Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 4:27:34 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 01:31, gharnagel pisze:

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

>
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.

>
Sure there is no observation. Like usually in a
gedanken.

Wozniak just asserted that there is ONE observer
and now that there is no observation, so HE is
being inconsistent.

There are still 2 denying themself predictions
of observation derivable

And he's being inconsistent again.  And he's dead
wrong anyway: a thought experiment can have as
many observers as desired.  He is desiring only
one observer when, in fact, he has set up a sham
situation:  arguing a definition against an
observation.
Once again, he has concealed the devastating
error he has made:  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.

in the physics of your idiot guru.

"ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,” attacking
the arguer and not the argument"
https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
Wozniak's responses are shown to be pure baloney.
It's what the loser of an argument does.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the
tool of the losers. -- Socrates

That's because the moronic mumble of your
 idiot guru was not even consistent.

That Wozniak is being inconsistent (and wrong)
are the only things being proven here.