Re: Space and spacetime

W dniu 21.06.2024 o 23:46, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 21.06.2024 o 20:21, gharnagel pisze:

>
Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
Put your explaination straight into your
dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs.
An autistic "information engineer" who can't understand

metaphor gets really asinine when his fuzzy-thinking is

 

A fanatic piece of lying ship, caught on an
impudent, obvious  lie is screaming about a
"metaphor".

 So Mad Maciej doesn't understand metaphor. 

Why won't you explain, you lying shit.
And why won't you stop dodging and
demonstrate the power of predictions
of your moronic Shit on my example.
Whoda thought :-))

 

Why won't you stop dodging and answer - what is the predicttion
of the observer in my example according to the physics of your
idiot guru?

 First the autistic information engineer must define his terms.

Must he?
But what does the relativistic piece of
shit mean by "define"? By "must"? By
"terms"?

Let's get to the point, sure. Is the RELATIVISTIC formula of velocity
adding  a part of Lorentz's ETHER theory?
Yes or no, trash.

 First of all, no human being is trash, so Weird Wozzy doesn't really
want an honest answer, which I already gave to him anyway:
 "[Heinlein] also said that deriving something was just finding out
what you already knew.  Meaning, of course, that it was all there
in the original equations, implied, which is the case with relativistic
velocity addition.

So, according to you and your idiot gurus -
in LET every observer, stationary in ether or not -
would observe light moving at speed c. Right?
   As anyone would know if he weren't mathematically

incompetent."
 Because of Wozzie's mathematical incompetence, he can't figure out that
(1) relativistic velocity addition is DERIVED from the Lorentz
transform
equations.

It is, sure, after assuming the obviously correct
Holiest Postulate.
And speaking of mathematics - it's always
good to remind that your bunch of idiots
had to announce its oldest part false, as
it didn't want to fit the madness of your
insane guru.

(2) "Lorentz's ETHER theory" has NOTHING to do with it because there is
no ether*.  So LET is a dead end.  Dishonest Wozzie's attempt to insert
that into his question was a red herring, a misleading fallacy.
(3) The RVA equation is derived from the LT equations by dividing the
equation for dx' by the equation for dt', so there is no "adding" to
either LET or SR.
 *Ether theory is a dead end because SR took away the last vestige of
any
physicality: that of motion.  IOW, it becomes fundamentally
undetectable,
which makes it nonexistent for all practical purposes.

And how about 0 meridian? Is it fundamentally
detectable?
If it is not - it must be nonexistent for all
practical purposes. Am I correct,  Harrie, poor
halfbrain?