like making the observation that a day was
99766 seconds.  All we have is the definition
of a day, 86400 seconds.

> > And Wozniak shows again that HE is the
> > insulter-in-chief and supreme slanderer
>
> Talking to relativistic scumbags like Harmagel
> I must descend partially to their level, but
> it's just partially. I'm not slandering.

Wozniak is lying.  He must ascend to a HIGHER
level to converse with me.  If he were honest,
he would admit that I have used no insults nor
slanders throughout this whole discussion.  OTOH,
he has insulted and slandered continually.
That's because he has lost the argument: his
assertion that relativity is inconsistent has
been refuted.

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

> > > Harrie, even such an idiot should
> > > understand, that if your idiot guru's
> > > physics is able to PREDICT a result of
> > > an observation - it must do it
> > > before, and if it is done before -
> > > the observation itself can't be
> > > necessary for that.
> >
> > So Wozniak doubles down on claiming that
> > observations are unnecessary :-))
>
> I'm not, I'm just claiming they're not
> necessary in my example.
>
> > So who confirms that the prediction
> > is confirmed?
>
> 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 can predict that Wozniak is a turtle.
>
> 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.  Wozniak is squirming around,
trying to change the initial conditions
on the fly.  All this proves is that he
will say ANYTHING to wiggle out of the
corner he has painted homself into.

So, since I predict that Wozniak is a
turtle, by Wozniak's own criteria, Wozniak
is a turtle :-))

> > > And the definition he had in his absurd
> > > physics derived the opposite.
> >
> > No, that wasn't a definition.
>
> 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

> you will just write more insults, more
> lies, more slanders, as expected from
> a relativistic scumbag.

In this whole discussion, I have written no
lies, no insults and no slanders.  Wozniak
has been doing all three continually.  Any
rational person would feel utterly ashamed
of himself for such behavior.

If lies have short legs, Wozniak is legless.

> > It was a conclusion validly derived by
> > assuming certain reasonable postulates.
> > The postulates and the conclusions have
> > been confirmed by copious experiments.
>
> Only such an idiot can believe such an
> impudent lie, Harrie.

Wozniak is grasping at straws as his assertion
that relativity is inconsistent goes down to
destruction like the Twin Towers.

So he believes that actual experimental results
are "impudent lies"?  How can one who claims
to be an "information engineer" deny information?
How can one who claims to be an "information
engineer" deny mountains of evidence?

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

Wozniak's denial of relativity is not rational
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========