Re: Langevin's paradox again

W dniu 09.07.2024 o 17:47, Python pisze:

Le 09/07/2024 à 17:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 09.07.2024 o 17:02, Python pisze:

Le 09/07/2024 à 16:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...

It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.

>
*facepalm*
>
You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
>
When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it, you know?

 

You really think that

these methods are inaccurate?

>
You really think they are not

 So you cannot answer. No surprise.

You fabricate and lie. No surprise.

 Aging is a biological process.  It matches with stationary> (respectively with the person's body) clocks

No, poor stinker, it doesn't.
No surprise you don't know, of cxourse -
You generally know very little.

As a matter of fact metabolism is a kind of clock.

No, poor stinker, it is not.
Just like all relativistic morons
you don't know what a clock is.
And determining of age is still
- subtracting dates. That a fanatic
piece of shit doesn't like it
changes  nothing.