Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:23:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 22.08.2024 o 19:56, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:06:27 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 22.08.2024 o 18:47, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:12:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -

>
Proof here that Wozniak is the one who slanders.
>

wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>
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?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

>
Is this supposed to be Wozniak's so-called
"proof" that relativity is "inconsistent?
Wozniak conflates a moving observer with a
stationary observer

>
A lie,

>
No, it's not a lie.  Wozniak is projecting his
own dishonesty.

>
Yes, it is. There is just one observer in the
example.

If there's only one observer, then there is no
observation of two intervals of time.  Wozniak's
assertion falls apart.

as expected from a relativistic idiot in
general and from Harrie especially,

>
And proof that Wozniak is the one who slanders
and insults.
>

one observer present here, a moving (wrt
Solar System) one.

>
Nope.  The moving observer doesn't see two
different results.

>
He doesn't see anything, he is gedanken,

If he doesn't see anything then Wozniak's assertion
falls completely apart.  So why is he posting complete
nonsense?

you know, poor halfbrain.

Wozniak just can't help himself from slandering
and insulting.

The matter is not what he sees, the matter
is what the physics of your idiot guru
is predicting he would see, and it is
providing 2 denying itself values, because
it is inconsistent.

No, it isn't "inconsistent."  Wozniak has dishonestly
ignored my refutation of this assertion:
relativity proclaims that clocks in relative
motion won't agree and, furthermore, experiment
demonstrates that they don't.  So Wozniak is
stuck in the 17th century, believing that
time must be universal.  This is an outdated
Newtonian concept and Wozniak is the one who is
"inconsistent" with reality.  Experiment predicts
that 99766 and 86400 is exactly what a moving
observer and an observer on earth, respectively,
would see.
Wozniak tries to twist meanings in a hopeless
attempt to defame Saint Albert and to slander
and insult anyone who supports the experimental
record.  That is truly irrational.
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use
of reason is like administering medicine to the
dead.” – Thomas Paine