Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

W dniu 28.08.2024 o 14:54, gharnagel pisze:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 5:42:04 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 28.08.2024 o 06:08, gharnagel pisze:

>
Le 27/08/2024 à 16:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

>
No clocks were ever accelerated in any accelerator.
It's an impudent lie believable only by fanatic idiots.

>
This is another of Wozniak's multitudinous prevarications.
He tacitly accepts atomic clocks when he asserts his false
GPS t' = t baloney (t' is the time kept by the satellite
clock which is NOT t by design).  Atomic clocks keep time
by Cs-133 atoms, so atoms are clocks.

>
No they are not, you simply don't know
what a clock is, just like most (if not
all) of relativistic idiots.
https://www.istockphoto.com/pl/search/2/image-film?phrase=clock

 Wozniak lacks sufficient vision and is woefully ignorant of
the information he worships:
 https://www.britannica.com/technology/atomic-clock

Harmagel is lying and slandering withaut any
basement, as usual. Nothing changes,
https://www.istockphoto.com/pl/search/2/image-film?phrase=clock
clocks are like that, an atom is not.

And - anyone can check GPS, or TAI, or UTC
-  atomic clocks don't keep "time by
Cs-133 atom",  they keep something else.

 Wozzie keeps something else: it's called lying.

Not the first Harrie's demonstration
of denying the reality.

>
Or rather, any relativistic doggie will spit
at anyone not kneeling before his beloved
idiocies with all its might.

 Woxniak is projecting his own despicable behavior as he
insults and slanders his way through his so-called life

Harmagel is projecting his own despicable behavior as he
insults and slanders his way through his so-called life

where the OP was about what SR predicts for an
observer moving at c/2.

 So experiments are the sine qua non of the validity of
any theory,

They are not, but people much wiser than you
made the mistake too. Anyway, you don't
need them when the theory is inconsistent,
like the mumble of your idiot guru was.

So L'il Wozzie can conclude assumptions are inconsistent
without examining them? 

Assumptions are inconsistent when they give
some conclusions denying each other, like in
the case of The Shit of your idiot guru.

Like - pretending that GPS clock are not real,

 No one is saying that.

But some idiot was saying that.