Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 17:13:51 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 14:08, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 4:11:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 04:01, gharnagel pisze:

>
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.

>
Of course he didn't, he was too stupid
for that.

So Wozniak asserts that anyone who doesn't define the second
is stupid.  So he is asserting that he himself is stupid.
This guy needs a brain implant!

So what? Will you be impudent enough to lie his physics
(1905-death) had no definition of a second?

Why would a theoretical physicist need to define a second?
Wozniak is getting crazier and crazier in his insane effort
to demean relativity and anyone connected with it.

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 don't. A lie again.

Wozniak is projecting again.  He is the one that lies
continually.

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.

>
And the result will appear. Or maybe not,
if the observer screw it or get suddenly
killed.

In which case, Wozniak's has no argument
since the 99766 isn't confirmed.

So, since I predict that Wozniak is a
turtle,

>
It's not a prediction, a prediction is
referring to the future, poor halfbrain.

So if I predict that Wozniak will become a
turtle in one minute, he WILL be a turtle
in one minute since I don't need to confirm
by observation that the prediction is true.
Wozniak squirms and twists with distracting
inanities to free himself from the traps he
himself has set.

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.

>
Exactly. It wasn't from the idiot and it
couldn't be a part of his absurd physics,
as it was concocted in 1960-ies.
Try again, poor halfbrain.

:-))  Not a very good recovery from another
trap Wozniak caught himself in, caused by
his dishonestly trying to lay "gotcha" traps.
It didn't work, so he slanders instead.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes
the tool of the losers. -- Socrates
So much for his incorrectly claiming that
relativity is inconsistent.  He refuses to
address the elephant in the room, even though
he is now covered with peanut butter:
He assumes 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 and dead wrong.
He's pretending the elephant is not there even when
it has regurgitated peanut butter on him.